sorry, but that is a horrible argument. you cannot possibly argue and try to compare a living, breathing actual person to that of a fetus…regardless of what your definition of life is. i’m not flaming you, but there are a ton of better examples you can use. trying to compare a person being operated on and flatlining due to a bullet or whatever you were trying to say, holds no logical foundation.
i agree whackamole…yours is the first analogy that actually relates to the point. it’s the very logical argument of potential vs. possible. using another analogy, it’s like calling an apple seed an apple…just because you have all the elements doesn’t mean it already is what it could be…before it actually becomes that…if that makes sense.
personally, if it’s your kid, you decide. if it’s mine, no abortion. but it always trips me out how all these ethical arguments go nowhere because at some point these pro-lifers get weird in the brain when they are backed into an argument there is no logical way out of. and then it all shuts down because they are no longer using logic to prove a point…but anywho
so what is life and when does it start? well since everyone has different views, the gov. went with the one that makes the most sense…and you can’t argue against it, only choose not to accept it. that’s the potential vs. possible and it’s the most logical argument to date.
the possibility of life is when all things are presented and could become something. but there is no way if left alone, it could sustain itself, survive by it’s own means. it’s survival is completely dependent upon the mother…hence the 3rd trimester law.
the potential of life is when, aside from your own opinion of what “life” is, something can exist and become, and sustain it’s self without support…hence the 3rd trimester law.
so lets not get into nonsense like, “a baby can’t feed itself…” because then i would say…“can you sustain yourself under water…no…so do you become non human at that point?”
so the point is simply what whackamole said…a car isn’t a car until it becomes a car…unless it has the potential to build itself.
eating scrambled eggs is not eating a chicken. that would be like declaring myself president…because yes there is that possibility i could do it…but there really is no potential…so i can’t be something before i actually am it, just because i said so and decided to play by different rules.
So by this definition babies are as dispensible as embryos. You did not address why
this isn 't so with any valid arguments.
Actually eating chicken eggs is eating chicken, ask any vegan.
i addressed why…at the 3rd trimester it is no longer legal to have an abortion. babies and embryo’s aren’t the same, so i never argued that
and i’ll accept the chicken egg thing…i just keep trying to fool myself that’s not what ti think it is when i’m cooking it up…kinda like with hot dogs…sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Perhaps you should take that up, then, with the pro-choice folks in this very thread who hold that individual rights are contingent upon certain mental functions, period. If you can’t see this as analogous, sorry.
and i actually went in to it more by saying “babies can’t feed themselves” is not the same thing…under water…blah, blah…did you really even read what i wrote, or did you just zone in on what you thought was a good line to attack me with?
anyway you spin it, it simply remains a weak argument to compare a person to an unborn embryo/fetus, or whatever word you want to use. analogies like that are often used to deter people from the weakness of the original point…and i’m not attacking you, just your argument. anecdotal evidence and analogies are not proofs of a point.
people who don’t have the mental functions like you say, hopefully have a good support system with people who are wise enough and compassionate enough to make the right decision…whatever that might be.
see, i’m just debating here…my personal opinions are in no way involved in what i’m saying…except for what i just said. i don’t think abortion is some simple discussion solved or whatever in some random chat rooms. my ex girlfriend had an abortion, and although i was totally against it…you realize that sometimes you need to break out of yourself and just be there for someone. abortion is not a joke, and i’ll forever carry the burden of what might have been. but at the same time, i can’t jump on board with unproven beliefs had by many who never really understand. i’m not trying to throw a pity party here, but that look in her eye when it was all said and done, was something that made me see that it was no easy decision for her.
I’ll play a little longer. Do you actually understand what roles analogies play in debate? Do you get that an analogy is a weak element of an argument, not because it’s an analogy, but because it doesn’t make the point it was intended to?
So, if someone says, “Individual rights cannot be argued for an entity like a fetus that has no higher brain functions,” that creates a very specific premise that can be tested in similar (and in this instance real, not hypothetical) circumstances. If that premise is so, would it apply in the situation of an adult who had temporarily flatlined? It is relevant relative to this premise.
If you respond with, “Whoa, nothing personal, but that’s a weak comparison, I see that all the time from you pro-life guys,” it suggests to me you’re missing the point and that you can’t see past the superficial comparison (“But that one’s an adult, and the other one isn’t!”).
uh…unless i’m blind, i think we are on the same page with analogies…because reading what i wrote and what you wrote…kinda sounds the same. but initially, if i recall right, i was responding to the bullet in the head, flat lined guy on an operating table.
so now that you are being more detailed and specific, you cannot hold me to a comment i made about some vague, dead, bullet dude.
but since you seem to be waiting to validate your assumptions by posting my response before i can even make it…i guess i have nothing to say because you have it all figured out. and please don’t try to label me as some pro-anything. if you truly read what i wrote, you would have seen, i take no sides
Of course I read it, it was the “babies can’t feed themselves…underwater…blah blah…” that I was refering to with this statement >>You did not address why
this isn 't so with any valid arguments. Note the underlined portion of my statement. And of course it being a good line of attack never crossed my mind.:rolleyes:
Alas we do have some canine teeth for a reason. Personally I am a meatitarian. Love that tasty red stuff. Raw as possible of course. 
[quote=“Stratocaster, post:229, topic:470098”]
I’ll play a little longer. Do you actually understand what roles analogies play in debate? Do you get that an analogy is a weak element of an argument, not because it’s an analogy, but because it doesn’t make the point it was intended to?
So, if someone says, “Individual rights cannot be argued for an entity like a fetus that has no higher brain functions,” that creates a very specific premise that can be tested in similar (and in this instance real, not hypothetical) circumstances. If that premise is so, would it apply in the situation of an adult who had temporarily flatlined? It is relevant relative to this premise.
but i see what you are saying in regards to your quotations. but really, that is just a can of worms that has no end and no middle ground. there are a ton of ideas for and against what “life” really is…such as, the only thing that separates us from other animals is the ability to think/reason. so if a fetus/flatlined dude is no longer aware of their own existence…are they really alive, or could they be put down like a dog.
but that’s why “vegetables” remain breathing…because there is the hope they will return to what they once were.
so if a fetus never had any sort of awareness, is it really deserving of the same rights to life as those who were once were, but no longer aware.
that’s why i said it was a bad comparison…because the dilly was presented that a fetus is equal to a person…even though they may be temporarily flat lined
well my validation was simply my laziness to explain the whole 3rd trimester, no abortion thing. but i think i had a point somewhere between my babble about drowning babies underwater until they are able to sustain themselves…otherwise they become floaties for all to enjoy.
ugh, you are like my mom, she loves it rare as can be.soaking in it’s own juices. i have to have my meat super well done…charcoal is good once you get used to it.
I do not take kindly to such insults, sir! We’re through. In another age it would have been pistols at dawn.
Hmm! … there is a dead baby joke in there somewhere. All it lacks is rootbeer…
Who knows perhaps I am your mom!
well my intent was not to insult, but if you can dish it out to me, you best be ready for some lunch…sir!
if you’re hot, you can for sure be my mom
I don’t care if the freaking fetus can compose sonatas and cook spectacularly delicious French food. If SHE whose body the fetus is also & simultaneously a part of wishes it gone, neither it nor anyone else has the right to say “Sorry, ma’am, you gotta keep carrying this baby, like it or not”.
It’s an absolute right. It does not hinge on anything the fetus is or is not. The fetus can be the next incarnation of God Almighty, fully prepared to walk on water and do another sermon on the mount and eliminate sin for all time. Don’t matter. Bye.
i have a pit bull too, i love them, and he’s always conscious…too much damn energy. sometimes i want to make him un-conscious…hehe, j/k
Exactly. When will the anti-abortion crowd realize that no one has a right to use another person’s body without their permission? That is not a legal right given to anyone, yet the anti-abortion crowd thinks it should be given to a fetus?