Originally Posted by tom31deecc FTW

This is probably the main reason that I'm not completely yes or no on abortion.

I'm more for abortion, but I have no decisive stance on it right now.

I can already tell that by your demeanor of constant assertion when you talk, you won't be liked around here.

Especially for asserting fallacious ideas to things that just aren't so.

You're giving your own definition to things of that nature in regard to abortion, you can't do that.

You're taking a literal meaning of murder and attaching it to a non-human thing.

Originally Posted by General AI

So your argument is that its a growing living being.
Not a very convincing argument is it?

No, not quite. My argument is that it's a growing, living being, and therefore, abortion of this growing, living being would be considered murder.

Originally Posted by General AI

1. You should really cut the patronizing attitude you've got here. It wont do.

2. My point doesn't disapprove anything, but it addresses your point that the mother shouldn't have the right to have an abortion because its "murder". Why should anyone but the mother (or the father) decide whether or not she can have an abortion?

1. I like the attitude I have here. It actually helps me better put my post. Ty, for the hint, though.

2. I realize that noone but the mother/father should have rightful control over whether the fetus is aborted, but that doesn't change the fact that to me, it's wrong. I mean, any debater could ask a question, only to be stalemated by the same, opposite question. That's basically what you're doing. However, while I realize this, I also realize that the way I see it, it's murder, it's wrong, and it's inhuman. I could tell an almost-mother that abortion is wrong, but that doesn't mean she'll listen. I understand your point, but I already have a steady point of my own. :]

Originally Posted by General AI

And your entire argument that it's murder is flawed on 2 different levels.

1) You're argument is that getting rid of some cells and tissue is technically murder, and is therefore unlawful and immoral. You're basically using technicalities to give abortion a title which would it illegitimate. It's a common argument used by many anti-abortionists to justify their belief.

2) It's actually not murder at all.
Mur-der - the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. (I'm guessing you cut out most of your definition to better back your argument)
As I've said during the time before the first trimester, the cells and tissue aren't even human yet (or conscious).

1. No, I do believe that you've misunderstood me, mister General. My argument is that shutting off all cell activity would indeed shut off the entire units life force. When a fetus is aborted, ALL of it's cells are shut off and rendered incapable of any other reproduction/activity. Is this arguable to you?

2. Well, that's pretty much an opinion, unless you can prove otherwise. No, I actually didn't leave out any of my definition. If you actually looked, those are two, not completely, but different definitions. I never argued that the cells and tissues of a fetus were human, but they ARE alive, which would make abortion murder.

Originally Posted by General AI

In your original post I believed you were clearly referring to people, and I don't think the human body count has reached trillions yet (we weren't always here).


Fixed.

Yes, I actually was referring to people. Please, though, prove to me that the human body count has not reached trillion. If you can, I'll admit defeat .. For this argument. Tyvm, captain. :]

Originally Posted by Inconceivable

No, not quite. My argument is that it's a growing, living being, and therefore, abortion of this growing, living being would be considered murder.


1. I like the attitude I have here. It actually helps me better put my post. Ty, for the hint, though.

2. I realize that noone but the mother/father should have rightful control over whether the fetus is aborted, but that doesn't change the fact that to me, it's wrong. I mean, any debater could ask a question, only to be stalemated by the same, opposite question. That's basically what you're doing. However, while I realize this, I also realize that the way I see it, it's murder, it's wrong, and it's inhuman. I could tell an almost-mother that abortion is wrong, but that doesn't mean she'll listen. I understand your point, but I already have a steady point of my own. :]



1. No, I do believe that you've misunderstood me, mister General. My argument is that shutting off all cell activity would indeed shut off the entire units life force. When a fetus is aborted, ALL of it's cells are shut off and rendered incapable of any other reproduction/activity. Is this arguable to you?

2. Well, that's pretty much an opinion, unless you can prove otherwise. No, I actually didn't leave out any of my definition. If you actually looked, those are two, not completely, but different definitions. I never argued that the cells and tissues of a fetus were human, but they ARE alive, which would make abortion murder.



Yes, I actually was referring to people. Please, though, prove to me that the human body count has not reached trillion. If you can, I'll admit defeat .. For this argument. Tyvm, captain. :]

You're seriously annoying as hell.

Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY

I can already tell that by your demeanor of constant assertion when you talk, you won't be liked around here.
Especially for asserting fallacious ideas to things that just aren't so.

You're giving your own definition to things of that nature in regard to abortion, you can't do that.

You're taking a literal meaning of murder and attaching it to a non-human thing.

No, I'm really not. I indirectly said that your removing the possibility of one having life ever again in eternity. I know you could say that about every gamete, but it's the fact that it was in its infancy of being a human being. I don't have a stance on it; both sides have good arguments.

I'm more for abortion mainly because it's the woman's body. I'm not arguing either side; you assumed that. I just sit back and watch on abortion debates.


EDIT: Did you quote the wrong person?

Originally Posted by tom31deecc FTW

Ouch.

No, I'm really not. I indirectly said that your removing the possibility of one having life ever again in eternity. I know you could say that about every gamete, but it's the fact that it was in its infancy of being a human being. I don't have a stance on it; both sides have good arguments.

I'm more for abortion mainly because it's the woman's body. I'm not arguing either side; you assumed that. I just sit back and watch on abortion debates.


EDIT: Did you quote the wrong person?

I was quoting Inconcievable. >_>

<3 you tom

Edit- f..k!

Haha, so sorry man.

Haha, no prob. I was like >.> lol

Originally Posted by Inconceivable

1. I like the attitude I have here. It actually helps me better put my post. Ty, for the hint, though.

You're really annoying.

2. I realize that noone but the mother/father should have rightful control over whether the fetus is aborted, but that doesn't change the fact that to me, it's wrong. I mean, any debater could ask a question, only to be stalemated by the same, opposite question. That's basically what you're doing. However, while I realize this, I also realize that the way I see it, it's murder, it's wrong, and it's inhuman. I could tell an almost-mother that abortion is wrong, but that doesn't mean she'll listen. I understand your point, but I already have a steady point of my own. :]

Actually, what's really going on here is that I'm giving you my argument, and you're basically just saying "Well, it's my opinion" and basically hiding behind that. You've done no debating what so ever. Only stated your opinion and backed it up with small and clearly unacceptable translation for murder.

1. No, I do believe that you've misunderstood me, mister General. My argument is that shutting off all cell activity would indeed shut off the entire units life force. When a fetus is aborted, ALL of it's cells are shut off and rendered incapable of any other reproduction/activity.

No, I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me. When I said some cells and tissue, I meant the fetus.

2. Well, that's pretty much an opinion, unless you can prove otherwise. No, I actually didn't leave out any of my definition. If you actually looked, those are two, not completely, but different definitions. I never argued that the cells and tissues of a fetus were human, but they ARE alive, which would make abortion murder.

I just gave a definition which proved that abortion is not murder because it's not a human being. (Unless you call any type of killing murder, in which case you would be simply demonizing abortion by using technicalities to call it something evil).

And whether or not it's your opinion is irrelevant in this case. This is the debate forum. Everything is challenged.

Yes, I actually was referring to people. Please, though, prove to me that the human body count has not reached trillion. If you can, I'll admit defeat .. For this argument. Tyvm, captain. :]

Cool.

The third chart in wikipedia on world population at various times. Look and see the data for yourself.

BTW, you were the one who said the human death toll was in the trillions. The burden of proof obviously falls on you. To say that I should find evidence to the contrary is idiotic.

Originally Posted by Inconceivable

Yes, I actually was referring to people. Please, though, prove to me that the human body count has not reached trillion. If you can, I'll admit defeat .. For this argument. Tyvm, captain. :]

Its pretty easy. Type in "How many people have lived on earth" into google. I havent seen a result thats 1 trillion yet, so how you got that number is beyond me.

Personally, I am pro-choice.

Although I am morally against abortion as a form of birth control, I don't think the government should regulate it. Often, the birth of the baby endangers the life of the mother so it should not be completely outlawed. Just like what happened with prohibition, people will always find ways to sneak past the abortion laws. It is safer for the woman to have an abortion in a standard clinic than in someone's basement...

Originally Posted by sillyrabid224

Personally, I am pro-choice.

Although I am morally against abortion as a form of birth control, I don't think the government should regulate it. Often, the birth of the baby endangers the life of the mother so it should not be completely outlawed. Just like what happened with prohibition, people will always find ways to sneak past the abortion laws. It is safer for the woman to have an abortion in a standard clinic than in someone's basement...

You might be morally against it, but our world is governed by ethics.

And ethically, it's not immoral.