Abortion

[IBDaMann]

He disagreed with you in post #985.

@AProudLefty is a habitual liar. He is embarrassed.

 

[Scott]

I started this discussion with Lefty because he seemed to be saying that if there is consciousness/sentience/awareness, there is killing. I am highly skeptical of this, because I believe that many non human animals may have these qualities and yet most people still slaughter them for their supper on a daily basis. I include myself here. Thus, the important thing should not be whether an animal has a heartbeat or even harder to discern things like whether they have some level of consciousness/sentience/awareness,

I'm not interested in "mucking up the waters". The presence of a heartbeat is VERY easy to discern.

Agreed. What you've failed to show is why a life form having a heart beat should be treated differently then one without one.

 

[IBDaMann]

On the contrary, I tend to praise those who -actually- shine light on my position.

Nope. If that were the case, you'd at least engage in discussion. You hold a shitty position of killing supremacy, and you reject math and logic in order to dig in.

In this particular subthread, I've presented my view as to what I believe APL believes.

Nobody gives a chit. You're EVADING the topic right this very moment.

You haven't provided any solid evidence to contradict it

Nothing to which you will listen, I get it.

, you just keep on contradicting me.

... because you contradict yourself, and reject math and logic in order to do it. You simply EVADE rational discussion in order to continue preaching your killing supremacy. You don't value human life, and you consider equality under the law to be VICTIMIZATION.

 

[Scott]

I started this discussion with Lefty because he seemed to be saying that if there is consciousness/sentience/awareness, there is killing. I am highly skeptical of this, because I believe that many non human animals may have these qualities and yet most people still slaughter them for their supper on a daily basis. I include myself here. Thus, the important thing should not be whether an animal has a heartbeat or even harder to discern things like whether they have some level of consciousness/sentience/awareness, but what -level- this consciousness/sentience/awareness is at.

Why? That's even HARDER to discern than the "whether they have some level of consciousness/sentience/awareness" part that you literally just got done rejecting due to its discernment difficulty.

I disagree- at this point, we're not even sure if electrons are conscious, suggesting that matter may not even have to be alive to be conscious:

Electrons May Very Well Be Conscious

Panpsychists look at the many degrees of complexity in nature and see no obvious line between mind and no-mind.

nautil.us

It's much easier to discern intelligence. Tests can and are done. The results are at times surprising:
'The Intelligent Hen': Chickens smarter than toddlers | news.com.au

If we go by that metric, chickens may be more deserving of rescue than fetuses.

 

[IBDaMann]

Agreed. What you've failed to show is why a life form having a heart beat should be treated differently then one without one.

Right here we see @Scott's next phase of EVASION, i.e. demanding demonstration of why living humans should be treated differently from, say, dead ones.

@Scott, which living human should we bury alive to "show" why a living human should be treated differently from a dead one?

 

[Scott]

Also, the issue of bodily independence is very important in my view- I think that no female should be forced to grow a fetus inside her.

Do you consider a female's choice to gamble to be "forcing a female to grow a fetus inside her"?

First of all, unwanted pregnancies occur due to sex, not gambling. Secondly, it's lack of access to abortions that force females to grow fetuses even if they'd rather not.

 

[Scott]

I also think that if a female has doubts about growing a fetus inside her, she should probably terminate it as soon as possible because the longer it grows inside her, the more consciousness/sentience/awareness said fetus has.

I think that if a female has such doubts, then she shouldn't gamble.

Gambling has nothing to do with reproduction.

 

[Yakuda]

Gambling has nothing to do with reproduction.

Oh course it does. You roll the dice every time you engage in intercourse.

 

[Yakuda]

First of all, unwanted pregnancies occur due to sex, not gambling. Secondly, it's lack of access to abortions that force females to grow fetuses even if they'd rather not.

You know what else would help them not grow fetuses they don't want? Keeping their legs closed. Oh that's right we can't expect that because you should be free to do whatever the fuck we want right?

 

[Yakuda]

Right here we see @Scott's next phase of EVASION, i.e. demanding demonstration of why living humans should be treated differently from, say, dead ones.

@Scott, which living human should we bury alive to "show" why a living human should be treated differently from a dead one?

That's easy, the one that's "inconvenient"

 

[Yakuda]

Agreed. What you've failed to show is why a life form having a heart beat should be treated differently then one without one.

Because it's not a "life form" without a heartbeat. Please tell me you are this stupid.

 

[Yakuda]

Care to explain why you reject using the word person to describe the word human?

Because you use it as a qualifier. It's not our job to decide with LIFE can be terminated. You people use all kinds of ways to justify killing, inconvenience, consciousness, viability, etc and as we have seen you have problem adjusting definitions to fit your narrative.

 

[gfm7175]

As I've already stated, my definition of living human includes all stages of human development, beginning with gametes- that is, human sperm and human eggs. If you'd like a term that excludes gametes, I recommend "natural person".

Sperm are not humans (and are therefore not a stage of human development). Only humans can undergo human development.

 

[gfm7175]

The zygote DNA is a combination of both the sperm and the egg's DNA.

IOW, not the sperm's DNA nor the egg's DNA, but a different set of DNA.

If any generation ran out of either, the human species would have ended, making it clear that both are absolutely necessary to continue the human species, with the possible exception of the present and our new technologies.

Irrelevant to the aforementioned identification.

 

[gfm7175]

What draws you to that conclusion?

A sperm or an egg never goes through the stages of human development.
Only a human goes through the stages of human development.
Therefore, a sperm or an egg is not a human.

 

[gfm7175]

To recap

@IBDaMann, @gfm7175 and @Into the Night: 0
@Scott: 1

To recap:
AProudLefty: 0.000 batting average
IBDaMann, Into the Night, and gfm7175: regular home run hitters

 

[gfm7175]

Life is snuffed out all the time- we would die if we didn't snuff out a great deal of it for consumption.

CORRECT! All sorts of killings happen (even just to keep humans well fed!). This thread, however, is only about contract killings. More specifically, the contract killings in which the customer is a pregnant woman who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.

 

[gfm7175]

Since they are non human animals, we tend to refer to the induced deaths of these animals as their slaughter. Why do you think that is?

Because humans eat them for food?
How is this relevant to this thread?