idgigibson wrote:So do you think if a 1 month old fetus could live on its own outside of the mother abortion would continue on the same way it does now?Cometk wrote:you definitely get an abortion to kill the fetus. you are voiding yourself of having to take care of a potential child. that's why the right to abortion is important - so that women aren't socioeconomically bound by unwanted childbirth. it has to do with endemic, cyclical generational poverty.
What's your most controversial opinion?
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
My stance on the issue of abortion is that humans should lay eggs
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Americans have ruined the word faggot and fag btw.
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
So location determines value?gibson wrote:Its a bad faith argument because he ignored the part where the baby was in the mother and than continued to act like it wasn't relevant when pointed out. Either a bad faith argument or someone who lacked the mental capacity to draw basic connections. I assumed the former.
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
I think I've made the point now. The fact that you can't see the logical parallel based on what gives humans value and the right to live leaves me only to say "the noetic effect of sin."Goodspeed wrote:I haven't been following your discussion with gibson, I just know your coma patient argument is weak and lacking in substance.chris1089 wrote:Im just going to be repeating myself because the logic seems to be flying over people's heads to the extent that @gibson is accusing me of arguing in bad faith.Show hidden quotes
If you take them literally and out of context. My point was that murder is robbing someone of the choice to live. A coma patient has made that choice. A collection of cells hasn't.By your very own words killing someone in a coma is not murder.Goodspeed wrote:Murder implies consciousness.
I do. Did you register what I said about the coma patient having been conscious before?This clearly implies that abortion is only wrong if the baby is conscious no? So the right of the baby to live is predicated on consciousness. If this is what gives a baby the right to live, why do you not apply the same standard to a human?Goodspeed wrote:the choice is yours to make until it develops its own consciousness
You keep ignoring the other very relevant difference between an unborn baby and a coma patient, which is that an unborn baby is part of its mother's body. Before it develops consciousness and has its own thoughts separate from its mother's, I see no reason to view it as a separate entity. While it's not that, it is its mother's body, and as such the mother can do with it what she wants.
What about the bunch of cells gives it rights? Its potential to become a human? What about an unfertilized egg? Should we save that (at the mother's expense of course) because it has the potential to become a human?
Either it's location, or it's consciousness that makes it ok or not to kill the baby. It can't be both because consciousness develops before the baby leaves the womb.
The bunch of cells argument is old hat. I'd recommend you drop that. You have a new human at conception. There is no other place at which to grant absolute rights. Why bring up an unfertilised egg? Why not a heart cell or an epithelial cell? It's part of the mother as it has her own DNA, unlike the baby which even as a fertilised egg has a set of DNA foreign to the mother. Hence also it is not "the mother's body."
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
The what? I don't think you're speaking my language there.chris1089 wrote:I think I've made the point now. The fact that you can't see the logical parallel based on what gives humans value and the right to live leaves me only to say "the noetic effect of sin."
It can't be both in your mind. Maybe that's the well-known religious black and white thinking. In my opinion, it is both.Either it's location, or it's consciousness that makes it ok or not to kill the baby. It can't be both because consciousness develops before the baby leaves the womb.
If the unborn baby was just hanging out in the grass somewhere (and let's assume it wouldn't die there), I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that any random person can't just step up to it and kill it.
On the other hand, if the unborn baby is a conscious entity, I think it's reasonable to argue that whether or not to kill it is no longer the mother's decision.
It's the combination that makes it okay to abort a pregnancy. In my opinion.
Or else...? It is a bunch of cells, to me. I'm describing it that way to communicate the distinction between a conscious being and a bunch of cells.The bunch of cells argument is old hat. I'd recommend you drop that.
Or do you have a new human when two people who will eventually conceive together meet each other? Or when the dude places dick in vagina? Where do you draw that line? At cells combining? Why? That was an inevitability when these people met, and certainly when dick was placed in vagina.You have a new human at conception.
I would draw it at the point where the unborn baby develops consciousness. And yes that is arbitrary, but my point is that I think it's an arbitrary line no matter where you draw it.
Is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter?
We have a difference of opinion about what constitutes the mother's body. There are many living things in our bodies that do not share our DNA. Imo, anything that lives inside you is part of you.Why bring up an unfertilised egg? Why not a heart cell or an epithelial cell? It's part of the mother as it has her own DNA, unlike the baby which even as a fertilised egg has a set of DNA foreign to the mother. Hence also it is not "the mother's body."
Also https://www.grammarly.com/blog/its-vs-i ... .%E2%80%9D
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
If a fetous is a bunch of cells, then you're just a bunch of cells too and you have no rights either.
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Riotcoke wrote:If a fetous is a bunch of cells, then you're just a bunch of cells too and you have no rights either.
I think I'm conscious.I'm describing it that way to communicate the distinction between a conscious being and a bunch of cells.
Therefore I am?
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
You're still just cells.Goodspeed wrote:Riotcoke wrote:If a fetous is a bunch of cells, then you're just a bunch of cells too and you have no rights either.I think I'm conscious.I'm describing it that way to communicate the distinction between a conscious being and a bunch of cells.
Therefore I am?
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
the just cells thing isn't the argument
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
I don't think I really have to spell this out, but just for the record: I'm not arguing that the difference between me and an unborn baby is that the unborn baby is a bunch of cells and I am not. I'm saying the (relevant) difference is that I'm conscious and it is not (depending on its age).Riotcoke wrote:You're still just cells.Goodspeed wrote:Riotcoke wrote:If a fetous is a bunch of cells, then you're just a bunch of cells too and you have no rights either.I think I'm conscious.I'm describing it that way to communicate the distinction between a conscious being and a bunch of cells.
Therefore I am?
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
How do you know what's conscious though?
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Don't eat plants.
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
You know it isn't until it has developed certain parts of its brain. After that, you don't really know until years later. I'm sure you can make educated guesses but I'm no doctor.Riotcoke wrote:How do you know what's conscious though?
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Whydeleted_user wrote:Don't eat plants.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
was kidding and a bad joke let's just forget about it
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
I thought I was helping you get to the punchline
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Two ships passing in the night
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mar 1, 2015
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Maybe the unborn baby is just a parasite parasiting on the womans body and she can do whatever she want with it.
Would that count as a controversial opinion?
Would that count as a controversial opinion?
Dead hunts cant walk....
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Noetic effect of sin:Goodspeed wrote:The what? I don't think you're speaking my language there.chris1089 wrote:I think I've made the point now. The fact that you can't see the logical parallel based on what gives humans value and the right to live leaves me only to say "the noetic effect of sin."It can't be both in your mind. Maybe that's the well-known religious black and white thinking. In my opinion, it is both.Either it's location, or it's consciousness that makes it ok or not to kill the baby. It can't be both because consciousness develops before the baby leaves the womb.
If the unborn baby was just hanging out in the grass somewhere (and let's assume it wouldn't die there), I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that any random person can't just step up to it and kill it.
On the other hand, if the unborn baby is a conscious entity, I think it's reasonable to argue that whether or not to kill it is no longer the mother's decision.
It's the combination that makes it okay to abort a pregnancy. In my opinion.
Or else...? It is a bunch of cells, to me. I'm describing it that way to communicate the distinction between a conscious being and a bunch of cells.The bunch of cells argument is old hat. I'd recommend you drop that.
Or do you have a new human when two people who will eventually conceive together meet each other? Or when the dude places dick in vagina? Where do you draw that line? At cells combining? Why? That was an inevitability when these people met, and certainly when dick was placed in vagina.You have a new human at conception.
I would draw it at the point where the unborn baby develops consciousness. And yes that is arbitrary, but my point is that I think it's an arbitrary line no matter where you draw it.
Is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter?
We have a difference of opinion about what constitutes the mother's body. There are many living things in our bodies that do not share our DNA. Imo, anything that lives inside you is part of you.Why bring up an unfertilised egg? Why not a heart cell or an epithelial cell? It's part of the mother as it has her own DNA, unlike the baby which even as a fertilised egg has a set of DNA foreign to the mother. Hence also it is not "the mother's body."
Also https://www.grammarly.com/blog/its-vs-i ... .%E2%80%9D
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... fects-sin/
I'm saying they are logically incompatible. It's not about opinion.
On a bunch of cells, it's not about or else, it's just scientific consensus in modern biology that human life begins at conception. That's the only place that isn't arbitrary because of the new DNA.
If you claim it's not black and white (not sure what you mean by that) but rather just your opinion, what makes either one of us correct? If I thought it was ok to murder people, in my opinion, would that be ok? Who is going to decide that and on what basis?
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Feral children don't develop consciousness on their own, so by simply being born with a human biology you don't inevitably become a human.
Becoming a human requires both a very specific biology (like rosehip neurons, the ARHGAP11B gene, etc) and some degree of social investment that other people would make in order for you to learn language and develop theory-of-mind abilities.
Without that, it's very likely you will develop by mimicking the animals you grew up with, still having a human biology but without a human nature.
Becoming a human requires both a very specific biology (like rosehip neurons, the ARHGAP11B gene, etc) and some degree of social investment that other people would make in order for you to learn language and develop theory-of-mind abilities.
Without that, it's very likely you will develop by mimicking the animals you grew up with, still having a human biology but without a human nature.
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
Yes, very controversial. Especially when you say it like that. As if having a child has now been classified as parasitic. Quite disgusting.Victor_swe wrote:Maybe the unborn baby is just a parasite parasiting on the womans body and she can do whatever she want with it.
Would that count as a controversial opinion?
c0ns!
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
You are again speaking to me in the language of drivel. I'm asking you to explain in the common language. Feel free to elaborate in your own words (non-drivel, please).chris1089 wrote:Noetic effect of sin:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... fects-sin/
I guess it's not surprising that you are unable or unwilling to explore or attempt to understand perspectives other than the "objective truth" you've been taught. Religion's bread and butter.
I suppose I'll attribute our difference of opinion to the "noetic effects of brainwashing". Surely it is impossible that this is simply a difference of perspective. No, you must be wrong. And your wrongness must be caused by your religious tendencies.
It is, except you seem to think your opinion is the only logically valid one. Please explain, then, why it is illogical to think abortion is okay due to the combination of the two factors I mentioned.I'm saying they are logically incompatible. It's not about opinion.
I have made no statements about the beginning of human life. That to me isn't relevant to the discussion, because no matter how you define the bunch of cells I don't place inherent value in them. If you want to take that out of context and claim I don't place inherent value in human life, you would technically be correct so go ahead.On a bunch of cells, it's not about or else, it's just scientific consensus in modern biology that human life begins at conception. That's the only place that isn't arbitrary because of the new DNA.
I understand that you draw the line at conception. I just don't agree.
Neither of us is definitively correct. We have a difference of opinion. Is that really so foreign to you?If you claim it's not black and white (not sure what you mean by that) but rather just your opinion, what makes either one of us correct?
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
I'd also hope that if consciousness has nothing to do with it as @chris1089 implies then anyone with such a belief has never eaten meat in their life.
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
Re: What's your most controversial opinion?
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests