Page 12 of 40 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
22
... LastLast
  1. #221
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Tota View Post
    Value is determined by that which is affected and capable of assigning value, not innate. If value were innate, there would be no need for YOU to declare value, everyone and thing would already value it.
    No, some people are just wrong. They don't understand that they value their own information, otherwise they wouldn't be alive; the almost identical information of other humans therefore has value to them, even if they don't value the individual due to confounding factors.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Halyon View Post
    That's assuming that all 3 inclinations are acted upon, with the purpose of becoming pregnant in the first place.
    No purpose is required. I'm talking about nature, not our bastardized cultural behaviors.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    No, some people are just wrong. They don't understand that they value their own information, otherwise they wouldn't be alive; the almost identical information of other humans therefore has value to them, even if they don't value the individual due to confounding factors.
    Just because you value being alive doesn't mean being alive is innately valuable. It just means you being alive affects you and you are capable of assigning value to you being alive.

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    No purpose is required. I'm talking about nature, not our bastardized cultural behaviors.
    So, as a biologist, I'm sure you also know that a lot of pregnancies don't even implant. By nature. We, as humans, have sex primarily as a bonding process, aside from reproduction. Certain groups of other animals do so as well.

    And our cultures evolve as they do because it's our nature. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't so. We are the highest evolved species on the planet. It happened naturally.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Genuine question. Neither side is anti-choice or anti-life, so how are the terms of the discussion framed in this manner? Shouldn't we be discussing pro-abortion against anti-abortion points in a real discussion?
    People aren't sane. Thats the issue. I think most people would agree that if the child had a soul, or whatever you want to call life, at birth that abortions would be wrong. Hell, most people are against partial birth abortions. Most people would also agree that people should do whatever they want to their body if they thought that the fetus was just a bunch of cells. There are a few nuts on both sides who would be outliers, but they are just that. The point is people can't really argue on the same level, as they are both trying to get the moral high ground.
    It's much easier to argue your point when you think the other side are dumb shits, so thats what you turn them into.

  5. #225
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Halyon View Post
    You brought up that teratomas had some innate value due to human DNA, but said value was off-set by the negative repercussions that it can bring about... It is not a direct moral argument for/against abortion, true, but it is implied.

    Let me enlighten you; Human DNA is only valuable because we say it is. Sentimental.

    I have nothing against you, or your personal opinion, but I most certainly don't agree with it, true.

    Also, no, nobody here are arguing for elective late term abortion, and using that argument is gonna paint you as dishonest mighty quick.
    I didn't imply anything. You assumed my position.

    Human DNA has value to humans because existence requires effort due to entropy. If you put effort into doing something, you value it. And we are not just flesh and blood; rather we are information. That information is encoded in our DNA, which is why is has value - because it's the source of our value, which is innately indicated by our existence.

    I was using late term abortion as an example of how my model is consistent with multiple different outcomes. Unlike you, I was not trying to paint the opposition. Although I would note, I'm on your damn side, for the most part. You're just being stubborn and refusing to add nuance to your argument.

    On that note, what exactly do you think my personal opinion is, and why do you disagree with it?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Halyon View Post
    So, as a biologist, I'm sure you also know that a lot of pregnancies don't even implant. By nature. We, as humans, have sex primarily as a bonding process, aside from reproduction. Certain groups of other animals do so as well.

    And our cultures evolve as they do because it's our nature. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't so. We are the highest evolved species on the planet. It happened naturally.
    Are you even reading my posts? Allow me to quote my own post, which is a mere 4 posts above yours:

    Sex is a social function, primarily. We wouldn't be as we are if it were just for reproduction.

  6. #226
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    As an actual biologist, I want to reiterate this point. By nature, humans are inclined to have sex 1-3 times per day in their able adult years. Females can become pregnant once every 9 months or so. Let's say an average of twice. That's 525 times within 9 months. A maximum of one sexual interaction will result in pregnancy. Therefore 99.8% of sexual interactions are non-reproductive.

    Sex is a social function, primarily. We wouldn't be as we are if it were just for reproduction.
    Further, the very idea that biology ever has a "purpose" is a fundamentally anti-science viewpoint, anyway. It's an assumption that presupposes that there's some design or purpose that biology works towards, which just isn't how biology works.

    But, as you underscored, even if there were a "purpose", for humans, sex is clearly not primarily reproductive.


  7. #227
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Further, the very idea that biology ever has a "purpose" is a fundamentally anti-science viewpoint, anyway. It's an assumption that presupposes that there's some design or purpose that biology works towards, which just isn't how biology works.

    But, as you underscored, even if there were a "purpose", for humans, sex is clearly not primarily reproductive.
    I agree with this, except with the distinction/caveat that there are behaviors that fall within an evolved range of acceptability. For example, humans did not evolve to live underwater, and therefore one could potentially extrapolate that humans were 'meant' to live on land - with purpose here being designated not as an active decision but as a passive ability.

  8. #228
    It's a dumb debate because one side is right as the other only has excuses as to why they want to deny women the ability to have an abortion. That's all it is, full stop.

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Sure, but if you're having a real conversation among friends on the topic, why would you use inaccurate branding to misrepresent the other side? Anti-abortion believes you have choice, but only as much as you have in committing any crime. Pro-abortion advocates don't really believe a fetus is the equivalent of a human life.

    I guess what I'm wondering is, whenever I hear someone say "we need an honest dialogue" and then uses this terminology that misrepresents each side, how honest and productive do we have a right to expect that dialogue to be?

    - - - Updated - - -



    But pro-abortion advocates don't see a fetus as the equivalent of a human life.
    If I don't believe you are a person, does that mean killing you is ok? The question of whether a fetus is considered alive or not is really the only one that matters when it comes to abortion. And it's a debate that can actually be scientifically tested, as long as there is an agreement about whether everyone can agree on the criteria. That of course, is the difficult part.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    A human life is not always valuable. Sometimes the value inherent in the fetus is eclipsed by the value that would be taken away by that fetus.
    are you also pro death penalty then? Just curious because your comment seems to lead towards that.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    I agree with this, except with the distinction/caveat that there are behaviors that fall within an evolved range of acceptability. For example, humans did not evolve to live underwater, and therefore one could potentially extrapolate that humans were 'meant' to live on land - with purpose here being designated not as an active decision but as a passive ability.
    No, that's just evolution. If life became harder on land then in water, humans, if left to their own devices, might evolve into living in water.

  11. #231
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by spanishninja View Post
    are you also pro death penalty then? Just curious because your comment seems to lead towards that.
    Yes, in some cases people incur debts to society that they cannot repay, and they also are at a great risk for incurring future debts.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tota View Post
    No, that's just evolution. If life became harder on land then in water, humans, if left to their own devices, might evolve into living in water.
    And in that case, one might say that humans are now 'meant' to live in water. This biological 'purpose' is valid, as long as it doesn't presuppose some sort of intelligent design.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Yes, in some cases people incur debts to society that they cannot repay, and they also are at a great risk for incurring future debts.
    gotta be careful with that argument because criminals actually did something wrong to deserve death as a punishment.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    I didn't imply anything. You assumed my position.

    Human DNA has value to humans because existence requires effort due to entropy. If you put effort into doing something, you value it. And we are not just flesh and blood; rather we are information. That information is encoded in our DNA, which is why is has value - because it's the source of our value, which is innately indicated by our existence.
    By bringing up that teratoma's have innate value by virtue of DNA type, like a fetus, you established a connection. By then saying that said teratoma's value by virtue of DNA type was off-set by the additional fact that it was a tumor, and they usually have negative impact on the afflicted person. Thus I brought up that there can alsy be distinct negative impact on a woman carrying the pregnancy, supporting right to abortion, if she doesn't want to keep it for whatever reason. Hell, even a wanted pregnancy can be forced into abortion depending on the circumstances. These are exceptions though. Wanting the abortion in the first place cannot be classed as such.

    That is why I viewed it as an implication.

    I was using late term abortion as an example of how my model is consistent with multiple different outcomes. Unlike you, I was not trying to paint the opposition. Although I would note, I'm on your damn side, for the most part. You're just being stubborn and refusing to add nuance to your argument.

    On that note, what exactly do you think my personal opinion is, and why do you disagree with it?
    How exactly is your model consistant? Other than people consistantly are against late trimester abortions? Aside from that, I think that your position ultimately is the same as mine, but with variations that I may not entirely understand or agree with, based on whatever factor, and thus I seek to challenge it. An opinion that cannot withstand scrutiny is not a good opinion. And yes, I am a stubborn mule, but I am not above changing my opinions if I weigh it and find it lacking in favor of something else. I have had my mind changed a fair few times because of these forums.

    Are you even reading my posts? Allow me to quote my own post, which is a mere 4 posts above yours:
    I only read replies atm. And you didn't reply to me with that. However, glad we agree on something.
    Last edited by Halyon; 2017-09-26 at 01:54 AM.

  14. #234
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by spanishninja View Post
    gotta be careful with that argument because criminals actually did something wrong to deserve death as a punishment.
    It's not about deserts, it's about reducing risk. Fetuses can pose such a risk, though I would never say they 'deserve' death for doing so.

  15. #235
    The Lightbringer Nurvus's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    3,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Tota View Post
    Unless a pregnant woman has given you permission to decide if she aborts her body's pregnancy or not, or you are pregnant and willing to allow someone else to decide for you if you abort your body's pregnancy or not, there is no legitimate debate to be had.
    It should always be the woman's choice what to do with her own body - there is no debate to be had where it comes to that.
    But a pregnancy involves TWO people, not one. If the child is going to have TWO parents, they must both have an equal say in it.
    So if the mother decides that the father has NO say in it because "her body, her rules", then it becomes her obligation alone.

    The real discussion should be where do we draw the line regarding where the father's obligation begins and ends, because there are many shades of gray between the black and white I described above.

    On one side, a man shouldn't be able to get a girl pregnant with the choice to either give birth or abort and potentially damage her body functions.
    On the other side, a girl shouldn't be able to convince a man that it's safe and then show up pregnant and demand the father to own it up.
    Last edited by Nurvus; 2017-09-26 at 02:02 AM.
    Why did you create a new thread? Use the search function and post in existing threads!
    Why did you necro a thread?

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurvus View Post
    a pregnancy involves TWO people...
    If you are a sperm owner, your decision begins and ends with "do I allow a uterus owner the gift of my sperm so they can decide if I become a parent or not?"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Leotheras the Blind View Post
    Look at the number of abortions in the US every year. You're not far off in saying genocide. Holocaust had a number of around 15 million over 12 years. Abortions in US alone in 12 years is around 8 million. The Holocaust is over, abortions aren't.
    The people already born can't figure out how to get along with each other, and you want 8 million more FORCEFULLY added to the fighting by enslaving uterus owners to continue gestating THEIR eggs at YOUR command? Man, and I thought I was morbid.
    Last edited by Total Crica; 2017-09-26 at 02:02 AM.

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Sormine View Post
    This is an excellent example of why Ben Shapiro is not a good authority in the abortion debate.


    I'm surprised he even wants to continue the abortion arguments after his first Q/A question where a girl asks him his position on the matter of women who are raped and how they should handle their pregnancies. He dives straight into Dodge-the-Question Mode and exclaims "We should just murder rapists! That's how I would solve unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape."
    He actually answered it after that statement, saying killing babies is still wrong and the only concession he would give to abortion is if it puts the mother's life in danger.

    You can debate when a fetus becomes a baby, but it's pretty subjective right now, which is why this debate is one of the more contentious, hard-to-solidify issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yeah, the hypocrisy of small-government conservatives. They want less government, until they want more government...
    Until it threatens lives of the unprotected, aka, the unborn.

    This is his view, but it's not hypocrisy at all. Advocating for smaller government =/= wanting no government involvement ever.

  18. #238
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Halyon View Post
    By bringing up that teratoma's have innate value by virtue of DNA type, like a fetus, you established a connection. By then saying that said teratoma's value by virtue of DNA type was off-set by the additional fact that it was a tumor, and they usually have negative impact on the afflicted person. Thus I brought up that there can alsy be distinct negative impact on a woman carrying the pregnancy, supporting right to abortion, if she doesn't want to keep it for whatever reason. Hell, even a wanted pregnancy can be forced into abortion depending on the circumstances. These are exceptions though. Wanting the abortion in the first place cannot be classed as such.

    That is why I viewed it as an implication.



    How exactly is your model consistant? Other than people consistantly are against late trimester abortions? Aside from that, I think that your position ultimately is the same as mine, but with variations that I may not entirely understand or agree with, based on whatever factor, and thus I seek to challenge it. An opinion that cannot withstand scrutiny is not a good opinion. And yes, I am a stubborn mule, but I am not above changing my opinions if I weigh it and find it lacking in favor of something else. I have had my mind changed a fair few times because of these forums.


    I only read replies atm. And you didn't reply to me with that. However, glad we agree on something.
    I stated truths. You made assumptions about how I was going to use those truths. That's all that's going on here. Let's move on, it happens to most people.

    I agree that opinions need to withstand scrutiny and I welcome scrutiny as long as it's logical. When I say my model is consistent with multiple different outcomes, I mean that it allows for some cases in which abortions are moral, and some cases in which they are immoral - both cases are built on the same principles, which is minimizing risk of value loss, a relatively utilitarian principle.

    Most people's arguments in the abortion debate are not clearly founded on logic. On the right, you have people who say fetuses should be valued because they are alive and human, but this is in conflict with many other ideas about the value of life that these same people hold. Whereas on the left, you have people who say that choice is all that matters, with a small list of exceptions and a glaring lack of moral principles to act as a foundation for those exceptions and decisions.


    ...for example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tota View Post
    If you are a sperm owner, your decision begins and ends with "do I allow a uterus owner the gift of my sperm so they can decide if I become a parent or not?"

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Genuine question. Neither side is anti-choice or anti-life, so how are the terms of the discussion framed in this manner? Shouldn't we be discussing pro-abortion against anti-abortion points in a real discussion?
    It's just advertising. Both sides know they're being dishonest about the whole discussion and want to ensure real debate never happens as it would expose them as generally ugly people.

  20. #240
    The Lightbringer Nurvus's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    3,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Tota View Post
    If you are a sperm owner, your decision begins and ends with "do I allow a uterus owner the gift of my sperm so they can decide if I become a parent or not?"
    The discussion about sperm donors demanding women to abort is next door.
    Why did you create a new thread? Use the search function and post in existing threads!
    Why did you necro a thread?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •