Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

ablestar

Abortions

Recommended Posts

Eviscero

Are you under the impression that pregnancy is a terminal disease? whatsthat.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

Are you under the impression that pregnancy is a terminal disease? whatsthat.gif

No, I am not under the impression that pregnancy is a terminal disease, but if you're going to sit there ignorant of the huge impact it has on a woman and just disregard my thoughts as idiocies, insanity, or what-have-you, I'm not even going to bother to continue this discussion.

 

Matter of fact, I think I'll just do that now, since I've already said just about everything I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

You're comparing an entire lifetime to nine months. What's not idiotic about that? You can't really mean to say that even the trauma the body goes through during those nine months is anywhere NEAR as valuable as an entire LIFE, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
You're comparing an entire lifetime to nine months. What's not idiotic about that? You can't really mean to say that even the trauma the body goes through during those nine months is anywhere NEAR as valuable as an entire LIFE, can you?

Here, I'll put it this way for you, okay...

 

If I were a woman, yes, I would feel it idiotic to say, "Well, I don't want to get fat, have my back hurt, throw up every morning, earn significantly less, so I'm just going to abort this baby." Indeed, I wouldn't think that a very logical choice for me to make if I were a woman in the exact same circumstances.

 

However idiotic it might be to throw away a life because it brings a large hardship, I still believe that a woman should be allowed to choose to be an idiot, if doing that makes her so. I simply find that the notion of a woman aborting a fetus because she does not want to endure it makes more sense than forcing women to bare children, regardless of how much potential that life may have. It is not necessarily the amount of hardship a woman goes through, but the fact that she goes through hardship at all from something that--like pregnancy--should be 100% her choice. If a woman does not wish to have something living inside of her for 9 months, I don't think she should abort it, but I think she should be able to abort it. I've reviewed some of my posts, and it does sound like I'm advocating abortion... Really, though, I'm more or less speaking out against forced pregnancy.

 

I still don't understand why people put the precedence of an infant or fetus over the mother, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with why women should or should not be allowed to have abortions, because even if the baby was at the same capacity of Einstein inside of the womb, I still feel the woman is in her own rights to abort it. I was simply seeking some insight from people who do put precedence on the infant's life. One thing does not necessarily follow the other, but I suppose I could've been a little more clear that the baby's development is not justification for abortion; I do not feel a woman needs justification for abortion.

 

I've explained myself to the best of my abilities, and if you choose to think of me as an idiot for doing so, that's okay ( never said I wasn't ), but I really cannot think of any other way to say this without simply repeating myself over and over again. I'll join in again if I find anything else to comment on, but for now I just feel like I'm saying the same things in every post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
You're comparing an entire lifetime to nine months. What's not idiotic about that? You can't really mean to say that even the trauma the body goes through during those nine months is anywhere NEAR as valuable as an entire LIFE, can you?

I don't see why you should consider life that isn't conscious yet as valuble at all. Yeah, I know you might start talking about the future life that the child might have, but if we start talking about potential future lives, it is absolutely impossible to predict which of the two options, abortion or birth, would result in more lives down the line, so you can't use it as an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

If consciousness is the basis for value of life, then you very well may be able to go around killing all 0-2 year olds, all mentally debilitated people, f*ck if you want to get real technical, you could kill me as I sleep because I'm not conscious during that.

 

You were probably talking about self-awareness, but if we can just go around killing anything that can't perform the cogito, then we kill a large portion of the human population..

 

 

And Sagacious, I'm not sure what you're on about with this forced-pregnancy crusade, but I'm not aware of that being a widespread issue, and it's certainly not what anyone else is talking about in this topic. Women should certainly have the right to say whether or not they want a child to start developing in their wombs. They just shouldn't have a right to end that development once it starts.

 

The only reason I bring up the brain activity scenario is because that is when human life starts, and therefore that's when it becomes murder, which I'm actually relatively certain that none of you advocate.

Edited by Eviscero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
And Sagacious, I'm not sure what you're on about with this forced-pregnancy crusade, but I'm not aware of that being a widespread issue, and it's certainly not what anyone else is talking about in this topic. Women should certainly have the right to say whether or not they want a child to start developing in their wombs. They just shouldn't have a right to end that development once it starts.

 

The only reason I bring up the brain activity scenario is because that is when human life starts, and therefore that's when it becomes murder, which I'm actually relatively certain that none of you advocate.

I stated that several times that current laws are not forcing women, the argument that they should was implied earlier by Nucflash with his idea of population-growth. Or perhaps I inferred that he thought women should be forced to bare children to increase our population. I suppose that might solve a lot of confusion right there.

 

The rest was commentary mostly on what I perceive as people taking favor to the baby's life; or to put it a little more bluntly, disregarding the life of the mother's once she's become pregnant. Perhaps there would actually need to be someone here that does that to explain to me why it is done, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Sagacious, whilst it is cool that you are admitting to having double standards, it really doesn't strengthen your position. It only helps you justify to others the internal inconsistencies of your argument with an appeal to exception by claiming "Oh it's ok that my argument doesn't stand up properly because I have double standards". It's cool to admit the truth about your position, but it weakens your position in a logical debate.

 

If I've read you correctly, your main concern is not to dispute whether or not a baby's life has any value or if it is human or whatever, but your concern is why it should "take precedence" over that of the mother's.

 

Well, that's kind of like comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

 

I mean, abortion kills a baby. Having a baby does not kill the mother. It's not "baby vs mother and only one will survive". The baby's life isn't overruling the mother's. All that's happening is that the mother must suffer some inconveniences during her life, which is otherwise largely undisrupted for the better part of the pregancy.

 

So you're comparing the murder of a child to 9 months of inconvenience.

 

And then you're saying that 9 months of inconvenience is MORE IMPORTANT than a human life.

 

But let's assume for argument's sake that this is true and fair.

 

What about the far greater inconvenience suffered by the mother after the child is born? Once born, a baby demands far greater attention, care, resources, and time, than it ever does while in the womb. The baby needs to be fed every few hours day or night. It must be monitored and handled gently and have it's diapers changed every few hours. It cries 50% of the time it's awake, pukes all over you, and must be taught pretty much everything about being a human. And this doesn't just last 9 months either.

 

Is it ok to kill a baby after it is born? Is it ok for carers to kill disabled and mentally handicapped people of any age because of the immense inconvenience such people place on everyone who must care for them?

 

Because if it isn't, then your argument of inconvenience outweighing life falls apart.

 

So what if you try to take the angle of "a woman's choice" to live her life how she wants? Well that's not going to get you very far. Things we do have consequences. We can't choose to avoid those consequences, only the things we do. We can't choose to eat tons of fatty foods and lay around the house all day in our underwear and choose to not get fat and unfit. We can't choose to not feel pain when we burn ourselves. We can't choose to not get hurt when we choose to do stupid sh*t and have an accident. We can't choose to quit our jobs and still receive a salary. We can't choose to avoid the consequences of our actions. We can only choose which actions we want to do, based on our knowledge of the consequences. This is called being responsible. If you don't want the consequence, don't do the behaviour that is liable to cause it.

 

If you choose to argue for choice, you'd be basically arguing that unlike everything else in life, women should be given the power to bypass the consequences of their voluntary behaviour. More than this, they should be able to KILL ANOTHER HUMAN just to avoid consequences of actions which they chose to do. That's like, if I robbed a bank and there was only one witness, then it's ok for me to kill that witness just to avoid the sentence I'd have to face. Like the judge sits there and says "well, we WOULD have convicted you for this sh*t, but you killed the witness, so it's all good now". But hell, at least then I'd be killing someone to avoid 20 years in a f*cking hell-hole prison, as opposed to killing someone to avoid 9 months of inconvenience in my daily life.

 

_____

 

Now, as I've already stated, I'm pro murder. I don't think anyone has the right to kill someone, but I don't think "rights" have much to do with reality, so... whatever. I'm not trying to convince you that abortion is wrong. I'm trying to show you that your basis for your opinion is severely flawed. No matter how you cut it, abortion is killing a human. Killing someone is murder if you do it when they are 90, 45, 12, or the day after they are born. And it's also murder if you do it when they are still in the womb. If you are against murdering 12 yr olds and 45 yr olds, then you should be against abortion. If you are pro killing, then you should be pro abortion. Consistency is the key to logic.

 

_____

 

K^2, nice job on "ignore all contradictory arguments and restate original position in the hope of enforcing it as the right one through repitition". As eviscero has pointed out "consciousness" is a f*cking stupid place to draw the line for whether or not a life has "value". By your own standards your own life's value would fluctuate all over the place when you were still an infant, slept, got knocked the f*ck out, just drifted off into non-conscious thought, passed out, went into a coma, etc.

 

And "what will result in the greatest number of lives" is also stupid, because you are assuming that the numerical number of lives is the most important indicator of rightness. It's got nothing at all to do with aggregate totals, it's to do with the principle of killing a human. It doesn't matter if killing a human will reduce the number of humans by 1. It matters if killing a human, regardless of how many there are, is ok in principle.

 

And for argument's sake, even if it were about numbers, your whole "it's impossible to tell whether abortion or birth would result in the most lives down the line" sh*t is complete bunk. For starters, just looking at the odds, birth will give you at least 1 more human, who, assuming they are merely average, will give you dozens more humans in the next century. Abortion is always, always gauranteed to give you ZERO more humans. And secondly, and most importantly, this is ALSO precisely as true for ANY human, anywhere, ever. So who knows whether killing them or not killing them will result in more humans down the line? After all, they could turn out to be a serial killer, or their grandchild may start a nuclear war. So it's ok to kill them.

 

Seriously bitch-tits, try to f*cking think up something that a) separates aborting a human embryo from killing a 40yr old, b) hasn't already been discounted by previous arguments, and c) isn't retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

Doesn't this debate come back to the age old "You ain't been through it so you don't know"

 

I always find it is very easy to give an opinion when you're not in the position and you don't have to go through it. Not that it shouldn't be discussed but what most people are discussing is whether a fetus is alive and whether its not.

 

Not enough people are actually looking it from well "Imagine the woman's point of view"

 

I mean lets take it from the side of the man, and let's just exagerrate. Can we all agree that a tape worm and a baby are alive. And they actually whilst inside the host behave in similar manner's i.e. parasites. Now am I allowed to kill the the tapeworm, have it removed and destroyed, well of course, in fact everyone would.

 

Whilst the baby of course is very different remember the similarities it has to a tape worm, and when you consider that until a certain amount of weeks it actually technically and scientifically would not be classed as self aware.

 

I also motion once again that there are too many people in the world already, you can give me your military, "We need to be strong" crap all you want, but truth is many countries have small population and are still around. Overall as planet, the human race cannot keep expanding as it does or it will run out of resources and other such problems such as global warming and lack of space will be magnified. The arguement really is that if a baby is unwanted and within the period that an abortion is legal, why should a woman not have an abortion if she does not want to go through child labour, or any other valid reason.

 

While I don't agree that people have abortions willy nilly and in my opionion should be done when there are no other options, I think that the option should be there for any woman to abort any fetus they wish to not have. I think you set specific rules like "They must of been raped, to have an abortion", it can get too complicated and can omit valid cases.

 

To be honest I like what Voltaire said about choice. "I do not agree with you, but I would die to defend your beliefs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

The whole time I was reading that, my idiot alarm was screaming.

 

You're right, this debate does often come back to people (I.E. morons) pointing out that most people involved in the debate are not pregnant women, and from this they take the liberty to say that their opinions are invalid on these grounds. Then anyone with a brain (I.E. me) points out that there is an embarassingly large flaw in your logic.

 

I'll use an analogy because I find them to be effective when talking to slow people. Let's say you're a member of the team on a fishing boat. There are ten other men and you're all out at sea for a week. Captain K^2 says to the mate TerminalGTA, "I hate you and now I'm going to kill you." And bam, he does. Now when you get back to land, everyone tells the police was K^2 did, and he says to them "Look fellas, you aren't fishermen, you don't know what it's like out there, so how can you arrest me?"

 

Under your logic, there would be no law because a judge would have no right to preside over the court, unless another judge were being prosecuted because judging is all he has experience doing! Anyway, that argument is bullsh*t and has been proven so a thousand times. Moving on..

 

Comparing a baby to a tape worm is stupid.

 

Next.

 

There may be too many people in the world. Shall we kill you and your family to help it out? No. Idiot. You don't kill people, you make accomodations. And we're not exactly in a population crisis just yet, genius.

 

And to top off that pile of dogsh*t you call a post, you actually successfully misquoted a philosopher, and got who said it wrong at the same time. Screwed up the quote, AND the speaker. Well done. I'll help you out though.

 

The quote is actually, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Why would you defend to the death beliefs that you don't agree with? That would be almost as stupid as everything else you said in your post. And it wasn't Voltaire, it was written in a book about Voltaire written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, and I'm sure that's where you got it from sarcasm.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

Your analogy has to do with murder of one fisherman on another which really has nothing to do with abortions, and clearly if your trying to prove anything by saying that the law should not have any jurasdiction because they don't know what it is like, well I agree that a judge with no fishing experience can preside over a murder case at sea.

 

What I am saying is no one here is a judge and no one here seems to be pregnant or for that matter even a woman, and to be honest, I am right in saying "we don't know what it's like". I was merely stating that no one here has done it and therefore it was in the realm of pointless theory.

 

Like when people in their posts were making up scenarios when it would be justified. My arguement is that the people who should decide are pregnant women. Therefore meaning I agree with the current laws on abortion

 

To be honest comparing a baby to a tape worm is not stupid at all, they both exhibit qualities of a parasite and if unwanted they actually become quite similar. You can't just dismiss something for no reason. Yes, you may not agree with it, and you may not like it, but the similarities are clear.

 

There are too many people on this earth and that is pretty clear with the current problems we have with Global Warming. Your arguement of why not kill me does not seperate my right to live, compared with the fetus that by law until has no rights at all, the fetus until for a short period at the start does not even have any brainwave activity. We must acknowledge that we are a parasite of this earth, we have destroyed it and we have far too many individuals. The earth may be able to support more life, but at what cost? When there is large scale flooding across the world and billions suffer. What world are we going to leave these babies who must be born.

 

And the quote, well I remembered it from school so sorry it was wrong but I generally don't look up quotes to get one hundred per cent right. I guess I must fail this class Prof. Eviscero. I shouldn't of really commented on this subject it is completely pointless, opinionated and very dereft of fact.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Wow.

 

I mean...

 

 

Wow.

 

 

TerminalGTA, everything I want to say to you would get me banned forever from the GTA forums, and in trouble with the law in most western countries.

 

Just think of everything you've ever heard or read someone say to another person which has been full of burning raging hatred, and multiply that by one thousand, and imagine me saying that to you right now.

 

With a lot of expletives. I swear a lot when people piss me off. Pretty much every second word. This would make it slightly harder to fully comprehend the precise degree to which I would be denegratingly detesting every aspect of your existence, but this is probably a good thing, from your perspective.

 

Also I'd be yelling in places too, so when you're imagining me spitting vile contempt and pure rancor at you, make sure you imagine yelling in combination with the expletives. Sometimes my yelling would become screams of wailing rage so laden with terrifying malevolent prejudice that black metal fans would wet their pants, and everyone else would just pass out from horror.

 

If your eyes don't start to bleed, then you're not imagining what I want to say to you well enough. Try harder. Basically if you were standing within 100kms of me, my pure venomous malicious loathing of your being would cause your blood to seep out of your skin and burst into flames.

 

Hopefully I have impressed upon you my meaning well enough that I don't actually need to say what I so desire to say, which would have unfortunate consequences for me were I to say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

Haha! sleepy.gif That was truly hilarious. If I were your doctor I guess I would tell you to calm down, you might have a heart attack, If you get that worked up with an internet debate.

 

Instead of threatening to say something go ahead and just say it. Instead of being an absolute tart and musing as to the implications of such actions just say exactly what it is you thought about saying! This is afterall a debate, you don't need to talk about a long arduosly, stupid stories about what would happen, just do it.

 

And you flatter yourself too much to think that anything you say would have anymore effect than to be a rather funny little joke I read on my screen.

 

The truth is this is a debate, and unfortunately all you can do as opposed to debate is tell me a little story that is truly pointless, although it did make me chuckle.

 

I would rather you say "what your saying is ridiculous" and explain why, like Eviscero, thats fine, and really is the essence of this board. See while I don't agree with Eviscero, like many other people on the board I can at least take what they say as food for thought, rather completely dismiss your ramblings.

 

Next Mortukai, just debate, this ain't rant-a-rama and it ain't Story Time, oh and calm down, your on a computer ,on GTA forum, I think it's no reason to burst a vein!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

Haha, Mort. That was good. I'm going to copy and paste that into an e-mail and send it to the next professor I don't get along with.

 

 

And you, TerminalGTA, this is not a debate because you are not responding to anything I say. Instead, you are restating what I already showed to be stupid. True, I didn't go into detail about why some of what you said was stupid, but only because it's SO stupid, it leads me to believe you wouldn't be able to understand the explanation. The logic works like this: If you're dumb enough to post some of the things you said, you can't NEARLY be intelligent enough to understand the reasonable side. That is probably why Mortukai could only express rage, and didn't bother to correct you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Here's another bone for the dogs:

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508

 

It is a hotly debated paper (go figure!) so don't take it at face value, but do consider the implications.

 

Mort, from your point of view and education, when does a human become a human? Or is it not a matter of flipping the switch at some point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

I don't really understand why you need to insult me, i didn't insult you. We have different views on things and have different comparisons. I did not slate you, when I don't agree with someone I say so and explain why that is so. I don't claim to have all the answers for things. It's just my view.

 

I think it is completely uncalled for and really detracts from anything you say, because it makes you sound as if your completely closed to any ideas apart from your own.

 

Please guys this is the internet, you don't know me. I don't know you, that why I think it is a little brighter not to speculate how clever I am.

 

My explanation to this is not stupid, you merely don't agree with it and therefore you have to gang up like jackals trying to manufacturer your arguement over mine with slander.

 

Anyway back to the topic because I think this is getting farcical.

 

I read an article a few years ago, that was a study in the Journal of Psychology about a study on women in Belgium who had abortions and the psychological effects. It found that the effects of having a baby aborted no matter the reason were quite severe on the mind in almost 90% of cases. Several of the women suffered severe depression. This is one aspect that I think especially in Britain is rather lacking in understanding. Working in the National Health Service although there is a clear plan in place to deal with women considering abortion, from what I have read it is not as comprehensive as it could be. It is also optional. I have a conflict in my mind whether this should be optional. For example the counselling that is avaliable for i.e HIV Diagnosis is much more comprehensive and is proven to have had significant benefits.

 

If the arguement is about whether abortions should be allowed or not. I think it would be a lot better to invest in improving the quality and the coverage of counselling and advice availiable to pregnant women considering abortion.

 

Part of the reason that the counselling aspect has been severely audited in recent years within the NHS, covers the avaliability of counsillors of different races and from different countries, and different backgrounds.

 

I think this is one aspect that in many countries seems to be lacking. This I find not only to probably prevent knee-jerk abortions but also seems to reduce the amount problems that women that have abortions have after abortions have been taken.

 

The problem with abortions is that there are many ways to lose a baby, and I believe if you ban abortions then desperate women would take measures to kill their unwanted baby, that could also potentially harm their them. I have knowledge of a girl who went to my high school when I was in Year 11, that was pregnant and took an overdose of household over the counter pills, her parents found her and literally she almost died. She lost the baby and all because she didn't want to tell her parents.

 

Now think about this kind of scenario if abortions are banned. I mean there are even example of women purposefully hurting themselves physically to kill the baby.

 

In truth, making abortions illegal does not solve the problems, it can make them worse, and I would consider that improving counselling services would considerably help both sides of the arguement, in reducing abortions and helping women after abortions

 

Anyway I hope people don't find it necessary to call me dumb for stating my opinion. By all means though, argue that I'm wrong, its all part of the fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Otter, a human doesn't ever "become" a human. Like I mentioned on the previous page of this topic, we are part of an unbroken chain of life. Hell, we're part of an unbroken chain of chemical reactions stretching back to the big bang. But more specifically and relevantly with the topic, our lineage is an unbroken chain of cell mitosis. At no point in that chain is any human NOT a human.

 

Ok, maybe that's not entirely accurate. At some point in the chain, there were no humans. But as our ancestors became more human, it was still an unbroken chain of gradual changes which led to a combination of features which we identify as being "human". But once there were hominids which we could call "human", from then on it was an unbroken chain of humans.

 

I like to think of a human as an organism which contains the genetic material required to exhibit phenotypes which we identify as characteristically "human", such as primarily bipedal locomotion, innate capability for language, huge variety of behavioural sexual ornaments including music, art, religion, honor, logic, sport, storytelling, invention, material accumulation, violent competition, etc etc, opposable thumbs, mostly hairless bodies, and so on and so on.

 

Basically I take the ways in which we define the taxonomy of every other species, and apply it to ourselves. We wouldn't say that a male lion cub isn't a lion just because it doesn't have a mane yet, and no-one would say that a human baby isn't a human just because it can't play sport or engage others in logical debates.

 

What matters is the genetic predisposition towards exhibiting phenotypes which we collectively identify as human.

 

Embryos have precisely as much genetic predisposition to exhibit "human" traits as a newborn baby, or a full grown adult. They just are at a developmental stage where they haven't yet exhibited them. This is part of life. Nothing is born an adult. By definition, an adult is the most mature stage of life, where individuals are fully sexually active (or at least, capable), and do not develop any new traits. A teenage lion lacks a full mane, a mammalian child does not have fully developed and functional sexual organs, a mammalian baby is incapable of being self-sufficient, and all animals of all species go through an embryonic period where they scarcely even resemble what they will end up as.

 

So in summary, there is no point ever at which any human alive today was "not" human, except when they were not anything, because their genetic material didn't exist yet because their father's sperm had not yet fertilised their mother's ovum.

 

Once fertilised, however, that embryo is as much "human" as you were when you were born, as you are now, and as you will be on your deathbed. It's just different stages of development.

 

______

 

TerminalGTA, your argument that "we can't know because we haven't been through it" is simply retarded. I've never raped a woman. Does that mean I can't make any claim as to whether or not it is ok to rape a woman? In order to prosecute a rapist, would a judge themselves have to be a rapist? Otherwise how else would they know what it's like in order to make a judgement call, right?

 

No, wrong. You stupid motherf*cking c*nt. How can you not see how blatantly retarded that bullsh*t is? Are you 13? Do you have Down Syndrome? No? Then there's no excuse to be that f*cking dumb.

 

Here's the score: We are capable of forming opinions about what is "good" and what is "bad" or what is "right" or "wrong", based on our instinctual emotional reactions and post-hoc rationalisations of these reactions. We have these instinctual reactions because they served us well as we evolved in highly social tribal situations over many millions of years. No there is no "absolute" right and wrong wrought through the fabric of the universe by some divine force. But there is absolutely a "right and wrong" for us, as humans, being the social species that we are.

 

As we were evolving, there were many times when we'd have to form opinions about things that other people did, without having to do them ourselves. For example, someone else kills your wife. You have a pretty bad chance of survival, and of passing on your genes to future generations, if you are totally ok with other people killing your wife. If the only way for you to know how to react would be for you to already have killed someone else's wife, then your genes would probably never make it past you, and the guy who killed your wife would be the only one who could make any judgements about whether or not it's ok to kill people's wives. Of course, he's the one doing it, so he probably doesn't have much bad to say about it. So in a few generations, everyone thinks it's ok to kill people's wives, and they do so regularly. All because you were a dumb sh*t and couldn't judge him because you haven't walked in his shoes. Nice one dipsh*t.

 

Of course, that didn't happen. Our hairy grunting ancestors were far smarter than you. Thank god.

 

They evolved the instincts for machiavallian thought, and could therefore infer the thoughts of others, and determine the ramifications of their actions on your own future, and the future of others, and how the future of others will affect you, and whether or not this is something that will be beneficial for you or not.

 

f*ck this I'm stopping here. This is like explaining the most basic, unconscious instinctual components of human thought which one would hope every human possesses.

 

Do you get it yet you neanderthal f*ck? You are wrong. We CAN form very educated opinions and positions on things which we have not actually done. In fact, this is a big part of why we DON'T DO a lot of things, because we form the opinion that the result would be negative, thus saving ourselves the pain. This also works for things other people do. We can form opinions that we don't want other people to harm us or our loved ones. We do not ever sit there and think "well I don't know what this other person is going through so I can't judge whether or not they should harm other people". That's just simply not how humans work.

 

We're not calling you dumb for stating your opinion, we're calling you dumb because your opinion is dumb, and in combination with your other opinions, and the way you justify your opinion, we get a pretty clear picture that you are dumb, because smarter people would not hold that opinion, nor justify it in the way you do.

 

Note to Wheelman and/or other moderators: If you read the previous posts, TerminalGTA clearly gives me permission to rip on him. I draw your attention to such quotes as "Instead of threatening to say something go ahead and just say it", and "you flatter yourself too much to think that anything you say would have anymore effect than to be a rather funny little joke I read on my screen". Also note that I severely self-moderated myself by including actual debate content to break up the insults which were again, called for.

Edited by Mortukai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

Ah....you are a pointless individual. To be honest,if I has nothing better to do, I would actually respond properly to the absolute pig swill I see before me.

 

What I meant by none of us know what is like. Is that no one who has been pregnant has commented, because it is in most cases an arduous and painful 9 months with many lows. Now a rapist recieve no pain from raping someone, and merely does his action for pleasure. We should have all experienced sex at some point so in many respects the action is the same, sure the act of raping someone is a very complex one mentally and often there there is large psychoanalysis by police forces to try and understand why these people do what they do. I think really a bunch of guys sitting round a forum, on our high chairs saying "Women should be forced to have babies, is masochistic." The world has move on.

 

And really that is where this end, because Mortukai, you actually seem to have no opinion you come into threads and just slate people and say your wrong. I haven't heard what you think. To be honest. I have kind of had it, at least with that topic. So just assume anything you say from now on will be ignored from the outset, unless you actually give an opinion on something. Then I will read it, and hopefully I will conduct myself better than you have, if I decide to respond.

 

Am I 13? No

Do I have Down Syndrome? No

 

But I reckon your age maybe reflected in your question and mental state while I don't pertain to know you, really does worry me. I really don't know why people get so worked up over some one two cents in a debate. Afterall this is a GTA forum, not the United Nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

I motion to ban you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

lol.gif Is this a joke? lol.gif

 

I didn't realise there were so many comedians in the forum!

 

Why? Because I don't agree with you!

 

Maturity at it's best......goodness me! sarcasm.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

To be honest,if I has nothing better to do, I would actually respond properly to the absolute pig swill I see before me.

So if you had nothing better to do, you'd reply properly... and then you reply improperly, typing a few hundred words about nothing to do with defending your position. So replying improperly is "something better to do" than replying properly? You couldn't have typed the same number of words in a way which actually logically refuted my points?

 

Well no, you couldn't, because I'm right and you're a retard.

 

 

Is that no one who has been pregnant has commented, because it is in most cases an arduous and painful 9 months with many lows.

So... an arduos and painful 9 months with many lows justifies murdering a baby?

 

So... if I were to cause a person to experience 9 months of arduous and painful lows, then I should be sentenced to the same prison sentence as I would be if I were to murder a baby?

 

Really? Is that your argument? Really???

 

 

And really that is where this end, because Mortukai, you actually seem to have no opinion you come into threads and just slate people and say your wrong. I haven't heard what you think.

You haven't heard what I think because you, again, are a f*cking idiot.

 

Here's what you did.

 

You saw the topic title, and thought "ooh, I have an opinion on that", and so hit reply immediately, and then spewed forth your opinion, and then checked back to see what other people thought of your clever reply.

 

See, I know you did this, because IF you had actually, oh, I dunno, read the preceeding posts before you vomited your idiocy into the topic, you would have seen a post DIRECTLY ABOVE YOUR OWN, by me, which not only clearly states my position on the issue, but ALSO refutes thoroughly points you brought up in your post.

 

It's amazing isn't it, that just by doing something as simple as reading the last post to a topic, you could have avoided looking like a complete retard by realising that you are way out of your league here. And who knows, maybe by doing something CRAZY, and reading back a few pages, or *gasp* the WHOLE TOPIC, you might actually even get a good grasp of the issues which have been brought up and debated and you might find out that someone else has already said what you wanted to say but got shot the f*ck down, or god forbid, you might actually learn something. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

 

And just because you're funny as hell:

 

while I don't pertain to know you

God I love when stupid people try to sound smart by using "tricky" words in completely the wrong context. If you want to debate with the big boys, you should learn the f*cking language first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suction Testicle Man

Keep it nice, ladies. We don't want any more casualties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

It's a shame. I knew it was coming... but this could spell the end of the D&D. I'll be missin' you, Ben.

 

I probably (certainly) used the wrong word when I said "human." I meant something more like "person," with all the philosophical bullsh*t that comes with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
What a woman does with her own body is her own right and business, especially in cases like rape and just a single, careless mistake (like not wearing a condom). But, I don't agree with third trimester abortions, at that stage the child is almost capable of supporting life itself. Not only that, but the person already had six other months to decide on an abortion, it's too late.

I HATE when people pull that absurd excuse "every woman does with her own body is her own right and business", the thing here is that she is doing nothing to her own body, she is doing something to someone else!

 

THIS may sound really harsh, but even if a woman was raped, i do not think that abortion is a solution, there is ADOPTION, that woman is entirely on her right not to see the baby of her rapist, but that doesn't mean she can't see that baby ever again!

 

What royal f*cking fault does the baby have in a rape? NONE

 

It is terrible already that a crime has been already commited against a woman, it's like putting the frikkin cherry on top of the cake when she goes to have an abortion!, now i can't call them murderers, it's understandable to some extent, but it's not a solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Why do you think that we can treat an early fetus as a person, though? We might as well treat it as a part of the mother's body. Her blood flows through all of its veins, and there is very little brain activity early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

It would be much easier if there was a clear division between "piece of the mother" and "personhood."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
Why do you think that we can treat an early fetus as a person, though? We might as well treat it as a part of the mother's body. Her blood flows through all of its veins, and there is very little brain activity early on.

Dude, it's a fetus, it's life, shouldn't that be enough confused.gif ?

 

Even people with brain paralysis have low brain activity, does that mean we gotta treat them like sh*t confused.gif ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Why do you think that we can treat an early fetus as a person, though? We might as well treat it as a part of the mother's body. Her blood flows through all of its veins, and there is very little brain activity early on.

Dude, it's a fetus, it's life, shouldn't that be enough confused.gif ?

 

Even people with brain paralysis have low brain activity, does that mean we gotta treat them like sh*t confused.gif ?

Well, right now, you can just say, if it has human DNA, it should be treated as a human. But where do we end up when we start manipulating that stuff? And what about artificial intelligence? I think, whether or not something should be treated as a scentient being, as in different from animals and plants, should depend on it actually being scentient. Regardles of whether or not it is human. An early fetus is a non-scentient animal by just about any measure, so I don't see an abortion as a murder. If you think that abortions should be illegal, then so should be the slaughter of animals for food. I agree - to a point, but good luck making that into a law. Maybe, one day we won't have to kill any animal for any reason. That would be nice.

 

What I really see as a future for abortions is an option to transplant an embryo into an artifical woomb that will carry it to term, at which point, it can be given up for an adoption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
Why do you think that we can treat an early fetus as a person, though? We might as well treat it as a part of the mother's body. Her blood flows through all of its veins, and there is very little brain activity early on.

Dude, it's a fetus, it's life, shouldn't that be enough confused.gif ?

 

Even people with brain paralysis have low brain activity, does that mean we gotta treat them like sh*t confused.gif ?

Well, right now, you can just say, if it has human DNA, it should be treated as a human. But where do we end up when we start manipulating that stuff? And what about artificial intelligence? I think, whether or not something should be treated as a scentient being, as in different from animals and plants, should depend on it actually being scentient. Regardles of whether or not it is human. An early fetus is a non-scentient animal by just about any measure, so I don't see an abortion as a murder. If you think that abortions should be illegal, then so should be the slaughter of animals for food. I agree - to a point, but good luck making that into a law. Maybe, one day we won't have to kill any animal for any reason. That would be nice.

 

What I really see as a future for abortions is an option to transplant an embryo into an artifical woomb that will carry it to term, at which point, it can be given up for an adoption.

Good one on the animal thing, makes you wonder, but at least we do something useful with the animals, we don't kill them out of doubt or fear which is the case of abortion

 

I NEVER said abortion was murder, i never even judged the women who carried on abortion, if a woman aborted a child because the father was an asshole...what can we do, sh*t happens, MY POINT is that abortion is an unnecessary course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Unnecessary, yes. Unless, of course, there is a medical problem. But then again, getting pregnant in the first place is unnecessary. All these people who are protesting against abortions should instead use their time more productively in promoting various birth control methods. Even in case of a rape, except for cases of captivity, there is an option for emergency contraception (morning-after pill). These things are nearly as effective as some of the primary contraception methods. A lot of pregnancies are caused by people simply not understanding what contraception options are available and how they need to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.