Proabortion liberals exposed.

Gooberry

Chickens are considered life. 

We eat chickens.

YeshuaBought

@Gooberry Here is where I agree. I am an ovovegetarian for spiritual reasons and think it is not okay to kill anything.

Zombieguy1987

Gooberry said:

Chickens are considered life. 

We eat chickens.

Humans are considered life

We kill humans in war

Gooberry

YeshuaBought said:

@Gooberry Here is where I agree. I am an ovovegetarian for spiritual reasons and think it is not okay to kill anything.

No you don’t.

You’re still alive, which means you’ve killed lots of things in the last few weeks.

MayCaesar

First of all, I have not heard of anyone who would deny that a fetus is a living being. Of course it is.
Second, it being a living being means nothing in legal terms. Bacteria or mushrooms are also living beings; this does not imply the necessity to protect their lives in any way.
Finally, every time you take a breath, you kill thousands microbes. Since I do not see you advocating for microbe rights, I would say that you are a hypocrite.

The reason we value human life and human rights is not because of their abstract inherent value, but because we believe in our ability to live our lives by our own design, rather than play out someone else's plan. We believe in the right to choose, in the right to make our own plans, in the right to build our own lives regardless of how the state or other people want us to build them.

Since the fetus is not intelligent and cannot make any choices or decisions, its life is no more valuable than that of a microbe from the legal perspective.

Orthodox_Christian

@Gooberry
Chickens are sub-humans. Their only purpose is to be eaten.

@Maycaesar >>>''Second, it being a living being means nothing in legal terms. Bacteria or mushrooms are also living beings; this does not imply the necessity to protect their lives in any way.''
Being a living being with the potentiality for intelligence does have ethical necessity.

>>>''The reason we value human life and human rights is not because of their abstract inherent value, but because we believe in our ability to live our lives by our own design, rather than play out someone else's plan. We believe in the right to choose, in the right to make our own plans, in the right to build our own lives regardless of how the state or other people want us to build them.''

''Muh human rights'' isn't an argument.

>>>''Since the fetus is not intelligent and cannot make any choices or decisions, its life is no more valuable than that of a microbe from the legal perspective.''

Nor can people in coma, sleeping, or born babies.

Orthodox_Christian

@YeshuaBought The Apostles fished. Noah ate meat after the flood.

MayCaesar

@Orthodox_Christian ;

Everything has a "potential" for intelligence, even a cardboard box. This is not an argument in support of anything.

Similarly, everything has a potential (and probably inevitability) to die or be deconstructed. Does not mean killing anyone you want should be legally allowed.

"It has a potential to happen" is one of the laziest arguments against abortion, guns, private healthcare and other first world controversies.

Orthodox_Christian

>>>''Everything has a "potential" for intelligence, even a cardboard box. This is not an argument in support of anything.''

How does a non-sentient being have potential for intelligence? Fetuses are living being and will receive intelligence rather soon compared to a damn box.

>>>''Similarly, everything has a potential (and probably inevitability) to die or be deconstructed. Does not mean killing anyone you want should be legally allowed.''

This doesn't really have anything to do with keeping potential. If I believe in keeping fetuses alive because of their potential to be intelligent, then I don't want to kill people arbitrarily because they have potential to do something as long as they live.

>>>''"It has a potential to happen" is one of the laziest arguments against abortion, guns, private healthcare and other first world controversies.''
It appears so when you turn it upside down.

MayCaesar

@Orthodox_Christian

The cardboard box sitting in my apartment has a chance in a few centuries to be infused with artificial intelligence through a complicated nano-technological process, hence becoming intelligent. This means it has a potential to become intelligent, and hence I should not be allowed to throw it in a garbage bin - is basically the same argument as "this bunch of cells can become an intelligent human being one day, hence the woman should not be allowed to get rid of it".

Keep that in mind next time you dispose of something, since you are killing billions of its potential intelligent offsprings. 

Orthodox_Christian

@MayCaesar
>>>The cardboard box sitting in my apartment has a chance in a few centuries to be infused with artificial intelligence through a complicated nano-technological process, hence becoming intelligent.

But it's not alive. AI is also philosophically impossible to become self-aware, nor are cardboard boxes meant to be alive. They aren't designed to be by us. They're boxes.

>>>''This means it has a potential to become intelligent, and hence I should not be allowed to throw it in a garbage bin - is basically the same argument as "this bunch of cells can become an intelligent human being one day, hence the woman should not be allowed to get rid of it".

Keep that in mind next time you dispose of something, since you are killing billions of its potential intelligent offsprings. ''

The butterfly effect is real, but ignoring it in regards to non-living beings without the potential for intelligence (no, AI will never become self-aware. It's ultimately a program) does not mean we have to ignore living beings that will be intelligent. Fetuses have a purpose not like cardboard boxes do.

MayCaesar

@Orthodox_Christian

We already established that something's current state alone is irrelevant that was your argument, stating that the fetus not being intelligent right now does not mean its intelligence in the future should not be considered.

The cardboard box might not be alive right now. It could be 200 years from now. Not to mention that millions bacteria reside in the box' walls, that IS alive right now and, again, has a potential to become intelligent in the future.

This is a poor argument all in all. If you want to go down this route, you are better off arguing from the position of human supremacy, stating that humans and proto-humans have an abstract absolute worth that other entities do not. The premise is not something many will agree upon, but assuming the premise is accepted, your argument will be logically sound.

On the other hand, arguing from the position of something having potential to become something else is not going to lead anywhere logically. Anything has a potential to become anything.

Orthodox_Christian

@MayCaesar
You're making false equivalences, which is why I'm still making the argument. AI will never be self-aware, so forget about the boxes. Bacteria aren't at the same level of us, we can't care about them unless they threaten us or something. We don't care about bacteria rights. 

>>>''This is a poor argument all in all. If you want to go down this route, you are better off arguing from the position of human supremacy, stating that humans and proto-humans have an abstract absolute worth that other entities do not. The premise is not something many will agree upon, but assuming the premise is accepted, your argument will be logically sound.''

I actually am, humans are superior to boxes lol.

>>>''On the other hand, arguing from the position of something having potential to become something else is not going to lead anywhere logically. Anything has a potential to become anything.''

No they don't. Boxes can't get free will. 

MayCaesar

@Orthodox_Christian

AIs will most likely be self-aware very soon, possibly within our lifetime. Self-awareness is a result of chemical and/or quantum processes, and nothing prevents those from being implemented in a silicon machine.

I think your misconception here is your assumption that humans are in any way special, other than the fact that we are members of this species. In reality, from the physical point of view, we are all biological machines of merely different scales and development stages. Once you do away with human supremacism natural for many of us and look at things from the position of the external observer, you will see that arguments based on human supremacy evaporate pretty quickly upon close logical inspection.

There is nothing functionally different between a human adult, and, say, a cardboard box with integrated silicon chip making it self-aware and intelligent. You just need to open your mind to the future and possibilities it brings. After all, your own anti-abortion argument is based on the future and possibilities it brings, so it does not do your argument justice to neglect the other factors these entities encompass.

YeshuaBought

@MayCaesar People have the right to live.

whiteflame

This argument strikes me as confusing, largely because @Orthodox_Christian seems to be ignoring a key factor. Suppose we take him at his word and focus solely on humans. His argument is that a zygote should be treated similarly or the same as a grown human because it has the potential to become intelligent. On that basis, I ask you: does a sperm cell warrant similar protections? How about an ovum? They also have the potential to become intelligent, albeit with some outside influence, which is quite similar to the zygote as the zygote cannot become intelligent without being implanted in the correct location and being exposed to sufficient nutrients, chemical and biological signals, etc. And, if a sperm and ovum do warrant the same protections, how about the cells that were progenitors to those? And the progenitors to those? And the progenitors to those?

The argument you're presenting is infinitely regressive. If we ascribe value to a cell on the basis that they have the potential to become intelligent, then we must ascribe that value to the cells that gave rise to that cell, which would make many cells that make up certain parts of adult humans' reproductive systems just as worthy of value as a zygote. 

WordsMatter

@YeshuaBought why do humans have a right to live?

YeshuaBought

@WordsMatter Yep, you are trolling. The what matters more than the why. That is just as dumb as asking why the sky is blue. Grow up.

YeshuaBought

@whiteflame You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. People have the right to live, end of story. Abortion is murder outside of medical need. No exceptions. Baby killers are disgusting.

WordsMatter

@YeshuaBought that actually isnt a troll. Seriously what gives humans the right to live

whiteflame

YeshuaBought said:

@whiteflame You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. People have the right to live, end of story. Abortion is murder outside of medical need. No exceptions. Baby killers are disgusting.

I’m posing some serious questions here, and I’d love to hear your answers. I’m not taking a stance in this post on abortion, I’m not arguing that abortion isn’t murder, just that if we define the start of a human life based on its potential, then every cell that was the progenitor of the zygote is also a human life. That’s just deductive reasoning using the arguments I’ve seen in this thread, the very facts that you and @Orthodox_Christian are relying on to support your views. If you feel that’s not true, explain your stance. Why does a zygote warrant the designation, but not the separate sperm or ovum?