United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Everything else > News, Current Affairs & Politics
Reply
 
Unread 07-03-2018, 09:01 PM
irk
 
Default

You donít believe that a baby only gains personhood as it passes through the cunt.
 
Unread 07-03-2018, 10:33 PM
Zorg
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waynes ear's
god i fucking hate that fat cunt
 
Unread 07-03-2018, 11:24 PM
Jammy Dodger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
You donít believe that a baby only gains personhood as it passes through the cunt.
Yes, it becomes a human being, a person, when itís born. Thatís when life begins and it starts breathing. Until then itís a foetus developing into a human being. Itís a future person. Though thereís obviously a time during the 9 months where it would be wrong to halt the process due to how far the foetus had developed. Regardless of where that point is, itís not at conception.

The point of conception being where life begins is a ridiculous concept IMO. When does a cake become a cake? The second you put the ingredients in the mixing bowl?

I would say my view on the subject is that the rights of the person carrying the foetus is greater than the rights of the foetus. But the rights of the foetus increases the more it develops right up to birth.

Last edited by Jammy Dodger; 07-03-2018 at 11:40 PM.
 
Unread 08-03-2018, 07:55 AM
rubbernecker
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger
Yes, it becomes a human being, a person, when itís born. Thatís when life begins and it starts breathing. Until then itís a foetus developing into a human being. Itís a future person. Though thereís obviously a time during the 9 months where it would be wrong to halt the process due to how far the foetus had developed. Regardless of where that point is, itís not at conception.

The point of conception being where life begins is a ridiculous concept IMO. When does a cake become a cake? The second you put the ingredients in the mixing bowl?

I would say my view on the subject is that the rights of the person carrying the foetus is greater than the rights of the foetus. But the rights of the foetus increases the more it develops right up to birth.
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found
 
Unread 08-03-2018, 09:23 AM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger
Yes, it becomes a human being, a person, when itís born. Thatís when life begins and it starts breathing. Until then itís a foetus developing into a human being. Itís a future person. Though thereís obviously a time during the 9 months where it would be wrong to halt the process due to how far the foetus had developed. Regardless of where that point is, itís not at conception.

The point of conception being where life begins is a ridiculous concept IMO. When does a cake become a cake? The second you put the ingredients in the mixing bowl?

I would say my view on the subject is that the rights of the person carrying the foetus is greater than the rights of the foetus. But the rights of the foetus increases the more it develops right up to birth.
Thats what i thought. If you really thought personhood applied only at birth you wouldnít have to caveat with the fuzzy concept of a foetus gradually acquiring rights. If you truly believed it you wouldnít baulk at aborting a child the day before birth. Clearly only a lunatic would think that.

Therefore, Youíre stuck with the view that the child has a right to life prior to birth otherwise you cannot argue is wrong to Ďhaltí the foetus at any stage prior birth if it is not yet a person. Your argument wants to have it both ways and is self contradictory seemingly providing a definitive moment of personhood yet allowing for the gradual nature of becoming a person throughout the pregnancy on a sliding scale. You cannot have it both ways.

It cannot be that the baby is not a person but so nearly a person that itís wrong to kill it. If it is not yet a person but a future person how can it have any of the rights that only attach to a person under your view? What type of life are the rights attached to? A person? Arguing that a Ďfuture personí has rights solves nothing and just takes the argument back one remove. How do you propertionally apply a black and white concept such as life or death?

Here, the pro abortion argument is usually based less on when life begins rather on when a foetus is Ďviableí outside the womb. Hence the abortion cut off at 24 weeks as it supposedly is alright to kill soemthing so vulnerable it couldnt survive alone. But Science has moved on and foetusís are viable from much earlier now but not many pro abortionists are arging that the period in which abortions are legal should be shortened, which suggests the viability argument is just a convenient peg to hang their views on.

The mother has rights, but rights also come with responsibilities and a morher with child has responsibilities to the life within her. Given that that life was an inevitabilty from the moment of conception why does life not begin then? At what other moment can it be said to occur?
 
Unread 08-03-2018, 09:45 AM
doudou
 
Default

Fucking hell, it's like the Moral Maze here. Although Irk's point is well argued it's flawed (and I don't agree at all btw) -- under that logic you's also have to ban the morning after pill, which would be mental.
 
Unread 08-03-2018, 10:26 AM
Jammy Dodger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
Your argument wants to have it both ways and is self contradictory seemingly providing a definitive moment of personhood yet allowing for the gradual nature of becoming a person throughout the pregnancy on a sliding scale. You cannot have it both ways.
There is no both ways. There is no contradiction.

Quote:
How do you propertionally apply a black and white concept such as life or death?
Iím not applying it proportionally. Life starts at birth. Do you celebrate your conception day, your fully formed in the womb day, or your birthday?

Quote:
The mother has rights, but rights also come with responsibilities and a morher with child has responsibilities to the life within her. Given that that life was an inevitabilty from the moment of conception why does life not begin then? At what other moment can it be said to occur?
Life isnít inevitable from the moment of conception. Life can be said to occur at birth. And end at death.

Last edited by Jammy Dodger; 08-03-2018 at 10:29 AM.
 
Unread 08-03-2018, 10:43 AM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doudou
Fucking hell, it's like the Moral Maze here. Although Irk's point is well argued it's flawed (and I don't agree at all btw) -- under that logic you's also have to ban the morning after pill, which would be mental.
I agree. It is logical though. Itís hard to come up with a proper argument for abortion.

As we can see here where dodger demonstrates that he doesnt even understand his own argument let alone the rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger
There is no both ways. There is no contradiction.



Iím not applying it proportionally. Life starts at birth. Do you celebrate your conception day, your fully formed in the womb day, or your birthday?



Life isnít inevitable from the moment of conception. Life can be said to occur at birth. And end at death.
So, to be ethically consistent you'd have to agree that it is ok to abort a child five minutes before birth. Itís not Ďborní ergo itís not Ďlifeí. No problem. I look forward to the popular campaign for that one.
 
Unread 08-03-2018, 12:51 PM
Jammy Dodger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
So, to be ethically consistent you'd have to agree that it is ok to abort a child five minutes before birth. Itís not Ďborní ergo itís not Ďlifeí. No problem. I look forward to the popular campaign for that one.
Itís ok under some circumstances. The womanís rights trump the foetusí right up to birth. If thereís a health issue or a matter of life and death the woman has the right to decide whether she or the foetus should be given priority.

I havenít been arguing when abortion should be allowed and when it shouldnít. Iíve been arguing when life starts or a foetus becomes a person with full rights. Until birth it is not a person or a life. It is a foetus becoming a person and developing life.

As for the issue of abortion just because the woman doesnít want the baby, the relevant question isnít when life begins or when a foetus becomes a person. Itís when does the foetus develop consciousness, have a fully developed central nervous system, is able to experience emotion. Iíve never researched it so have no idea when that point happens. But thatís where I think the cutoff point should be concerning abortions for unwanted pregnancies. And for other reasons, such as health, the motherís right to choose right up to birth remains. Itís her responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
I agree. It is logical though. Itís hard to come up with a proper argument for abortion.
Scarce resources. The increasing over population of the world. The suffering of so many people within it. The future suffering of people due to increasing population. The odds of an unwanted baby having a good life. The quality of life if it has health issues. The mother dying if she goes ahead with it. The misplaced idea that life is sacred or special. The consequences of not allowing it and driving it underground. Itís parents are scousers or city fans.

Last edited by Jammy Dodger; 08-03-2018 at 01:34 PM.
 
Unread 08-03-2018, 01:34 PM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger
Itís ok under some circumstances. The womanís rights trump the foetusí right up to birth. If thereís a health issue or a matter of life and death the woman has the right to decide whether she or the foetus should be given priority.

I havenít been arguing when abortion should be allowed and when it shouldnít. Iíve been arguing when life starts or a foetus becomes a person with full rights. Until birth it is not a person or a life. It is a foetus becoming a person and developing life

As for the issue of abortion just because the woman doesnít want the baby, the relevant question isnít when life begins or when a foetus becomes a person. Itís when does the foetus develop consciousness, have a fully developed central nervous system, is able to experience emotion. Iíve never researched it so have no idea when that point happens. But thatís where I think the cutoff point should be concerning abortions for unwanted pregnancies. And for other reasons, such as health, the motherís right to choose right up to birth remains. Itís her responsibility.
clearly


Scarce resources. The increasing over population of the world. The suffering of so many people within it. The future suffering of people due to increasing population. The odds of an unwanted baby having a good life. The quality of life if it has health issues. The mother dying if she goes ahead with it. The consequences of not allowing it and driving it underground. Itís parents are scousers or city fans.
See. No point going on. You dont understand the implications of your stance.

All of your last points (except the blue/scouse conundrum) would be equally applicable to killing anyone.
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: The "Trump is actually good" thread
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wayne Rooney, "Wazza", "Wazzoh", "Dickhead" etc. That Boy Ronaldo! Football 73 22-05-2014 09:34 AM
"It isn't just a job to me," he once said. "It's a mission." - good article on fergie borsuk Football 5 14-03-2009 09:44 AM
in tribute to ginlardes "best film director" thread. I give youmy "best ever united player" poll no fun Football 18 18-08-2008 01:43 PM
The Official "Please Dont Die and Good Luck Pure" Thread waynes ear's Off Topic 37 18-05-2008 07:03 PM
The "tell me a good song I can download on LimeWire"-thread Filliam H. Muffman Music 60 19-11-2006 01:08 PM
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:08 PM.

Copyright ©2006 - 2018 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.