Abortion, yo.

[Fynal]

BC- I think you're funny and all that, but stop trying to deliberately portray an egoist image of yourself with comments like "if I actually cared how anyone but me felt", it makes it look more like a gimmick than a genuine life philosophy.

nope. genuine life philosophy. not even kidding, i know the guy.

 

[Dre89]

I didn't say it wasn't genuine, I just said he portrays it as a gimmick.

 

[LlamaSensei]

Back on topic. The only problem I've really had with abortion is the fact that the fetus, while not fully formed into the resemblance of a human, is that it is still part of the Homo Sapien species. That's the same species as you and I. If you kill a Homo Sapien that is not fully developed, you're still killing a living entity within that species. So whether or not we say we can decide to not consider the recently conceived fetus a human, it doesn't matter. Scientifically, it falls into the Homo Sapien species and therefore is a human. Kill this fetus and you are killing a Homo Sapien (A.K.A. a human).

 

[Dre89]

To follow on from that point, the difference between a fetus and a born baby are arbitrary. Saying that the baby is self-aware and capable of emotions etc. means nothing because animals are capable of that too.

 

[DanteFox]

Arguing with people who have already decided that they aren't going to change their opinions is pointless. Live your life, I'll live mine, wondrously content in all my baby killing glory

"Arguing with people who have already decided that they aren't going to change their opinions is pointless. Live your life, I'll live mine, wondrously content in all my slave-owning glory"

"Arguing with people who have already decided that they aren't going to change their opinions is pointless. Live your life, I'll live mine, wondrously content in all my african-genociding glory"

"Arguing with people who have already decided that they aren't going to change their opinions is pointless. Live your life, I'll live mine, wondrously content in all my woman-****** glory"

See how spectacularly this fails as a refutation of anything at all? Nothing more than a cop out.

 

[Aesir]

To follow on from that point, the difference between a fetus and a born baby are arbitrary. Saying that the baby is self-aware and capable of emotions etc. means nothing because animals are capable of that too.

Not all animals are self aware. In the sense of a human being self aware. IE dogs barking and growling at their own reflection.

 

[ballin4life]

Back on topic. The only problem I've really had with abortion is the fact that the fetus, while not fully formed into the resemblance of a human, is that it is still part of the Homo Sapien species. That's the same species as you and I. If you kill a Homo Sapien that is not fully developed, you're still killing a living entity within that species. So whether or not we say we can decide to not consider the recently conceived fetus a human, it doesn't matter. Scientifically, it falls into the Homo Sapien species and therefore is a human. Kill this fetus and you are killing a Homo Sapien (A.K.A. a human).

Thoughts on sperm/eggs?

To follow on from that point, the difference between a fetus and a born baby are arbitrary. Saying that the baby is self-aware and capable of emotions etc. means nothing because animals are capable of that too.

The difference between a human fetus and a cow fetus is arbitrary too. Self-aware etc are moral distinctions.

 

[T-block]

Most animals are not self-aware. We don't even really have conclusive evidence that certain animals (eg- dolphins and apes) are self-aware IIRC. I don't see the point in bringing up self-awareness, as a fetus, and even a newborn baby, could hardly be described as self-aware. I think the more relevant point is the ability to feel emotion.

 

[Battlecow]

Animals can certainly feel emotions, can't they?

Also I now love Dantefox passionately and note, in a somewhat nitpicky response to ballin's point, that neither sperm nor eggs are technically homo sapiens, though they contain the DNA thereof. Llama, why is our own species so particularly deserving of life, if they do not possess any of the distinctions that place us apart from the beasts? Your distinction (yes, they are human) is totally arbitrary.

 

[ballin4life]

neither sperm nor eggs are technically homo sapiens, though they contain the DNA thereof.

Says who? IT'S ALL ARBITRARY!!!!!!

 

[Battlecow]

Sperm are no more human than are rocks or bedspreads. When something becomes human is an interesting question, but no reasonable definition of human would include sperm.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see why that's the case. Each sperm/egg has the potential to grow into a mature human.

 

[Battlecow]

Ehhhh a caterpillar can grow into a butterfly but it ain't a butterfly. Human implies something other than the potential to grow into a human to me. Go look it up in any dictionary and report back if the definition could reasonably be applied to sperm.

 

[global-wolf]

Human=homo sapiens. How we determine something as appropriate to kill or not doesn't depends on if it is human, but if it is a person. Quote my earlier post:

Animal babies are also babies. What makes human babies fall under the "can't kill" category is that they're people. But when a human embryo is forming it has nothing that can let it be called a person. It does not remotely look like a person, it cannot function like a person, and it does not have the consciousness of a person. Rather, it's a potential person. Just like sperm and eggs are, except this one got a chance to maybe grow.

I support abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy, when the baby begins to resemble an infant.

On another scale, this is why we don't mind killing pigs, and we mind killing dogs, even though pigs are just as intelligent. We have a cultural attachment to dogs.

 

[ballin4life]

Ehhhh a caterpillar can grow into a butterfly but it ain't a butterfly. Human implies something other than the potential to grow into a human to me. Go look it up in any dictionary and report back if the definition could reasonably be applied to sperm.

Appeals to the dictionary? Obviously we are using the word "human" in a moral sense. Speaking of which, what reason is here to not have abortions considering that morality doesn't exist, according to you?

@above post - I think we should have a Michael Vick thread. I've always said that you're a hypocrite if you are one of those "Vick should still be in jail" people unless you're also a vegetarian.

 

[Battlecow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA_Tl1kvlQU&feature=related

From the source of all good debate philosophy, according to the ratio of how many times clips from it are used on this forum vs. how many clips from other movies are.

I've already established that vegetarians are in the right if you practice altruism and believe in morality non-religiously. Vick is obviously a scuzz (what is it with Ballin' and famous sports douchebags?) and unless you believe that the difference between a dogfight and a slaughterhouse is the amount of pain the animal feels, you ain't got non-religious legs to stand on.

 

[T-block]

Animals can certainly feel emotions, can't they?

I believe it's generally agreed that quite a few animals (dogs and monkeys for example) can feel emotion.

Sperm are no more human than are rocks or bedspreads. When something becomes human is an interesting question, but no reasonable definition of human would include sperm.

It does seem that this debate often comes down to accepting that we should not kill humans, and then deciding when a fetus can be labelled as "human". I generally stay out of this debate for this reason, as I see no good way to make that distinction. I have never seen a line drawn with justification that wasn't arbitrary - the one with the most weight in my opinion is to consider a fetus "human" when it can survive outside of the womb. Still, a newborn is not aware of its existence, so what is really lost if its life were to end? Almost everything I've read on this topic has been full of appeals to emotion and morality, because morality is really the only thing to go on when it comes to this issue.

In the case of sperm, we can clearly say that sperm cells are too early in the development process to be considered. When we consider that millions of sperm cells do not reach an egg, we see that it is "natural" that sperm die.

 

[ballin4life]

In the case of sperm, we can clearly say that sperm cells are too early in the development process to be considered. When we consider that millions of sperm cells do not reach an egg, we see that it is "natural" that sperm die.

Most babies used to die too. We see that it is "natural" that babies die.

 

[T-block]

Hasn't it been shown that ejaculation with millions of sperm cells was evolved in order to increase the chances of fertilization?

 

[Ocean]

Hasn't it been shown that ejaculation with millions of sperm cells was evolved in order to increase the chances of fertilization?

it's also been shown that families of societies with lower medical standards have more children, to increase the chance of having a surviving heir.

 

[T-block]

I'm not sure what you're trying to show. Are you saying babies are disposable?

 

[ballin4life]

Hasn't it been shown that ejaculation with millions of sperm cells was evolved in order to increase the chances of fertilization?

True. Not sure what the point is though.

At the VERY least you have to admit that one should attempt to maximize the number of surviving sperm.

 

[T-block]

My point is that ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells with the hope that at least one reaches an egg. In other words, it is fully expected that millions of sperm cells will die. It is not fully expected that babies will die after they are born.

What is the case for attempting to maximizing the number of surviving sperm? That certainly is not obvious to me.

 

[ballin4life]

My point is that ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells with the hope that at least one reaches an egg. In other words, it is fully expected that millions of sperm cells will die. It is not fully expected that babies will die after they are born.

It certainly used to be ... not to mention that women used to die in childbirth all the time.

What is the case for attempting to maximizing the number of surviving sperm? That certainly is not obvious to me.

Each sperm could potentially grow into a human. All the sperm that don't survive don't grow into humans - they are being murdered. You want to minimize murder, don't you?

 

[T-block]

We inseminate with full expectation of most sperm cells dying. We do not procreate with full expectation of the baby dying. There's an obvious difference here.

My point is that a sperm cell should not be considered human, so maximizing the number of surviving sperm does not equate to minimizing murder.

 

[LlamaSensei]

Llama, why is our own species so particularly deserving of life, if they do not possess any of the distinctions that place us apart from the beasts? Your distinction (yes, they are human) is totally arbitrary.

If you don't think our species is any more deserving of life, then would I be justified in killing a middle-aged man for no particular reason other than he annoyed me? My main point is that, scientifically speaking, killing an unborn fetus is no different than killing a grown person. You, yourself, must decide whether you agree with that decision. I'm not arguing the morals of the subject, seeing as how morals vary from person to person.

 

[Battlecow]

Wut

That makes no sense. Are you really not killing people simply because they're of your species? Not because they're sentient life froms? Weird. Scientifically speaking, fetuses and grown men are entirely different things, even if they belong to the same species. Not seeing your point here.

 

[ballin4life]

My main point is that, scientifically speaking, killing an unborn fetus is no different than killing a grown person.

lolwut?

There's a reason we have the word "fetus" and the phrase "grown person", and it ain't because they mean the same thing.

We inseminate with full expectation of most sperm cells dying. We do not procreate with full expectation of the baby dying. There's an obvious difference here.

I don't get why expectations matter. If you're saying there's no way around some of the sperm dying, then fine, that's why I said maximize the number of sperm that live. But expectations have nothing to do with anything.

Also, once again babies used to die all the time too. So what's the difference? Wasn't part of the reason that kings used to have like 100 wives in some cultures so that they would be guaranteed a surviving heir?

My point is that a sperm cell should not be considered human, so maximizing the number of surviving sperm does not equate to minimizing murder.

Why should a sperm cell not be considered human, yet a baby should be?

 

[Alus]

Why should a sperm cell not be considered human, yet a baby should be?

Dunno, does a sperm feel pain that we could give sympathy to a baby for? I dont understand why people try to find the answer to this. Its not about if its human or not, I could call all your organs human, doesn't matter. Its about if we feel for it. Thats the only reason it could possibly be wrong. It feels wrong. Some people care about the fetus and some dont. Simple as that. The only question is how do we respond to each other?

 

[Ocean]

Dunno, does a sperm feel pain that we could give sympathy to a baby for?

no, but that's a flawed question, because neither does a fetus.

 

[Alus]

no, but that's a flawed question, because neither does a fetus.

Maybe the word baby shouldn't be used, it's a bit informal in the sense that it's vague. It could mean a fetus or a born child.

Also I think that's only a few stages iirc

I was comparing a sperm to a child at birth. But you're right, anyways the question doesn't matter, it's all about who we feel sad for. That's where the line between human and Human stands. And for once more, each opinion is diffrent, and responses are therefore unique. Is abortion ok? That question alone has about as much to debate about as a topic such as "what's your favorite color?".

 

[T-block]

I don't get why expectations matter. If you're saying there's no way around some of the sperm dying, then fine, that's why I said maximize the number of sperm that live. But expectations have nothing to do with anything.

Also, once again babies used to die all the time too. So what's the difference? Wasn't part of the reason that kings used to have like 100 wives in some cultures so that they would be guaranteed a surviving heir?

Why should a sperm cell not be considered human, yet a baby should be?

I could take a scientific spin on it. How many chromosomes does a human cell have? How many chromosomes does a sperm cell have?

You would have a much stronger case if you compared a zygote to a newborn imo.

In any case, this discussion is becoming rather silly - there's no way we can draw the line between human and non-human non-arbitrarily, simply because "human" is not clearly defined.

 

[ballin4life]

Dunno, does a sperm feel pain that we could give sympathy to a baby for? I dont understand why people try to find the answer to this. Its not about if its human or not, I could call all your organs human, doesn't matter. Its about if we feel for it. Thats the only reason it could possibly be wrong. It feels wrong. Some people care about the fetus and some dont. Simple as that. The only question is how do we respond to each other?

If all that matters is what feels wrong, then how do you deal with someone who doesn't feel that it is wrong to kill mature humans?

I could take a scientific spin on it. How many chromosomes does a human cell have? How many chromosomes does a sperm cell have?

Oh, so someone with that XXY syndrome or Down syndrome isn't human then?

 

[T-block]

Yeah I figured you would come back with that.

How about this:

A sperm cell needs to combine with an egg in order to begin development. You could then only argue that a sperm cell is half of a human, no?

 

[ballin4life]

Yeah I figured you would come back with that.

How about this:

A sperm cell needs to combine with an egg in order to begin development. You could then only argue that a sperm cell is half of a human, no?

A baby needs to be given food and water in order to begin development (etc).

 

[T-block]

Needing food and water is part of being human.

Needing to combine with an egg is not part of being human.

Seriously?

 

[Alus]

If all that matters is what feels wrong, then how do you deal with someone who doesn't feel that it is wrong to kill mature humans?

There is no need to repeat a question I already asked. It seems you cut yourself off reading my post to respond.

Also to answer that question, I would respond the same way most animals would respond to human hunters, attack or get out.

 

[ballin4life]

Needing food and water is part of being human.

Needing to combine with an egg is not part of being human.

Seriously?

How in the world are you going to make your criteria "part of being human" when the whole debate is about what makes something human?

There is no need to repeat a question I already asked. It seems you cut yourself off reading my post to respond.

Also to answer that question, I would respond the same way most animals would respond to human hunters, attack or get out.

I don't see any mention of my question about "mature humans" in your post ...

Basically you are taking a totally amoral stance on the issue - people will do whatever they want. But we're talking about creating policies based on mutual agreement among many members of society that certain actions should be responded to with violence. Society is set up so that if you attack humans, you will be met with violence. Thus, even if you do not feel that it is wrong to attack other humans, you probably won't attack them anyway because it will result in a worse situation for you.

The question is whether attacking fetuses/etc. is worthy of being met with violence.

 

[Alus]

The whole point of that post was to say that you were not going to discover a standard. For some people, a fetus is human, for others it's not.*

Also, what do you think I mean by "how do we respond to each other?" are we going to rid abortion? Will abortion be protected?*

If you want to talk directly about the death of a mature person, we are already in that situation, it's called the death sentence.

And one more thing... the question at the bottom seems redundant, no offense, but I'm baffled. Are you also telling me that there is also a way to kill a fetus non-violently?

 

[T-block]

How in the world are you going to make your criteria "part of being human" when the whole debate is about what makes something human?

No human can survive without food or water. All humans can survive and grow without combining with an egg. This is objective fact. You could say that while the need for food and water is true, it is not a criterion for being human. In that case, the fact that babies need food and water, which you brought up, for development is completely irrelevant.

I was only debating that sperm cells should not be considered human. It is a futile effort to debate what makes something human.