Rayman Pirate-Community

It would have if it was alive.

So you're saying that an foetus doesn't have a right to life because it "isn't already alive" ? Reread the sentence, man ! right to live, not right to be alive ! And plus, if you're going to take away the right to live from unborn childs, that's bullshit, since you're saying that if a human is born, then it gains the right to be alive, but without that foetus that human isn't ! Is that so hard to understand ?

Josh wrote:

It's just a bunch of cells.



So are we, and everything else that's alive -_-



You forget about the electric activity in the brain and central nervous systems. Living humans have it, dead ones and embryos don't. u ph4iL.

[/quote]

But you need cells in the first place to get that system up 'n running in the first place u ph4iL

The fact that these cells cannot experience suffering, in itself, countermands his whole argument. I just don't see why this is so difficult to recognise.

As i already said, i gave you that one ! Would you please bother reading someone's posts an thinking about them before you react ?

If by 'someone' you mean a group of senseless cells, then yes.

Is it so hard to understand that you're killing a human being because your killing something that is going to be a human being ?

Foetuses are already human beings. They don't just gain humanity the instant they're born.

Your post heavily implied that you thought abortion was acceptable because the foetus doesn't feel pain.

In a sense yeah, I was just explaining to stan/Joshua (I don't remember which one it was) how abortion isn't an act of injustice. There are other more important factors behind my reasoning, though.

I quoted you a moment ago. Read the quote. Carefully.

How does knowing what a Christian's view on the Bible is make me believe in God? I think you're the one who needs to reread posts.

Joshua822 wrote:But you need cells in the first place to get that system up 'n running in the first place u ph4iL

So, how does that make masturbation any better? Sperms are required as well, in case you haven't realised.

As i already said, i gave you that one ! Would you please bother reading someone's posts an thinking about them before you react ?

All you've said is "it's alive and has a right to live", which is a poor and half-baked argument. I've contested your opinion that abortion is 'morally wrong' by stating there's nothing cruel about killing undeveloped organisms. Yes, these cells will develop into human life, but in the state they'd be in they wouldn't have any feelings at all.

Is it so hard to understand that you're killing a human being because your killing something that is going to be a human being ?

That doesn't matter. What matters is the organism is not a human being until it has fully developed.

Xenon wrote:

Your post heavily implied that you thought abortion was acceptable because the foetus doesn't feel pain.

In a sense yeah, I was just explaining to stan/Joshua (I don't remember which one it was) how abortion isn't an act of injustice. There are other more important factors behind my reasoning, though.

State them.

Xenon wrote:

I quoted you a moment ago. Read the quote. Carefully.

How does knowing what a Christian's view on the Bible is make me believe in God? I think you're the one who needs to reread posts.

You didn't say "Christians think the Bible is the Approximate Word of God". You said "The Bible is the Approximate Word of God", which is very, very different.

Xenon wrote:

Joshua822 wrote:But you need cells in the first place to get that system up 'n running in the first place u ph4iL

So, how does that make masturbation any better? Sperms are required as well, in case you haven't realised.

Sperm + No Masturbation = Nothing
Foetus + No Abortion = A Baby

Xenon wrote:

As i already said, i gave you that one ! Would you please bother reading someone's posts an thinking about them before you react ?

All you've said is "it's alive and has a right to live", which is a poor and half-baked argument. I've contested your opinion that abortion is 'morally wrong' by stating there's nothing cruel about killing undeveloped organisms. Yes, these cells will develop into human life, but in the state they'd be in they wouldn't have any feelings at all.

"Feelings"? Your'e saying that if someone doesn't have feeling (emotions), then it's alright to kill them?

Xenon wrote:

Is it so hard to understand that you're killing a human being because your killing something that is going to be a human being ?

That doesn't matter. What matters is the organism is not a human being until it has fully developed.

It isn't fully developed until it reaches adulthood. Are you advocating child-murdering now?

State them.

I can't be bothered to compile a list of reasons, I've already explained why many, many times. And so have others.

You didn't say "Christians think the Bible is the Approximate Word of God". You said "The Bible is the Approximate Word of God", which is very, very different.

I merely said most Christians know the Bible is the approximate word of God. How, I put it to you, does that possibly imply that I believe in God?

Sperm + No Masturbation = Nothing
Foetus + No Abortion = A Baby

You evidently missed my point. I was saying that terminating a sperm in development is, essentially, equally as bad as masturbating. In the long run you're still taking away a chance to live.

"Feelings"? Your'e saying that if someone doesn't have feeling (emotions), then it's alright to kill them?

By 'feelings' I was actually referring to the nervous system, though there are no psychological feelings either. And yes, through lack of these abortion is totally fine if the mother doesn't feel she can cope with a child's upbringing.

It isn't fully developed until it reaches adulthood. Are you advocating child-murdering now?

Haha, your ridiculous leaping to wild conclusions makes me laugh.

I have heard a funny opinion: foetus which would develop into people who are after abortion could be aborted for their sake.

Xenon wrote:

It isn't fully developed until it reaches adulthood. Are you advocating child-murdering now?

Haha, your ridiculous leaping to wild conclusions makes me laugh.

But isn't making ME laughing, as then we're going back to Sparta. And, indeed, Spartans used very similar system to used by some of you: if baby wouldn't be a good warrior/wife (i.e. has something-syndrome), it should be left.

You evidently missed my point. I was saying that terminating a sperm in development is, essentially, equally as bad as masturbating. In the long run you're still taking away a chance to live.

Poor argument. Since there is only a really tiny chance that that sperm will eventually start developing. A foetus is developing and so it's sure that it will live.

By 'feelings' I was actually referring to the nervous system, though there are no psychological feelings either. And yes, through lack of these abortion is totally fine if the mother doesn't feel she can cope with a child's upbringing.

For the last time, you WIN over that argument.

Haha, your ridiculous leaping to wild conclusions makes me laugh.

Haha, this conclusion makes me laugh. A just born baby is very vulnerable and still needs to develop some certain tiny things. Like, for example, a good skull.

Can't we just agree that right-to-lifers are ignorant morons? Their arguments are so full of flaws, factual errors and logical fallacies that it would be too tiresome to list all of them.

I admitted that my "right to life" argument failed miserably when I tried to employ it to the death penalty debate (where some of you argued against me, you hypocrites). You should swallow your pride and do the same, because you have failed so obviously.

Poor argument. Since there is only a really tiny chance that that sperm will eventually start developing. A foetus is developing and so it's sure that it will live.

There is a chance though, so you can't use your 'right to a life' argument here.

For the last time, you WIN over that argument.

I was talking to spiraldoor, who still hasn't retracted his pathetic arguments.

Haha, this conclusion makes me laugh. A just born baby is very vulnerable and still needs to develop some certain tiny things. Like, for example, a good skull.

Listen, I consider a born baby developed and a bunch of raw cells undeveloped, even if that doesn't accord to your view. And no, I do not believe all children should be exterminated, just in case that's an issue here too.

The only ones who support pro-lifers are the hideously fucked up babies themselves.

By this, do you mean, you haven't been baby?

Tobbe wrote:I admitted that my "right to life" argument failed miserably when I tried to employ it to the death penalty debate (where some of you argued against me, you hypocrites).

The death penalty is an absolutely another kettle of fish. Here, we discute about destruction of we-are-not-sure-what. Death penalty is about destroying somebody-who-claimed-to-not-follow-rules. Although, in most cases I prefer slighter penalties, like deportation or jail with some work in it.

Xenon wrote:

Haha, this conclusion makes me laugh. A just born baby is very vulnerable and still needs to develop some certain tiny things. Like, for example, a good skull.

Listen, I consider a born baby developed and a bunch of raw cells undeveloped, even if that doesn't accord to your view. And no, I do not believe all children should be exterminated, just in case that's an issue here too.

O.K.. Wait for a moment. At which point you can define cells as not raw anymore? When child is born? When she/he's ready for being born? (It can be at 7th month, but for some reason it usually isn't). When its nervous system work? When it plugs into mother?

This is very interesting for me, because most of abortions aren't started just after the... fertilisation. So I'm not sure at which point are you and what kind of arguments should I expect.

Can't we just agree that right-to-lifers are ignorant morons? Their arguments are so full of flaws, factual errors and logical fallacies that it would be too tiresome to list all of them.

I admitted that my "right to life" argument failed miserably when I tried to employ it to the death penalty debate (where some of you argued against me, you hypocrites). You should swallow your pride and do the same, because you have failed so obviously.

Actually no, right to lifers look at it from a moral point of view, while you look at it from a scientific point of view. And to clear things up, moral doesn't have to be logical and facted, it's something you make up for yourself.

The only ones who support pro-lifers are the hideously fucked up babies themselves.

That argument might only count in West European countries though, since the views on abortion are really different in other continents.

There is a chance though, so you can't use your 'right to a life' argument here.

You don't get what i'm saying, do you ? My argument is that a developing form of live already has the right to live. How small it might be. A sperm isn't living yet, and if it's away, some other sperm will replace i to create life. I, my theory a sperm has the right to life, but if it doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen, and you just can't give life to millions of sperm cells, and even more since the male body keeps producing them.

Listen, I consider a born baby developed and a bunch of raw cells undeveloped, even if that doesn't accord to your view. And no, I do not believe all children should be exterminated, just in case that's an issue here too.

This theory is really flawed. You can't get a living being if you exterminate it when it's developing. Of course, a foetus isn't developed yet. But that doesn't give you any reason to just exterminate it.

You do know I was joking when I posted that pic right?

Yes, just wanted to point that out

stan423321 wrote:.K.. Wait for a moment. At which point you can define cells as not raw anymore? When child is born? When she/he's ready for being born? (It can be at 7th month, but for some reason it usually isn't). When its nervous system work? When it plugs into mother?

I guess when it exits the womb, but I see your point.

Joshua822 wrote:You don't get what i'm saying, do you ? My argument is that a developing form of live already has the right to live. How small it might be. A sperm isn't living yet, and if it's away, some other sperm will replace i to create life. I, my theory a sperm has the right to life, but if it doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen, and you just can't give life to millions of sperm cells, and even more since the male body keeps producing them.

A sperm is living actually, even if not in human form. From what I understand you don't believe in terminating a baby (in production, we'll say), yet you see it fine to kill a small organism, which to be honest, isn't a lot different. And now you're adding it's fine to kill sperms because millions of them die anyway? The whole piece is incredibly contradictory.

This theory is really flawed. You can't get a living being if you exterminate it when it's developing. Of course, a foetus isn't developed yet. But that doesn't give you any reason to just exterminate it.

But it doesn't matter because it's NOT actually human. It's just an undeveloped foetus which is fine to kill. It's like saying without sex there would be no life, therefore everyone must have sex. It's completely irrelevant as the outcome is the only thing of any importance.

Xenon wrote:I guess when it exits the womb, but I see your point.

You don't have any arguments against this one, then?

Xenon wrote:A sperm is living actually, even if not in human form. From what I understand you don't believe in terminating a baby (in production, we'll say), yet you see it fine to kill a small organism, which to be honest, isn't a lot different. And now you're adding it's fine to kill sperms because millions of them die anyway? The whole piece is incredibly contradictory.

A sperm doesn't fit the criteria for a life form. It doesn't respire, and it doesn't reproduce. It is just another cell with its own function in the human body. A foetus is entirely different.

Xenon wrote:But it doesn't matter because it's NOT actually human. It's just an undeveloped foetus which is fine to kill. It's like saying without sex there would be no life, therefore everyone must have sex. It's completely irrelevant as the outcome is the only thing of any importance.

A human foetus is a human.

spiraldoor wrote:You don't have any arguments against this one, then?

What's there to argue about?
[quote="""]A sperm doesn't fit the criteria for a life form. It doesn't respire, and it doesn't reproduce. It is just another cell with its own function in the human body. A foetus is entirely different.[/quote]
But it's living nonetheless.
[quote="""]A human foetus is a human.[/quote]
Only not in human form. There's nothing really that makes it sensitive or anything.

Xenon wrote:What's there to argue about?

The exact moment when a "bunch of cells" becomes a human, that's what.

Xenon wrote:But it's living nonetheless.

A sperm cell is just a cell. A foetus is a human.

Xenon wrote:Only not in human form. There's nothing really that makes it sensitive or anything.

It has a brain.

Killing anything that lacks sense of emotion or a functioning nervous system is fine in my eyes. Especially if it's a young foetus in early development.

spiraldoor wrote: A human foetus is a human.

A baby in the womb is not called a foetus until the 10th week. Before that it's called an embryo. I guess you're totally okay with abortion before the 10th week, then?

For the record: A baby's nervous system starts developing almost immediatly after conception, but it only really starts functioning after about 25 weeks. At that stage, it's too late to do an abortion anyway.

Abortion is not murder because embryos and early foetuses aren't alive yet. You might as well argue that hacking away at a corpse is murder. You can't kill things that aren't alive.