Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

Selfish_Meme wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: CommiepinkoLefty wrote: Lumina wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Your right, it is a seperate being, but so is a sperm or ova. Any definition of when something becomes human is arbitrary, essentially you as a 'human' are not a single cohesive being anyway you have many other beings living inside you.

"You have many other beings living inside you"? (((What?!!)))

Bacteria.

So now the product of human reproduction is comparable to bacteria?
There are comparisons to be made, they have many common attributes. They are not the same though and it would be wrong to think so.

There are comparisons to be made between all living things. All life has common attributes, and yes it is very wrong to think so.

[straw man]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Thats like saying I don't have the potential to procreate because I need a partner.

You have a lot BETTER potential to procreate if you already have your mate, don't you?

But if you don't, I suppose you could still theoretically procreate one day. I mean there's like a 1 to 1 ratio of people of the opositte sex, so it should be no trouble..

Compare that to a sperm.

What are the odds that any given sperm is going to become something more? .0000001? .00000001? .000000001? .0000000001?

I mean the sperm, provided there even is an egg around that it can get to, still has to beat millions and millions and millions of competitors to even have a chance.

Compare that to a fetus.

What are the odds that any given fetus is going to grow into a fully functioning conscious and feeling human being? Probably like 95%. Barring a miscarriage (or if you kill it) that fetus will be a human being.

The sperm LEFT ALONE has little potential, whereas a fetus LEFT ALONE has LOTS of potential. THAT is the difference. If you put a sperm in a jar and stick it on the shelf, its not going to be anything different than a dead sperm when you come back to it.

I am arguing the value of something here, in terms of its future potential. So lets say I made a similar value claim:

"I have a straight flush. I'm not going to throw this hand into the trash because it will likely win me the whole pot if I keep it. It's a very valuable hand."

You then say that your pair of threes has the SAME value as my hand, on the grounds that it theoretically CAN win the pot as well? I suppose if everyone else folds, your hand technically could win, but my hand likely will win no matter what happens. That is why there is a difference in worth.

Better yet, let's say you don't even have a pair of threes. You have a three, a five, a nine a jack and a queen, all in a different suit (except the five and the queen are the same). To match your argument you would say,"just because I don't have all the components then and there means my hand is worth less?" YES! It's BECAUSE you don't have the components then and there that your current hand is worth pretty much nothing.

I hope this clears up why a fetus does not equal a sperm in terms of potential value or worth, and CERTAINLY not pondscum.

Just because you don't have all the components right then and there to become something else doesn't mean you don't have the potential.

[straw man]

Match Strike wrote: We consider things extensions of the body, or part of the body, even if they have the same DNA. Organ transplants come to mind. I might get my friend's liver, with his DNA, but it becomes an undeniable part of my body. really it's simply the reverse.

The organ transplant isn't the same context of "extension" as we are talking about. It is true that when you add components onto something they are called extensions but the definition I'm using is when something grows or stretches out. In that regard it would have to have the same DNA. The transplant is really a foreign object which is incorporated into the body and does indeed become part of the body, but it is not the result of that body "extending" itself (or it would have the same DNA).

[Selfish_Meme]

straw man wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Thats like saying I don't have the potential to procreate because I need a partner.

You have a lot BETTER potential to procreate if you already have your mate, don't you?

But if you don't, I suppose you could still theoretically procreate one day. I mean there's like a 1 to 1 ratio of people of the opositte sex, so it should be no trouble..

Compare that to a sperm.

What are the odds that any given sperm is going to become something more? .0000001? .00000001? .000000001? .0000000001?

I mean the sperm, provided there even is an egg around that it can get to, still has to beat millions and millions and millions of competitors to even have a chance.

Compare that to a fetus.

What are the odds that any given fetus is going to grow into a fully functioning conscious and feeling human being? Probably like 95%. Barring a miscarriage (or if you kill it) that fetus will be a human being.

The sperm LEFT ALONE has little potential, whereas a fetus LEFT ALONE has LOTS of potential. THAT is the difference. If you put a sperm in a jar and stick it on the shelf, its not going to be anything different than a dead sperm when you come back to it.

I am arguing the value of something here, in terms of its future potential. So lets say I made a similar value claim:

"I have a straight flush. I'm not going to throw this hand into the trash because it will likely win me the whole pot if I keep it. It's a very valuable hand."

You then say that your pair of threes has the SAME value as my hand, on the grounds that it theoretically CAN win the pot as well? I suppose if everyone else folds, your hand technically could win, but my hand likely will win no matter what happens. That is why there is a difference in worth.

Better yet, let's say you don't even have a pair of threes. You have a three, a five, a nine a jack and a queen, all in a different suit (except the five and the queen are the same). To match your argument you would say,"just because I don't have all the components then and there means my hand is worth less?" YES! It's BECAUSE you don't have the components then and there that your current hand is worth pretty much nothing.

I hope this clears up why a fetus does not equal a sperm in terms of potential value or worth, and CERTAINLY not pondscum.

Just because you don't have all the components right then and there to become something else doesn't mean you don't have the potential.
So by your definition, we could say that the chances of reaching productive adulthood are better for white middle/upper class people so they are worth more?

[straw man]

I don't think race has anything to do with with the value of a person. I don't think people have more worth on account of their race. Some colleges seem to disagree, and feel that minorities are apparently worth more and so they must select them first. But educational level does. An educated person is worth more to society, and certainly has more potential than an uneducated person. I hope that answers your question.

[Selfish_Meme]

Well it speaks well for you that you don't think you are racist, however your proposed system of values based on probable success would be.

[straw man]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Well it speaks well for you that you don't think you are racist, however your proposed system of values based on probable success would be.

Not success as in how lucrative of a job you might get or how much money you might be worth.

You are taking my specific distinction and drawing it into a parallel far too abstract.

I said a fetus is not pondscum because it has a chance to be a living feeling human being, and the pondscum doesn't. Not because it has a chance to get a PHD and a pondscum doesn't. not because it has a chance to be caucasian or any other race.

In other words, what does the comparison between things that may one day be a thinking and feeling being vs. those that won't have to do with comparing two things which are ALREADY thinking and feeling human beings? It's not applicablle. The black inner city uneducated person is just as conscious and feeling as the white suburban prep, so they already have the same human value in that regard, as opposed to say pondscum. Any other distinctions between them (e.g. race, socioeconomic backround etc.) are not the same as my distinction between the pondscum and fetus (i.e. the probability to one day be conscious and sentient), and therefore are off topic.

[Selfish_Meme]

straw man wrote: Not success as in how lucrative of a job you might get or how much money you might be worth.

You are taking my specific distinction and drawing it into a parallel far too abstract.

I said a fetus is not pondscum because it has a chance to be a living feeling human being, and the pondscum doesn't. Not because it has a chance to get a PHD and a pondscum doesn't. not because it has a chance to be caucasian or any other race.

In other words, what does the comparison between things that may one day be a thinking and feeling being vs. those that won't have to do with comparing two things which are ALREADY thinking and feeling human beings? It's not applicablle. The black inner city uneducated person is just as conscious and feeling as the white suburban prep, so they already have the same human value in that regard, as opposed to say pondscum. Any other distinctions between them (e.g. race, socioeconomic backround etc.) are not the same as my distinction between the pondscum and fetus (i.e. the probability to one day be conscious and sentient), and therefore are off topic.
Well what about between conception and say 25 weeks, there could be a huge difference in probability. What makes that different than just basin the value system on brain development?

[straw man]

Lets just say that a fetus between 0 and 25 weeks has a much bigger chance of becoming a thinking and feeling human being than pondscum.

That has nothing to do with brain development in case anyone wants to determine their values differently.

[Selfish_Meme]

I suppose it isn't any more idiotic than any other scheme.

I think of life as a constant, man - sperm - fetus - baby - child - man - sperm.....etc (substitute woman and ova for the girls). It can't be said with reliability that there is a new start to life, just that it started a long time ago and is still going.

If this is the case then probability could be a good system, or brain development, or intellectual capacity - all mixed in with a good dose of descendant protectionism and squatters rights.

[Gitana]

Quote: all mixed in with a good dose of descendant protectionism and squatters rights.

:lol: Now THAT was a good one!

[RJJR]

The mere act of having sex implicitly gives the fetus/baby the right to use the mothers body as she knows full well that even with contraceptives the act of sex may result in a pregnancy.

An abortion is little more than someone who makes an agreement then decides to back out. (Except for rape and incest). It's not really a question about her body it's about her responsibility and obligations.

[Selfish_Meme]

There is no responsibility to cells.

[Gitana]

Quote: The mere act of having sex implicitly gives the fetus/baby the right to use the mothers body as she knows full well that even with contraceptives the act of sex may result in a pregnancy.

1. What meme said
2. One cannot enter into a contract with a non-being
3. Women are banned from having sex for pleasure unless it's to make a child....because contraceptive is not foolproof...?
4. Since it takes two to make a pregnancy, we'll have to outlaw all sex for females AND males ..except procreative, married heterosexual sex, of course. LOLOL

[Lumina]

Selfish_Meme wrote: There is no responsibility to cells.

Whatever gets you through the nights...is alright...is alright.

[RJJR]

Gitana wrote: Quote: The mere act of having sex implicitly gives the fetus/baby the right to use the mothers body as she knows full well that even with contraceptives the act of sex may result in a pregnancy.

1. What meme said
2. One cannot enter into a contract with a non-being
3. Women are banned from having sex for pleasure unless it's to make a child....because contraceptive is not foolproof...?
4. Since it takes two to make a pregnancy, we'll have to outlaw all sex for females AND males ..except procreative, married heterosexual sex, of course. LOLOL


How do you define a being? What does that mean? Are you saying that because the human being doesn't take the form you prefer it doesn't have the right to expect an agreement to be honored?

At what point in your opinion should it have this right? If for example a glob of cells was viable because of medical technology would it at that point obtain this magical "being" state you mention? If not when.

Comments 3 and 4 are reactionary and are irrelevant.

[johnshotme]

straw man wrote: CommiepinkoLefty wrote: ...All a fetus is up till the very late stages of development is an extension of her body. She should always be allowed to remove that extension unless it is capable of surviving outside (in which case it is a human).

If a fetus were just an extension of the mother's body, then it would have the same DNA. Every single cell in your body has your DNA.

The fetus actually has its own separate DNA independent of the mother. It has it's own brain, is metabolizing on its own and is a completely separate entity. It is it's OWN body which happens to live inside of its mother's body.

Just thought I would clear up that misconception.

I never thought of it that way. Great post

[Gitana]

Quote: It has it's own brain, is metabolizing on its own and is a completely separate entity. It is it's OWN body which happens to live inside of its mother's body.
So then you must not have any problem with very early abortion, when it is simply a microscopic clump of dividing cells, or with Plan B. That's reasonable.

Quote: If for example a glob of cells was viable because of medical technology would it at that point obtain this magical "being" state you mention?
If technology reached that level, than this wouldn't be an issue because the cells could be harvested and gestated to birth outside of the mothers body, under someone else's care, should she not want a child.

Quote: 3. Women are banned from having sex for pleasure unless it's to make a child....because contraceptive is not foolproof...?
4. Since it takes two to make a pregnancy, we'll have to outlaw all sex for females AND males ..except procreative, married heterosexual sex, of course. LOLOL

Comments 3 and 4 are reactionary and are irrelevant.
No, they were in direct response to:

Quote: as she knows full well that even with contraceptives the act of sex may result in a pregnancy.

With all the talk of responsibility thrown around by the prolifers, it's funny how they never mention the male's responsibility. But I have full confidence that if we continue towards a more dictator-like attitude towards fetal rights, it will become a serious legal consideration.

Sounds like the real problem lies with our unreliable contraceptives. How about putting some effort into that - which would eliminate the abortion issue completely?

[RJJR]

3. Women are banned from having sex for pleasure unless it's to make a child....because contraceptive is not foolproof...?
4. Since it takes two to make a pregnancy, we'll have to outlaw all sex for females AND males ..except procreative, married heterosexual sex, of course. LOLOL

Comments 3 and 4 are reactionary and are irrelevant.

No, they were in direct response to:

as she knows full well that even with contraceptives the act of sex may result in a pregnancy.
*************************************************************


I think you way off base here.

<b> What your saying is because a woman knows no contraceptive is 100% fool proof we should outlaw sex for everyone except pro creation.</b>

Pretty ridiculous comment don't you think?

If you expect males to be responsible for their actions, which I agree with, shouldn't they also be involved in the pregnancy portion of human life and their wishes taken into account?

Some women want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want a male to have any rights pre birth but expect them post birth to assume certain responsibilities.

You can not ignore the male on one hand and demand things from him on the other.

It may be her body but she does not have an absolute right to do with it as she pleases. This is well founded in our legal system.

[Lumina]

Gitana wrote:
With all the talk of responsibility thrown around by the prolifers, it's funny how they never mention the male's responsibility. But I have full confidence that if we continue towards a more dictator-like attitude towards fetal rights, it will become a serious legal consideration.

Sounds like the real problem lies with our unreliable contraceptives. How about putting some effort into that - which would eliminate the abortion issue completely?

I don't know where you get your information, Gitana, but those I know who are pro-life talk all the time about men taking responsibility. Very often, as you probably know, it's the male who pressures the female to abort (and very often, his family encourages this too).

Which contraceptives are truly unreliable if used correctly? (The only ones I know of that aren't are the cheap ones handed out by Planned Parenthood.) Far more problematic is the fact that, for whatever reason, contraceptives aren't used consistently or at all. Teenagers, in particular, tend to think they're ten feet tall and bulletproof--that just whatever will never happen to them.

Until it does.