|
On November 04 2011 09:14 sanya wrote:
just what we non-americans needed ...
more ammunition when laughing at the u.s' insanity when it comes to laws
First of all, it's not a federal law. If a city or district in your country passed a silly ordinance, should I generalize that stupidity to your entire nation? Of course not.
Second, obviously this law is highly controversial, even for those of us who are Americans (and- even more specifically- surely those who live in Indiana too). Just because a law was passed in America doesn't mean 100% of Americans are behind it- same as all over the world. So we don't need to hear the "Only in America" quote here.
Only in [your country] would such a ridiculously illogical generalization be made from a topic like this, right? 
|
On November 04 2011 09:46 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:On April 29 2011 09:41 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 09:10 Cloud9157 wrote:
Rape is the deciding issue for me.
You're going to force a woman to have the baby of a rapist? Yeah, brilliant logic.
This 20 week law seems decent though. The baby holds no responsibility for the crimes of its father, and should not be punished for them. So the "baby" takes priority over the woman, who never wanted to have sexual relations with that man? You don't force a woman to do anything like that. Make her go through 9 months of a burden that serves as a reminder that she was raped. Actually, another human being's right to live takes priority over the woman's peace of mind. Nobody in here that would argue against the legality of abortion would belittle the effect that being raped has on anyone, but at the end of the day it's impossible for me to see it as justifiable to end the life of another person just because it serves as a reminder for a terrible event that you suffered. I find abortion a revolting and inhumane practice for reasons having nothing to do with religion, and the only instance I would consider it acceptable in is if carrying the pregnancy to term threatens the mother's life.
when exactly does a fetus become a human being exactly.
|
On November 04 2011 09:50 njnick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 09:46 forsooth wrote:On April 29 2011 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:On April 29 2011 09:41 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 09:10 Cloud9157 wrote:
Rape is the deciding issue for me.
You're going to force a woman to have the baby of a rapist? Yeah, brilliant logic.
This 20 week law seems decent though. The baby holds no responsibility for the crimes of its father, and should not be punished for them. So the "baby" takes priority over the woman, who never wanted to have sexual relations with that man? You don't force a woman to do anything like that. Make her go through 9 months of a burden that serves as a reminder that she was raped. Actually, another human being's right to live takes priority over the woman's peace of mind. Nobody in here that would argue against the legality of abortion would belittle the effect that being raped has on anyone, but at the end of the day it's impossible for me to see it as justifiable to end the life of another person just because it serves as a reminder for a terrible event that you suffered. I find abortion a revolting and inhumane practice for reasons having nothing to do with religion, and the only instance I would consider it acceptable in is if carrying the pregnancy to term threatens the mother's life. when exactly does a fetus become a human being exactly.
Well that's the million dollar question. If we had an answer to that there would really not be a discussion, since it'd be like trying to argue that 2+2=5.
|
I think women should have the right to have an abortion. It's inside her fucking body, and by being OUTSIDE of her body the baby would die. One of the definitions of life is that it has to be able to stay alive by itself...it's the same shit as a virus. It can't stay alive without a "host".
Pictures of fetus mean nothing to me. So for example, if a crack baby was to be born, or one with a serious disease such as Hep C or AIDS, you would rather have that baby get born and into a terrible lifestyle, such as possibly being addicted to drugs?
I wish I could fine this funny comic. It was basically a redneck guy outside of an abortion clinic, picketing with a sign that says "GOVERNMENT DONT REGULATE MY HEALTH, REGULATE HERS! (*points at a woman walking into the clinic*)"
|
On November 04 2011 09:52 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 09:50 njnick wrote:On November 04 2011 09:46 forsooth wrote:On April 29 2011 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:On April 29 2011 09:41 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 09:10 Cloud9157 wrote:
Rape is the deciding issue for me.
You're going to force a woman to have the baby of a rapist? Yeah, brilliant logic.
This 20 week law seems decent though. The baby holds no responsibility for the crimes of its father, and should not be punished for them. So the "baby" takes priority over the woman, who never wanted to have sexual relations with that man? You don't force a woman to do anything like that. Make her go through 9 months of a burden that serves as a reminder that she was raped. Actually, another human being's right to live takes priority over the woman's peace of mind. Nobody in here that would argue against the legality of abortion would belittle the effect that being raped has on anyone, but at the end of the day it's impossible for me to see it as justifiable to end the life of another person just because it serves as a reminder for a terrible event that you suffered. I find abortion a revolting and inhumane practice for reasons having nothing to do with religion, and the only instance I would consider it acceptable in is if carrying the pregnancy to term threatens the mother's life. when exactly does a fetus become a human being exactly. Well that's the million dollar question. If we had an answer to that there would really not be a discussion, since it'd be like trying to argue that 2+2=5.
Thats why i asked him, what is HIS opinion on when the fetus should be consider a human being. I never meant to imply that there is some universal correct answer
Also to get a good understanding of statistics of abortion, i recommend this video. It as neutral as you can get.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 04 2011 09:54 Silidons wrote:
I think women should have the right to have an abortion. It's inside her fucking body, and by being OUTSIDE of her body the baby would die. One of the definitions of life is that it has to be able to stay alive by itself...it's the same shit as a virus. It can't stay alive without a "host".
Pictures of fetus mean nothing to me. So for example, if a crack baby was to be born, or one with a serious disease such as Hep C or AIDS, you would rather have that baby get born and into a terrible lifestyle, such as possibly being addicted to drugs?
I wish I could fine this funny comic. It was basically a redneck guy outside of an abortion clinic, picketing with a sign that says "GOVERNMENT DONT REGULATE MY HEALTH, REGULATE HERS! (*points at a woman walking into the clinic*)"
So, Arguably a 1-5 maybe -7 year old cant stay alive solely by itself, can i violently kill 7 year old because they don't meet every condition of life? what are you saying bro?
|
On November 04 2011 09:54 Silidons wrote:
I think women should have the right to have an abortion. It's inside her fucking body, and by being OUTSIDE of her body the baby would die. One of the definitions of life is that it has to be able to stay alive by itself...it's the same shit as a virus. It can't stay alive without a "host".
Pictures of fetus mean nothing to me. So for example, if a crack baby was to be born, or one with a serious disease such as Hep C or AIDS, you would rather have that baby get born and into a terrible lifestyle, such as possibly being addicted to drugs?
I wish I could fine this funny comic. It was basically a redneck guy outside of an abortion clinic, picketing with a sign that says "GOVERNMENT DONT REGULATE MY HEALTH, REGULATE HERS! (*points at a woman walking into the clinic*)"
Have you seen the average 12 year old? They're not exactly self sufficient. If your argument is you need to be able to support yourself (biologically or otherwise) to not be killed, then I guess we should be allowed to kill everyone under 16.
|
Going to say that this bill makes a mockery of a woman's right to choose. If 20 weeks was decided as a deadline, why not 16 weeks? Why not 8 weeks? Why not 2 weeks? It's a woman's body and she shouldn't be made into a slave by being forced to carry a child. And if fetus rights are sacrosanct, then why not give full adult rights to all children. The government is already making an arbitrary distinction between those that can vote and those that cannot vote. Why not give every six year the right to vote? Because six year old children are human beings and all human beings are equal...
|
On November 04 2011 09:41 LostnFound wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 08:41 Myrkskog wrote:
It's not a baby. It's disingenuous to equate the immediate result of conception with a baby, but unsurprising from a group who grasps at straws to compare abortion to the holocaust. It's disingenuous to say that an embryo or fetus is not another person. From conception, 50% of embryos are male and thus impossibly part of the mother's body.
What does being male have to do with them being "impossibly part of the mother's body?" Shocking though it may be to believe, but women are not all the same; they're not interchangeable. You don't have to be male to be different from another woman.
And people wonder why it is that the anti-abortion crowd is often labeled misogynist.
In any case, by your logic, the embryo is not a person at all; it is a parasite. A parasite being an organism that is directed attached to another organism, deriving its sustenance by hijacking part of it's body, such that it would starve and die if it were removed. There are even mechanisms to hide the parasite from detection by the host's immune system (granted, these mechanisms are actually part of the host, which is where the analogy starts to break down).
Neither side is going to make progress in this argument by trying to deny the reality of the situation. The unborn is both a living human being and is linked to and utterly dependent on its host, who is also a human being, for sustenance. Every argument for or against abortion is simply picking which one of these two facts that you personally care about more: the well-being of the unborn human, or the decisions of the host human?
If you pick the unborn, then you're reducing any woman who happens to get pregnant (for any reason) to being nothing more than a potentially unwilling incubator. If you pick the host, then you're reducing the unborn human to the level of tapeworms. Someone is going to be devalued regardless of which side you pick.
You can see it in the rhetoric the two sides use. Right down to the self-given names. Pro-life, as though there were only one human being involved here. Pro-choice, again as though there were only one human being involved here.
The sooner people realize that neither side can claim the moral high ground, the better.
The entire debate is transitory; it's all based on incomplete technology. One hundred years ago, there was no real abortion debate, because abortion was highly unsafe if it could be performed at all. One hundred years from now, unwanted pregnancies will likely be able to be transplanted into some kind of machine or other device for incubation. We are only having this debate now because we don't yet have the technology to fully resolve the problem: remove an embryo/fetus from an unwilling mother and continue to bring it to term in some fashion.
|
On November 04 2011 09:14 sanya wrote:
just what we non-americans needed ...
more ammunition when laughing at the u.s' insanity when it comes to laws
Do you realize that pretty much every country has a time limit on how late you can get an abortion and some countries ban it even earlier, i.e. France has a 12 week limit. In fact I would venture that very few if any developed countries have abortion completely legal after the 20th week. But I shouldn't expect you to know that
|
On November 04 2011 09:59 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 09:54 Silidons wrote:
I think women should have the right to have an abortion. It's inside her fucking body, and by being OUTSIDE of her body the baby would die. One of the definitions of life is that it has to be able to stay alive by itself...it's the same shit as a virus. It can't stay alive without a "host".
Pictures of fetus mean nothing to me. So for example, if a crack baby was to be born, or one with a serious disease such as Hep C or AIDS, you would rather have that baby get born and into a terrible lifestyle, such as possibly being addicted to drugs?
I wish I could fine this funny comic. It was basically a redneck guy outside of an abortion clinic, picketing with a sign that says "GOVERNMENT DONT REGULATE MY HEALTH, REGULATE HERS! (*points at a woman walking into the clinic*)" So, Arguably a 1-5 maybe -7 year old cant stay alive solely by itself, can i violently kill 7 year old because they don't meet every condition of life? what are you saying bro?
No. You can transfer custody of the 7 year old to the government. You can't do that with a fetus.
|
He's already been temp'd there's no reason to discuss his comment -_- since it doesn't even apply to the narrow confine of the thread.
|
On November 04 2011 09:59 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 09:54 Silidons wrote:
I think women should have the right to have an abortion. It's inside her fucking body, and by being OUTSIDE of her body the baby would die. One of the definitions of life is that it has to be able to stay alive by itself...it's the same shit as a virus. It can't stay alive without a "host".
Pictures of fetus mean nothing to me. So for example, if a crack baby was to be born, or one with a serious disease such as Hep C or AIDS, you would rather have that baby get born and into a terrible lifestyle, such as possibly being addicted to drugs?
I wish I could fine this funny comic. It was basically a redneck guy outside of an abortion clinic, picketing with a sign that says "GOVERNMENT DONT REGULATE MY HEALTH, REGULATE HERS! (*points at a woman walking into the clinic*)" So, Arguably a 1-5 maybe -7 year old cant stay alive solely by itself, can i violently kill 7 year old because they don't meet every condition of life? what are you saying bro?
Nice strawman. Babies can survive without a maternal parent. Fetuses can't. See the difference?
|
On November 04 2011 10:04 DetriusXii wrote:
Going to say that this bill makes a mockery of a woman's right to choose. If 20 weeks was decided as a deadline, why not 16 weeks? Why not 8 weeks? Why not 2 weeks? It's a woman's body and she shouldn't be made into a slave by being forced to carry a child. And if fetus rights are sacrosanct, then why not give full adult rights to all children. The government is already making an arbitrary distinction between those that can vote and those that cannot vote. Why not give every six year the right to vote? Because six year old children are human beings and all human beings are equal...
Why not after she gives birth? Until the placenta detaches from the mother it's still just as much "her body." You think doctor's should be allowed to snuff out newborns that are unwanted?
The fact is it's not as arbitrary as you would think. Ever heard of the term "viability"? That's a pretty fair way to set up a timeline without it being arbitrary.
|
whatever the woman does in international waters (womb) is her decision until the vessel lands on US soil (baby pops out). Like with any law in the states totally slippery slope. If it doesnt pass it'll just get tacked on to something that needs to pass and then its done :D
|
20 weeks isn't bad. Fetuses begin to become fairly viable beyond that point.
|
On November 04 2011 09:46 ragingfungus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 09:40 Toxi78 wrote:
i couldn't go through the whole thread obviously, but people do not get that the point at stake in india is NOT abortion itself, it's the fact that they abort almost all female fetus because it costs a lot of money to the family to marry them, and they are not as useful as men for ground work and so on, which is very important in these families.
they are trying to do that so that people cannot abort once they know the sex.
wether or not you know the sex of a 20month fetus, that i do not know. Indianna not India bro.
lol right, are they seriously restricting abortion in indiana?
this is beyond me.
|
On November 04 2011 09:46 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:On April 29 2011 09:41 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 09:10 Cloud9157 wrote:
Rape is the deciding issue for me.
You're going to force a woman to have the baby of a rapist? Yeah, brilliant logic.
This 20 week law seems decent though. The baby holds no responsibility for the crimes of its father, and should not be punished for them. So the "baby" takes priority over the woman, who never wanted to have sexual relations with that man? You don't force a woman to do anything like that. Make her go through 9 months of a burden that serves as a reminder that she was raped. Actually, another human being's right to live takes priority over the woman's peace of mind. Nobody in here that would argue against the legality of abortion would belittle the effect that being raped has on anyone, but at the end of the day it's impossible for me to see it as justifiable to end the life of another person just because it serves as a reminder for a terrible event that you suffered. I find abortion a revolting and inhumane practice for reasons having nothing to do with religion, and the only instance I would consider it acceptable in is if carrying the pregnancy to term threatens the mother's life.
And that logic is a good chunk of the reason why I fall (grudgingly) into the Pro-choice camp. Because, in order to allow your logic to work, you have to be willing to believe that:
1: People who just so happened to be born with a womb (ie: not ~50% of the population)...
2: Who are physically violated and implanted with a being that they had no desire, explicitly or implicitly, to be implanted with...
3: Must be required by society at large (which suddenly includes the ~50% of the population who can never have this happen to them), under penalty of law and force, to continue to support sustaining this being's existence for ~9 months.
You have to say that this is less morally reprehensible behavior from society than society allowing the woman to terminate the pregnancy. I cannot.
There are fates worse than death. There are crosses that people should not be asked to bear. And they damn sure shouldn't be forced to do so. Even moreso when some of that forcing comes from people who physically cannot be put into the same position.
The unfairness of it is part of what helps tip the balance for me. It would feel too self-satisfying and too holier-than-thou for me as a man to use the power of law to say to a woman that they have to do that, while I'm safe knowing that I can never be in that situation.
|
Why is this still going on?
Its an old thread, and not only that, re-ignited by a freakin ray comfort video/support
I mean, there are arguments both ways. But ray comfort.. really?
|
On November 04 2011 10:06 NicolBolas wrote:
The entire debate is transitory; it's all based on incomplete technology. One hundred years ago, there was no real abortion debate, because abortion was highly unsafe if it could be performed at all. One hundred years from now, unwanted pregnancies will likely be able to be transplanted into some kind of machine or other device for incubation. We are only having this debate now because we don't yet have the technology to fully resolve the problem: remove an embryo/fetus from an unwilling mother and continue to bring it to term in some fashion.
QFT...
The least (or most equally) contentious 'start line' is the "viability" point.*
However technology will continue to push that back.. eventually if a woman finds out she is pregnant she will technologically be able to put the zygote/embryo/fetus in 'orphan incubator'. where it will go up for adoption.
And people will look back on the horrors of the 20th & 21st century when fetuses, Jews, and other minorities were regarded as parasites to be disposed of in societies/individuals that had troubles.
*The best law I think would be to allow a woman at ANY point to have a 'premature birth' and abandon the child to the authorites. If the child can't survive at that point then its an abortion, but one obviously before the point of viabilty, if the child does survive, then an abortion has been avoided through the miracles of modern science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
