Where do we draw the line?

dig17 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dig17** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:21 pm

It's not okay to get rid of the child ever. There is no 'point' where it becomes or doesn't become alive; it's always been alive, it started out alive when the sperm fertilized the egg. From that point on it's constantly making progress, and that is the essence of life. Stopping the process at any point is killing something. It may not be technically 'homo sapien' at certain intervals, but it's GROWING into a member of our species and that's what is important.

I hate it when females say that they can do whatever they want with their body; they may be harvesting a child, but it's definitely not their body that's growing inside them. A worm inside of a snake is still a worm, not an extension of the snake's body. Women can have all the control over their body that they want; leave your child's body out of it.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:28 pm

jajganker wrote:Is it okay to abort at all?

Obviously I think it is.

How can you tell whether or not the fetus is thinking cognitively?

Science.

How do you determine whether it's alive or no?

Irrelevant. Trees are alive; bacteria is alive.

Does a lack of complete development mean that it isn't a person?

I'm not sure when exactly a fetus becomes a person, and opinions will vary. It's probably somewhere in the third trimester.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:34 pm

jajganker wrote:Is there such thing as a "casual" abortion?

Well, I consider "casual" abortions to be for non-serious reasons, such as just not wanting the baby.

Though, if you let it get to the third trimester, is it still okay to completely get rid of the child?

Probably.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:38 pm

dig17 wrote:It's not okay to get rid of the child ever. There is no 'point' where it becomes or doesn't become alive; it's always been alive, it started out alive when the sperm fertilized the egg. From that point on it's constantly making progress, and that is the essence of life. Stopping the process at any point is killing something. It may not be technically 'homo sapien' at certain intervals, but it's GROWING into a member of our species and that's what is important.

Okay, so it's killing something. What's intrinsically wrong with murder? We murder things all the time and are perfectly fine with it.

I hate it when females say that they can do whatever they want with their body; they may be harvesting a child, but it's definitely not their body that's growing inside them. A worm inside of a snake is still a worm, not an extension of the snake's body. Women can have all the control over their body that they want; leave your child's body out of it.

Except it is an extension of the woman's body. In any case, it's just your opinion against mine right here. Nothing that can really else be said.

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:40 pm

So, how do we know who's opinion is the right one?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:50 pm

jajganker wrote:So, how do we know who's opinion is the right one?

Whichever opinion ends up taking hold is the "right" one.

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:52 pm

Oh, so you're saying that Hitler's opinion was right because it took hold in Germany?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:54 pm

jajganker wrote:Oh, so you're saying that Hitler's opinion was right because it took hold in Germany?

Yes. "Right".

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:00 pm

So doing horrid things is okay as long as it is a societal norm?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:00 pm

jajganker wrote:So doing horrid things is okay as long as it is a societal norm?

"Okay" to whom? In what sense?

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:03 pm

Okay as in, nothing to worry about.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:04 pm

jajganker wrote:Okay as in, nothing to worry about.

It depends on who you ask.

dig17 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dig17** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:05 pm

There's no such thing as right or wrong, there is only truth. Opinion is artificial.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:08 pm

dig17 wrote:There's no such thing as right or wrong, there is only truth. Opinion is artificial.

I agree. However, opinion is all we've got a lot of the time; and all we can ever have is perceptions of truth.

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:11 pm

Thus, this entire discussion is a moot point because everything depends on opinions?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:12 pm

jajganker wrote:Thus, this entire discussion is a moot point because everything depends on opinions?

Most discussions are entirely dependent on opinion. However, that doesn't make them moot, per se. They can lead to the formation of "better" opinions.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:38 pm

dig17 wrote:There's no such thing as right or wrong, there is only truth. Opinion is artificial.

You can't act on truth without an opinion; a pile of facts does nothing. Ethics may be artificial, but it is the art that determines how we behave in a practical sense.

dig17 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dig17** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:13 pm

There is a difference between truth and opinion. For example: the cup on my desk exists. I can touch it, smell and taste its contents, hear it knock against the desktop, and I see it quite clearly. This is a pile of facts; the ultimate fact that the cup exists is not just a truth, but a universal truth. No one can dispute that it does not exist, unless their opinion on quantum mechanics or reality in general differs. However, it is not my OPINION that the cup exists. One cannot challenge the fact that it exists, but acting on any truth requires a purpose, which is a completely different 'cup' of tea.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:18 pm

If by exist, all you mean is that it appears to you, then sure. The cup, as an appearance to you, is a cup. To go any farther than that, and to claim that the cup's existence is a universal truth, is a bit excessive. If it wasn't for you observing it, it wouldn't exist at all, even by the definition of existence as appearance: if you aren't perceiving it, it doesn't exist (appear) at all.

dig17 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dig17** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:29 pm

Not true; if I am not perceiving it, it still exists. If it stays on my desk when I go to sleep, it will continue to exist. That is a truth. Existence does not depend on perception, because if something did not exist, I would not be able to perceive it anyway. God is not observable, but many people, myself included, consider Him to exist anyway.

Where do we draw the line?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online