Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
That analogy falls apart, however, because they aren't being denied the eventual opportunity to vote.
Let me make the argument a bit more clear. Here is (a simplified version of) the potentiality argument:
1) Persons have a right to life.
2) A foetus has the potential to be a person.
3) Therefore, a foetus has the right to life.
Now, obviously this argument is invalid. The missing premise(s), however, is(are) complicated. We need to say something like the following:
P: If some x has the potential to become some y, and y has the property p, then x has the property p.
But let's just stick with our original argument, without P. Note that we could include P and still run this counterargument:
1) U.S. citizens aged 18 and up have the right to vote.
2) A 12-year old (U.S. citizen) has the potential to become an 18-year old U.S. citizen.
3) Therefore, a 12-year old (U.S. citizen) has the right to vote.
So it's not about denying them some potential right. The potentiality argument needs the conclusion that the foetus does, in fact, already have a right to life because it's a potential person.
Here's another way of putting it. The argument isn't that they have the potential right to life, which is being denied. The argument is that they are potential members of a class which do have that right, so - in virtue of this potential - the foetus has that right as well.
So you're saying it's only alright to kill a baby inside the womb but not outside of the womb?
Holy mother of a loaded question.
During the time that an abortion may be performed, what is inside the mother can best be described as a mass of cells acting as a parasite upon the mother....it's a beautiful mass of parasitic cells, though, because maybe, hopefully, one day it could achieve its potential for human life.
Also, not sure if this argument has been brought up yet..probably has with how many times we've gone in circles in this thread..
So, let's do a hypothetical situation. Your brother was in a car accident, and in order to survive needs an organ of yours. I don't really care which one, so you can think of one yourself. If you do not give him this organ, he WILL die. His life is in your hands, and by giving him your organ you allow him to continue his life. But guess what, you don't have to give him your organ! Because it is your body, you have no obligations to give up anything to save his life bar any moral principles you may have. Now we look back to the mass of cells, it has yet to reach a point where it may survive outside of its body, and at its current state has nothing more than the -potential- to become human. But in order to survive, it needs -your- body. So here we find ourselves at the same spot we were with your brother. Someone/something needs your body in order to fulfill its potential of life
You have a point, but let me go on to say that I am very wary of agreeing with you, pang. After all, you like the movie A Serbian Film. Proof:. I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.
but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.
It's not being pro-abortion, its being pro-choice. One can be against the idea of having an abortion in many if not all cases but still be for allowing others to decide whether they want to go through the procedure or not.
but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.
How subjective, just because he liked a movie where newborn babies are raped and tortured doesn't mean He likes torturing and raping babies / aborting one. If you like watching the movie Iron Man 3, does that meant you like blasting people's home to pieces?
Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).
Using your logic, i can say that you are unconsciously murdering almost 3.5 million Humans everytime you had sexual intercourse, because every time you did that, only one sperm ( a potential human) survived, the rest killed by the acid environment and various environmental effects on the womb. So, the mother murdered 3.5 million "humans", right?
But them doesn't not too, for they will soon.
using your logic, that would imply that every sexual cells that man and woman produced should all be fertilized, because if they are not fertilized they would be dead and that would be similar to killing a "otential human".
That's what I is a doing now to, grammar expert.
Not good enough, run it again.
I read it. That's how. ;D
provide your evidence and opinion as to why you agree to it. you can't just read it and say it was better.
Using selfish logic to suit your nit picking on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong, is wrong. And by nit picking I mean singling out insignificant details and making them the focal point to make me look bad as if I represent all pro-life people.
provide your evidence and opinion as to why you agree to it. you can't just read it and say it was better.
Ok, read it and compare it with this:
Using your logic, i can say that you are unconsciously murdering almost 3.5 million Humans everytime you had sexual intercourse, because every time you did that, only one sperm ( a potential human) survived, the rest killed by the acid environment and various environmental effects on the womb. So, the mother murdered 3.5 million "humans", right?
Contraception and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but you are blind to the facts that first must be assumed to be true before you can proceed with the logical method and hope to come to the correct answer. In a nutshell, your logic will continue to be irreparably flawed until you wake up to the facts.
on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong
It's always unproductive to make these kinds of claims. People have different views and it's just not the case that everyone who doesn't share yours is an amoral monster.
My question to you themastaplaya is how is it justifiable to abort in cases of rape and incest if you think it's unquestionably wrong to do so in other situations? Or do you believe that all abortion is murder and wrong?
Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but
How is there a "but" if his conclusion was logical?
Premise 1: Willfully or negligently killing potential humans is (wrong/bad/evil/murder).
Premise 2: Human gametes are potential humans.
Conclusion: Willfully or negligently killing human gametes is (wrong/bad/evil/murder).
Which part(s) do you disagree with?
sidenote: I added "negligently" to include possible things that pregnant women do that increase their risk of miscarriage, such as heavily smoking.
Using selfish logic to suit your nit picking on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong, is wrong
1. it's your selfish logic not mine, and i already said that in the word "using your logic" 2.people with a conscious and common sense are very subjectival, depending on someone's views, some would even say that Hitler is consciously basing his actions on common sense. I could even say that the north korea president Kim-il Sung is acting on common sense. so you're argument makes no sense to me, in the part of your "wrongness".
And by nit picking I mean singling out insignificant details and making them the focal point to make me look bad as if I represent all pro-life people.
1. your insignificant detail is your (maybe?) hopeless cover-up scheme that is as clear as night and day. It is important, which is proven when only you resent my choice to make it a "focal point" 2. what good i would get from making you look bad in front of the world huh? it's not like i was paid to make you look bad, and i got nothing by opposing you. in fact, i would suffer a drawback, which is making an enemy of you and getting banned for flamming.
Contraception and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but you are blind to the facts that first must be assumed to be true before you can proceed with the logical method and hope to come to the correct answer. In a nutshell, your logic will continue to be irreparably flawed until you wake up to the facts.
So what's your problem with me using your logic in a slightly different way? if your logic WAS true, then your logicality would/should had no problem with others when they are to use it. Contraception and killing a fetus can be a different matter, but in the case of your logicality, it is on the same matter. so yes, the first is assumed to be true and so it (hopefully) justify the whole answer. Read, YOUR logic not mine, because i was using yours in a different way as opposed to how you use it.
Using selfish logic to suit your nit picking on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong, is wrong. And by nit picking I mean singling out insignificant details and making them the focal point to make me look bad as if I represent all pro-life people.
No, actually, it isnt, as people with working rational centres know. To be selfish is to care about one's self. To care is to be swayed by emotion and impulse. Logic is not any of these things, but you very likely are.
The details you try to pass off as insignificant are, nevertheless, more than enough to reduce your argument to an empty husk if left unchecked, so I would not advise you to ignore them completely.
Contraception and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but you are blind to the facts that first must be assumed to be true before you can proceed with the logical method and hope to come to the correct answer. In a nutshell, your logic will continue to be irreparably flawed until you wake up to the facts.
Of course, because gametes are not TRUE Scotsm- I mean - potential humans, are they? You claim that he is blind to "the facts", but at the same time you are withholding them. You speak of "the facts" as though you are about to produce them, but you have yet to do so.
After all, you like the movie A Serbian Film. Proof//armorgames.com/community/thread/ ⦠t-12239039. I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.
1) I don't like that movie, I love it. One of my top 5 favorite all time movies.
2) I'm not 'ro-abortion', I'm pro-choice
3) I don't like the movie because of the "Newborn Porn" scene. I like it because of its amazing plot, full of complex social criticisms and powerful scenes.
