Can this guy get any dumber? As it turns out, yes.

[nemafakei]

"My post above specifically addressed "Nema's point".  He is crying "ignore" because he didnt like the response"

The post you quoted is a reply to my posting, not the actual point I was making: The response would have been fine if I had been saying something else. In this post, you made the same mistake of dividing up Leto's into minutia (to use your word), and quoting my post without understanding what I was criticising. I appreciate that I'm making subtle distinctions, but only because my first post was intended as a subtle hint to observe the subtler points of Leto's post (which was in of itself that the issue is not straightforward), and take insubtantial comments in your stride.

I try to be helpful and point out what seems an oversight on your part... perhaps I'd get a more friendly response if I was actually adversarial...

[Wolf]

My head hurts. Nema, just tell us exactly what it was that Gunwounds overlooked. Just rewrite it, however you want to, but there's been too much back and forth for me to find the original thing. Just say, Gunwounds ignored X, and we can start over. And there will be no pain.

[Edric O]

I will join the abortion debate in a moment. But first, I want to reply to Gunwounds's most recent post addressed to me:

Edrico i have no problem with your logic or your assumptions.... they are all very reasonable.

However I do not like how you only look at it from one side.  Its like you cant imagine Saddam having weapons or ever using them.  You need to be open minded.

Of course I can imagine Saddam having WMD's and using them. But so far, this remains purely a matter of imagination, because Saddam did not use any WMD's, and no stockpiles have been found. And we need to be rational when judging Saddam. He may be a bloody dictator, but he appears to be a bloody dictator without weapons of mass destruction. That is simply what the facts show.

You see..... I am well aware that there could be no weapons.... and i am aware that there could be weapons....  I lean more to them having weapons due to the fact that we supplied them with weapons.  And i also believe that Saddam never thought he would lose... i believe he hid the weapons and would dig them back up after this war blew over.

I believe he thought this would just be another Desert Storm.

But there is a possibility that he sold off all the weapons he had or destroyed them... so yes i see where you are coming from.  BUt I think he is far too prideful and arrogant to have done such a thing.

Sure, all those things are possible, but don't confuse mere possibilities with actual reality. Saddam may be prideful and arrogrant (and stupid enough to believe he could actually survive the war), or he may not be. The fact is that we simply don't know. Any theory regarding Saddam's thoughts and feelings is just a wild guess.

Saddam has to be presumed innocent of WMD charges unless someone can come up with evidence to the contrary - and so far, no one has been able to do that.

Also ... about the innocent until proven guilty thing...... he gassed his Kurds already didnt he?...  well for me he lost his innocence a long time ago... he showed that he had weapons and he showed that he would use them.  He also attacked Kuwait..... He also shot Scud missiles at Israel.

He also defied UN resolutions for 12 years....

Yes we presume innocent until proven guilty but he lost his innocence long ago.

We're not talking about "innocence" as in the innocence and naivet

[Edric O]

Now I'll move on to the issue of abortion.

Abortion is one of the few issues that I never had a strong opinion on. Usually, I saw merits in the arguments of both sides, and kept my neutrality. From time to time, I cautiously joined one side or the other, slipping back into neutrality soon thereafter.

I used to be neutral in recent times, but, after reading this topic, I was once again drawn to join a side. Wolfwiz and Gunwounds have presented solid arguments, and they have convinced me. So I've joined the pro-life camp.

I'll begin by admonishing some of the pro-choicers who posted in this topic. Guys, for the most part, you've made complete fools out of yourselves. Abortion as a means of sparing the child from a life of suffering? Abortion for the poor?? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ******* MINDS? You call yourselves liberals? You sound like the social darwinistic conservatives of the 19th century! You don't help the poor by killing them, or by not allowing them to live! You help the poor by eradicating poverty! You help the poor through welfare and social programs! You help the poor with free education and free healthcare!

If poor parents can't afford to support their children, then the left-wing thing to do is to take action so that they CAN afford to support their children - not to give them abortions!

NO abortions should take place because the parents can't afford to put food on the table for their children!

Again I ask, what kind of liberals are you? If the conservatives and other assorted right-wing nuts are hacking away at the welfare state, destroying social programs and making the lives of state-supported children more and more miserable, your solution is to reduce the number of children?? That's the kind of "solution" a right-winger would offer! "Sorry, we can't give up our brand new luxury yacht and private tropical island, so you'll just have to tell the poor to stop breeding or starve." Get a grip! The only real solution is to fight the Right, win back social programs, and give those poor children a decent life in state institutions - and the chance to make something of themselves and become productive members of society after they grow up.

As for the overpopulation problem, that's what we have contraception for. I can't believe you can even consider recommending abortion as "population control". Are you really intent on copying every insane policy of the 19th century Far Right?

I usually respect both points of view on the abortion issue, but you seem to be supporting abortion for all the wrong reasons.

*takes a deep breath*

Ok... in addition to that, there are certain specific points (not so much related to abortion) that I want to answer to:

For you guys who are clueless ... let me fill you in... the more kids you have.. the more welfare checks you get .. the more food stamps you get.. the more vouchers you get.

it is actually better to have more children and be considered "poor" because you get way more handouts.

That's because the more kids you have, the more money (and time) you NEED in order to raise them. If you have more children to feed, of course you need more food. It's not as if you're getting money for your own personal spending.

And if you've ever taken care of a baby, you'd know that it's exhausting and time-consuming. Even with all the money in the world, having more children than you can handle is not better.

Aside from all the free stuff i mentioned on the previous page.... poor families also get free FINANCIAL AID for college.  thats right they get a free ride thru college.  Yep free tuition and housing and meals paid for.

College should be free for EVERYONE. Education is a basic human right that should be granted to all - rich, poor and middle class - regardless of any financial considerations. All education should be free, and students should be admitted to college based exclusively on their intellectual achievements.

[GUNWOUNDS]

That's because the more kids you have, the more money (and time) you NEED in order to raise them. If you have more children to feed, of course you need more food. It's not as if you're getting money for your own personal spending.

And if you've ever taken care of a baby, you'd know that it's exhausting and time-consuming. Even with all the money in the world, having more children than you can handle is not better.

College should be free for EVERYONE. Education is a basic human right that should be granted to all - rich, poor and middle class - regardless of any financial considerations. All education should be free, and students should be admitted to college based exclusively on their intellectual achievements.

1.) Yes i agree, and i was stating that if you are gonna be poor.... the state helps you out more if you have a larger family.... so theoretically a poor single hobo on the street gets far less help from the state than a single mother of 4 children.

[Acriku]

My take on the debate is that a woman's body is her own right, not the government's. I don't like the thought of abortion, but then again I also don't like sexual predators walking the streets yet it is their right to. Also, abortion to me is just like contraception, just at a later time. Which is why a lot of conservatives are trying to ban contraceptives as well as abortion.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Which is why a lot of conservatives are trying to ban contraceptives as well as abortion.

errrmm .....i thought the conservatives only want to control how contraceptives are distributed to "children" in school... not the total ban of it.

[Wolf]

The problem with that assertion, Acriku, is that it is ambiguous as to whether or not the fetus is part of the woman's body in the strictest sense. The fetus has a different DNA pattern and genetic code than that of the mother. In criminal forensics, we would use this test to say that these are different people. The fetus is not simply an extension of the mother's body. We do not consider individuals on life support technology to be part of machines, do we? A fetus is a developing, unconcsious human being on biological life support technology. Even if you believe, fervently, that the fetus is part of the woman's body it will not always be this way. At a later date, the fetus will most assuredly be the body of another human being. Are you not depriving it of its "freedom of choice" by killing it before it was born?

Which brings me to Edric's eloquent point. If poor women are pregnant, is the solution not to provide government funding and aid? If the argument is that a baby will be born poor and it is better aborted, shouldn't the solution be welfare? Killing poor people before they are born seems unreasonable to me.

I cannot agree with an argument that tells me a fetus is not alive until birth, either. Because a moment before and a moment after birth, the fetus is physically identical, and yet I am told one is alive and the other is <blank>. Which brings me to the quesiton, if a fetus isn't alive until birth, what is it?

[Acriku]

errrmm .....i thought the conservatives only want to control how contraceptives are distributed to "children" in school... not the total ban of it.

[Wolf]

I hate the quote-and-rip-process, so dehumanizing.

When the sperm enters the egg and becomes fertilized, that has a different DNA pattern and genetic code as well. But that doesn't mean that it is a person, or that we have an inherent obligation to protect it despite the mother's intentions. Also, once fertilization is complete there still isn't the guarantee that it will become a living person outside of the mother's body.

There is no guarantee of anything, if you want to dig that deep. However, there is a reasonable possbility of this entity becoming a separate human being, and to destroy that entity -- whatever it is -- before it reaches your arbitrary point of becoming "human" is to nonetheless deprive a human being of his freedom of choice before he even has the chance to defend himself. I don't care if you think it's human or not at point X or point Y, the issue is that it will certainly become human beyond reasonable doubt in the future -- soon in the future, as well, 9 months is not that long a time.

This is a bad analogy because the process of fertilization and maturity growth of the fertilized egg is much more involved than simple machines hooked up to a person. Is a woman's egg not part of herself?

Yes, but the fetus is no longer a woman's egg. It is a separately developing organism dependant on the woman for life support. Asking me if the woman's egg is part of herself is nice, but has no bearing on this argument, since the fetus is no longer just the egg.

This can only be true in the later stages of maturity, by which time the fetus is very rarely aborted.

Right, which is why I understand they passed the partial-birth abortion ban? The problem is that these early stages are still ambiguous with regard to the development of the fetus. Babies have been born months prematurely -- are they still not human because they might not have passed the point of no return?

Neither will the woman's egg, but just as there is no guarantee that the egg will fertilize, there is no guarantee that the fetus will become a living person outside of the mother's body.

Think about the logic of this following argument, but bear in mind the following. There's no guarantee of anything if we really want to go that far, and of course we could, until all arguments are meaningless.

The point of the matter is that the fetus, by design, is developing into a human being. 999 times out of 1000, this is what happens, and a new human exists. Beyond any real reasonable doubt, fetii become human beings. Now, if a reasonable doubt that this will happen exists, there is probably a medical necessity for an abortion -- you follow? So, if there is ever an instance where the baby will probably not survive birth and endanger the mother, there should be an abortion -- I agreed to this earlier. However, if there is no reasonable doubt that the baby will be born, there should be no abortion, and my argument that this is depriving another human being of his freedom of choice before he is even born still stands.

At the cost of depriving the woman of its "freedom of choice?" Those are your choice of words, not mine.

I find the destruction of a human being before she is even born -- thus depriving her of an enternity of freedoms -- a more horrible act than "depriving a mother her freedom of choice" for a grand total of 9 months because of an act that, 9 times out of 10, she incurred herself. I agreed to the whole "wah, wah, rape, murder, mayhem" bit, so no need to bring that up.

I didn't make this argument and I'm not going to, it isn't sufficient to me.

What does that mean?

A fetus is alive in the same aspect that billions of cells in my body are alive. That's how I see it anyhow.

That's cool. The problem is that a lot of other people see it as another living human entity. The other problem that makes this problem a problem for you is the fact that the definition of human with regard to the fetus is ambiguous.

Now, I want to say this right now. The "quote and rip" approach to these arguments REALLY PISSES ME OFF. I'd rather we'd just number the major points and debate those. Not only is that simpler, easier, but that focuses on the argument, while this "quote and rip" approach focuses on the wording a particular author used to make his points, and often takes away from the meaning of the argument.

That, and I find it to be simply rude and irritating.

[Acriku]

I disagree that it is as certain as you describe. In which case, I would ask you when the cutoff point is between the egg and the newborn baby that it becomes a person. After all, if you don't consider the fertilized egg to be a person, then you aren't denying the person's inherent right to live (given only by our system of law). As such, where would you consider it to first become a person so that you can give it that right to live?

And could you define fetus as you like to throw it around for your convenience?

Where did you find the statistic that a fetus will become a human being (person is a more appropriate word) 999 times out of 10? As I recall miscarriages happen quite often.

I also disagree with this assertion that there is no reasonable doubt that a fetus will become a human being, and will humbly ask for supporting evidence and what your scale of reasonable doubt lays upon.

Finally, your opinions are just that, opinions. I don't like abortion either as I've said in the beginning, but I don't like many things. I don't force my opinions on other people while choosing how they live their life, as one would do when attempting to ban abortion completely.

By the way, I started debating using the quoting and didn't see anything wrong with it then and I still don't now as I have the habit of making arguments within arguments that requires the quoting process. But whatever floats your boat.

[GUNWOUNDS]

found some interesting miscarriage statistics...

1-2 weeks of gestation....(You do not know you are pregnant)

75% miscarriage

(this includes eggs that never grow past fertilization, and it would have been impossible to know you were pregnant.

After implantation, which occurs 7-10 days after ovulation, the odds go down to 31%

3-6 weeks gestation

10% miscarriage

(after home urine test is positive at 14 days post ovulation when hCG levels reach 50-80)

6-12 weeks gestation

5%

[Acriku]

Thanks for the stats GUNWOUNDS, and it'd be interesting to find out what these statistics (which I can't find the source of) refer to as normal, healthy women.

[Dunenewt]

What's a trimester?

[nemafakei]

Three month period.

Semester is six months, and so on.

[Wolf]

total: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births for the United States

That's the current infant mortality rate, so, right now, 993.37 out of 1000 times, the baby becomes a human being. Courtesy of the CIA World Factbook. I was close. I think this [that there is little doubt] is a reasonable enough assertion.

Fetus; a fertilized egg. You see, I have a severe problem with arbitrarily assigning the status of "human" to the fetus at any point after conception, because it could be easily argued one way or the other. The fact remains that the fertilized egg has a different genetic structure than that of its mother -- a complete human DNA pattern. Sperm alone, or egg alone, do not have this unique DNA pattern, and therefore the argument that "Oh!!!!! WE SHOULD CALL THEM HUMAN THEN?!" does not apply.

If you read what I said above, I said that conception was the single most distinctive point of change during the fetus' development. It is the beginning of development.

That's right, Crixy, my opinions are opinions. And I love it when people remind me about that. So, my opinions are wrong by virtue of the fact that they are my opinions, or what? Or, do you think that by reminding me that my opinions are opinions, that what I say might not necessarily be a good argument because you have nothing better to say? What are you trying to say by telling me that my opinions are my opinions?

Even then, you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say that I wanted a ban on abortion? Abortions for medical necessity were deemend alright, and I have even been open to the idea of abortions for situations in which the mother had no choice in whether or not to become pregnant. However, if there is no reasonable doubt that the fetus will live, and the mother had the choice to become pregnant, I can see no real justification for depriving a human being of their freedom of choice for their entire lives.

EDIT: Nevermind, the argument here was dumb. It has been deleted.

[exatreide]

Actully your wrong..A fetus isn't a fertilized egg..

Its a zygot..

y

[DukeLeto]

To all the anti-choice...excuse me, "pro-life" people:

[Wolf]

"Hell, did you ever consider that your god might have designed it that way for a reason?

[exatreide]

I did it! I finaly did it! Yay! Yay! :)

[Wolf]

Well, almost, Rookie. I have to think about it, now. First of all, I can't let you get off that easy, second of all, I have to see whether or not I can actually understand/accept/believe the new point of view that you have presented. It's a process.

So, let me talk off the top of head for a little. It'll let me cool off the steam. Yeah. I'm pissed.

I'm still inclined to say that it doesn't matter what stage of development the whatever-y'all-want-to-call-it is, because it will most certainly develop into a human being.

(holds up hands to stall the deluge of protestation)

Hold on, now, let me explain myself. Not all fetii will become babies, right? Right, but look at my logic here. If a baby isn't going to manage even being born, then it should be aborted under the medical necessity clause, right? So, this figure -- 993.37 births out of 1000 -- now becomes 1000 out of 1000, because we discount the babies that would have died anyway, because we're allowing them to have abortions. You follow what I meant? So, if we allow the medical necessity abortions, then that means that 100% of the fetii that remain are fetii that definately will be born. And since I know you won't dare go after a baby a moment after it pops out of its mother, that's as far as the babies need to make it.

Right. So, that being said, no matter what stage of development the thingy is at, it's still going to become a human being. Now, this logic seems pretty sound to me. I'm sure there are some objections to it, and I might even answer them, too. Right now, I can think of, "What about babies who died at birth, or had some unforseen complication?" That's a tough one, we'll have to talk about it.

Oh, and I'm also thinking that cases in which the woman had no choice of whether or not to become pregnant (rape, she was under-age, etc.), are also abortion-worthy.

What I think is funny is that I've said stuff like this all along, right? I've been mixing the ideas of both sides to come up with something that's coherent. Gunwounds praises my efforts while the other side does their damndest to make me regret it. And they're the ones who call him a barbarian. Apparently there still might be something to be said for conservative decency.

*The above post is dedicated to scar5150, for helping me to put the gloves back on and go back into the ring. Thanks.

[thomas]

would it be plausible to say one is human when they become self-aware?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Fun Fact:

In the Netherlands the abortion rate is the lowest of any country reported in a world survey.

[nemafakei]

The euthanasia rate went down after they legalised it, too.

[exatreide]

As did the abuse of hard drugs once marjiuana was made legel.. ;)