|
On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all.
Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate.
|
On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:36 Derez wrote:On April 29 2011 02:26 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. I hope you're not serious. This is terrible logic that could be applied to any rule/law/restriction you can think of. "It's not your choice whether I murder people in my backyard." And I'd like to point out just as general information for this thread that abortions due to rape/incest make up 1% of total abortions. Now obviously it is a terrible thing to be raped but I don't see why the baby should be held responsible for the crime(s) of its father. If it's such a psychological burden to raise the offspring of your assailant, then put it up for adoption. Point is: That point is based on your assumption that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. As you can see, a large number of people don't agree with that assumption. Now on what grounds are you allowed to dictate your opinion on the matter to the rest of the world? (The problem here obviously is that for many people that believe that adoption is murder, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of divine fact/personal experience/whatever.) No it isn't. Maybe murder was a bad example, but society regulates all manner of things that people can or cannot do. I don't see how preventing women from aborting their children is particularly special. Unless you are a full-blown anarchist, saying that it "isn't your choice" whether someone can have an abortion is kind of silly. But back to my inductive proof: Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born. Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live). If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous). Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
I'm unsure about your reasoning in the 2nd point...
What about induction of a pregnancy at a time when the baby is not capable of living on its own? Say, at 10 weeks?
The baby may be capable of living on its own the day before birth...however, viability of babies is very circumstance based e.g. a baby born next door to a leading neonatal intensive care unit will be 'viable' at a much earlier stage than a baby delivered without medical assistance in rural Africa...
|
On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate.
Except that it's also the father's child, and the outcome of their own life hinges on the decision to abort or not, including, but not limited to, things like Child Support laws. Sorry, but the father, a man, also has a personal stake in the situation, regardless of how much you might want to ignore it.
|
On April 29 2011 02:52 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote:
But back to my inductive proof:
Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born.
Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live).
If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous).
Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. LOLOLOLOLOL. I find yout "wrong at any point after conception" RIDICULOUS. I mean come on, Its not ok to kill something at one point (second of conception) but not few seconds before? How can that be possible according to your brilliant hypothesis? It would be wrong to kill! LOL. Bible pretty much supports my argument too. Masturbaters and condom users should be put to death.
wtf? troll.
|
On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:36 Derez wrote:On April 29 2011 02:26 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. I hope you're not serious. This is terrible logic that could be applied to any rule/law/restriction you can think of. "It's not your choice whether I murder people in my backyard." And I'd like to point out just as general information for this thread that abortions due to rape/incest make up 1% of total abortions. Now obviously it is a terrible thing to be raped but I don't see why the baby should be held responsible for the crime(s) of its father. If it's such a psychological burden to raise the offspring of your assailant, then put it up for adoption. Point is: That point is based on your assumption that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. As you can see, a large number of people don't agree with that assumption. Now on what grounds are you allowed to dictate your opinion on the matter to the rest of the world? (The problem here obviously is that for many people that believe that adoption is murder, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of divine fact/personal experience/whatever.) No it isn't. Maybe murder was a bad example, but society regulates all manner of things that people can or cannot do. I don't see how preventing women from aborting their children is particularly special. Unless you are a full-blown anarchist, saying that it "isn't your choice" whether someone can have an abortion is kind of silly. But back to my inductive proof: Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born. Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live). If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous). Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
Governments should only regulate those things that are essential to a functioning society, and shouldn't interfere with things they have no business interfering with. Especially not on issues that are personal choices. This is a decision a mother makes, for whatever reason. You are not a part of this decision, because in no way does it affect you. Seriously, if you're against abortion fine, but please limit the impact of this belief to your own personal life. The decision to possibly create a life (if there even was a concious decision) was one that was made between 2 persons, not between 2 persons and the rest of the world that feels they need to weigh in with their moral superiority.
And your inductive proof is ludacris, because it is not logically consistent. You should have done it like this:
- It is wrong to kill a human being that is capable of living on its own (Your own argument for point 2).
- Before x weeks, a fetus is not capable of living on it's own.
- Guess where this leads.
|
On April 29 2011 03:03 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate. Except that it's also the father's child, and the outcome of their own life hinges on the decision to abort or not, including, but not limited to, things like Child Support laws. Sorry, but the father, a man, also has a personal stake in the situation, regardless of how much you might want to ignore it.
This is where Wegendi's argument that a woman has "the right to evict but not to kill" can solve the dilemma. It would allow the woman to control her own body by inducing early delivery, but the fetus would be born in that state and put up for adoption. A pro-life philanthroper could adopt the fetus (if it is developed enough to survive) and pay for its medical treatment.
The more I consider this position, the better it seems.
|
On April 29 2011 03:03 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate. Except that it's also the father's child, and the outcome of their own life hinges on the decision to abort or not, including, but not limited to, things like Child Support laws. Sorry, but the father, a man, also has a personal stake in the situation, regardless of how much you might want to ignore it.
Ethically speaking, yes, the father certainly has a stake in the birth of his to be child. However, how would the law intervene in such a situation? Sanction the woman to carry the baby to term when she doesn't want to? Surely this would just lead to many unsafe abortions as well as breaking the principle of 'respect of autonomy' that is held in such high esteem in modern medicine.
Therefore, the justification in law is that the pregnant woman's sexual partner has no right to determine what medical treatment (the abortion) she receives...
EDIT: typo
|
Mandatory Abortion in most cases. Mandatory where the mother and father are both afflicted with dereliction. Rescue this unborn from the YEARS AND YEARS of pain, misery, and destruction, from the neglect this child will receive.
And by the way, its not a fucking person until its number is in my fucking phone okay?
|
On April 29 2011 02:52 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote:
But back to my inductive proof:
Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born.
Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live).
If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous).
Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. LOLOLOLOLOL. I find yout "wrong at any point after conception" RIDICULOUS. I mean come on, Its not ok to kill something at one point (second of conception) but not few seconds before? How can that be possible according to your brilliant hypothesis? It would be wrong to kill! LOL. Bible pretty much supports my argument too. Masturbaters and condom users should be put to death.
Leave the bible out of this, It was written a VERY long time ago, and these grey area, moral no-mans land areas aren't really applicable.
what the fuck? Are you seriously telling me that you've never fapped to porn as a teenager? Ok, lets say you didn't (which is fine.) Would you still give every girl you met STDs if you had it? ONLY because your religion told you not to? I have respect for most religions, but this is pretty crazy for catholicism. ( unless, of course you follow another religion branched from christianity)
ON TOPIC.
I do think the line is at conception, as that sperm and egg will not become a human being, and who knows? Maybe fetuses and babies have a complete conscious, just no speech or memory of it. We just can't know, and therefore I oppose abortion for *most* circumstances. There are some that make sense. (eg: diseases of the mother that will be passed on, the baby has a disease that will give it a bad life. Otherwise you can just put the baby up for **adoption**, right?)
*There ARE circumstances where its fine, but they are very extraneous and kinda funky
**Or have a relative take care of the child.
|
On April 29 2011 03:10 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 02:36 Derez wrote:On April 29 2011 02:26 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. I hope you're not serious. This is terrible logic that could be applied to any rule/law/restriction you can think of. "It's not your choice whether I murder people in my backyard." And I'd like to point out just as general information for this thread that abortions due to rape/incest make up 1% of total abortions. Now obviously it is a terrible thing to be raped but I don't see why the baby should be held responsible for the crime(s) of its father. If it's such a psychological burden to raise the offspring of your assailant, then put it up for adoption. Point is: That point is based on your assumption that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. As you can see, a large number of people don't agree with that assumption. Now on what grounds are you allowed to dictate your opinion on the matter to the rest of the world? (The problem here obviously is that for many people that believe that adoption is murder, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of divine fact/personal experience/whatever.) No it isn't. Maybe murder was a bad example, but society regulates all manner of things that people can or cannot do. I don't see how preventing women from aborting their children is particularly special. Unless you are a full-blown anarchist, saying that it "isn't your choice" whether someone can have an abortion is kind of silly. But back to my inductive proof: Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born. Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live). If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous). Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. Governments should only regulate those things that are essential to a functioning society, and shouldn't interfere with things they have no business interfering with. Especially not on issues that are personal choices. This is a decision a mother makes, for whatever reason. You are not a part of this decision, because in no way does it affect you. Seriously, if you're against abortion fine, but please limit the impact of this belief to your own personal life. The decision to possibly create a life (if there even was a concious decision) was one that was made between 2 persons, not between 2 persons and the rest of the world that feels they need to weigh in with their moral superiority. And your inductive proof is ludacris, because it is not logically consistent. You should have done it like this: - It is wrong to kill something that is capable of living on its own (Your own argument for point 2). - Before x weeks, a fetus is not capable of living on it's own. - Guess where this leads.
It also doesn't effect me if someone I don't know robs someone else I don't know, but I still believe that should be illegal.
If two people have a child together, raise it in complete secrecy to age 15 and then kill it, is it murder? The rest of society isn't affected at all, they didn't even know the child existed.
And I agree with you about the decision to possibly create a life being made by two people. And after that decision is made, both people will have to live with the consequences and do what they can for the child they've created (assuming they do).
You're missing the crucial point, which is that if killing a fetus at time T is wrong, killing it at time T-1 is also wrong, because time should have no effect on personhood and the right to life. It is completely inane to say "today it is ok to kill, but if we wait until tomorrow it will be not ok".
|
What happens if there is a situation where either the baby will be killed or the mom will be killed, then will they ban that abortion too?
|
On April 29 2011 03:17 inamorato wrote:
And by the way, its not a fucking person until its number is in my fucking phone okay?
You won't last long here if you keep adding ridiculous statements like that.
|
On April 29 2011 03:14 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 03:03 Bibdy wrote:On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate. Except that it's also the father's child, and the outcome of their own life hinges on the decision to abort or not, including, but not limited to, things like Child Support laws. Sorry, but the father, a man, also has a personal stake in the situation, regardless of how much you might want to ignore it. This is where Wegendi's argument that a woman has "the right to evict but not to kill" can solve the dilemma. It would allow the woman to control her own body by inducing early delivery, but the fetus would be born in that state and put up for adoption. A pro-life philanthroper could adopt the fetus (if it is developed enough to survive) and pay for its medical treatment. The more I consider this position, the better it seems.
To play devil's advocate, this line of argument is not without its flaws...
Inducing pregnancy to evict the fetus puts the mother at (I assume) increased risk of morbidity...if she doesn't want the child, should this increased risk be forced upon her when an abortion carries less risk?
Also the state in which the baby is born must be considered...premature babies are very fragile and the earlier it would be 'evicted' the higher the chance of morbidity and mortality.
EDIT: would it be morally justifiable to evict a baby that is so premature that its chances of leading a normal/healthy life are essentially negligible? I imagine you would have to call on the principle of double effect to justify your actions as a doctor...
|
On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate.
So a pregnant woman that has never given birth before can have an abortion but she can't talk about abortion law? Is that a joke?
|
On April 29 2011 03:21 Alzadar wrote:
You're missing the crucial point, which is that if killing a fetus at time T is wrong, killing it at time T-1 is also wrong, because time should have no effect on personhood and the right to life. It is completely inane to say "today it is ok to kill, but if we wait until tomorrow it will be not ok".
Yeah, problem is you're equating all abortions to murder.
|
On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:
Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate.
i understand where youre coming from, but I think you err when you say only those who have given birth have a right to enter the debate. In my head that sounds like someone saying only soldiers have the right to an opinion on murder.
i think everyone has the right to enter the debate because everyone participates in moral ethics whether you think they should or should not. the fact that (one would hope) all humans strive towards a perfect morality is reason enough to allow people to discuss (and debate) on what that morality is.
instead of simply getting angry at people who think differently than you and trying to invalidate their right to an opinion, perhaps you can try to present evidence or reasoning that could show them their error. "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." - Laurence J. Peter.
|
On April 29 2011 03:31 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 03:21 Alzadar wrote:
You're missing the crucial point, which is that if killing a fetus at time T is wrong, killing it at time T-1 is also wrong, because time should have no effect on personhood and the right to life. It is completely inane to say "today it is ok to kill, but if we wait until tomorrow it will be not ok".
Yeah, problem is you're equating all abortions to murder.
Why is that a problem? It is the logical conclusion I reached.
|
On April 29 2011 03:21 Alzadar wrote:
if killing a fetus at time T is wrong, killing it at time T-1 is also wrong, because time should have no effect on personhood and the right to life. According to.....?
|
@Alzadar
Stop trying to paint the problem as black or white.
The problem is "mostly" gray, trying to paint it as black or white is "mostly" an incorrect simplification.
Also imho since in "most" cases the problem is gray, trying to force an solution has no advantage to society as far as I can see.
|
On April 29 2011 03:31 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 03:21 Alzadar wrote:
You're missing the crucial point, which is that if killing a fetus at time T is wrong, killing it at time T-1 is also wrong, because time should have no effect on personhood and the right to life. It is completely inane to say "today it is ok to kill, but if we wait until tomorrow it will be not ok".
Yeah, problem is you're equating all abortions to murder.
Thats because it is, it's ending a life that could have been very prosperous and excellent, depending on the situation. I don't care if you don't consider it a person. The definition of murder is ending a life. Killing a 30 year old guy prevents him from becoming 40. Killing a fetus prevents it from having a chance, or a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
