Thirith on 9/6/2009 at 13:44
Quote Posted by Phatose
Because you seem to have left off the rather crucial difference between the two approaches is that one involves dead babies and one does not. It's all well and good to talk about choice, but talking about the issue without acknowledging that one involves dead babies and one doesn't is just ignoring the elephant in the kitchen.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that Dead Babies(tm) are automatically OMG!!!!1!1 much worse than children who are at a much higher risk of being abused or criminally neglected because they're unwanted, or because the parents in question don't have the maturity or intelligence to be proper parents.
Never mind that you calling the result of any abortion, no matter how early in the pregnancy, dead babies is purely polemic button-pushing, which makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Phatose on 9/6/2009 at 15:00
Quote Posted by DDL
So, to summarise: if we assume that at all stages of foetusness, the foetus is a human child with all the rights that that entails, you argue that it's not within the woman's rights to get rid of it?
Is that your stance?
So if we simply acknowledge that point A, "that at all stages of foetusness, the foetus is a human child with all the rights that that entails" is of course obvious nonsense, then your actual viewpoint in sight of the fact that a tiny cluster of cells ISN'T a human child, is that it IS within a woman's rights to get rid of it?
CHRIST. You know, if it'd been me, I would've made that more clear, because as you can see: IT WASN'T.
Yes, that is exactly it. And yes, point A is obvious nonsense, but someone made the claim that it was a woman's right to terminate even if it was, and I claimed that was wrong and have been bogged down in it ever since.
Quote Posted by thirith
I'm sorry, but I don't think that Dead Babies(tm) are automatically OMG!!!!1!1 much worse than children who are at a much higher risk of being abused or criminally neglected because they're unwanted, or because the parents in question don't have the maturity or intelligence to be proper parents.
Thirith, we already have structures in place to deal with those problems, and I would argue at any rate, termination should be an option of last resort, not a first line of defense against irresponsible parents.
SubJeff on 9/6/2009 at 15:07
Quote Posted by Phatose
Subjective Effect, I've got about five different people after me here. What exactly did I avoid?
The fact that everything that Starrfall and I have posted negates everything you have posted by use of the twin tools of logic and reason.
You're just dancing with these other guys because you're trying to avoid our gaze.
Phatose on 9/6/2009 at 16:29
Are you referring to your conversation with demagogue and starfall regarding sentience versus viability, or are you referring back to the risk to the mother arguement?
Queue on 9/6/2009 at 17:10
Is that like the mother ship?
SubJeff on 9/6/2009 at 17:45
Quote Posted by Phatose
Are you referring to your conversation with demagogue and starfall regarding sentience versus viability, or are you referring back to the risk to the mother arguement?
Well its all tied in together since my point of view is supported by specific facts and is consistent.
sssssssssssssssssssss
Phatose on 9/6/2009 at 21:32
Then you're gonna have to tell me exactly which of my logic it's so devastating to, cause it sure as hell looks to me like you've denied the premise too.
Vivian on 9/6/2009 at 21:48
the shit bit
Phatose on 9/6/2009 at 22:27
Another troll?
Jesus, never mind. You win subjective effect. I surrender, you have bested me with you superior intellect and I withdraw all claims and bow to your correctness.
Would you mind explaining, however, exactly what viability actually means? I find this one confusing because it seems so fuzzy as to be of no more use then sentience does. I find it hard to believe that there's a line where you can actually say that there is a zero chance of a fetus surviving outside the womb, no matter what we do.
Additionally, I wonder if the line is the same everywhere, or does it vary from case to case and place to place? Is a fetus born in the third world where top rate neonatal units are not available have a later date of viability then one born in the first world where appropriate medical care is available?
What does viable mean, exactly? And how are you getting to a line of viability at all?
