Actually, in this argument here, it's two different subjects. I'm arguing that it should be an option, but it's not based on that it will be a future child. I disagree that the arguement, "It will be a future child", is invalid. I think it's a perfectly valid argument. That doesn't though, affect my arguement that abortion should be valid, for different reasons. I know my side.

I think it's fair to say that most people on YN aren't as proficient as you when it comes to forming immaculate philosophical arguments. So you needn't rip them on the form of their arguments.

Pick a side and stick with it. It gets tedious when you pick apart both sides.

quote:

If you wan't to talk about philosophy i suggest you find a better place to do so. People often misconcieve time as something linear and constant, there is no such thing as an existing past or future, time isn't a line that progresses, time is an instant

Problem: Time is defined as being a continuing event, with a past, present, and future.
"the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past" Wordnet / Princeton

Also, it can be described thustly:

"A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects."

"One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. (Brought on by Isaac Newton. Note this Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#_ref-0 , which does have substantial credibility.)"

To quote also from the same article, cited from three major sources (Oxford English Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, and Microsoft Encarta's Digital Encyclopedia): "The Oxford English Dictionary defines time as "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole." [5] The American Heritage Dictionary defines time as "a nonspatial linear continuum in which events occur in an apparently irreversible succession." Encarta, Microsoft's Digital Multimedia Encyclopedia, gives the definition of time as "System of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events."

I would rest then, that time is a linear constant, and there is such a thing as a past and a future, and that time does progress, and that time is not, in fact, an instant. That is the present state of time.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Under your theory, "Time", as it is, could have nothing within it.
Say "Moment A", has a teddy bear in it. Without a continuing future, and an existent past, and naturally progression to shift between the two moments, "Moment B", would not have a teddy bear. Therefore, no moments could exist, and have a definable object contained within. Even if we extend back to Descartes (I Think, Therefore I Am), we are still an object.

Therefore "Time", as a progressive, linear, continuing dimension must exist.

quote:

It's the same as saying "omfg what if the nazis had held omaha beach during WWII?" you can't hipothesize on an if because time isn't a progression of events, it's a moment.

Problem. This ignores the concept of time.
We reflect on time as the past. While those at Omaha beach, were in the situation where that was possible.

If your theory of "you can't hypothesize on an if because time isn't a progression of events, it's a moment", completely disregards science. At least, physically testable science, which relies on the fact that that the results are repeatable, past a single event. If your argument were to be true, then science wouldn't be able to exist; the results would be too random for measurements. Yet, knowing the physical laws of this universe, if I drop a book, the book will fall to the ground. Causation and event.

The argument of:

quote:

Don't gimme that crap about it "becoming" a child in the future.

Is invalid.

Being pregnant, reveals with a highly likeliness having a child, unless unforeseeable circumstances occur. As with my book analogy, something could happen that it would stop it. Also with my book analogy, such an event is highly unlikely, and therefore we needn't worry that there won't be a magic person appearing, and taking my book to stop it from falling, or that such an event will not wield a child.

Therefore, your argument is invalid.

quote:

Well, it doesn't come out as a duck.

it doesn't come out at all, that was simply brilliant though you forgot to add this to the quote:

quote:

If you wan't to talk about philosophy i suggest you find a better place to do so. People often misconcieve time as something linear and constant, there is no such thing as an existing past or future, time isn't a line that progresses, time is an instant

notice how you didn't really answer? you quoted me, taking what i said out of context.

quote:

Well, 30 in over a year shows you don't think much at all

I don't spend all my time on internet forums, it's something that come's and goes depending on my mood and my inspiration. If I feel like having a laugh I'll get online and write something.

quote:

(if you add to that the fact that you have over 2000 posts in less than 6 month's... well the obvious conclusion is that you don't think much when you write)

Well, 30 in over a year shows you don't think much at all.

quote:

Don't gimme that crap about it "becoming" a child in the future.

Well, it doesn't come out as a duck.

quote:

And you obviously have no idea what serious depression is.

you know, i agreed with kate's comment, and i'm a fairly opened minded person who tries to understand both sides.

this comment here, however, is totally unreasonable you don't know Kate, and i don't say i do either, but how do you know she doesn't know what serious depression is like? You are making assumptions, i don't nessarilly think thats right.

quote:

Yes. Its much better to have a dead child than mood swings.

i wasn't aware that a cluster of cells performing mithosis now rankss as a child.

Don't gimme that crap about it "becoming" a child in the future. If you wan't to talk about philosophy i suggest you find a better place to do so. People often misconcieve time as something linear and constant, there is no such thing as an existing past or future, time isn't a line that progresses, time is an instant, there is no "in the future it will be so", when you choose to abort that lifeless cluster of cells you cancel the "future child" concept. It's the same as saying "omfg what if the nazis had held omaha beach during WWII?" you can't hipothesize on an if because time isn't a progression of events, it's a moment.

And you obviously have no idea what serious depression is.

(if you add to that the fact that you have over 2000 posts in less than 6 month's... well the obvious conclusion is that you don't think much when you write)

quote:

Yes. Its much better to have a dead child than mood swings.

It's interesting to note that those "mood swings" can sometimes result in a dead baby. I would think that an abortion would be preferable to that.

quote:

Yes. Its much better to have a dead child than mood swings.

i have to agree with kate on this comment. personally i think a child's life is worth trading some inconvience.

you have to take responsiblity, that if you are having sex there is the possibilty of getting pregnate. thats why people often belive that sex before mariage is wrong. (i don't though, got a steady bf :P) but we talked about what would happen if i got pregnate before we started having sex.

I won't judge you if you have had an abortion. i just would like you to concider other possibilites before you make a decision. but ultametly its up to you. who am i to judge? i don't know you or your circumtances.

quote:

There isn't another option, adoption is not an option

Yes. Its much better to have a dead child than mood swings.

quote:

My girlfriend thinks a lot like you, Trisscar. That's kind of weird.

Thanks!

i try and be an open minded person. people who refuse to acknowledge the other side of an argument bother me.

There was an anti-abortion rally at my university today. I didn't see it for myself, but apparently they used huge, graphic pictures of partial-birth abortions to try and prove their point.

The irony is that criminalizing abortion will only result in more partial-birth abortions...bah. If you have to resort to scare tactics to prove your point, you don't have one to begin with.

My girlfriend thinks a lot like you, Trisscar. That's kind of weird.

this topic is really difficult to discuss because most people have already made up their minds on what they believe. i personally don't agree with abortion. however, i do not have anything against people who do have abortions, it is up to them, its their decision.

personally i'm against abortion because the doctor told my mom to get one when she was pregnate with my brother because they told her he'd for sure be a still born. she went along and had him anyway. he was born a healthy wonderful little baby.

he's now a genius. no kidding, the skipped him up a grade, he'll graduate from highschool at 16.

i think every child should have the chance to live. but i do understand why girls have abortions, i empathise with both views.

...a weekend road trip for an aborting party, which is like a baby shower, except the mother can drink.

There isn't another option, adoption is not an option. Most women suffer from some form or other of post birth depression. Most of these cases go unnoticed and untreated and mothers just recover over time, but going through all the side effects that child birth causes and giving the child up to adoption is likely to cause serious psychological damage to a mother. My ex suffered 4+ months of a bipolar like condition because of the hormonal distabilization that abortion causes, i don't want to try and imagine what would've happened if she had gone through with it and then gave the child up for adoption.

don't talk like you know anything about this if you havent even had sex.

link doesn't work.
my exgirlfriend aborted our lump of lifeless cells. so what

Don't see the difference between what?

quote:

And you said it yourself abortion is killing someone

No I didn't. Stop double posting.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13: They're completely dependent on the mother. In less glamorous terms, they're parasites. Of course, one could argue that even infants are parasites of a sort since they are still overly dependent on the mother, but I don't think that and therefore I won't go there.

I just still don't see the difference between the two. (And I apologize for the typos....I just got my nails done and I'm still trying to adjust to them)

quote:

Originally posted by LoveTheRainbow:
no I don't. I don't feel like arguing this. Its boring and I am sick of arguing about it with people who can't even spell.

Great arguement....you're not gonna debate it becuase I had two freaking typos? And you said it yourself abortion is killing someone