#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Yet Another Abortion Debate (YAAD)
When you think about it,
the argument:
"It is my body and I'll do with it as I see fit."
is rather
...
selfish.
True.
Side Score: 36
|
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 36
|
|
1
point
Yes, abortion is selfish. You have already decided to have a baby, why abandon it after? There are even cases of gender-selective abortion! The baby, once its gender is known, is considered a sentinel being and should be given a right to live! Babies also have human rights, they are humans, they have the right to live, they SHOULD be given the right to live. If the mother just selfishly aborts the baby, the baby would not have a chance to live its life, and that is very selfish. Side: True.
1
point
Yes, it is your body. You have the right to choose what you want to do with it. But, hey, if you don't like your baby, and you just abort it, saying, the baby has is not even born, it has no feelings, it is not a human, how about when you have a living child, and you don't like him/her, do you just murder him/her like that? NO! Exactly. Abortion is an extremely selfish thing to do. Side: True.
0
points
|
1
point
1
point
3
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
No, it is not totally up to her. The baby is already considered a sentinel being, and hence the government needs to protect the baby's RIGHT TO LIVE. Babies have human rights too, just because of a mother's selfish ways, can she take away someone's human rights? No. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
It is different with Children who have been born because they are not attached to and inside a parent's body, being carried everywhere. Relying off something for food is different to being actually attached to it, feeding off its blood inside of it. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
No in one case the child can (and will with authoritative intervention) be sent off into a home/orphanage whereas the other scenario the child's mother is an absolute necessity. So the effects may vary depending on the situation with one being an option in the location, and the other being the option of life and death. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
"No in one case the child can (and will with authoritative intervention) be sent off into a home/orphanage whereas the other scenario the child's mother is an absolute necessity." That is a statement that only applies to the First World. Outside of the First World, my statement still rings true. Side: True.
0
points
Please note that although falling foul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. Now, are you stating that my argument is hyperbole? Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Think about this. People want abortions because they are convenient. You want hot, steamy, sex, but you have no birth control at the time, or you're too drunk to use birth control, no problem. Just have an abortion in the event you get pregnant. Oh, wait. But it makes people feel bad about killing a baby. No problem. Just call them parasites. Still feel bad? No problem. It's just a clump of cells. In other words, don't define it as a baby. Hell, don't even define it as a human. That way it will make it easier to abort the little bastatd. And all because we don't want to accept the responsibility of our actions. Side: True.
1
point
"People want abortions because they are convenient. You want hot, steamy, sex, but you have no birth control at the time, or you're too drunk to use birth control, no problem. Just have an abortion in the event you get pregnant." There are other conditions that can lead to abortion, but go ahead and ignore them if it makes it easier to demonize others. "Oh, wait. But it makes people feel bad about killing a baby. No problem. Just call them parasites." It is a zygote or a fetus, which is actually different. I wouldn't call it a parasite, but neither would the majority of people. "In other words, don't define it as a baby. Hell, don't even define it as a human. That way it will make it easier to abort the little bastatd. And all because we don't want to accept the responsibility of our actions." Or, now here's a thought, they actually believe their opinions. But it is easier to dismiss differing opinions if you inaccurately explain them in a way that belittles them and their beliefs. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Oh, right, let's talk about the millions of abortions performed because of incest and rape. Which, by the way I have no issue with. Some of those "zygotes" have been photographed sacking their thumb. But hey, we are nothing more than a clump of cells. I won't argue that people do not believe their opinions. I believe they believe strongly in their opinion. But so did the Nazis. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
"Some of those "zygotes" have been photographed sacking their thumb. But hey, we are nothing more than a clump of cells." That is a fetus, not a zygote. You should try to understand the difference before having such a conversation. "Oh, right, let's talk about the millions of abortions performed because of incest and rape. Which, by the way I have no issue with." Again, there are other reasons beyond incest, rape, or convenience. Ignoring them does you no good. "I won't argue that people do not believe their opinions. I believe they believe strongly in their opinion. But so did the Nazis." Some did, some didn't, which is why the comparison always annoys me. Side: True.
Again, there are other reasons beyond incest, rape, or convenience. Ignoring them does you no good Maybe Jolie doesn't know what other reasons you are talking about. Instead of this guessing game, why don't you just say what reasons you mean and then we can all see if Jolie's statement makes sense in most cases or not. Neglecting to state an example that you insist on using does you no good. Nazis Some did, some didn't, which is why the comparison always annoys me People believe their own opinions, even if they have terrible opinions, like those who followed the Nazi ideology. Which was the point. Side: True.
Understand the difference? Because you are an expert on when life begins? That's pretty arrogant considering that even scientists have a hard time drawing that line and most don't. Well, if you want to add the handicapped and mentally challenged fetuses as a reason for abortions, I'm OK with that too. My question to you is, are you OK with people using abortion as a way to escape the responsibility of their actions? As far as the Nazis, I am NOT comparing pro-choice people to Nazis. I am comparing the tactic being used. If the goal is for people to have no problems killing other people, then depict the "other people" as sub-human. That is a tactic. It was used by the Nazis and it is the tactic used when people call a fetus a parasite. It is understood that the tactic itself is not 100% effective but it is pretty damn effective. Side: True.
1
point
"Understand the difference? Because you are an expert on when life begins? That's pretty arrogant considering that even scientists have a hard time drawing that line and most don't." I suppose I base that claim on linguistics, as "baby" is defined as a young child, particularly one who is recently born. "Well, if you want to add the handicapped and mentally challenged fetuses as a reason for abortions, I'm OK with that too." You are still intentionally trying to provide only absurd reasons for abortions. Many women get abortions when birth control fails, as it often does. Women who did take responsibility, used protection, the pill, what have you, and still got pregnant, yet could not adequately provide for a child at that point in their life. Am I okay with people who do not use birth control and then have abortions? No. I'm not even okay with abortions themselves, I just don't believe it is might right to tell people what they can and can not do. "As far as the Nazis, I am NOT comparing pro-choice people to Nazis. I am comparing the tactic being used. " Here's the thing: The Nazi's were using actual tactics, people who are pro-choice are simply stating their belief. It is not some "tactic" they are using to justify it, they just have believes that justify it more than your beliefs do, which is why the comparison is so offensive. "If the goal is for people to have no problems killing other people, then depict the "other people" as sub-human. That is a tactic" Except that isn't what pro-choice people are doing. They don't believe the zygote or fetus IS a living human, which is SO different than intentionally characterizing living humans as sub-human. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Right. So if you don't want to accept responsibility for your actions (i.e., having unprotected sex) and you don't want to deal with the consequences (i.e., dealing with a baby) and the thought of killing a human being makes you sick to your stomach, then change the definition of what it means to be human. I'm OK with abortions due to failed contraceptives. People who call fetuses a parasite are using a tactic. That comparison is offensive and the people who make that comparison are as offensive as Nazis. When people categorize a fetus as a parasite, they are categorizing it as sub-human. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
"Right. So if you don't want to accept responsibility for your actions (i.e., having unprotected sex) and you don't want to deal with the consequences (i.e., dealing with a baby) and the thought of killing a human being makes you sick to your stomach, then change the definition of what it means to be human." For the umpteenth time, or maybe they didn't consider it to be human in the first place. "eople who call fetuses a parasite are using a tactic. That comparison is offensive and the people who make that comparison are as offensive as Nazis." People who call fetuses a parasite are stating a belief. To refer to it as a tactic presumes to tell them the sincerity of their belief, and if you recognize that the comparison is as offensive as those (like you) who make Nazi comparisons, then I am confused as to how you can have an issue with something equally as problematic as your behavior. "When people categorize a fetus as a parasite, they are categorizing it as sub-human." Actually, they are generally categorizing it as non-human. Side: True.
Sigh. OK, so you show a 4 year old a 6 weeks old fetus and I'll put money on the table that the 4 year old would call the fetus human. So then people grow up and they either become incredibly arrogant and tell you that they happen to know for a fact the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human. Or, they grow up, fuck up, need an abortion and end up justifying it. That is the process people go through in deciding when a fetus becomes human. No, people who call fetuses a parasite know what they are doing. Oh, I have no problem with offensiveness, believe me. non-human? That's even worse than sub-human. Side: True.
1
point
"OK, so you show a 4 year old a 6 weeks old fetus and I'll put money on the table that the 4 year old would call the fetus human. " So? Are 4 year olds authorities on anything? "No, people who call fetuses a parasite know what they are doing." Yes, stating their opinions. "non-human? That's even worse than sub-human." I disagree, but that is a matter of opinion. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
So I went to the internet to support my claim and here's what I came up with: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8103/
Supporting Evidence:
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8103/
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
Why would I consider a possibility that is too small to matter? I am focused on the BIG numbers. People want to have an abortion because of rape? Great! Those numbers are too small to care. People want to have an abortion because of incest? Great! Those numbers are too small to care. People want to have an abortion because of genetic defects? Great! Those numbers are too small to care. People want to have an abortion because of failed contraceptives? Great! Those numbers are too small to care. People want to have an abortion because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions? Now we're talking. Those numbers are big enough to care. Actually, I am so pro-choice that I want it to be retroactive. People who don't want to take responsibility for your actions should be aborted retroactively. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
So, question for you. Your viewpoint is that the fetus has a right to live, is an innocent, and whatnot, and that abortion is an atrocity committed against innocent defenseless life, correct? If that is your standpoint, why do you have no issue with abortions after incest or rape? Is a baby any less of an innocent because its biological parents were blood relatives, or one forced themselves on the other? Isn't aborting under these scenarios effectively punishing the child for the crimes of the (or one of the) parents? The main arguments for these are (for rape) the psychological well being of the mother (and subsequently the child), and (for incest) the problem of developmental defects, particularly negative ones. Those nazis you compare pro-choice people to? They were also known for having a decidedly final solution for the mentally ill and those with birth defects. I'm pro-choice myself, mind you- it just seems that your actual stance doesn't seem to actually follow from your rhetoric, unless I'm missing something. Side: True.
An argument I have heard for abortion following a crime is that it is still wrong but that it is necessary and follows from the initial wrong. In these cases then, the injustice of abortion is the responsibility of the original perpetrator of the crime which led to abortion. The logical legal consequence would be that crimes leading to abortion would be punished more severely as they have an additional victim. Furthermore, finding abortion of this kind somehow "acceptable" is meant to come across as a compromise and is justified by the low numbers of these cases. If legislation was such that abortion only followed crimes that made it necessary, the number of cases would diminish significantly and the pro-life side could basically call it a victory. Side: True.
1
point
And how is it being established as "necessary?" That seems to be the lynchpin here. If it isn't "necessary" then a significant amount of the responsibility for the action rests on the woman who opted to have the abortion, even if she isn't responsible for the presence of the embryo in the first place. I'm well aware of the reason that the pro-life side takes this tactic, but I don't see how it follows validly from their rhetoric- except seeing rape and incest babies as an acceptable sacrifice for their agenda, which is specifically that unborn babies should not be killed. So how is it established as "necessary?" Side: True.
One might say that when a woman is raped, it is necessary for her to press charges. If she chooses not to, the man is no less guilty. The pursuit of justice is often attempted by "resetting" the conditions as much as possible to the way they were prior to the crime. This means that if there is a pregnancy, there is another victim but the woman retains the ability to reset her conditions back to the way they were prior. Because there is another victim involved, the punishment is greater. The reason this is "acceptable" when abortion is otherwise not, is because there is initial crime meaning there is a victim created where there would otherwise not be one. Side: True.
1
point
Ah, but a victim was not created. An unwanted pregnancy was created. That developing fetus does not become a victim until subjected to abortion- and when they are, it is the mothers decision to do so that changes that unwanted pregnancy to a victim. Calling it 'necessary' as such is just an attempt to justify and rationalize the act. And regardless of what the law says- if abortion is wrong, then deciding to abort even after you've been raped is wrong. A pro-choice standpoint doesn't have these problems, and tends to follow from its premises very well. This whole business here... doesn't. Side: True.
If justice makes it necessary to reset, as much as possible, ones conditions to their state prior to the crime, then responsibility still falls on the perp. If an assault victim chooses not to set her arm, the injury is still the fault of the perp. Abortion remains wrong, but when the origin for its reasons are in a crime, the wrong is recognized as such. This position is in line with pro-life premises. It is only a rationalization if one holds the pro-choice premises. It's these premises which the issue almost always comes down to. The premise or assumption of when a baby is a baby is key. The article I posted assumed a colloquial standard, which is why I used it. The argument that it is an unwanted pregnancy simply brings the issue back into the realm of pro-choice premises, which have a different set of issues. For example, most arguments I have heard for abortion would apply equally to infants. EDIT: The point of my last paragraph is that (nearly) everyone becomes "pro-life" at some point, the argument is usually over when. If you dislike the position of "5 months" but approve of laws against partial birth abortions, then it is really a debate about "when", which is an opinion without consensus. So I'm curious about your opinion on the question of when. Side: True.
1
point
I understand all that- I just feel that even in a rape scenario, if abortion is to be considered wrong, then those involved in the decision to abort share some of that wrong; it does not lie solely on the rapist, even if the rape itself does. Even if it's in the pursuit of resetting the conditions, one cannot be responsible for making a decision and not be at least somewhat culpable for the results of that decision. The same logic that assigns the fault for the abortion to the rapist also assigns some of that fault to the mother. For example, most arguments I have heard for abortion would apply equally to infants. This is largely because of an assumption made by the pro-life side, that it is a question of a human existence and that what we define as a human existence is the only one with any value; many believe that the only question here is the point at which the fetus is considered human- and you're right that in the 'person' sense of the word an infant does not yet qualify, generally for several months after being born. But there is more to it than that. A newborn infant may not have the developed consciousness of what we call a person, but they certainly have all of the features that we associate with animals. In addition to being pro-choice, I am also fundamentally opposed to causing needless pain/distress to any creature capable of experiencing such. We are also aware of the requirements of sufficient central nervous system development to experience pain or any type of distress, as well as sufficient peripheral nervous system development to experience pain. We don't know at what point the fetus can actually experience these things, but we know the point in development where the physical structures necessary for the fetus to potentially experience them form. These typically form sufficiently enough to theoretically function midway through the second trimester. Allowing for differing rates of development and some uncertainty regarding the actual time of conception, I have personally arrived at the following breakdown: Conception through the end of the first trimester, I consider the embryo to have no rights whatsoever. Abortion would be allowed during this stage for any reason, including personal convenience. Second trimester through the development of consciousness (occurs after birth), I consider the fetus to have animal rights. This means, to me, that it should be cared for properly and not subjected to undue pain or distress whenever necessary, and that it has a right to live. You can't abort a second trimester fetus, you can't beat your dog with a rod, you can't kill your dog just because he pissed you off. That right to live is superceded, however, when the animal is a dire threat to a persons life. It is acceptable to put down an animal carrying a deadly disease, or has a history of attacking and harming humans. Similarly, it is acceptable to abort a second trimester or older fetus when its presence is a dire, direct threat to the mothers life. I do not make this distinction for simply being a minor threat; I don't believe a dog that bites someone after having his tail pulled deserves to be put down, and I don't believe that speculation about nominal or slightly elevated risk levels is sufficient to justify aborting a fetus at this stage. This persists through infancy as well. If an infant (or an individual with a severe enough mental handicap as to be effectively an infant) was holding a loaded gun for whatever reason, pointed in the direction of an officer, and the officer responded with force, I would consider it a tragedy, but I would not consider it wrongdoing on the officers part- even if the infant couldnt possibly know what it was doing, there are still cases of infants (and mentally handicapped individuals) discharging firearms and killing themselves or others. Human-child rights I assign when the individual is able to demonstrate self-awareness; we have numerous well-documented methods to establish this. This development varies widely between individuals, typically occurring during the first year, sometimes as young as 3 months, sometimes well into the second year. Some individuals with severe mental handicaps never reach this stage, and some individuals with mental handicaps who do never exceed this stage. Individuals in this stage have human rights, but still fall under the control of a parent or guardian figure, and are limited in many freedoms because of this. Full adult human rights are assigned when the individual is sufficiently physically and mentally developed so as to be in theory self sufficient; able to seek and perform some form of work to provide for himself or herself. Outside of a legal age of majority, this would be subjective and dependent on development. Given a legal age of majority, go with that. Note that I refer to what I consider to be universal rights here, not necessarily to those encoded into law, and also that this is oversimplification and doesn't cover all issues either. Side: True.
What you are missing is that I'm pro-choice myself. However, I don't like it when people sugar coat it. People should acknowledge abortion for what it is. A convenience for people who fuck up and don't want to suffer the consequences. As far as an atrocity committed against a human life, I have no idea at what point it is a human life. But people talk as though they are the final authority on the subject. I am NOT comparing pro-choice people to Nazis. I am comparing the tactic being used. If you want people to have no problems killing other people, depict the "other people" as sub-human. That is a tactic. It was used by the Nazis and it is the tactic used when people call a fetus a parasite. Side: True.
1
point
And yet, likening individuals to nazis- even if such is accurate- has the exact same effect of classifying them as sub-human/inhuman. This is obvious, and there is no way you somehow missed that there was a massive social stigma attached to that organization. The nazis did many things- some of them were executed well (even if for a horrible cause), and many of them were atrocities. If the ONLY negative thing you can say about something is that the nazis did it, then you're probably attacking the wrong thing. If there is something reasonable to object to in a persons argument, such as a dishonest strategy or intentional fallacy, you needn't compare them to nazis- but rather, should call out the specific behaviour for what it is. Comparing them to nazis, even when such is accurate, does not do this. It merely conflates the issue, demonizes the accused, and polarizes the situation further, setting everybody back. It serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory and divisive. That is the irony of Godwin's Law; in proving Godwin's Law, the poster himself/herself uses a favorite tactic of the nazis, as you've described here. Side: True.
Did you NOT read the part where I said I am NOT comparing individuals to Nazis? I am comparing the tactics used. Right, because calling a fetus a parasite is does not polarize the situation further, and does not set everybody back. Calling a fetus a parasite is not inflammatory and divisive. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
3
points
Are you seriously not getting this? It doesn't matter whether you are comparing the individuals or their tactics to the nazis. It is the fact that you are making comparisons to the nazis at all that is the problem. You are saying "Your behaviour is bad because the nazis did the same thing." That is pure polarizing divisive inflammatory sensationalism of the exact same kind that you are decrying. It demonizes the individual without actually delving into any explanation of what is wrong- exactly the nazi tactic you decry here. YES, calling a fetus a parasite is everything we've said here. And comparing the behavior to nazis is exactly the same thing. And THAT is how to criticize the behavior. Specific criticisms, that can lead to specific resolutions. Telling someone they're doing something wrong is insufficient, and doing it in an abusive manner is hateful. Side: True.
Seriously? You are telling me that there are no instances where making a comparison to Nazis is appropriate? Really? Wow! Why don't we expunge all references to Nazis. Let's destroy any and all books that talk about the Nazis and eliminate the history and public knowledge of Nazis. After all, making references to Nazis is so offensive that we must protect against it. Furthermore, since it is never, ever, appropriate to make a reference to Nazis, there's no down side. If we do this then we won't be tempted to call skin heads Neo-Nazis and risk insulting them. When some evil dictator starts "ethnic cleansing" we won't be tempted to make the comparison and risk offending them. When someone tries to categorize something, that can be considered as human, as being sub-human, let us make sure that we take their feelings into consideration and not say, "Hmmm, the Nazis once categorized Jews as vermin and were somewhat successful in getting, what would other wise be considered normal humans, to kill beings that were considered human before the categorization took place." Let us just not question it. Let us just say, "Yeah, you're right!!! They are sub-human." Godwin's law refers to the theory that as an online discussion progresses, it becomes inevitable that someone or something will eventually be compared to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, regardless of the original topic. It makes no claim as to the validity of the comparison. That has to be determined on a case by case basis. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Pretty much; that stigma gives such comparisons no place in civilized conversation. In civilized conversation, when someone makes a bad call, he or she is subjected to constructive criticism. Constructive criticism includes several key components beyond communicating that the criticized thing is 'bad;' it includes specifically what is wrong with the criticized thing, what is RIGHT with the criticized thing, and suggestions for improvement. When the components of constructive criticism are removed, all you are left with is an insult. Lacking any form of constructive criticism, all a nazi comparison is is an insult- and a particularly dire one given the stigma. For most people, comparing them to a nazi is on par with a guy calling an atheist feminist a merciless cunt who owes him a rib. Side: True.
3
points
You can disagree all you want- this isn't a subjective thing, mediated by opinion. This is a case where the problem with the comparison is objectively measurable and has predictable results. You're wrong here- not as in having an opinion I disagree with, but as in subtracting 2-3 and getting a positive result. Nazi comparisons are not constructive. They are insulting and divisive. There is no way to reconcile that, and there is no place for it in civilized conversation. End of story. Seriously? You are telling me that there are no instances where making a comparison to Nazis is appropriate? Really? Wow! Why don't we expunge all references to Nazis. Let's destroy any and all books that talk about the Nazis and eliminate the history and public knowledge of Nazis. After all, making references to Nazis is so offensive that we must protect against it. Going to stop you right there. I stated that there was no place for comparing individuals or their tactics to the nazis or their tactics, and I've given a pretty thorough explanation as to why. This is pure dissembling on your part. The nazis are still a part of history, and did terrible things that, like it or not, have shaped the modern world heavily. They also made terrible mistakes that must not be forgotten lest they be repeated. Pointing out that comparing individuals and tactics to nazis accomplishes nothing positive is not suggesting that everything related to the nazis should be covered up, and it's ridiculous that you would suggest that. That's not even a potential 'slippery slope' end result- it's an entirely different direction. Furthermore, since it is never, ever, appropriate to make a reference to Nazis, there's no down side. If we do this then we won't be tempted to call skin heads Neo-Nazis and risk insulting them. When some evil dictator starts "ethnic cleansing" we won't be tempted to make the comparison and risk offending them. Already touched on this. Can you point out one example, any example, where comparing an individual, group, or tactics used by such to the nazis or those used by the nazis has been directly responsible for any improvement? A single one? When someone tries to categorize something, that can be considered as human, as being sub-human, let us make sure that we take their feelings into consideration and not say, "Hmmm, the Nazis once categorized Jews as vermin and were somewhat successful in getting, what would other wise be considered normal humans, to kill beings that were considered human before the categorization took place." Let us just not question it. Let us just say, "Yeah, you're right!!! They are sub-human." Ok, seriously- is English your second or third language, or were you raised on esoteric dialect? This is a non-sequitur, any way you slice it. Godwin's law refers to the theory that as an online discussion progresses, it becomes inevitable that someone or something will eventually be compared to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, regardless of the original topic. It makes no claim as to the validity of the comparison. That has to be determined on a case by case basis. As I've said before, the problem is not whether or not the comparison is valid. Frequently, it is a valid comparison. The problem is that the very act of making that comparison NEVER makes the situation better, and frequently makes it worse. Side: True.
2
points
Benefit of the doubt, of which I suppose I should know better. The effect of such speech is to make the situation worse. That in and of itself is a bad thing. If you're doing so intentionally with the full knowledge of its effects... I think I like FromWithin better. Side: True.
1
point
No, it didn't. That's just the most inflammatory troll persona I can name off the top of my head. I'm assuming at this point that you're a troll persona, possibly by the same operator even- no evidence in your case, I just don't want to believe that someone could actually want that, and would rather believe they would only do so to get a rise out of others. Call it naivete. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
So because someone who makes it isn't a member of the "religious right" (Which, by the way, does not make up the entirety of the political right) that means the argument is one used by "the left"? TheEccentric is ideologically, a fascist, which is an extreme right wing ideology. The person who started this entire argument is not a member of the left. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
According to the National Library of Medicine, it's a baby at 5 weeks. Side: True.
1
point
This is an article contained within the National Library of Medicine, not an authoritative statement by the NLM as a whole. At no point in the article linked is any assertion made at what point it 'becomes' a baby. The only identified stages of development are the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetal stages. The term 'baby' is used throughout the article, and explains the entire development process- it is never labelled a baby as a stage of development, and as this article is geared towards expecting mothers, there is no assertion of human features at any point as an answer to the abortion question. Analyzing the writing can also reveal the spin that the author has on the whole thing; note that the writer defines pregnancy as starting before conception, with the womans last period, with actual intercourse and fertilization not taking place until week 3 of pregnancy. The writer of this particular article also defines pregnancy as starting before conception, with the mothers last period, reinforcing this both at the beginning (noting conception in week 3) and at the end, stating "In your 40th week of pregnancy, it's been 38 weeks since conception, and your baby could be born any day now." Ultimately, this article says nothing truly relevant regarding abortion, and attempting to spin it as such is rather dishonest. Did you make this assumption by doing a search within the article for the word baby, to note the earliest point that the article refers to it as a baby, regardless of the writers intent? Side: True.
Because of the above discussion concerning zygotes, I wanted to make sure I had an understanding of the stages myself. When I noticed that an article presented by the National Library of Medicine casually referred to the embryo as a baby, I thought it noteworthy, which it is. There is no governmental or scientific authority that says when a baby is a baby precisely because of the abortion question. The fact that the term is used by an authoritative source so casually here, when the abortion issue is not at hand, makes it relevant. It is therefore also relevant to this discussion and posting it is reasonable rather than dishonest. Side: True.
1
point
The dishonesty is not in supplying the link, it is the way you present it as being authoritative in ways that it is not. Your post, "According to the National Library of Medicine, it's a baby at 5 weeks. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/ article/002398.htm," carries the implication that this is an authoritative statement regarding fetal development made by a consensus of the NLM. It is neither. It is colloquial usage of language (alongside the actual biological terms) based on the target audience of the article, made by the authors and editors of a single article within countless others stored within the NLM. It is not being 'presented by' the NLM, the NLM is merely keeping a copy of it, alongside millions of other articles; stating that they are 'presenting it' is akin to accusing a local library of racism, citing 'their presentation' of an excerpt from the librarys copy of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" as evidence. This article is not the word of the NLM, and Huck Finn is not the word of the local library; these are just individual pieces of work that each keeps. Within that same article, at week 3, the statement is made "The embryo is what will develop into your baby." This carries the implication that an embryo is not a baby, but merely a stage of development on the way to what will eventually become the baby AFTER the embryonic stage- presumably during or after the fetal stage. Technically, you didn't lie- but you presented your source material as being much more than it really is, and as saying things it isn't really saying. Side: True.
It is colloquial usage of language It is understood that an article presented by an organization represents the views of said organization unless otherwise stated. They never said "The fetus becomes a baby at 5 weeks". Nonetheless, according to this article, it is a baby at 5 weeks, as opposed to 3 weeks when it "will become your baby". Whoever is in charge of screening and editing for the National Library of Medicine read this and put the NLM endorsement on it. In speaking colloquially, so as to be understood by most people, they refer to a baby at 5 weeks. It is perfectly honest reference an article about fetal development that refers to it as a baby and when. Given the NLM endorsement, it is correct to say that "according to NLM". Would it have had a different connotation if I had said "according to an article on fetal development, endorsed and presented by the NLM, we can refer to an embryo as a baby at 5 weeks."? Would it have been more or less honest? Side: True.
1
point
This is not an article presented by the NLM any more than a work of fiction in a local library is presented by that library. The NLM contains numerous articles by numerous authors, some of which are firmly grounded in science, some of which include some speculation and hypothetical scenarios, and some of which contradict one another. NLM articles are accepted based on specific criteria, which are detailed further on their site. Among other things, it is noted that the articles are not the word of the NLM, and does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or standpoints of the NLM. Look for yourself. The usage of baby in that context is colloquial- women who miscarried in the blastocyst stage still often refer to the miscarried blastocyst as their baby. Like I said before; this does not constitute either an authoritative statement with the NLMs "seal of approval," nor does it even represent a direct assertion of what you're suggesting by the individuals who wrote the article. Both of these premises are necessary for the way you have presented it to hold true, and neither of those premises pan out. Side: True.
This is not an article presented by the NLM True, I should have read a little further. Even so, I might have referenced the doctors who wrote it and the text books from which the article was drawn. So, my comment was incorrect to say "according to NLM". Nonetheless, the colloquial use assumes a premise that was adopted by this article. It's a premise whose explicit assertion thereof is avoided for political reasons. It would therefore remain correct to say that "according to this article". Attributing it to the NLM was an honest error, the primary substance of quoting it the way I did remains. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
I think the abortion debates are an excuse to call names more like "I'm better than you" and feel to yourselves like your intelligent. I'm done. I'm fine with name calling often if we're going to have "who's better" debates and not abortion debates. I feel the same way about atheism vs theism debates. And I'm right about how I feel too so suck it mofos!!! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|