The voters have decided that flynSpaghettiMonster is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also by flynSpaghettiMonster
+24never abandon life, you can escape from almost anything except death, amirite? Also by flynSpaghettiMonster
+23you hate it when your wearing your favourite shirt and you accidentally flex your muscles, amirite?
I agree with this, but what else can you say? While "anti-abortion" suits "pro-lifers", what do "pro-choicers" get? Pro-abortion? That kind of makes it sound like they're endorsing getting abortions, but many see it as a last resort.
Pro oppression and pro baby killing. Somehow those sound worse.
Right, but what else would you call it? Aborters and Non-Aborters?
Pro abortion. Anti abortion.
People who don't care about the mother or baby vs. People who don't care about the baby vs. People who don't care about the mother.
Baby factories who aren't ready to give their new product to the world vs. Baby factories who believe every new product should be on the market by law.
I don't know where I was going with that.
Catchy.
"Aborters" doesn't work because it implies we encourage abortions rather than just saying it's an option.
Exactly. That's why I don't entirely agree with this. Most ways you spin it, it makes people who are pro-choice sound like the "bad guys."
I seriously thought pro-choice meant pro-youhavethisoptionjustincase. And I don't get why you'd have to be suicidal to not be pro-life (or was that an exaggeration and I'm just slow?).
Pro-life = for life, if you're not for life you're against it, i.e. suicidal. Yeah, it is kind of a stretch.
The opposite of pro-life would be against-life, meaning you want every baby to be killed (which might be the view of someone who is suicidal). He is saying that the term "pro-life" is inadequate in this respect, not that the pro-life stance is the only viable position.
They do make their side sound better, but I don't think think that makes them stupid or incorrect. In fact, the terms pretty much sum up the argument for each side. Pro-life people see themselves as protecting the life/rights of the babies. Pro-choice people believe that they are giving the mother autonomy over their body.
I do, however, think their should be some in between stance that argues abortion should be allowed only in cases where the mother's life is threatened. I don't want to completely restrict abortion, but I don't think it should be completely the mother's choice either.
Look, I'm sorry but it really irritates me when pro life people say abortion should be allowed in special circumstances, such as rape or if the mother's life is threatened. Coming from a pro-choicer, I can understand where you're coming from, but I just think a statement like that totally contradicts your entire stance on abortion.
"A life is sacred!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" oh except if it's a rape baby.Their lives are not sacred. "You have sex, deal with the consequences no matter what!!!!!!!!!" oh, except if the mother's life is in danger, then we can not deal with the consequences. If you're going to say that killing an innocent baby is cruel heartless murder then don't kill a baby, ever. No matter what the circumstances. Don't sit there and tell me all babies deserve to live but kill a few here and there because of the "situation". It just shows me that the only time you actually care about mother's well-being, physical or emotional, is when she is raped or in risk of death.
I can definitely understand what you're saying if the mother and the baby's life were at risk. But, there are many instances where the baby could plausibly survive even if the mother doesn't, such as when she dies giving birth. And, it's actually really common for people to say things like they would accept abortion only if the mother was raped.
And for the 2 people in the building thing, yes, what you're saying is definitely true, unless the basis of your argument for a long time was that somehow person 1 in the building was more important than person 2, which is basically the pro-life argument. You spend your entire argument telling me that no matter what, if you have sex, you deal with the consequences, then you have to accept that sometimes death is also a consequence.
It shouldn't even matter that the mother's life it at risk at that point, if you allow a performance of an abortion, it doesn't change the fact that a fetus is terminated, its "life is taken away" and it's "murdered". Once again, it just shows me that the only time the mother's needs actually matter is when there literally there is no fetus to worry about.
I don't understand how you can cut off the best, easiest choice for a 16 year old girl who lives in poverty, has tons and tons of dreams for her future, a deadbeat family, no place to live, no money, who just made a mistake and still tell me you "care for the mother" because you don't unless her life is on the line.
My point is the needs of the mother have to come first no matter what. It doesn't matter if she was raped, it doesn't matter if she's dying, it doesn't matter if she's perfectly fine. Her needs come first and I will always stay consistent with that. Her life matters to you but significantly less than the child she's carrying, and it is that way for all healthy mothers looking to abort. There's no care for her emotional well being. There's no financial help you're willing to give her. All that matters is her giving birth to a healthy baby and that's the end. But now you're just suddenly flip-flopping because there's no fetus to rally for anymore.
Well in my opinion, if I were pregnant without means to care for the baby, abortion would be the best solution for me short term and long term. This doesn't mean it wouldn't have emotional repercussions and I can't speak for all mothers, but I'm just going by what I feel. I don't want something that could be such a simple solution for me taken away because of morals.
How were they consistent? The basis is you would never abort a baby and terminate its life, but then go and say you would do it if the mother's life was on the line. I don't know how to say this without more accusations, but if both lives were equally important, why can't you see that if a mother made a thought out decision to have an abortion, her life would be probably better? But without the choice to have an abortion she would be limited to at least 9 months of unwilling pregnancy. No, there aren't any lives on the line and no one's dying, but that doesn't mean emotional trauma isn't there and a lot more so for the mother. That's why I think sometimes life is worse than death.
Just from my general knowledge I've noticed pro-lifers, although do probably care about the mothers, seem to put the life of the fetus above all else. And from my logic, the life of the fetus should then be put above everything, including death. But I can understand people make the exception when it comes to the mother's life, I just don't think it really fits into the argument.
None of them should have to die ideally. Abortion is simply choosing the lesser of two evils. It's all a matter of opinion which is the lesser, and I personally believe living a life of trauma is worse than death, of which you probably disagree with. I just think that since we have the solution to a problem, why are we restricting it, you know? Then you will probably retort with it's murder and an innocent life, which is why I don't think the abortion argument will ever be settled and neither side is right. It's just which opinion is the majority, and as for now, it's pro-choice.
I don't believe rape is a reason for abortion and I don't know why you think I do. My beliefs on abortion are rooted in morality of preserving life, not because I think abortion is "cruel heartless murder". If the mother's life is not in serious danger, then I care about preservation of the life of the baby. If the life of the mother is in serious danger, then I feel that the mother's life is as worth preserving as the baby's life. I do care about the mother's well-being, but I also care about the child's well-being. I don't see a contradiction with that. If you do, however, I would like to know.
I'm saying most people I know allow abortions for rape and life-threatening situations only. Oh, so you don't think abortion is murder? That's news to me. And exactly, if the mother's life is not in danger, you care about the fetus first, which appears to me that the only time a mother's life is actually important enough for your full concern is when her death is near.
I am not thrilled with the term murder because of the connotations. I do think abortion is taking a life without consent and I do think that it is wrong. And exactly, I don't think the mother should be the "full" concern except when her life is in danger. This is not because I do not care for her or because I think she is not important, but because I also care for the child.
Do you believe that the fetus is a human life? If not, then you either must argue against my position as if you think it is a human life or you must convince me that it is not a human life. Otherwise, I don't see how you can justify taking a life just because it is an inconvenience.
How about taking a patient off life support who had been in a coma for ten years?
I'm not completely sure of the relevance of this. But I don't think life is meant to be indefinite. If the patient has been on life support for ten years, and he still isn't recovered then I would say it is just his time to go. I would say more than adequate effort has been made to help him.
How about a few months? Or what if it was a child? I'll explain my thought process.
Truthfully, I don't know much about comatose patients. I would say it depends on the chances of the child waking up. I don't know if a few months is enough time to determine that or not. Is there such a thing as a comatose patient getting worse?
Of course I think it's living. It's obviously not dead, I mean the sperm and the egg were living cells. The fetus is living because its life never had a beginning, I guess. It didn't just appear from a dead thing.
I just don't think abortion needs consent. It's pretty logical for the mother to be in control in a situation like that, not the fetus. The fetus's rights are not supposed to override that of its mother. And, I believe a right of the mother is not being forced to give birth.
By "is a human life", I mean a life separate from the mother. If it is a human life separate from the mother, then it should have the rights given to a normal human being. It seems obvious to me that the only "right" that could possibly override someone's right to live is another person's right to live. So a fetus's right to live overrides the mother's right not to give birth.
Most pro-choice people I know argue that the fetus is not a separate human life. They see it like they see any other of the mother's cells. By this view the mother is no less wrong in an abortion than someone is in cutting away a tumor. If you see it this way, then you are justified in being pro-choice. If not, then address why I am wrong in the paragraph above.
I can't define life. I don't know when life starts. Whether it be conception, before or after, I really don't think it matters. I'm gonna sound cruel when I say this but why does that fetus have the "right to live"? It's already living. Is it necessarily a right for a fetus to grow up? Rights were made up by humans. No one really has "rights". It's only morality at play here. Having sex doesn't mean a person suddenly owes that fetus anything. Putting a sperm and an egg together doesn't mean a person is suddenly in debt and needs to pay the fetus life to get out of it. Life is a gift. Growing up is a gift. It is only given if the mother chooses it. If she decides not to, I don't see where there's a problem.
Do you think you have a right to live? If someone with a gun to your head doesn't want you, is he entitled to pull the trigger?
You say that you do not know when life starts, yet your argument shows that you believe life begins after birth. "Life is a gift. Growing up is a gift. It is given if the mother chooses it". Here you say that the mother gives life, meaning that the fetus does not yet have life. Thus, to you, life begins either at birth or when the mom makes the decision to keep the baby. This means you are justified in choosing pro-choice. If you believe, like I do, that life begins at conception, then abortion is no different than shooting a human you don't like.
My life is not a right. I really do not have the "right" given to me by the gods of the universe to live. I was given the privilege to live by my parents. Of course if someone held a gun to my head he'd be entitled to pull the trigger. Nature will not punish him. He will not suddenly die. Only humans will punish him because humans believe in morality.
The mother gives a fetus life, I don't see how that's disputable really. If a fetus doesn't exist, it's not living. Until the mother produces the egg, it's not living. But then again I don't really believe we have the power to determine when life begins. You can say life begins at conception and I can say life began as soon as the mother produced the egg but it doesn't matter because we're not God. The only thing here is morality, and I don't believe someone else's morals should restrict another's choice upon themselves.
And that just goes into the whole individual fetus thing. An abortion argument is never ending, and even though I'm a really passionate pro-choicer, I can say I completely wholeheartedly understand your opinion. I'll probably never change and neither will you but admittedly there are heavy flaws in both arguments.
Agreed. As defensive as I am about my personal beliefs, I am willing to accept almost anyone's view on abortion as long as they back it up correctly.
Some (if not many) pro-choicers believe that legalized abortion protects the lives of mothers.
Now what?
So if this baby needs its mother to suffer in order to survive, then the mother should be required to go through with it except for special circumstances. By that logic, if someone else needs your kidney or something to survive, you should be required by law to give it to them, correct? Either way you're damaging your own body to save someone else's life.
What you think are the implications of having sex should not affect the law.
If I knew someone who needed a kidney, I would probably give it to them. If I was a woman and I was pregnant, I might not get an abortion. In both cases, that would be my choice (hence the term pro-choice). Since I am not a woman, I will never make that choice, and since I am one person, I will definitely not make that choice for everyone. You seem to think you can.
If you stole someone's kidney, you harmed them. You have wronged them, and righting that wrong is only what a decent person is expected to do. If you got pregnant, you didn't harm the sperm and egg. You had sex, and as a result the 2 cells combined into one and began to multiply. Unless you're suggesting that getting pregnant is a sin, giving birth is a good thing to do, not an expectation.
I don't mean biologically expected, I mean morally expected.
Stealing someone's kidney is a sin, so giving them a replacement is an expectation. Giving someone a kidney without stealing one is a good deed, done out of the kindness of your heart, not because it's the law.
Killing someone is a sin, so sparing them is an expectation. Giving birth to someone is a good deed, done out of the kindness of your heart, and should not be the law.
Conception doesn't bring anything to life. Cells are alive too. The sperm and egg which came together were both alive. The stem cells they came from were alive. The embryonic cells they descended from were alive. The sperm and egg which came together to make that embryo were alive.
Based on how we treat other living things, there is no reason to treat a fetus's life as equal to our own except because of your own personal opinion.
If a living cell doesn't have the ingredients of life, then a cupcake doesn't have all the ingredients of cake. A cell grows, consumes energy, reproduces, and dies. If you believe that something magical happens through conception, that is your belief, and I have no right to challenge it. Just don't go around thinking that everyone else's beliefs are barbaric and should be outlawed.
"To each his own"
That completely contradicts pro-life, but it works for me.
Giving an organ has permanent if not fatal effects on the donor, while most mothers have a complete recovery from pregnancy. Here's a better example. I think if a dying man were to enter your home, you should be required by law to take care of him until he is safe, no matter how much it inconveniences you, unless such care threatens your own life.
Of course, the effects of having a child aren't permanent, they only last NINETEEN YEARS!
Also, giving birth is considered one of the most painful things a person can go through, and taking care of a dying man is only somewhat inconvenient.
If they don't want to commit to nineteen years, then they could put the child up for adoption. Also, I do realize realize that giving birth is very painful, but I do not think that pain justifies taking a child's life. Do you?
Right, that's what this world needs. More orphans.
And no, I don't think the pain justifies taking a child's life (although I've never given birth so that means nothing), but it does justify taking a fetus's life.
Animals have been killed for causing less pain that childbirth, or even because their fur looks cool. Why should fetuses get better treatment than organisms with feelings?
Your entire argument here rests upon the difference between a baby and a fetus. What is different between a baby in the womb a day before it is born and the baby right after it comes out? Is it not just a matter of location? I don't see a significant difference between them. But somehow you say one of them warrants life and the other is the equivalent of a tumor.
Also, you act like it is an horrible to be an orphan. Go ask an orphan if he wants to live. I bet he'll say that his life is worth living - even as an orphan.
The difference is, one has a consciousness. One has developed the ability to feel physical and emotional pain. The other hasn't. The difference between a baby and a fetus is the difference betwen a human and a tree, minus the DNA difference. It's still a significant difference. (Besides, nobody's talking about right before it's born)
I'm not saying that an orphan's life is completely terrible, and that they want to die. We're not talking about killing orphans; we're talking about preventing them from ever existing. I'm not saying it's way better to abort them, but nobody benefits from a large increase in orphans just because a few people think it's the right thing to do.
Uh I'm pretty sure that a foetus has just as much consciousness as anyone else. After it has a functional central nervous system that can facilitate this, of course. The difference between a baby and a foetus is time for development, nothing more. Location is secondary. Pregnancy is meant to last some 40 weeks but some babies are born as early as 23 weeks and some as late as 42. What makes a 23-week-old foetus less conscious than a 23-week preemie? Contact with air? The cessation of an immediate dependence on the mother? The compartmental fluid redistribution that occurs after birth? I don't think any of these actually affect consciousness in any way, and yet they all occur in the process of childbirth.
Consequently, the difference between a human and a tree is the DNA difference. But whatever.
You're making no sense.
Wikipedia defines consciousness as "the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts." A fetus doesn't have any knowledge of the world, nor does it have anything to interact with. The event you forgot to mention that occurs in childbirth is the baby is born. It is delivered into the world, opens its eyes, and begins to think and make connections between the mind and the world. At that point, it becomes a sentient life form with feelings, and to kill one would be a terrible crime. Until then, it is a part of a woman's body, and she has the right to remove it if she chooses.
Consciousness is not a quantitative variable. Either it has a consciousness or it doesn't. A person does. A fetus doesn't.
I'm making plenty of sense; you're just not understanding.
If a foetus were a part of a woman's body, they would have identical DNA. And if you're going to use Wikipedia's definition of consciousness, you need to appreciate that "the world with which it interacts" doesn't strictly have to mean the world we interact with; the foetus is in a world of its own for the duration of the pregnancy. Foetuses surely have feelings too; feelings wouldn't be conferred upon a foetus just because of its rite of passage through the vagina.
I understand what you're saying. I understand the words "Jewish people should be sent to concentration camps." That doesn't mean they're accurate.
"Foetuses surely have feelings"
If you're so sure of this, prove it. It seems incredibly unlikely if you ask me.
A tree isn't in a world of its own; it's in the same world as us. That doesn't mean it is sentient (If you have any desire to win this argument, don't try to argue that a tree is sentient).
Fine, it's not part of a woman's body. Neither is a tapeworm.
God why does everything have to be an argument with some people? Maybe if you were a bit more enlightened, you wouldn't have to concern yourself so much with trying to tell me what points I should and should not be trying to make. Your comparisons are also rather flawed, because you're trying to compare something I said with something incomparable.
Life has a certain spark that you can't recreate; though we might say that a person was born or died at a particular time, these are merely for official records, and nobody can really say with any specificity what time that spark actually started being or when it really went out. We associate a beating heart with life, but actually you don't need a beating heart to be alive. CPR can do that for you, as can a mechanical device. If you say that birth is when someone has feelings, and not the moment at which that spark comes to be, then you'd have to define that moment. Good luck.
You're right, you don't need a beating heart to be alive. Bacteria are alive as well. As I explained earlier in the thread, a person is technically alive long before conception. All cells come from pre-existing cells, so this "spark" when something becomes alive doesn't really occur. Whether or not something is alive is irrelevant. We do not treat other humans the way we treat spiders, but both are alive.
Yes, birth is the moment I specified earlier. Birth does not take place any earlier than when the baby is born. That has already been defined. If you say that birth is any earlier or later than the moment a mother gives birth, then you need the good luck more than I do.
Not everything has to be an argument, but an argument does. You're the one who decided to continue this thread. Now, if you would like to explain why my comparisons are flawed, you know where the reply button is. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.
No, I'm just telling you that you are wrong - because you are. You're so knee-deep in your own 'arguments' that you can't even see how bad they are, and you're missing my point - as usual.
The ambiguity of the spark is meant to show how fluid these 'defining moments' of birth and death are; you can't say that birth is the time that something is alive because a foetus can exist outside the womb after 23 weeks, and at this point it is called a baby just because it is no longer attached to its mother. A number of physiological changes occur when the baby is 'born', but the way the brain works isn't one of those changes; the baby/foetus is still able to process sensory inputs and derive from them what you or I would at the most basic of levels. The only real difference, other than age, is that memories influence perception and everything else that follows on from that.
Consciousness doesn't just mean whatever you think it means. Simply, it means to be alive - in the truest of senses. You can define it with all these fancy words that detract from that true meaning, but making up your own definitions doesn't change the true meaning of what it is to be what it is.
Consciousness means to be alive? Well then, I guess I shouldn't wash my hands ever again so I don't kill millions of sentient life forms. If you want to follow that advice, then be my guest. Also, I didn't make up that definition. Wikipedia did, and even they based it on another source.
I just said, birth isn't being alive. Trees aren't born, but they are alive. Even humans were alive long before they were born. I never said a fetus wasn't alive; I just said its life is not equal to a person's life.
The body doesn't change when one is born. The fetus looks like a baby several months before it's born. The brain works the same, too, but it doesn't have anything to process, so being born and opening your eyes for the first time is a very significant change. Why is 'born' in quotes? Birth is defined as when a mammal exits its mother's womb. There's no other way to define it.
Yes, memories influence perception. If you don't remember what it's like to be alive, you're not going to miss it, and you're not going to fear losing it. If a fetus is conscious, then what exactly do you think it's thinking about in the womb? How does it feel?
You're intentionally taking everything I'm saying out of context. Foetuses' brains process sensory inputs too...
Fetus's brains may be able to process sensory inputs, but they have no inputs to process.
No, I'm not taking everything you say out of context. I'm interpreting it literally based on the words you use. When a woman bears a child, that child is born. That's what birth is. How can you say it means anything else? As for consciousness, the definition I used is from Wikipedia, which got it from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If I misinterpreted anything, then please feel free to tell me how I should have interpreted it.
There is plenty of sensory input in the womb; the inside of a woman's vagina isn't a vacuum.
Because babies grow in vaginas.
Well the vagina communicates with the uterus, where the foetus does grow, and the vagina also communicates with the outside world... My point was that the place the foetus grows isn't completely void of all potential sensory stimuli.
Why does it matter if the fetus communicates with the outside world or has sensory input? So does a fly.
It matters because the person whose bandwagon it would seem you are jumping on made this statement a few comments up:
"The difference is, one has a consciousness. One has developed the ability to feel physical and emotional pain. The other hasn't. The difference between a baby and a fetus is the difference betwen a human and a tree, minus the DNA difference."
The fact that the foetus has sensory input means that it can feel physical pain. As for emotional pain, it's unlikely that anyone will ever have a definitive affirmation to that unless there is someone out there who remembers life as a foetus.
Just as a side note, the foetus doesn't communicate directly with the outside world because it is contained within the amniotic sac.
What kind of sensory input? What is in a womb that would require thought on a conscious level for a fetus?
Jeez figure it out for yourself. Do you really need to be spoon-fed everything?
No, but if you're telling me you know something which can prove me wrong, you should probably tell me what it is. Imagine if someone told you he could prove the Earth was flat, and when you asked him to prove it, he said "Jeez figure it out for yourself." Would you instantly agree with him? Would you go home and try to figure it out for yourself?
I'd read up on it, even if I was sure I already knew everything there is to know about it; now go, read. Learn something new.
Let's see my options:
1. I waste valuable time to go to a whole bunch of websites and read several books to find something of virtually no importance and which probably doesn't exist.
2. You tell me, using virtually no effort, and thus give yourself an opportunity to show off how smart you are.
3. You continue to refuse to back up your claims, and everyone who reads this will think you have no idea what you're talking about.
I find it funny how you don't even consider the possibility that it is you who looks as though they don't know what they are talking about. We've been over this before: my ego doesn't need stroking and I'm comfortable and secure about my penis size.
Of course I've considered the possibility, but whoever is reading this thread apparently agrees with me. You say you have evidence, you show me the evidence. Otherwise you lose. That's the way it works.
That's just the way you think it works. The world doesn't operate by your mantra - thankfully. As I've said many times before, I'm content with letting you figure things out for yourself. If the frustration of not having me yield to you doesn't overwhelm the thirst for knowledge, that is. And it wouldn't surprise me if you were upvoting your own comments; I can't imagine that many people are actually reading this far down the page on a weeks-old post.
I have surprised myself by not swallowing my own vomit when you accused me of logging out, finding this post, and voting on these just to lower your self-esteem. Believe it or not, I actually have things to do other than your ridiculous instructions or accusations. No, I did not vote on any of my own comments or yours.
You've completely given up on the idea of actually arguing the point, but you're still here. Any reason for this?
If you just vomited, that's a sign that you're way too into this. Step away from the computer. Go outside. Get some outdoor air into your lungs. And some sunlight on your skin. Sunlight is healthy for you - unless you're going to try and tell me that I'm wrong about that too.
I didn't vomit, but I felt like I was going to.
Seriously, why are you here on a controversial post if you're not going to argue?
Because life isn't about arguing. I saw your comment, noticed you said something wrong, corrected it, and now look where we are - you've taken it as a personal attack on you, your family, and your dog, you're making personal attacks against me just because I don't feel like stating something that to me is blindingly obvious (and was before I officially had the knowledge I have) and you are getting nauseous because of how stressful it is. Is your heart racing? Can you feel your head pulsating? Are you hyperventilating, sweating so much that you can barely type, feeling your stomach cramping up ever so slightly? If yes, stop now before you stroke out. This is most definitely not worth that.
Life isn't about arguing, but amirite is.
You have failed to correct this mistake that I suposedly made. Miserably.
If it is blindingly obvious, why is it easier to insult me than to simply explain it to me?
Your previous accusation was quite disgusting, but that wouldn't make me hyperventilate, or get a stroke. Your rationale for my exit from this thread is fictional, while mine is based on the nature of this website, your belief in my intelligence, and the assumption that you do not have ego issues.
I didn't even bother trying to make sense of that because I'm getting tired and you're mincing your words unnecessarily. This website is no more about arguing than a launderette.
Stroke can be caused by high blood pressure, which can be brought about by the stress/anxiety you experienced when I made my oh-so heinous 'accusations'. That would also explain the hyperventilation. One does not 'get' a stroke; it is something they experience, not something they catch.
If amirite isn't about arguing, then Facebook isn't about social networking, and Google isn't about finding things ont the internet.
Why is 'accusations' in quotes? I have already gotten over how low you would go, so implying that you actually believe what you said will not have any effect on my health.
Facebook isn't about social networking and Google isn't about finding things on the Internet; both are about making money. But I'm merely mocking. Amirite isn't about arguing; you've just taken it upon yourself to argue every inane point you can find to the death by combining words together in the most terrible of ways. I don't even understand the last sentence of the comment this is in response to, nor do I care.
You've been arguing with yourself. I've just been procrastinating.
I didn't expect you to admit you had ego issues. Nobody ever does.
And your proof for that statement?
I was exaggerating. Of course some people could admit they have ego issues. You apparently aren't one of them. As for my first statement, you will find it difficult to disprove that I wasn't expecting something.
You most definitely don't speak for me.
I said apparently.
Say that you have ego issues, then.
I'm not a performing monkey.
That I don't deny. No matter how hard I try, I can't imagine you performing. Of course it doesn't help that I don't know anything about you.
I don't speak for you, but it seems like I was pretty accurate.
Will explaining the emotional range and mental abilities of a fetus really damage your ego so much? You claim you don't have ego issues.
"it seems like I was pretty accurate"
Again, you don't speak for me so don't be so presumptuous. I have no ego issues relating to this, and it is for that reason that I don't feel compelled to share with you what, as I have stated numerous times, should be obvious. Imagine you're sat in a ball of water for forty weeks. It's hardly rocket science. You'll probably manage it eventually.
You're changing the goalposts now; before it was just about consciousness, and then it somehow moved onto emotional and physical pain, and now it's about mental abilities. Next you'll be disputing the ability of a foetus to go to college and get a degree.
Consciousness is a mental ability. Surely you're not going to deny that.
If I was asleep and sitting in a ball of water for 40 weeks, and I had nothing to think or dream about, then... no, I can't imagine what would happen. It would take less effort to explain this than it has taken you to write any one of these replies.
Saying something is obvious doesn't help. If you were taking a test and your teacher kept saying "The answer to question 3 is really obvious," I don't think you would get the answer any sooner.
I don't even care. I honestly don't. I think that you are pathetic for actually taking this as seriously as you do. This is the Internet! You have a wealth of knowledge at your disposal and numerous websites that allow you to access it. All you have to do is search, and yet you return here and pound on and on and on, and for what? You know I won't deliver to you what you wish because that would be too simple, and doing so would only mean that you would find a hole somewhere or something else to try and pick apart with your flawed knowledge and your flawed logic. No, no more. Google the answers you seek because you aren't getting them from me - that is final, and you already know this.
Because I can't be bothered and I wouldn't want to fuel the 'argument' with more 'flawed' truths. If you can't be bothered to read stuff that you have actually found, why should I bother to spoon-feed you?
Also, if I'm wasting your time, then fuck off. Don't whinge about it to me because I'm not forcing you to read my comments.
If you don't want to be in an argument, then fuck off. Don't whinge about it to me because I'm not forcing you to argue.
It's funny how you think you can complain about this thread but I can't.
Actually, it's not funny. It's just sad.
I don't know what you mean by "as usual." I understood everything you said perfectly until you started talking about this mystical "spark." Believe it or not, just because someone can read your comments and understand your points doesn't mean they will immediately be brainwashed into agreeing with them.
Nobody's telling you to be brainwashed by what anyone is saying, but it wouldn't kill you to actually know stuff every once in a while either.
I've no need; you're doing that plenty fine by yourself.
I don't need to; you're doing that plenty fine all by yourself.
I don't need to; you're doing that plenty fine all by yourself.
I hadn't noticed you deleted it in the first place, but do you need that badly to feel as though you're in control?
You have yet to prove that I don't "know stuff."
As I've already said four times (before you deleted my previous comments), you're proving me correct all by yourself. Otherwise, I invite you to offer us your credentials. Surprise me; are you hiding a PhD in embryology or an MD behind that handle somewhere?
If you have a PhD in embryology, then how is it that you can't do something so simple as telling me why I'm wrong about an abortion debate?
If you don't, then you're just being stupid.
I hope when you made your previous comment that you didn't actually expect me to know EVERYTHING. That would simply be stupid. If you actually knew everything:
-you wouldn't accuse me of anonymously voting on this thread.
-you would have better things to do than argue on the internet.
-you wouldn't expect other people to know everything.
-you could easily prove you know more than I do.
Since you don't know everything, you have no right to insult others for not knowing things. You should at least be able to tell me what you know and I don't know.
This is all dependent on my having a PhD in embryology, yes? Then, on that front, I am safe.
No. Your inability to explain what you claim to know for a fact would only be slightly worsened by your hypothetical PhD. It would be extremely tragic if you knew everything, though. If you don't have a PhD in embryology, it is ridiculous to expect that I would.
It's not ridiculous at all. What is ridiculous is that you think it is ridiculous. You clearly have strong feelings on this matter that are influencing your ability to be reasoned with, and so it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that you are an expert in the field. However, your reply tells me that this is not the case, and I will assume the same is true of the MD and any other degree that would suggest you actually had a working knowledge of these things.
I said in my About Me, I'm not going to do a great deal of research for an amirite argument, so tell me any more accurate information you have and I may change my mind.
If it were this obvious, there wouldn't be a pro-choice argument. Someone like you would have made a speech or posted some really popular YouTube video explaining why abortion is wrong. Pro-choice would quickly become pointless because all self-respecting people who heard your argument would agree with you, thus defeating the idea of pro-choice. The fact is, there is still a large population of pro-choice, so we must assume your potential argument is not as obvious as you think it is.
This isn't an argument. You just think it is. You speak here at great length about something you have now inadvertently admitted to knowing virtually nothing about. You also continue to make assumptions about me that are incorrect. You're trying to argue fact with your own interpretation of the world. Man, get some perspective.
For God knows what time now, you're proving yourself wrong. Get a life.
But it's not like that's the kind of thing that happens all the time. It's not really a reasonable expectation to have. What if the mother has other children to care for? How can you judge a mother in that situation? That must be an awful position to be in, and it's not anyone else's place to judge.
That's a huge abortion argument.