EPTIndiana bans abortion past 20th week - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Butterz
688 Posts
| ||
|
MagmaRam
United States395 Posts
On April 28 2011 19:46 scouting overlord wrote: Going to quote this again for posterity  . Nine months of "inconvenience" rofl, you have no idea. A fetus has no feelings or consciousness just so you know. It's not alive, there is so such thing a a soul, and there is no inherent value to human life . The rights of the woman > the rights of the fetus, always and forever .Did you not read the OP? It says right there that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier. Everything but that and the "Nine months of inconvenience" that you said is subjective. The existence of souls and the value of human life compared to other life is something that people disagree about, and you can't just say "I'm right, you're wrong" about things that are subjective and (in the case of souls) impossible to prove one way or the other. | ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On April 28 2011 19:35 scouting overlord wrote: It's not conscious and is literally biologically dependant on the mother's body, not some wishy washy "WELL guys they're dependant before they can feed themselves anywayz" but literal biological dependence. It is wholly a part of the women's body. Consciousness is not required for a creature to be living, and it's not wholly part of the women's body because it has different DNA. If we had the technology couldn't we grow a person outside of the womb? On April 28 2011 19:41 Linkirvana wrote: If there was no scientific evidence there would be absolutely no argument in favor of abortion. Which would mean abortion would be illegal everywhere. I am very lazy in my argueing, making assumptions all around (Such as this one), therefor I will just suggest you go and look up why there's a certain point in a pregnancy where "shit gets real" (Because I couldn't tell you myself, I simply do not know and don't care enough to educate myself with all the boring details) So you don't know this scientific evidence? Scientific evidence that you know must exist? I mean I can think of some pretty good reasons to argue in favor of abortion that revolve around social ramifications and women's rights. What kind of argument is "shit gets real" It's not like it's a gelatinous cube that when you wait long enough it magically goes *poof* and presto you get a baby. I do love how you have no qualms about talking without an informed opinion, but maybe you should be the one to go look things up. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
| ||
|
chickenhawk
Portugal339 Posts
Me thinks he might feel that if abortion is legal that both parties involved in the creation of said fetus should be involved in the demise of said fetus. And in his ideal world abortion would still be against the laws of the land, but we live in the real world so he has to work with what law there are. And no pregnancy clearly effects the female, but birthing a child clearly has an irreversible effect on the father and the mother forever altering both their futures. Tnx for helping my english Just because i am against abortion does not mean that i am against the laws that allows abortion. Do I acept that law? Yes i do, because i think that it should be the person decision to make it or not. I also think the decision should came from the father and the mother. No from just one. I thought you outright opposed it because a fetus is equal to a human life? So murder is fine when a man says it's ok as well? I mean the burden of pregnancy clearly effects the male as much as the female right? I guess not, pregnancy does effect more the female in my point of view, but that shouldn't be the reason why the male can't have a say on his child future. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:01 MagmaRam wrote: Did you not read the OP? It says right there that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier. Everything but that and the "Nine months of inconvenience" that you said is subjective. The existence of souls and the value of human life compared to other life is something that people disagree about, and you can't just say "I'm right, you're wrong" about things that are subjective and (in the case of souls) impossible to prove one way or the other. The OP says that the law requires the doctor to tell the women that the fetus can feel pain. Not that it in fact can feel pain. It wouldn't surprise me if it was just right-wing nonsence. | ||
|
eLiE
Canada1039 Posts
On April 28 2011 19:48 Aldehyde wrote: If men got pregnant instead of women, this discussion wouldn't happen. I am completely sure of that. Just because the world runs on a patriarch system doesn't mean that if men could get pregnant there would be no abortion argument. Especially now, you think feminists would let a man kill the baby that a woman helped create, without her go-ahead? There's absolutely no way they'd let that fly. Men have control over a lot of things in this world, but kids are not one of them. I think men should have a choice; both parties go into the agreement knowing the potential consequences of their actions. If I was a partner in an accidental pregnancy, I'd want to take care of the baby, and the fact that I could be disregarded in deciding whether it (my offspring, not just hers) is carried to birth or killed really pisses me off. And all the property talk above (lol), got me thinking that the fetus is half yours considering the gene, so you should be able to legally argue for its protection, even though the woman is carrying it. Consider it you're investing in her  . If corporations can be passed of as people under the law, this can't be that crazy. | ||
|
scouting overlord
120 Posts
 . It has no fucking memory, and abortions are performed under general anasthetic which knocks out the fetus as well, seeing as it's wholly a part of the woman's body.I thought it was 24 weeks minimum to develop 'pain' as well, though I might be mistaken. Not that this is a valid argument against abortion. http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice | ||
|
scouting overlord
120 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:04 SpiffD wrote: The OP says that the law requires the doctor to tell the women that the fetus can feel pain. Not that it is in fact can feel pain. It wouldn't surprise me if it was just right-wing nonsence. Hahah the doctor has to tell the woman that by law? What a fucking disgrace to humanity. Please shove ridiculous morals into my science please, this always works well. | ||
|
scouting overlord
120 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:08 eLiE wrote: Just because the world runs on a patriarch system doesn't mean that if men could get pregnant there would be no abortion argument. Especially now, you think feminists would let a man kill the baby that a woman helped create, without her go-ahead? There's absolutely no way they'd let that fly. Men have control over a lot of things in this world, but kids are not one of them. I think men should have a choice; both parties go into the agreement knowing the potential consequences of their actions. If I was a partner in an accidental pregnancy, I'd want to take care of the baby, and the fact that I could be disregarded in deciding whether it (my offspring, not just hers) is carried to birth or killed really pisses me off. And all the property talk above (lol), got me thinking that the fetus is half yours considering the gene, so you should be able to legally argue for its protection, even though the woman is carrying it. Consider it you're investing in her . If corporations can be passed of as people under the law, this can't be that crazy. Not sure what you mean with the feminist thing, but "they'd do it too" isn't a valid point, especially seeing as the biological roles in pregnancy will never, ever be reversed. So it's pretty irrelevent, and by pretty I mean entirely. You don't think men have power over childbirth? You think abortion and women's rights have been around forever, or even in every country in the modern day and age? You were lucky to be born in Canada, a country which respects the rights of women. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:08 eLiE wrote: I think men should have a choice; both parties go into the agreement knowing the potential consequences of their actions. If I was a partner in an accidental pregnancy, I'd want to take care of the baby, and the fact that I could be disregarded in deciding whether it (my offspring, not just hers) is carried to birth or killed really pisses me off. So be prudent about who you have unprotected sex with? Why is this even an issue for you? And all the property talk above (lol), got me thinking that the fetus is half yours considering the gene, so you should be able to legally argue for its protection, even though the woman is carrying it. Consider it you're investing in her . If corporations can be passed of as people under the law, this can't be that crazy.Even if it can be said that you owned your genes, by the act of consensual sex it can be said you are gifting the woman title to your sperm by giving it to her, so she can use it however she wants, whether to attempt fertilization, for nutritional value, or to style her hair or whatever. Like..you certainly don't demand it back or demand payment for it do you? | ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:08 scouting overlord wrote: Wahh the poor fetus feels pain . It has no fucking memory, and abortions are performed under general anasthetic which knocks out the fetus as well, seeing as it's wholly a part of the woman's body.I thought it was 24 weeks minimum to develop 'pain' as well, though I might be mistaken. Not that this is a valid argument against abortion. http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice I know I mean who's going to be like, "Well I was about to brutally end your existence, but I'm not a monster who's going to do it if you'll feel pain." | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:18 Fraidnot wrote: I know I mean who's going to be like, "Well I was about to brutally end your existence, but I'm not a monster who's going to do it if you'll feel pain." You can't end the existence of something that has no existence. Before a specific time the fetus is a group of cells, not a person. Anyway, the point was that it is despicable that doctors have to tell already emotionally distraught women that they're causing pain to the fetus when they are in fact not. | ||
|
eLiE
Canada1039 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:17 scouting overlord wrote: Not sure what you mean with the feminist thing, but "they'd do it too" isn't a valid point, especially seeing as the biological roles in pregnancy will never, ever be reversed. So it's pretty irrelevent, and by pretty I mean entirely. You don't think men have power over childbirth? You think abortion and women's rights have been around forever, or even in every country in the modern day and age? You were lucky to be born in Canada, a country which respects the rights of women. My post is relevant to the other post that if men could get pregnant there would be no issue. And I think it is a plenty valid argument. As far as I know, men don't have any power whatsoever over childbirth, according to Canadian law. So I don't think the laws are so great. And I don't know what me living in Canada has to do with anything. You argument is confusing. On April 28 2011 20:17 MozzarellaL wrote: So be prudent about who you have unprotected sex with? Why is this even an issue for you? Even if it can be said that you owned your genes, by the act of consensual sex it can be said you are gifting the woman title to your sperm by giving it to her, so she can use it however she wants, whether to attempt fertilization, for nutritional value, or to style her hair or whatever. Like..you certainly don't demand it back or demand payment for it do you? I protect my sex, but in the case that contraception didn't work, I would still want to keep the baby. And I guess you can counteract the gifting of the sperm by telling the woman that you want to keep the baby if one should be conceived. I don't know how much sex that would get you though. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6633 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:32 SpiffD wrote: You can't end the existence of something that has no existence. Before a specific time the fetus is a group of cells, not a person. Anyway, the point was that it is despicable that doctors have to tell already emotionally distraught women that they're causing pain to the fetus when they are in fact not. Not to mention the bullshit about it causing infertility. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote: 12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. | ||
|
Autofire2
Pakistan290 Posts
On April 28 2011 19:46 scouting overlord wrote: Going to quote this again for posterity . Nine months of "inconvenience" rofl, you have no idea. A fetus has no feelings or consciousness just so you know. It's not alive, there is so such thing a a soul, and there is no inherent value to human life . The rights of the woman > the rights of the fetus, always and forever .You know, I was getting really annoyed by your dismissive and simplistic remarks on such a complex issue. But if you're just a nihilist (that's not the opposite of theist, so don't even throw that "oh you believe in God you dumbass" shit at me) then a lot of people here are going to disagree on basic premises and there's no point having a debate. Does your life have value? If it does, it at one point it did not and you're lucky we let you live long enough to achieve it. If it doesn't, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I put a gun to your head, since it has no intrinsic value. Anyway: there is an easy test, which I would recommend to a lot of people in this thread: no matter where you stand, if you arrived at your position because it was completely intuitive to you, if you didn't put much thought into it, if the whole issue doesn't make you sick to your stomach with how much is at stake, then you probably haven't considered it enough. If, on top of all that, you are arrogant and condescending to everyone who disagrees with you, you're a jerkoff. And speaking off jerkoffs: no, idiots, sperm is not the same as zygotes. you can keep that sperm in a handy little jar the rest of your life and it will never become a human being. A zygote will, and please, drop the "potential human" BS. It would be pretty damn morbid to talk of a baby as being a "potential adult". If the normal course of non-tragic nature unfolds, then yes, it WILL be a human being, a UNIQUE human being (this is important) with certain genetic predispositions that were determined around conception. Talking of it as a POTENTIAL human life seems to suggest that it could potentially be a Rhino or something. It is the early stage of a human life. Someone mentioned they weren't cognizant in the womb and therefore would not have given a shit if their mother aborted them. Fair enough, but how much are we aware off as babies? Certainly not much more than, say, cats, and you get into a whole lot more shit for killing the former than the latter. Why? They can both feel pain, have very basic reasoning skills, can sometimes even take in their surroundings and follow their instincts. Why is it so much worse to kill a baby? Because they will develop, if nature takes its course, into unique human beings with unique ways of interacting with the world. The other side is also profound. To take away the liberty of a woman, perhaps for life (good luck going to college or working your way up the corporate ladder if you're a single mom) put her through the stress of 9 months of pregnancy (stupendous mental and physical stress), simply because she forgot to insist on birth control? Because she had unwise sex, a mistake many of us make but only a wretched few of us pay so very heavily for? Its unfair, and deeply so. Look inside yourself. HOW MUCH would you be willing to have taken away from you because of one mistake? Believe it or not, many women who get abortions DO feel terrible about it all the time and STILL think it was the right choice. They aren't mutually exclusive. There is, in practical terms, no way to consistently make the right call on this. Both sides should simply agree to prevent the situation arising as often as possible. Unplanned pregnancies are what cause abortion, and both sides should put aside their goddamn slapfight and ensure better sex educations, more access to contraceptives, better foster care and adoption systems and maybe, just maybe, credit each other with some god damn humanity and not assume the other person is a misogynst/slut/babykiller/whatever. Most abortion arguments are terribly made, but both sides actually have some good underlying points. WTL;DR? Abortion is a very complex issue that will never go away and instead of wasting our time (ironically, as I have done) discussing the moral implications let us simply agree unplanned pregnancies are bad, and work our ass off together to reduce those, and ensure there are options post-birth for a child the parents don't want. Making abortion illegal has never worked. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:01 MagmaRam wrote: The existence of souls and the value of human life compared to other life is something that people disagree about, and you can't just say "I'm right, you're wrong" about things that are subjective and (in the case of souls) impossible to prove one way or the other. I can make up a dozen absurd statements right now, that I can't prove to be right, but that nobody can conclusively prove to be wrong either. Should I then have the right to impose those statements upon others and demand that the entire society takes it into account because nobody can prove they are wrong? The thing is, proving doesn't go "one way or the other", it only goes one way. The burden of proof is upon those who make positive statements. What happens so often though is somebody making a positive statement and either declaring it right because nobody can prove it wrong OR accepting that they can't prove it but then declaring it a valid opinion because "nobody can prove anything". Don't you see how logically flawed that is? | ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
On April 28 2011 19:08 Aldehyde wrote: Didn't even mention solving poverty. What does poverty have to do with anything here? Unwanted pregnancies leads to adoptions which can lead to the kid growing up in rough environments which may lead to crime. My bad, I must have misunderstood your original text, I thought you were talking about the disproportionate prevalence of abortions in poor segments of society and what it implies. I highly doubt adopted kids are trouble, adopters are usually subject to criteria more strict than normal parents are. In fact it would be better if all parents would be judged by similar standards, it would solve a lot of problems really. Haha, oh my fucking deity. Yes, perhaps she acted irresponsibly, is that a reason to mess up her whole life? Seriously? Are you really that grim? Now please imagine a situation with the genders swapped: "Hey a guy acted irresponsibly and ran away after got a girl pregnant, is that a reason to mess up his whole life with child support payments and instant prison if he misses even one?". And the guy can't just say "fuck it, let's have an abortion". Cause that's the reality in case you missed it. Abortion is women's way of running away from responsibility, I do not understand why it isn't handled with the same or more contempt, especially what it implies. Instead it is presented as women's right, women's choice, and if you disagree, you become a misogynist woman hater. And this... Just because I am from Sweden and we have things that are done by the government means I am brainwashed and shit, right? Yep, I don't have any opinions of my own, at all. Because my government handles health care. There are too many swedish people on online forums with nearly identical opinions on stereotypical issues. This usually means some brainwashing, and some self-reflection would be in order. But the US is free from such things. I mean, it's said in your constitution that state and religion should be separate yet presidents have to swear in by the bible and the same thing in court. Makes perfect sense. Those are symbolic, have little to no effect on legislation and enforcement, just like your country is a kingdom in name only. In fact I can't think of any developed country where religion isn't delegated to symbolic role (no, the Vatican isn't a country, it's a joke). | ||
| ||
