|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 09, 2009 01:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That means, whatever you do, you kill potential.
No, you do it only when you take deliberate action to kill it (aka taking pills or aborting).
Quote:
However, if something is promoted from potential to reality, there is a status change.
Yes, but the intention is the same, and the effect is the same, so why is one thing justified and encouraged and the other - called a crime?
Killing unwished for potential is what makes humans humans, isn't it? Potential life doesn't equal life. We don't live in a potential world - just think about the eggs and the sperms that could potentially create life, but don't. Potential doesn't count. If it WOULD count, the reason why wouldn't matter as soon it was intentional. Whether I would have no sex or safe sex the intention was the same and the result was the same (I think Corribus pointed that already out as well).
And, yes, I agree that it is important to determine the moment when potential life becomes factual life, IF you argue on the foundation that every taking of factual life is murder which a lot of people do. That does make things more complicated
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 01:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because the fetus is violating her rights by being there against her will.
Don't blame the fetus for being in her womb. The fetus is where she put him. The "natural habitat" of the fetus is the womb. If he is forcibly removed from his natural habitat it is a violation of his rights.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 01:51 PM |
|
|
JJ: But it's not "potential sex". It's sex. Something that already happened. Pregnancy doesn't have 0,00000001% chance to occur. Even if the chance is around 20%, at certain point you can be pretty sure you would have a kid if you weren't using contraception.
You can also reverse that logic you seem to be using and say abortion also cancels POTENTIAL birth (there is always an option of natural miscarry and stuff...). To think of it, it's true. You'd probably use that percentage argument which I already covered (that chance of getting impregnated is lower than chance of succesful birth and stuff), which is bad by default when you use big numbers, as I already said.. 
The point is: I'm not talking about "what ifs" (that's what Corribus and JJ both seem to think I do  ). I'm talking about something that already took place. As I mentioned before, there are pills who work by causing super-fast abortion. The funny part is that some people aren't really aware of how the pills they take work: they take sort-of-abortion pills and call people who had an abortion in clinic criminals. That's what I'm against - it's ironic at best.
I fear a strong definition of the moment we can call life "life" is impossible. There would be always people who would say the opposite. It's not really something you can determine, it's a matter of convention, and conventions always have those who don't agree with them.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ: But it's not "potential sex". It's sex. Something that already happened. Pregnancy doesn't have 0,00000001% chance to occur. Even if the chance is around 20%, at certain point you can be pretty sure you would have a kid if you weren't using contraception.
Nope, it's not the sex - you can have sex in any of a million ways without there will ever be any chance of a sperm and an egg meet. Sex is not the question.
Quote:
You can also reverse that logic you seem to be using and say abortion also cancels POTENTIAL birth (there is always an option of natural miscarry and stuff...). To think of it, it's true. You'd probably use that percentage argument which I already covered (that chance of getting impregnated is lower than chance of succesful birth and stuff), which is bad by default when you use big numbers, as I already said..
Nah. That would be like saying you condem a murderer because of the potential of life the murderer took - and in that case it would make a big difference whether you killed a 20-year-old or a sixty-year old and whether you killed an artist or a homeless. That's not the way we see things, Doom.
Quote:
The point is: I'm not talking about "what ifs" (that's what Corribus and JJ both seem to think I do ). I'm talking about something that already took place. As I mentioned before, there are pills who work by causing super-fast abortion. The funny part is that some people aren't really aware of how the pills they take work: they take sort-of-abortion pills and call people who had an abortion in clinic criminals. That's what I'm against - it's ironic at best.
That's why I said, if you argue on the foundation of life versus potential it's important to determine when potential changes to factual life, which is actually what most people try to do as best as they can - with "best" depending on other things. There are different opinions there.
Of course you don't HAVE to argue on that foundation. There are other positions as well.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 04:27 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:29, 09 Jul 2009.
|
@Doom: The difference between potential life and abortion is that . It's not hypocrisy because building a house to tear it down wastes resources, money, whatever. In the case with abortion, it "wastes" life (that already begun), not simply avoids the 'potential' one.
There is a big difference, in terms of material stuff (since a house is material anyway, obviously, for the analogy) whether you don't build a house or tear it halfway through.
However, let's say, if you do "gamble" and make an accident and build the house somehow, in my opinion, that's not an excuse. Since you were gambling willingly (=having sex), you can't tear it down and expect your money back because "it was an accident" willing (it's like drunk driving and then saying 'it was an accident').
In the case of the fetus, I would charge it with some kind of murder. (of course in the case of rape, the charge would be put on the rapist!). If the man is the one who forces her into abortion, then again, the charge is on the man.
@mvass: why would it matter what he was before? What if a baby is born in a coma for some reason (just example) and he is going to wake up in 1 year?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
why would it matter what he was before?
Bec use society is made up of individuals, and designed to protect those who are part of it.
Quote:
What if a baby is born in a coma for some reason (just example) and he is going to wake up in 1 year?
Since this is an abnormality, it should not be allowed to be killed. We make general rules.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 07:22 PM |
|
|
What has his past got to do with anything, I can't see. How does he protect society more if he has a past of being alive... 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 07:30 PM |
|
|
He's not protecting society - society is protecting him.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 07:49 PM |
|
|
Yeah whatever, doesn't change it. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 08:00 PM |
|
|
Since the cells of a fetus are multiplying one can hardly refer to a fetus as "potential life." The cells of dead things don't multiply.
Since the cells of a fetus have unique human DNA the fetus is not only a life but a human life. The DNA is different from the DNA of the mother so in no way can the fetus be considered a part of the mother.
The fetus is a human life living in the mother. It is natural for the fetus to live in the mother during that stage of human life. Eventually the fetus will be born and enter a new stage of the human life cycle.
Obviously during the stage of the human life cycle where the fetus lives inside his mother he is completely dependant on his mother. That is natural. That does not make the fetus "not human" or "not life." During this stage of life the fetus is fed directly from the body of the mother and he is protected by the body of the mother. This is natural.
During the normal course of the human life cycle the fetus will be born, barring some tragic event. The newborn will initially need lots of help from the parents in order to survive during this new stage of human life. The mother may even continue to feed the newborn directly from her body through breast feeding. The parents provide the newborn with a safe place to live and protect him from the elements. That does not make the baby "not human" or "not life."
Speaking strictly from a scientific point of view one cannot deny that a fetus in a human life any more than a newborn baby is a human life. Human beings are often dependant on others for survival during the course of their life cycle. Dependence on another does not make one sub-human.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 10:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the case of the fetus, I would charge it with some kind of murder. (of course in the case of rape, the charge would be put on the rapist!).
While IN THEORY it sounds logical in case of a rape, IF you consider an abortion murder t charge the rapist so.
In practise, however, rape is not always easy to prove, and this goes both ways.
Very often a rape charge is a question of whose story is believed, and a majority of the cases are not really clear-cut - at least not clear-cut enough to execute someone for it.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 10:17 PM |
|
|
In that case the rapist wouldn't be charged with rape either.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 10:31 PM |
|
|
Nono. Not all rape is equal. I mean there is RAPE, as in force someone with a knife or with 3 people, and there is forced sex with an associate or even with the husband. There is sex with dependants - teacher with pupil, boss with underling -, there are things that cannot easily be proven, and there are things that may be a wrong accusation that sounfs plausible.
I don't like the idea that you'd get an abortion (only) if you could claim you'd been raped. I'd say that we'd see a serious increase in assult in combination with rape by a masked attacker armed with a gun or knife.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 10:34 PM |
|
|
You can always have an abortion, just like you can always kill anyone. The charge, though, will vary depending on circumstances.
If you prove ANYTHING that incriminates the assaulter (whatever that is), charge would go on him. If he doesn't get any charges, then it's just that -- he wouldn't normally get any charges anyway (yes it sucks but it happens, though statistically rarely).
Same thing as when someone forces you to kill someone else, for instance. Charge would go on him.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
Forget it, fast.
With rape PROVE is DIFFICULT, to say the least. That starts with the definition.
What IS rape? Define it. Are there different grades of rape? If so, the abortion still takes place, then who's guilty. THINK, man.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 11:10 PM |
|
|
If she is forced (and I do mean forced, not just "charmed" as that doesn't apply). It's not any different than anything else, if someone forces you to do something. The charge of whatever that would be goes to him, not you.
For instance, if someone forces you to pull a trigger and you kill someone, he is going to get charged for murder, not you.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
|
I there should be a global law;
If your country has over 100 million inhabitants: Then you can only get one child.
If your country has over 50 million inhabitants: Then you can only get two kindren.
If your country has over 10 million inhabitantes: Then you can only get 3 kids.
If your country has over 1 million invånare: Then you can only have 4 barn.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 11:29 PM |
|
|
That doesn't sound like you checked into the matter.
For example - as I mentioned - what if the girl agreed to SOME sex, but not the full deal, but got overwhelmed then? Teens, petting, yes, no precautions, of course not, boy loses it, girl says no, and NO, and NOOOO!, but too late and bad position and there you are.
Boy says, she wanted it as well, said there was no danger, she'd take something, so we did it.
There you are, couple of lifes at stake, now what?
Edit: Xerdux: That sounds just a trifle unfair if you compare countries like Russia and Luxemburg.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 11:58 PM |
|
|
If she says NO and he still does it, why would he not force her?
If she agrees, doesn't matter if "somewhat" or not, as long as she isn't forced, then she responsible for herself.
Same principle as rape.
And of course the father can't just "walk away" if he wasn't forced (rarely). Assuming, of course, that he doesn't hide from the authorities (but then again, so can a rapist).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 06:57 AM |
|
|
Death, the problem is PROOF.
"I didn't want it. I said No, I cried No, I yelled No, I tried to shove him away."
"That's just not true. She wanted it. She was just moaning with pleasure."
Now what?
It's not that simple.
Also, it's not unheard of that in cases of sex with dependants - for example teacher-pupils - the pupils are the ones that force the action by pressuring a teacher into either that or telling everyone that he's touching her unseemly and so on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What I want to make clear is that it doesn't make sense to treat cases of abortion like murder. It will lead to an increase of cases where rapes are claimed, and proving things one way or another is extremely difficult, especially when the border between rape and consent is such a grey area. I mean, that's different with other crimes, isn't it? You won't hear a thief saying, well, I didn't steal the stuff, the guy gave it to me as a gift.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
