Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The life / abortion thread ***

Results 1 to 32 of 32
  1. #1

    Default *** The life / abortion thread ***

    Food for thought: no human has two hearts. Therefore, by the time a fetus has a heartbeat, it's its own person and aborting it is murder.

    I'm cool with that logic. So, let's take it further...

    No human has two different genetic codes; therefore, conception creates a second person* and aborting it is murder.

    *If I'm getting terminology wrong (like it's DNA code not genetic code or whatever), please correct me so we can focus on the meat of the idea without distraction.
  2. #2
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-1744960.html

    Not a fan of the starting point or further logic.
  3. #3
    That strikes me as a uniquely different situation.
  4. #4
    I think I would say that developing a heartbeat via the natural reproductive process is definitely different than doing so by surgical grafting.
  5. #5
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Your starting point is arbitrary, and the logic doesn't follow.
  6. #6
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    ^^ Stating that you're cool with your own premise doesn't make it valid.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  7. #7
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Food for thought: no human has two hearts.
    Conjoined twins

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    No human has two different genetic codes
    Every mother carries genetic material and markers of every child she's carried.
    Mothers of boys can test positive for male DNA - in rare cases of if you're specifically looking for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Therefore...

    therefore...
  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #9
    "There's a better home awaiting, in the sky, Lord, in the sky."
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Your starting point is arbitrary, and the logic doesn't follow.
    Any premise on this topic will be arbitrary.
  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Conjoined twins


    Every mother carries genetic material and markers of every child she's carried.
    Mothers of boys can test positive for male DNA - in rare cases of if you're specifically looking for it.


    It can be reworded so that the idea is the same without technical mistakes.
  12. #12
    I think if the OP was perfect in all its logic, I still wouldn't agree with it. I don't know.
  13. #13
    What counts as 'human' seems like the question here. Those biological definitions of what counts as human seem too simplistic imo. I think it goes beyond pure biology and into something more to do with sentience. Defining murder as ending the life of something that is 'biologically more human than not human' doesn't seem to work too well.

    If a baby is born and the mother decides 'i don't want this' and stuffs it in a trash can that is definitely killing a human (i.e., murder).

    If a woman takes a morning after pill and thus aborts a sperm-egg coupling that is distinctly 'human' (as opposed to 'dog' or 'cat' or 'werewolf') inasmuch as it contains human DNA that doesn't seem to me like murder. The thing doesn't have any sentience at that point.

    If a foetus is 5 or 6 months old and the mother decides to abort, it's a bit more murky imo.
  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What counts as 'human' seems like the question here. Those biological definitions of what counts as human seem too simplistic imo. I think it goes beyond pure biology and into something more to do with sentience. Defining murder as ending the life of something that is 'biologically more human than not human' doesn't seem to work too well.

    If a baby is born and the mother decides 'i don't want this' and stuffs it in a trash can that is definitely killing a human (i.e., murder).

    If a woman takes a morning after pill and thus aborts a sperm-egg coupling that is distinctly 'human' (as opposed to 'dog' or 'cat' or 'werewolf') inasmuch as it contains human DNA that doesn't seem to me like murder. The thing doesn't have any sentience at that point.

    If a foetus is 5 or 6 months old and the mother decides to abort, it's a bit more murky imo.
    That's mostly the way I see it.


    An added element from me, though, is that I just don't like abortion. Something about it rubs me the wrong way. Just something about it. Regardless of at what stage the abortion is conducted, it is the elimination of a unique human life.

    I also think there is probably a negative correlation between how abortion-friendly a society is and how healthy the society is. That's certainly not demonstrated though; it can be easily argued against.
  15. #15
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Wuf, I'm not being technical.

    Your starting point is arbitrary. There is no reason to start your chain with a heart. Why not the brain? The kidneys? Stomach? Face? A person would need all of these. So It's arbitrary. However, these pieces do have different development times. I'm not going to bother researching them, but if the heart developed at 5 weeks, then you've forced 5 weeks as the cut off. That cut off is therefore also arbitrary.

    Nevertheless, the logic doesn't follow even with genetic code, dna, or whatever. When you break it down to simple logical statements, you'll see you're assuming your premise. You are assuming that it is a heart that makes a person a person. Or that it is a unique genetic code. It's ultimately irrelevant whether someone can never have two of these things...your argument depends on one being an ID of personhood
  16. #16
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business


    Someone posted this on my facebook feed and I find it hard to disagree with. Libertarians are pretty well split on abortion so even though I'm pro-choice, I see many valid anti-abortion arguments. It's just something where you have to make a hard call and value one important thing more than another. I'm okay with the status quo of "legal-with-conditions" that is put into place in most U.S. states at present.
  17. #17
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    So that's how a checkmate looks like
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  18. #18
    So, the bodily autonomy thing, I like. It's logical, and makes sense to me. I'm buying it.

    Then I thought about it more, and I need help reconciling that view with some of my other views.

    In regards to stem cell research and the controversy last year about planned parenthood selling fetuses...

    My thinking has been "who cares, those fetuses are going in the trash anyway"

    How do I reconcile that with bodily autonomy? Doesn't the fetus have the right to dictate what happens to its remains? Don't the stem cell scientists need consent?

    Furthermore, if bodily autonomy matters, why do we make an exception for example, when police turn over the remains of John and Jane doe for use as medical cadavers?
  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    So that's how a checkmate looks like
    The person who disagrees just says "bodily autonomy except for when it's a baby." And the rationale is valid. When a human life depends on your body, it's a unique situation.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-01-2017 at 06:28 PM.
  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So, the bodily autonomy thing, I like. It's logical, and makes sense to me. I'm buying it.

    Then I thought about it more, and I need help reconciling that view with some of my other views.

    In regards to stem cell research and the controversy last year about planned parenthood selling fetuses...

    My thinking has been "who cares, those fetuses are going in the trash anyway"

    How do I reconcile that with bodily autonomy? Doesn't the fetus have the right to dictate what happens to its remains? Don't the stem cell scientists need consent?

    Furthermore, if bodily autonomy matters, why do we make an exception for example, when police turn over the remains of John and Jane doe for use as medical cadavers?
    It goes even further.

    What if Jeff and Jim are abducted by Mad Scientist, who cuts off Jim's head and attaches it to Jeff's shoulder, keeping Jim's brain fully alive yet turning his life dependent on Jeff's body? What if the cops bust Mad Scientist and Jeff-and-Jim's-head are taken to the hospital and Jeff wants to cut off Jim's head from his shoulder? Bodily autonomy, right? Yeah but Jim is still conscious and mentally autonomous.

    We may never be able to logically figure this shit out.
  21. #21
    You realise you've just mentioned a situation in which is easily resolved by bodily autonomy right?

    I agree it's a nonsense to just assume that's a correct answer to why abortion is ok however it is a very valid argument.
  22. #22
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO


    I think I've seen that movie.
  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    You realise you've just mentioned a situation in which is easily resolved by bodily autonomy right?

    I agree it's a nonsense to just assume that's a correct answer to why abortion is ok however it is a very valid argument.
    How so? I thought about it for a while and couldn't come to a conclusion.
  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How so? I thought about it for a while and couldn't come to a conclusion.
    Yeah it'd be fine under the rules of that concept. It doesn't mean the concept isn't valid for other things nor does a concept applying to one situation means it applies to all.
    Last edited by Savy; 02-01-2017 at 07:34 PM. Reason: nor, not not.
  25. #25
    True but doesn't that also negate the "bodily autonomy" thing? You can just say "oh it doesn't apply here...because different."
  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    True but doesn't that also negate the "bodily autonomy" thing? You can just say "oh it doesn't apply here...because different."
    It depends on what you're talking about, as I said it isn't like it's a universal truth. Realistically though it also applies in the situation you're talking about. They were essentially murdered and the fact that someone did something atrocious shouldn't mean that another person should have to bare the burden of that. You might think it's fucked up for that person to not allow another person to use their body to live but at the same time it isn't something you'd accept if it wasn't forced upon you.

    Ultimately you could debate bodily autonomy isn't well or deeply explained in that post. It is just a quick answer to a question asked by a person with an interest in a subject and if they wanted they'd look into it more.
    Last edited by Savy; 02-01-2017 at 07:35 PM.
  27. #27
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38840657

    Does this strike anyone else as really strange? Makes me a bit uncomfortable really (therefore it should be banned).
  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38840657

    Does this strike anyone else as really strange? Makes me a bit uncomfortable really (therefore it should be banned).
    It is a bit strange, but if it helps them get over their loss then why not? It's not like they're taking the baby home and making sausages out of it.
  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It is a bit strange, but if it helps them get over their loss then why not? It's not like they're taking the baby home and making sausages out of it.
    Mostly agree, though taking the baby out in.....I assume 'pram' is British for 'baby carriage' .....seems a little offside. I understand you're grieving, but I'm not sure anyone in public wants to see a dead baby.
  30. #30
    My hilarity is wasted on this forum.
  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Mostly agree, though taking the baby out in.....I assume 'pram' is British for 'baby carriage' .....seems a little offside. I understand you're grieving, but I'm not sure anyone in public wants to see a dead baby.
    Pram = baby carriage, yes.

    I doubt the corpse is draped over the top of the carriage for all to see. More likely it's wrapped in a blanket inside like a living baby would be. Does seem a bit macabre though.
  32. #32
    Your hilarity should be banned.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •