Author Topic: Girl, 11, PREGNANT (Read 15969 times)

deadly7 · « **on:** July 25, 2006, 06:32:35 pm »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=&ct=5
Jesus. That's terrible parenting.. letting a kid smoke cigs and drink before she's even hit puberty? Are you insane? And yet she's "proud" that she's going to have a baby.. that will be utterly fucked up because she's been smoking through the pregnancy. I can already picture her life in 10 years.

AntiVirus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 25, 2006, 06:47:23 pm »

Wow.. That's sad.

Sidoh · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2006, 06:51:14 pm »

Holy shit.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2006, 07:00:08 pm »

Quote from: deadly7 on July 25, 2006, 06:32:35 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=&ct=5
Jesus. That's terrible parenting.. letting a kid smoke cigs and drink before she's even hit puberty? Are you insane? And yet she's "proud" that she's going to have a baby.. that will be utterly fucked up because she's been smoking through the pregnancy. I can already picture her life in 10 years.

non-existant?

parents suck today......

Krazed · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2006, 07:14:58 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 25, 2006, 07:00:08 pm

Quote from: deadly7 on July 25, 2006, 06:32:35 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=&ct=5
Jesus. That's terrible parenting.. letting a kid smoke cigs and drink before she's even hit puberty? Are you insane? And yet she's "proud" that she's going to have a baby.. that will be utterly fucked up because she's been smoking through the pregnancy. I can already picture her life in 10 years.
non-existant?

parents suck today......

I wonder why the guy couldn't use a condom or pull out..

CrAz3D · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2006, 07:30:09 pm »

Quote from: Krazed on July 25, 2006, 07:14:58 pm

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 25, 2006, 07:00:08 pm
Quote from: deadly7 on July 25, 2006, 06:32:35 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=&ct=5
Jesus. That's terrible parenting.. letting a kid smoke cigs and drink before she's even hit puberty? Are you insane? And yet she's "proud" that she's going to have a baby.. that will be utterly fucked up because she's been smoking through the pregnancy. I can already picture her life in 10 years.
non-existant?

parents suck today......

I wonder why the guy couldn't use a condom or pull out..

his parents suck too?

iago · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2006, 07:52:52 pm »

Quote from: Krazed on July 25, 2006, 07:14:58 pm

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 25, 2006, 07:00:08 pm
Quote from: deadly7 on July 25, 2006, 06:32:35 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=&ct=5
Jesus. That's terrible parenting.. letting a kid smoke cigs and drink before she's even hit puberty? Are you insane? And yet she's "proud" that she's going to have a baby.. that will be utterly fucked up because she's been smoking through the pregnancy. I can already picture her life in 10 years.
non-existant?

parents suck today......

I wonder why the guy couldn't use a condom or pull out..

Pulling out doesn't always stop it.

Good luck buying condoms if you're 11.

MyndFyre · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2006, 07:57:25 pm »

Quote

"I can't wait to take the baby swimming and out for walks in the pram. I think I'll be able to cope as I've had lots of practice looking after my brothers.

Yeah, cuz you know, the only thing involved in having a child is taking it swimming and out for walks.

Dipshit.

leet_muffin · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:08:21 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 07:52:52 pm

Quote from: Krazed on July 25, 2006, 07:14:58 pm
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 25, 2006, 07:00:08 pm
Quote from: deadly7 on July 25, 2006, 06:32:35 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=&ct=5
Jesus. That's terrible parenting.. letting a kid smoke cigs and drink before she's even hit puberty? Are you insane? And yet she's "proud" that she's going to have a baby.. that will be utterly fucked up because she's been smoking through the pregnancy. I can already picture her life in 10 years.
non-existant?

parents suck today......

I wonder why the guy couldn't use a condom or pull out..

Pulling out doesn't always stop it.

Good luck buying condoms if you're 11.

I'm 15, I can buy condoms.

MyndFyre · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:22:35 pm »

Quote from: leet_muffin on July 25, 2006, 08:08:21 pm

I'm 15, I can buy condoms.

That's because the store clerk looks at you and figures that it's better to let you buy condoms than to let you reproduce.

iago · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:23:12 pm »

Quote from: leet_muffin on July 25, 2006, 08:08:21 pm

I'm 15, I can buy condoms.

Great. You aren't 11.

Having sex at 15 wouldn't be shocking, but 11 would be.

deadly7 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:25:41 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 25, 2006, 07:00:08 pm

non-existant?
parents suck today......

I'd consider non-existant parenting to be bad parenting, wouldn't you?

MyndFyre · « **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:26:52 pm »

Quote from: deadly7 on July 25, 2006, 08:25:41 pm

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 25, 2006, 07:00:08 pm
non-existant?
parents suck today......
I'd consider non-existant parenting to be bad parenting, wouldn't you?

For the record, it's spelled "non-existent."

And I think that's what CrAz3D was trying to say.

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 08:23:12 pm

Great. You aren't 11.

Having sex at 15 wouldn't be shocking, but 11 would be.

The guy who made the baby was 11.

Krazed · « **Reply #13 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:43:42 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 08:23:12 pm

Quote from: leet_muffin on July 25, 2006, 08:08:21 pm
I'm 15, I can buy condoms.
Great. You aren't 11.

Having sex at 15 wouldn't be shocking, but 11 would be.

Pulling out *generally* works, and a 15-year-old boy can buy condoms.

Sidoh · « **Reply #14 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:45:46 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 25, 2006, 08:26:52 pm

The guy who made the baby was 11.

You mean 15, right?

iago · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2006, 09:38:32 pm »

Quote from: Krazed on July 25, 2006, 08:43:42 pm

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 08:23:12 pm
Quote from: leet_muffin on July 25, 2006, 08:08:21 pm
I'm 15, I can buy condoms.
Great. You aren't 11.

Having sex at 15 wouldn't be shocking, but 11 would be.

Pulling out *generally* works, and a 15-year-old boy can buy condoms.

Pulling out *can* work. It's by no means a good plan or a smart idea though. Then you get into the whole STD thing....

BigAznDaddy · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2006, 09:46:10 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 09:38:32 pm

Pulling out *can* work. It's by no means a good plan or a smart idea though. Then you get into the whole STD thing....

Well everything *can* work but not always.
Sometimes sperm can exit out the penis before ejaculation

dark_drake · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:23:39 pm »

... where have morals and parents who care gone?

MyndFyre · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:35:40 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 25, 2006, 08:45:46 pm

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 25, 2006, 08:26:52 pm
The guy who made the baby was 11.

You mean 15, right?

That too. ^^

AntiVirus · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm »

Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.

iago · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm »

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm

Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.

I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."

AntiVirus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:57:41 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm
Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.
I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."

I don't think we should kill someone to solve this problem. We should educate her on how to be a better mother.

MyndFyre · « **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2006, 11:19:51 pm »

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:57:41 pm

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm
Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm
Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.
I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."
I don't think we should kill someone to solve this problem. We should educate her on how to be a better mother.

Take the kid away.

Joe · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2006, 11:24:45 pm »

Joe: Oh my gosh, look at this. Some girl got pregnant at age 11.
Trina: Well how do you know if that's true?

Hehe.

deadly7 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2006, 11:28:10 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm
Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.
I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."

I'd agree with her getting an abortion. You already know that baby's going to be fucked up like no other... 8 months of continuous smoking (I think it said 20 cigs/day?) and probably liquor in the system, too.

Joe · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2006, 11:49:39 pm »

How would you like it if you were aborted? You turned out pretty messed up too, but your mom didn't have you killed.

(Haha, cheap shot)

Killer360 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 25, 2006, 11:52:46 pm »

That's just sick...

leet_muffin · « **Reply #27 on:** July 26, 2006, 12:01:59 am »

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm
Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.
I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."

100% Agreed.

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:57:41 pm

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm
Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm
Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.
I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."
I don't think we should kill someone to solve this problem. We should educate her on how to be a better mother.

I think someone should die somewhere in this whole situation. Maybe the b/f should pull a Peterson, and kill the pregnant mother. Overpopulation is problem in my mind.

Quote from: Joe[x86] on July 25, 2006, 11:24:45 pm

Joe: Oh my gosh, look at this. Some girl got pregnant at age 11.
Trina: Well how do you know if that's true?

Hehe.

Who.. Wait.. uh... 100% who the fuck cares? Joe, no more people you know, kk.

d&q · « **Reply #28 on:** July 26, 2006, 12:06:59 am »

Quote from: Joe[x86] on July 25, 2006, 11:49:39 pm

How would you like it if you were aborted? You turned out pretty messed up too, but your mom didn't have you killed.

(Haha, cheap shot)

I would prefer for both me and the mother to be aborted. Seriously.

AntiVirus · « **Reply #29 on:** July 26, 2006, 12:58:55 am »

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:57:41 pm

Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm
Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm
Quote
Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.
I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."
I don't think we should kill someone to solve this problem. We should educate her on how to be a better mother.

I think someone should die somewhere in this whole situation. Maybe the b/f should pull a Peterson, and kill the pregnant mother. Overpopulation is problem in my mind.

Why should we kill someone because of thise? First off it doesn't affect you in anyway, so why are you worried about the outcome? Secondly, if you guys are worried about the baby being raised badly or the mother not taking care of the child then there is always the choice of adoption.

You guys just throw death out there as an option without even caring about human life. She is a human, humans make mistakes (even though this is rediculous). The baby *might* not have any problems at birth, but who knows? Why kill a human on the assumption that it's going to have birth defects?

CrAz3D · « **Reply #30 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:27:10 am »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 25, 2006, 11:19:51 pm

Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:57:41 pm
Quote from: iago on July 25, 2006, 10:51:24 pm
Quote from: AntiVirus on July 25, 2006, 10:42:02 pm
Atleast she isn't getting an Abortion. I atleast respect that. But getting pregnant at her age was the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Good job dipshit.
I'd rather see her get an abortion than bring up a child the same way she was brought up. "You know it's never gonna end, the same ol' cycle just starts again...."
I don't think we should kill someone to solve this problem. We should educate her on how to be a better mother.
Take the kid away.

This is why I support abortion (unfortunately)...that kid will grow up in a bad environment eventually to most likely become not a great addition to society.

Sidoh · « **Reply #31 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:37:12 am »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 01:27:10 am

This is why I support abortion (unfortunately)...that kid will grow up in a bad environment eventually to most likely become not a great addition to society.

Who are you to base the life of another on probability?

What if, while preganent with you, your mother said to your father: "You know, we aren't that financially stable at the moment. This will probably result in poor environment to raise a child and he'll grow into a poor addition to society. I think we should have an abortion."?

What if everyone believed what you did: that we should base the life of someone who's unable to decide for themselves (yet) on probability? I'm not saying its normally a good foundation to practice, but not when you're dealing with something as sensitive as a life. This world is too arbitrary to say 'This child will amount to nothing.' You have no way of saying that with any degree of certainty.

Have you ever heard the saying "Nature over nurture?"

CrAz3D · « **Reply #32 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:48:47 am »

1) People are going to have abortions whether or not they are illegal...it'd be safer for everyone if it is just legal
2) People suck
3) Its probable that the kid won't be loved etc, why not play the odds? Life obviously doesn't matter to someone considering an abortion to begin with

Sidoh · « **Reply #33 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:51:59 am »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 01:48:47 am

1) People are going to have abortions whether or not they are illegal...it'd be safer for everyone if it is just legal

People are going to murder whether or not it is illegal. Does that mean that murder should be legal so there is no penality?

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 01:48:47 am

2) People suck

Again: don't base life on probability or generalization.

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 01:48:47 am

3) Its probable that the kid won't be loved etc, why not play the odds? Life obviously doesn't matter to someone considering an abortion to begin with

It's also possible he's the kid that will persevere though his troubled times and flourish in his accomplishments and efforts. I don't think it should matter to anyone other than the person at reference if the life matters or not.

Joe · « **Reply #34 on:** July 26, 2006, 02:00:12 am »

Go Sidoh! Woo.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #35 on:** July 26, 2006, 02:06:19 am »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 01:51:59 am

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 01:48:47 am
1) People are going to have abortions whether or not they are illegal...it'd be safer for everyone if it is just legal

People are going to murder whether or not it is illegal. Does that mean that murder should be legal so there is no penality?

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 01:48:47 am
2) People suck

Again: don't base life on probability or generalization.

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 01:48:47 am
3) Its probable that the kid won't be loved etc, why not play the odds? Life obviously doesn't matter to someone considering an abortion to begin with

It's also possible he's the kid that will persevere though his troubled times and flourish in his accomplishments and efforts. I don't think it should matter to anyone other than the person at reference if the life matters or not.

I agree with you totally...which is what I don't believe abortion is right. But I would compromise & support it just because people suck & its also a form of population control.

In the end, I figure compromises have to be made & there are other things I'd like to us to accomplish before we set out to stop abortions.

Newby · « **Reply #36 on:** July 26, 2006, 02:10:28 am »

Quote from: leet_muffin on July 26, 2006, 12:01:59 am

Quote from: Joe[x86] on July 25, 2006, 11:24:45 pm
Joe: Oh my gosh, look at this. Some girl got pregnant at age 11.
Trina: Well how do you know if that's true?

Hehe.
Who.. Wait.. uh... 100% who the fuck cares? Joe, no more people you know, kk.

/signed. Joe, you're the reason we should allow abortion up until age 10.

Abortion = God. It's killing and saving the parents' lives from having to put up with raising a kid they're not ready for, and the baby was barely old enough to remember what was up.

Sidoh · « **Reply #37 on:** July 26, 2006, 02:16:26 am »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 02:06:19 am

I agree with you totally...which is what I don't believe abortion is right. But I would compromise & support it just because people suck & its also a form of population control.

People don't suck. Overly malevolent people suck, but that doesn't mean that every child that is aborted would have been a bad person. I totally ackowledge the present probability that the child would have been, but that is inseparable with the inherant possibility that the child could have been a prodigdy. They could have been a leader. They could have been someone who changes the face of the Earth.

Genocide is a form of population control. Does that make it right?

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 02:06:19 am

In the end, I figure compromises have to be made & there are other things I'd like to us to accomplish before we set out to stop abortions.

Not resisting abortion doesn't mean you have to support it. I'm totally against it, but I could never see myself marching around the sidewalks of a hospital carrying signs reading "MURDERERS."

Rule · « **Reply #38 on:** July 26, 2006, 03:57:19 am »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 02:16:26 am

They could have been a leader. They could have been someone who changes the face of the Earth.

...well aren't they special?

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 02:16:26 am

Not resisting abortion doesn't mean you have to support it. I'm totally against it, but I could never see myself marching around the sidewalks of a hospital carrying signs reading "MURDERERS."

So you support the idea of not legislating on abortion, but personally have a moral objection to abortion?

MyndFyre · « **Reply #39 on:** July 26, 2006, 04:10:17 am »

Quote from: Rule on July 26, 2006, 03:57:19 am

So you support the idea of not legislating on abortion, but personally have a moral objection to abortion?

That implies actively being against legislation. I would not do such a thing. Similarly, while I think that government has no place in telling homosexuals that they can't marry, I'm not going to go out and actively protest against legislation against gay marriage.

Rule · « **Reply #40 on:** July 26, 2006, 04:24:37 am »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 04:10:17 am

That implies actively being against legislation.

No it doesn't. Just because you have a belief (or in otherwords you support a position), doesn't mean you're going to march out into the world and start actively protesting. You support not legislating on homosexual marriage, since you

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 04:10:17 am

think that government has no place in telling homosexuals that they can't marry.

You just don't feel strongly enough about it to spend your day holding protest signs. This is probably because you have a moral objection to homosexual marriage that counterbalances your more intellectual position that the government shouldn't get involved.

iago · « **Reply #41 on:** July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am »

Sidoh, if you're going to make the, "the baby could be beneficial to society" argument, then we also have to outlaw condoms and force people to have sex as much as possible. Why? Because each baby they don't have may benefit society. So not aboring a baby because it might benefit society is useless to surmise.

Now the problem is, the core argument here is being overlooked as it always is in abortion cases: is an unborn baby alive? People tend to ignore that and preach morality and all that fun stuff, which doesn't further the argument on abortion.

So, the only real problem we have here is AntiVirus's statement, calling abortion "murder". When we kill cows for food, we don't call that murder (unless you're PETA, but that's different), because the animals aren't human. So the question becomes, is the unborn fetus a human?

I don't think anybody can answer that. It depends on your definition of human. Sure it "becomes" human, but so does sperm and we don't outlaw maturbation. So, when does a human, by definition, become human?

Legally, the answer is after the first trimester. Is that the appropriate cut-off point?

deadly7 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 26, 2006, 09:32:34 am »

I'd say until a body forms inside the womb (a full body) it's not human, but that's me.

iago · « **Reply #43 on:** July 26, 2006, 09:35:22 am »

Quote from: deadly7 on July 26, 2006, 09:32:34 am

but that's me.

And that's the problem with abortion arguments. Nobody can even properly define a human, and nobody agrees on when the human emerges.

That's why the abortion question is, at the moment, unanswerable.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #44 on:** July 26, 2006, 10:34:38 am »

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am

Sidoh, if you're going to make the, "the baby could be beneficial to society" argument, then we also have to outlaw condoms and force people to have sex as much as possible. Why? Because each baby they don't have may benefit society. So not aboring a baby because it might benefit society is useless to surmise.

As discussed at the vL forums, sperm does not have the same potential for life. Sperm/egg forming human > just sperm.
& you couldn't make people have MORE sex...that'd be against nature.

My thing is still that people suck.
Also, if I was severley handicapped I wouldn't want to go through life like that, screw it, bring on the next one.

Sidoh · « **Reply #45 on:** July 26, 2006, 11:18:37 am »

Quote from: Rule on July 26, 2006, 03:57:19 am

So you support the idea of not legislating on abortion, but personally have a moral objection to abortion?

If there was a bill passed to outlaw (or at least make the times on when abortion is legal or not), I would vote for it, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it. I'm against it, but not enough to devote much of my time to.

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am

Sidoh, if you're going to make the, "the baby could be beneficial to society" argument, then we also have to outlaw condoms and force people to have sex as much as possible. Why? Because each baby they don't have may benefit society. So not aboring a baby because it might benefit society is useless to surmise.

If a child is not conceived, how can it even be considered in this argument? That's stupid.

It's not useless to surmise. The baby could live to be someone and it could not. As I've said twice before, predicting what its life will become is impossible to any degree of certainty.

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am

Now the problem is, the core argument here is being overlooked as it always is in abortion cases: is an unborn baby alive? People tend to ignore that and preach morality and all that fun stuff, which doesn't further the argument on abortion.

Um... yes. An unborn baby is definitely 'alive.' Its heart beats, it breathes, it reacts to things happening outside the womb. It's definitely 'alive.' Perhaps you're looking for a word like 'conscious?'

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am

So, the only real problem we have here is AntiVirus's statement, calling abortion "murder". When we kill cows for food, we don't call that murder (unless you're PETA, but that's different), because the animals aren't human. So the question becomes, is the unborn fetus a human?

Yes.

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am

I don't think anybody can answer that. It depends on your definition of human. Sure it "becomes" human, but so does sperm and we don't outlaw maturbation. So, when does a human, by definition, become human?

I've heard this argument so many times before that I chose to ignore it until you brought it up.

I would logistically say whenever the baby develops a nervous system and is able to move by itself. At this point, it's obvious it has a funcitoning brain.

iago · « **Reply #46 on:** July 26, 2006, 12:25:06 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 11:18:37 am

If a child is not conceived, how can it even be considered in this argument? That's stupid.

You're stupid. I'm skipping the rest of that paragraph.

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 11:18:37 am

Um... yes. An unborn baby is definitely 'alive.' Its heart beats, it breathes, it reacts to things happening outside the womb. It's definitely 'alive.' Perhaps you're looking for a word like 'conscious?'

Sorry, I meant "human", not "alive".

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 11:18:37 am

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am
is the unborn fetus a human?

Yes.

I disagree, I don't think an unborn fetus is human, and entitled to the rights of a human, for the entire duration of pregnancy. Who's right?

MyndFyre · « **Reply #47 on:** July 26, 2006, 12:43:25 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 10:34:38 am

As discussed at the vL forums, sperm does not have the same potential for life. Sperm/egg forming human > just sperm.

You'll forgive me if I don't count the vL forums as authoritative.

Quote from: Rule on July 26, 2006, 04:24:37 am

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 04:10:17 am
That implies actively being against legislation.

No it doesn't. Just because you have a belief (or in otherwords you support a position), doesn't mean you're going to march out into the world and start actively protesting. You support not legislating on homosexual marriage, since you
Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 04:10:17 am
think that government has no place in telling homosexuals that they can't marry.

You just don't feel strongly enough about it to spend your day holding protest signs. This is probably because you have a moral objection to homosexual marriage that counterbalances your more intellectual position that the government shouldn't get involved.

Yes, it does. "Support" is an active voice verb. It implies doing something. I'm in favor of not legislating on homosexual marriage, but I don't support it. To support it would imply that I'm doing something in favor of the "cause."

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 12:25:06 pm

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 11:18:37 am
Um... yes. An unborn baby is definitely 'alive.' Its heart beats, it breathes, it reacts to things happening outside the womb. It's definitely 'alive.' Perhaps you're looking for a word like 'conscious?'
Sorry, I meant "human", not "alive".

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 11:18:37 am
Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:31:14 am
is the unborn fetus a human?

Yes.
I disagree, I don't think an unborn fetus is human, and entitled to the rights of a human, for the entire duration of pregnancy. Who's right?

I am curious. Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human? What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines? Is that person not human? I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human. He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle. Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove. If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #48 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:07:35 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 12:43:25 pm

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 10:34:38 am
As discussed at the vL forums, sperm does not have the same potential for life. Sperm/egg forming human > just sperm.
You'll forgive me if I don't count the vL forums as authoritative.

That I will

I was just saying that this has been addressed before (with most of us participating).
Sperm won't become a child unless other things happen, the little embryo will become a human unless other things happen.

leet_muffin · « **Reply #49 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:23:51 pm »

Well, let's give it a chance. If the kid has failing grades and a sex life by age 10... 33RD TRIMESTER ABORTION! =)

iago · « **Reply #50 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:49:48 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 12:43:25 pm

I am curious. Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human? What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines? Is that person not human? I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human. He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle. Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove. If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.

I don't know what constitutes being human, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. But that's the core problem with abortion arguments:
- People who favor abortion don't consider the clump of cells to be a human
- People who are against abortion do consider the pre-developed human to be a human.

Now, good luck resolving it!

leet_muffin · « **Reply #51 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:59:53 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 01:49:48 pm

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 12:43:25 pm
I am curious. Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human? What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines? Is that person not human? I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human. He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle. Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove. If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.
I don't know what constitutes being human, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. But that's the core problem with abortion arguments:
- People who favor abortion don't consider the clump of cells to be a human
- People who are against abortion do consider the pre-developed human to be a human.

Now, good luck resolving it!

I favor abortion and consider the womb thing to be human.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #52 on:** July 26, 2006, 02:21:29 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 01:49:48 pm

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 12:43:25 pm
I am curious. Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human? What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines? Is that person not human? I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human. He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle. Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove. If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.
I don't know what constitutes being human, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. But that's the core problem with abortion arguments:
- People who favor abortion don't consider the clump of cells to be a human
- People who are against abortion do consider the pre-developed human to be a human.

Now, good luck resolving it!

That clump of cells is a developing human. And I believe as MyndFyre suggested, we are all developing humans, just at different stages. It would make sense to say that the clump of cells should have rights equal to that of a person living freely in the world outside of the womb.

iago · « **Reply #53 on:** July 26, 2006, 02:44:14 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 02:21:29 pm

That clump of cells is a developing human. And I believe as MyndFyre suggested, we are all developing humans, just at different stages. It would make sense to say that the clump of cells should have rights equal to that of a person living freely in the world outside of the womb.

It's also just a clump of cells with no brain, on neural system, and nothing else that we generally identify as human.

Like I said, I'm not going to take one side or the other. But I think that everybody has to understand how the otherside feels, which is why I used loaded language going both ways.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #54 on:** July 26, 2006, 03:55:58 pm »

I understand that it hasnt become a functioning being, but the potential is so great for it to be alive & walking someday

iago · « **Reply #55 on:** July 26, 2006, 04:30:37 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 26, 2006, 03:55:58 pm

I understand that it hasnt become a functioning being, but the potential is so great for it to be alive & walking someday

Every time you have sex, doesn't that have the potential to conceive a child, which has potential to be a member of "alive & walking"? Birth control ruins the chance of that happening, but it's not illegal here.

How does a "clump of cells", as abortionists would say, have any more potential than the act of sex?

I'm not answering that, I'm just trying to give you information to think about.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #56 on:** July 26, 2006, 04:35:32 pm »

The clump of cells has more potential because it is already a developing being whereas just the act of sex (even unprotected) does not always result in offspring.

Sidoh · « **Reply #57 on:** July 26, 2006, 05:16:36 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 12:25:06 pm

You're stupid. I'm skipping the rest of that paragraph.

I don't see why you had to make it a personal argument. I also don't see why you skipped the rest of that paragraph.

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:34:26 am

Sorry, I meant "human", not "alive".

I'm thinking you meant "conscious." Human is also easy to define. Anything that contains gene data that constitues a human is a human.

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 09:34:26 am

I disagree, I don't think an unborn fetus is human, and entitled to the rights of a human, for the entire duration of pregnancy. Who's right?

It's definitely human, but when it becomes conscious is obviously debatable. I already stated when I believe this happens.

MyndFyre · « **Reply #58 on:** July 26, 2006, 05:24:13 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 26, 2006, 04:30:37 pm

How does a "clump of cells", as abortionists would say, have any more potential than the act of sex?

There are millions of sperm inside of a wad of jizz. Statistically speaking, even if one of them manages to fertilize, millions are going to die. Putting a condom on or pulling out increases further the odds that they're *all* going to die.

Statistically speaking, most pregnancies end in a new human baby being born.

That's how a "clump of cells" has more potential than just having sex.

iago · « **Reply #59 on:** July 27, 2006, 09:41:49 am »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 05:16:36 pm

I don't see why you had to make it a personal argument. I also don't see why you skipped the rest of that paragraph.

You started with using the word "stupid". I'm not going to respond when somebody calls what I say "stupid".

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 05:16:36 pm

I'm thinking you meant "conscious." Human is also easy to define. Anything that contains gene data that constitues a human is a human.

So if I lose an ear, and it's laying on the ground, you're asserting that the ear is human, and should be protected the same way a human is? What if I cut myself and bleed? What about the skin cells that I'm constantly shedding? Having human gene data is necessary to be human, but not sufficient.

Quote from: Sidoh on July 26, 2006, 05:16:36 pm

It's definitely human, but when it becomes conscious is obviously debatable. I already stated when I believe this happens.

I don't think it's human. I think that it's becoming human. I also think that consciousness is an essential part to being human, and it is largely what separates us from animals. Of course, the same as what you're saying, that's only a personal belief, and I'm not going to try to pass that off as fact.

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 26, 2006, 05:24:13 pm

There are millions of sperm inside of a wad of jizz. Statistically speaking, even if one of them manages to fertilize, millions are going to die. Putting a condom on or pulling out increases further the odds that they're *all* going to die.

Statistically speaking, most pregnancies end in a new human baby being born.

That's how a "clump of cells" has more potential than just having sex.

I think I'm using potential in a different context. Stupid confusing English! I meant that, when developed to its maximum extent, both the 'clump of cells' and the 'act of sex' can produce the same thing. I don't mean in probability, I mean potentialness.

d&q · « **Reply #60 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:17:49 am »

Most people I know view prevention(condoms, birth control) as a morally correction option, compared to intervention(abortion). If you say prevention has the same 'potentialness' as intervention, that means you could argue that since I have definitely have the potential of killing, let's say, Gamesnake, you could accuse me of murder right now. Also, I believe a main reason why people are against abortion, is because quite a few of them are religious, and therefore believe that the unborn child/human fetus has a soul. With that argument in mind, for us to completely resolve the argument of wether abortion is right or wrong, we would have to collectively decide wether souls exist or not, which, imho, is impossible.

...

I think I might've misinterpreted something, but oh well.

Rule · « **Reply #61 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:30:13 am »

Quote from: Deuce on July 27, 2006, 10:17:49 am

Most people I know view prevention(condoms, birth control) as a morally correction option, compared to intervention(abortion). If you say prevention has the same 'potentialness' as intervention, that means you could argue that since I have definitely have the potential of killing, let's say, Gamesnake, you could accuse me of murder right now. Also, I believe a main reason why people are against abortion, is because quite a few of them are religious, and therefore believe that the unborn child/human fetus has a soul. With that argument in mind, for us to completely resolve the argument of wether abortion is right or wrong, we would have to collectively decide wether souls exist or not, which, imho, is impossible.

...

I think I might've misinterpreted something, but oh well.

To decide on whether anything is morally 'right' or 'wrong', we just need to come up with some axiom that is agreed upon. In general, should we legislate on people's moral beliefs? In my opinion we should so long as an overwhelming majority of people hold these beliefs. Is this the case with abortion? I don't think so....

Sidoh · « **Reply #62 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:22:42 am »

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 09:41:49 am

You started with using the word "stupid". I'm not going to respond when somebody calls what I say "stupid".

QQ

I didn't think it was a good point, so I called it stupid. I'm pretty sure that you've done the same exact thing in other arguments.

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 09:41:49 am

So if I lose an ear, and it's laying on the ground, you're asserting that the ear is human, and should be protected the same way a human is? What if I cut myself and bleed? What about the skin cells that I'm constantly shedding? Having human gene data is necessary to be human, but not sufficient.

Let me make what I was implying explicit: if a clump of matter is a functioning organism and has gene data indicating that its a human, it's a human. A fetus (in later stages of development -- especially after where I said abortion becomes imoral earlier) is definitely human.

I still think conscious is a much better word for this argument. Most religious people will argue that a human is given a soul at the moment of conception. Since a soul is obviously a non-physical existence, I think it would have to be tied to another universally non-physical existence: conscious. So especially when countering points made by someone religious, I think 'conscious' is a much better word for this argument than 'human.' Some people don't really care at which point a chunk of cells should be considered "human," they care when it gains a soul.

Also, since you think that conscious is what separates humans from animals, isn't that a much better indication of when abortion becomes immoral? :p

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 09:41:49 am

I don't think it's human. I think that it's becoming human. I also think that consciousness is an essential part to being human, and it is largely what separates us from animals. Of course, the same as what you're saying, that's only a personal belief, and I'm not going to try to pass that off as fact.

Okay. I'd type more for this, but I'm already late for work, so later.

d&q · « **Reply #63 on:** July 27, 2006, 12:16:45 pm »

Quote from: Rule on July 27, 2006, 10:30:13 am

Quote from: Deuce on July 27, 2006, 10:17:49 am
Most people I know view prevention(condoms, birth control) as a morally correction option, compared to intervention(abortion). If you say prevention has the same 'potentialness' as intervention, that means you could argue that since I have definitely have the potential of killing, let's say, Gamesnake, you could accuse me of murder right now. Also, I believe a main reason why people are against abortion, is because quite a few of them are religious, and therefore believe that the unborn child/human fetus has a soul. With that argument in mind, for us to completely resolve the argument of wether abortion is right or wrong, we would have to collectively decide wether souls exist or not, which, imho, is impossible.

...

I think I might've misinterpreted something, but oh well.

To decide on whether anything is morally 'right' or 'wrong', we just need to come up with some axiom that is agreed upon. In general, should we legislate on people's moral beliefs? In my opinion we should so long as an overwhelming majority of people hold these beliefs. Is this the case with abortion? I don't think so....

That was the point I was trying to make. $:-\$

iago · « **Reply #64 on:** July 27, 2006, 12:47:15 pm »

Let me state again, for the record, that I don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying here, and it's for the sake of argument. I don't want people taking this personally, when I said several times, in this thread, that I don't lean strongly to either side.

I'm trying to explore the problem, not solve it. Since people continually disagree on the problem of abortion there is clearly an issue somewhere. What everybody else is saying makes it sound very cut-and-dry, but obviously it isn't, otherwise there wouldn't be such a problem. So I think it's more useful to examine where the argument comes from than to actually try and solve it.

Quote from: Sidoh on July 27, 2006, 11:22:42 am

Let me make what I was implying explicit: if a clump of matter is a functioning organism and has gene data indicating that its a human, it's a human. A fetus (in later stages of development -- especially after where I said abortion becomes imoral earlier) is definitely human.

I still think conscious is a much better word for this argument. Most religious people will argue that a human is given a soul at the moment of conception. Since a soul is obviously a non-physical existence, I think it would have to be tied to another universally non-physical existence: conscious. So especially when countering points made by someone religious, I think 'conscious' is a much better word for this argument than 'human.' Some people don't really care at which point a chunk of cells should be considered "human," they care when it gains a soul.

I think that being human, being conscious, and having a soul are all necessary for each other. I don't think a person can be considered human without being conscious, having a soul without being human, etc.

Religious people believe it happens at the point of conception, so they are against abortion. Doctors believe it happens after the first trimester, so they're for abortion. Whatever "it" is that's happening is the core issue that has to be dealt with. And I don't think anybody anywhere is in a position to deal with that.

Hitmen · « **Reply #65 on:** July 27, 2006, 12:49:48 pm »

As long as someone eats the aborted fetus it is not morally objectional, as nothing is going to waste. Duh.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #66 on:** July 27, 2006, 01:54:50 pm »

outta curiosity, where do y'all stand on "women's right to choose"

iago · « **Reply #67 on:** July 27, 2006, 01:56:35 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 27, 2006, 01:54:50 pm

outta curiosity, where do y'all stand on "women's right to choose"

On one hand, a person can't choose to commit murder. A woman doesn't have the right to kill her 10-year-old kid.

On the other hand, if we don't consider the fetus human, or conscious, or whatever our criteria is, then it's perfectly fine.

It really leads back to the same problem, in my opinion.

leet_muffin · « **Reply #68 on:** July 27, 2006, 02:28:15 pm »

Quote from: Hitmen on July 27, 2006, 12:49:48 pm

As long as someone eats the aborted fetus it is not morally objectional, as nothing is going to waste. Duh.

NP: Babygrinder - Born, Cooked, and Served (off the album 'Fetus Dinner')

MyndFyre · « **Reply #69 on:** July 27, 2006, 06:20:28 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 09:41:49 am

I think I'm using potential in a different context. Stupid confusing English! I meant that, when developed to its maximum extent, both the 'clump of cells' and the 'act of sex' can produce the same thing. I don't mean in probability, I mean potentialness.

Maybe I'm just not understanding you correctly. I suppose that when developed to its maximum extent both have the potential for the same outcome (a child). However, the probability of that potentiality is significantly different between the two concepts you defined. There is a significantly high likelihood of a child being produced from that "clump of cells", whereas there is a significantly lesser likelihood that the act of sex will result in that potentiality. Even without withdrawal or a condom, it's tough to say.

iago · « **Reply #70 on:** July 27, 2006, 06:58:40 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 27, 2006, 06:20:28 pm

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 09:41:49 am
I think I'm using potential in a different context. Stupid confusing English! I meant that, when developed to its maximum extent, both the 'clump of cells' and the 'act of sex' can produce the same thing. I don't mean in probability, I mean potentialness.
Maybe I'm just not understanding you correctly. I suppose that when developed to its maximum extent both have the potential for the same outcome (a child). However, the probability of that potentiality is significantly different between the two concepts you defined. There is a significantly high likelihood of a child being produced from that "clump of cells", whereas there is a significantly lesser likelihood that the act of sex will result in that potentiality. Even without withdrawal or a condom, it's tough to say.

I'm not talking about probability, though. 2000 years ago, there was a 30% (or so) chance that a child would live past puberty. If they had had the technology back there, would that change the way people feel about abortions at all? I doubt it. I'm talking about the potential end-state, not the probability of reaching the end state. Another anology is that, if somebody (say, for the sake of argument, a baby, but it applies to anybody) has a 10% chance of surviving the operation, does that make it ok to murder him? Even though he has a significantly smaller chance of surviving than his peers, that doesn't make it any more right.

I realize that you're talking about much more extreme percentages, not 10% or 1%, but I don't think that makes a difference. I think that if somebody says that abortion is wrong because the fetus has the potential to make the world a better place (which was an argument used somewhere up above), then the logical conclusion is that anything that has a chance of making the world a better place ought to be pursued.

MyndFyre · « **Reply #71 on:** July 27, 2006, 07:16:58 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 06:58:40 pm

the logical conclusion is that anything that has a chance of making the world a better place ought to be pursued.

Ahh, but here's where the important notion of probability comes into play. Given that two choices are mutually exclusive, the one with the higher probability should be pursued (this is the central premise of rational choice theory, that decisionmakers tend to choose that which provides the highest gain at the least risk).

A sperm is a low-risk but low-payoff item. For a typical given act of sex, roughly 3-5 million sperm are ejaculated, and only one will fertilize the egg. This assumes that the egg is in a state in which it can attach to the uterine wall and that the act will be successful. Given 100% success rate (which is NEVER the case), a sperm is a 1 in 3 million payoff.

According to Wikipedia, miscarriage can occur up to 25% in normal situations. That does, however, give a 75% success rate. Assuming the payoff is equal, the likelihood of a "clump of cells" making it to the "potential payoff" over the single sperm that was going to fertilize (assuming condom or withdrawal practice) is 2,250,000 times higher [0.75 / (1/3,000,000)]. The sperm then has the 25% chance of miscarriage as well.

iago · « **Reply #72 on:** July 27, 2006, 07:27:03 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on July 27, 2006, 07:16:58 pm

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 06:58:40 pm
the logical conclusion is that anything that has a chance of making the world a better place ought to be pursued.
Ahh, but here's where the important notion of probability comes into play. Given that two choices are mutually exclusive, the one with the higher probability should be pursued (this is the central premise of rational choice theory, that decisionmakers tend to choose that which provides the highest gain at the least risk).

A sperm is a low-risk but low-payoff item. For a typical given act of sex, roughly 3-5 million sperm are ejaculated, and only one will fertilize the egg. This assumes that the egg is in a state in which it can attach to the uterine wall and that the act will be successful. Given 100% success rate (which is NEVER the case), a sperm is a 1 in 3 million payoff.

According to Wikipedia, miscarriage can occur up to 25% in normal situations. That does, however, give a 75% success rate. Assuming the payoff is equal, the likelihood of a "clump of cells" making it to the "potential payoff" over the single sperm that was going to fertilize (assuming condom or withdrawal practice) is 2,250,000 times higher [0.75 / (1/3,000,000)]. The sperm then has the 25% chance of miscarriage as well.

That's an entirely different argument from, "it has potential to save the world" -- everything does.

When you start bringing probabilities and such into play, it almost sounds like Utilitarianism. That is, for anybody here who doesn't know it, attempting to make the decision that will have the best outcome for everybody, raising the amount of "good" in the world.

The problem here, and I think it's the same problem all along, is, how do we define a good outcome? I think that, statistically speaking, the chances of somebody born from an 11-year-old mother has a very small chance of bringing more good to the world than harm. However, if you consider another human life being created to count as "good", then having the baby would be beneficial.

Looking at it from utilitarianism seems to favor, I think, having an abortion, because there is, quite likely, at least one less person suffering (whether it's the mother or the child).

I don't know if that's an accurate portrayal of Utilitarianism, though. It seems to me that murder is hard to justify as utilitarian, even if it's murdering a bad person (ie, an execution). But that would being us back to what I was saying earlier about whether or not it would count as murder.

dark_drake · « **Reply #73 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:15:52 pm »

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 12:47:15 pm

I think that being human, being conscious, and having a soul are all necessary for each other. I don't think a person can be considered human without being conscious, having a soul without being human, etc.

Just curious, but what about people in a permanant vegetative state? Terri Schiavo is a somewhat recent case of this. She wasn't conscious, so was she not human?

CrAz3D · « **Reply #74 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:33:46 pm »

people without souls, hmm, hard to prove, but zombies?...

leet_muffin · « **Reply #75 on:** July 28, 2006, 12:41:19 am »

Quote from: dark_drake on July 27, 2006, 10:15:52 pm

Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 12:47:15 pm
I think that being human, being conscious, and having a soul are all necessary for each other. I don't think a person can be considered human without being conscious, having a soul without being human, etc.
Just curious, but what about people in a permanant vegetative state? Terri Schiavo is a somewhat recent case of this. She wasn't conscious, so was she not human?

On the contrary, I heard recordings of her yelling "stop it!" about something they were doing. But that's irrelavent, and I see (and also want to know the answer to) your question.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #76 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:06:17 am »

Quote from: leet_muffin on July 28, 2006, 12:41:19 am

Quote from: dark_drake on July 27, 2006, 10:15:52 pm
Quote from: iago on July 27, 2006, 12:47:15 pm
I think that being human, being conscious, and having a soul are all necessary for each other. I don't think a person can be considered human without being conscious, having a soul without being human, etc.
Just curious, but what about people in a permanant vegetative state? Terri Schiavo is a somewhat recent case of this. She wasn't conscious, so was she not human?

On the contrary, I heard recordings of her yelling "stop it!" about something they were doing. But that's irrelavent, and I see (and also want to know the answer to) your question.

that must've been at the beginning, not the end. She was basically gone by the end of her life

iago · « **Reply #77 on:** July 28, 2006, 09:31:42 am »

I don't think we have to worry about zombies.....

"For by death is wrought greater change than hath been shown. Whereas in general the spirit that removed cometh back upon occasion, and is sometimes seen of those in flesh (appearing in the form of the body it bore) yet it hath happened that the veritable body without the spirit hath walked. And it is attested of those encountering who have lived to speak thereon that a lich so raised up hath no natural affection, nor remembrance thereof, but only hate. Also, it is known that some spirits which in life were benign become by death evil altogether.--Hali." (from The Death of Halpin Fraiser, by Ambrose Bierce)

TeHFoOoL · « **Reply #78 on:** July 29, 2006, 11:18:18 pm »

Like iago said, this is just another one of this speculative arguements that'll never end.

Personally, I'm for abortion.

Situation: Mom is going to have a baby.

Probable causes for getting abortion:

1. Can't afford it. A baby is very time and money consuming, and I'm sure many people can get into a situation where they will be pregnant and be unable to provide financial support. If this is the case, then both the mother and the kid will suffer from poverty, which will fuck up the kid even more than a mother who couldn't afford him/her in the fist place.

2. Doesn't want it. The mom might completely hate the thought of having a child of her own, and then what will become of the child? The mother will be forced to nurture and raise a child that she didn't want in the first place. Or, the child might go into an orphanage, and we all know that that'll bring loads of fun in that person's life. Sure, I'd choose an orphanage over death but the babies don't have the conscience to make that choice.

I just used the mother in this example. I could mix in the father and add a few more reasons but those are too extensive.

News:

Author Topic: Girl, 11, PREGNANT (Read 15969 times)