|
On November 05 2011 00:19 Moochlol wrote:
There is no difference between a 2 week old fetus and 2 month old fetus, both, if left to mature WILL be born into this world. There is no fucking moral difference, both is murder of an innocent human being, BTW I'm am a militant atheist and I'm pro life, go figure.
False. Miscarriages happen. Women's freedom to control their own reproduction is a hallmark of our society so I think abortions need to be allowed in limited circumstances for this country to be free.
|
United States43430 Posts
On November 05 2011 00:19 Moochlol wrote:
There is no difference between a 2 week old fetus and 2 month old fetus, both, if left to mature WILL be born into this world. There is no fucking moral difference, both is murder of an innocent human being, BTW I'm am a militant atheist and I'm pro life, go figure.
Do you not see the contradiction in saying if the following conditions are all met then it BOLDTEXT will be a life. The argument of the pro-choicers is that it is a potential life, not a life. You have accepted their premise, that conditions need to be met before it becomes a life by saying "if left to mature" and somehow glossed over that and then followed it with the definite "will". It seems that you can't decide if it will definitely happen or conditionally happen.
|
On November 05 2011 00:19 Moochlol wrote:
There is no difference between a 2 week old fetus and 2 month old fetus, both, if left to mature WILL be born into this world. There is no fucking moral difference, both is murder of an innocent human being, BTW I'm am a militant atheist and I'm pro life, go figure.
This is another quite insane view point. according to your theory a women maybe drinking too much during her pregnancy and getting a miscarriage should be prosecuted.
|
A very interesting topic, indeed.
I guess the big issue that has to be established, is when does a fetus become self-aware, and therefore a living being. I presume the state has established this through some sort of medical study, but lord knows laws have been proposed and in some cases are still active in some countries and cultures (USA & Canada included) based on far less than science.
My personal opinion is that abortion should be permitted, but that the decision should be that of the mother solely.
That being said, 20 weeks is a long time for a woman to go in a pregnancy, and she should be able to come to a decision in such a period of time. I don't even pretend to know how hard a decision it must be to make. In the case of a rape, the decision is more defined, and clear, but in the case of a relationship gone wrong, or a teenage pregnancy, the waters get muddy, and the mothers personal opinion and ethics are very important in the decision making process.
So, If the state can prove without a doubt, via medical science, that the fetus at 20 weeks or more is a sentient being, I'd be for such a law, with consideration. There should be specific exemptions, on a case by case basis.
|
It seems like a relatively sound law. Anything after 20 weeks and you might as well just wait to give bitrth before you dispose of it. Considering a fetus only starts responding to sound of week 21 around I feel the law is okay. Responding to sound at least shows it is somewhat conscious and I guess that's when it can be reffered to as a living thing that has some rights.
|
I've always seen both sides of the argument. Personally, I favor choice, as I believe there are circumstances where a woman has the right to abortion (rape, abandonment).
However, I honestly agree with the idea of banning it after a certain period of time. In the circumstances that I mentioned, it is a woman's responsibility to make sure if she is or is not pregnant wayyyyyyy before 20 weeks; that's almost 5 months?! I was unaware that abortions after that point were even possible without seriously injuring the woman, but it seems that people have been doing it. I believe that 5 months in is far too long for a woman to still be able to make up her mind, yknow? Especially in the cases, which are the ones that I disagree with, of women who simply realize they don't want/can't handle the task of parenthood. Being able to choose to undo this kind of decision on a gut feeling or a whim is not morally sound, in my opinion.
But I'm no expert, I'm just sharing the opinion of a bystander.
|
On November 04 2011 13:40 arbitrageur wrote:
To supporters of free abortion in most cases (let's even assume the fetus has 0 capability to feel pain), i have the following question:
what's the difference between consciousness that exists at t=0 and consciousness that can possibly exist at t=future? Why is it that you value t=0 consciousness more than t=future consciousness? is there a difference between the atoms that constitute a current person's brain, that you'd value, and the future configuration of atoms that this fetus will grow up into at t=future? Why does the exact point that we currently exist in on the timeline even play into this moral consideration?
btw:
- I hate religion
- I'm a materialist
so yep
Condensed question: Plz adduce some rational or evidence based reasoning that justifies the value difference that you attribute to t=0 consciousness above and beyond t=future consciousness.
Because future consciousness has not come to pass yet, and in the current situation the actual reasons for aborting that opportunity out weight the prospects of the future. If the question of "When does a person become a person" I would say during their early time after birth when they are first exposed to the world around them.
On the actual topic of a date, I can understand why they're making 20th week--that's a decent enough cut off date to appease both sides of the issue, allow the freedom to the women to not have unwanted children, but prevent a highly developed fetus from being "killed." I don't think past it just being a compromise for both sides, and the actual date has no scientific reasoning.
|
On November 05 2011 00:38 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I guess the big issue that has to be established, is when does a fetus become self-aware
Don't even know if live babies are even self-aware
|
On November 05 2011 00:42 Alay wrote:
On the actual topic of a date, I can understand why they're making 20th week--that's a decent enough cut off date to appease both sides of the issue, allow the freedom to the women to not have unwanted children, but prevent a highly developed fetus from being "killed." I don't think past it just being a compromise for both sides, and the actual date has no scientific reasoning.
Yeah and that's the problem with bringing hardcore philosophy into matters such as this. Life is and always has been about compromise...something that philosophy finds very difficult to deal with.
|
I think this is a good step in the right direction. If it takes 20 weeks for you to get an abortion then something is wrong. In my opinion it should be 10/12 weeks max, it doesn't take that long.
Of course they should always have exceptions for "unique" cases.
|
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill.
I don't know what state you live in, but you can indeed kill a trespasser. Hell in Texas one old man killed two young black men for trespassing on his neighbors property. They didn't have guns and had their backs turned to him.
In the end I really don't think people should need to have an abortion in the first place, but I also don't care what another person does with their body either.
|
On November 05 2011 00:45 nennx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 00:38 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I guess the big issue that has to be established, is when does a fetus become self-aware Don't even know if live babies are even self-aware
That's a pretty obtuse statement. A newborn, when hungry or in pain, knows to cry. It may not be intelligent or mobile, but a newborn is definitely sentient and self aware.
|
On November 05 2011 00:45 nennx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 00:38 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I guess the big issue that has to be established, is when does a fetus become self-aware Don't even know if live babies are even self-aware
What I know of developmental psychology, they seem to put self-awareness between the age of 6 month - 1 year. That's basically the self-abstraction of the baby from the world, it leaving his solipsism that it entertained until then.
The psychological test you can do to get at this are shifty at best though, so we shouldn't rely to hard on that number.
On November 05 2011 00:00 Everyone wrote:
20 weeks is plenty of time to decide.
I wonder if there are any prenatal tests done after the 20th week. Anencephaly and downs syndrome tests are done around the 18th week, which would be pretty close to the 20th week deadline...
Basically, what are the reasons for the 20 week limit? In Germany the limit is 3 month for a healthy fetus and 6 month for a fetus with a severe defect.
|
i think that anyone who disagrees with abortion from solely emotional standpoints should not be able to contribute. If you were to logic out what happens AFTER abortion is illegal, it gets nasty quickly. The children most likely to be aborted are ones where:
a) the mother doesnt feel she can financially support a child,
b)the mother has no interest in raising a child,
c) the child is the product of an unhealthy relationship or rape,
d)the child will have a life-altering deformity or mutation, or
e)the mother doesnt feel that she can raise a child properly with-out its absentee father.
these scenarios (-d) increase the likely-hood of criminal behavior.
Then you have to factor in the overwhelming majority of unplanned pregnancies are due lack of proper contraceptive use, which is a sign of lack of foresight or planning. Do we really REALLY want alot of people who dont know what sex leads to raising a brood of children?
so, do you REALLY, REALLY want to increase the incidence of stupid criminals running around by banning abortion?
in the case of a malformation or retardation, the child will not be a fully functioning human in any sense of the word. we put down mutated animals that cant survive because it is humane. why cant we be humane to humans?
oh, and btw, there are 7,000,000,000 people in the world and counting. we can afford to cut back on the birth rate just a bit
|
On November 05 2011 00:50 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 00:45 nennx wrote:On November 05 2011 00:38 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I guess the big issue that has to be established, is when does a fetus become self-aware Don't even know if live babies are even self-aware That's a pretty obtuse statement. A newborn, when hungry or in pain, knows to cry. It may not be intelligent or mobile, but a newborn is definitely sentient and self aware.
Reactions to a given input is not sufficient to claim self-awareness. Every animal reacts to hunger and pain, yet we do not claim that they are self-aware. You also can program computers to return "cry" when the self.pain(8) function gets called.
|
On November 05 2011 00:34 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 00:19 Moochlol wrote:
There is no difference between a 2 week old fetus and 2 month old fetus, both, if left to mature WILL be born into this world. There is no fucking moral difference, both is murder of an innocent human being, BTW I'm am a militant atheist and I'm pro life, go figure. This is another quite insane view point. according to your theory a women maybe drinking too much during her pregnancy and getting a miscarriage should be prosecuted.
So I didn't feel i needed to state the obvious but I guess I have to. I tried to convey my ideology on the topic with the sentence, "If left to mature WILL be born into this world". This includes the topic of gestational abuse, IE drinking fuck loads of booze or punching yourself in the stomach, both of these things hinder the maturation (maturation means being born). Both I would consider morally incorrect (No I don't think you should be put in jail). I'm sad I even had to say that, gotta love /hate TL
When I say I am pro life, I mean potential life deserves the right to live, does a fetus have a "life"? Well that depends on what you perceive as life. Is life only worth a shit when you have the mental capacity to understand your alive, or do you need to have an identity as My name is John I like football. This is ridiculous semantics in my opinion. Do you consider a cat to have a life? Does a cat need to have a favorite color to be considered worth a fuck?
So as I do not not believe in god, I do not believe life is only worth a damn because god says so, or has a plan.
I believe or I should say I 99% believe to be true that life ALL LIFE is potentially worth something.
Now on the separate topic of whether or not you have to right to abort, yes I do think you have the right to abort a fetus given a certain set of difficult circumstances, but all should be done on a case by case basis, with strong consideration for the sanctity of that life. So Maybe I should have said I am Pro LifeChoice lol?
Edit, Oh and to directly respond to KWARK, if conditions are met LIFE WILL HAPPEN or the baby is born, or whatever the fuck u want call it. I really don't understand that dig you took at me, If a fetus is left to mature, IE doing all the proper things to make this happen, the fetus will be born as is the case in the majority of women who take care of themselves during gestation. Even if say by chance the doctor whilst pulling the baby from the womb slips on some body fluid and flings the baby across the room breaking its neck, well......At least the little fucker had a fucking chance.....
|
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 00:34 Grumbels wrote:On November 05 2011 00:19 Moochlol wrote:
There is no difference between a 2 week old fetus and 2 month old fetus, both, if left to mature WILL be born into this world. There is no fucking moral difference, both is murder of an innocent human being, BTW I'm am a militant atheist and I'm pro life, go figure. This is another quite insane view point. according to your theory a women maybe drinking too much during her pregnancy and getting a miscarriage should be prosecuted. So I didn't feel i needed to state the obvious but I guess I have to. I tried to convey my ideology on the topic with the sentence, "If left to mature WILL be born into this world". This includes the topic of gestational abuse, IE drinking fuck loads of booze or punching yourself in the stomach, both of these things hinder the maturation (maturation means being born). Both I would consider morally incorrect (No I don't think you should be put in jail). I'm sad I even had to say that, gotta love /hate TL When I say I am pro life, I mean potential life deserves the right to live, does a fetus have a "life"? Well that depends on what you perceive as life. Is life only worth a shit when you have the mental capacity to understand your alive, or do you need to have an identity as My name is John I like football. This is ridiculous semantics in my opinion. Do you consider a cat to have a life? Does a cat need to have a favorite color to be considered worth a fuck? So as I do not not believe in god, I do not believe life is only worth a damn because god says so, or has a plan. I believe or I should say I 99% believe to be true that life ALL LIFE is potentially worth something. Now on the separate topic of whether or not you have to right to abort, yes I do think you have the right to abort a fetus given a certain set of difficult circumstances, but all should be done on a case by case basis, with strong consideration for the sanctity of that life. So Maybe I should have said I am Pro LifeChoice lol?
Hey, please see:
On November 04 2011 14:47 Myrkskog wrote:
The most common reply to the potential future(t=future) argument is that just because something has the potential for X, doesn't mean it should be treated as X. Your question/argument is framed like this(although I'm pretty sure you've read the arguments/counterarguments already);
1. Beings with the characteristic of consciousness have a right to life.
2. Beings with the potential[possibility] for consciousness have a right to life.
3. Fetus'/Embryos/etc have the potential for consciousness.
4. Therefore, fetus'/embryos/etc have a right to life.
The standard argument against it states that the potential for 'X' doesn't mean treatment as 'X';
A) A person has the potential to or possibility of, being a home owner, but that doesn't mean they should be treated as a home owner. We all have the potential to be dead, but we don't treat people like corpses.
B) The other argument against it is that if you follow the idea placing value on potential, then you have to argue that a sperm or an egg has the potential to be a person with the right to life. Arguing the t=future leaves you with the idea that anything with the potential to become life has a right to life.
The position that anything that can live has a right to live gets you in all kinds of trouble and cannot be fit into a consistent ethical framework. Right now, sperm and eggs would have a right to live. A few years down the road, every cell in your body will have a right to live, as stem cell research has progressed to a point where any cell is potentially a new life.
|
On November 04 2011 13:40 arbitrageur wrote:
To supporters of free abortion in most cases (let's even assume the fetus has 0 capability to feel pain), i have the following question:
what's the difference between consciousness that exists at t=0 and consciousness that can possibly exist at t=future? Why is it that you value t=0 consciousness more than t=future consciousness? is there a difference between the atoms that constitute a current person's brain, that you'd value, and the future configuration of atoms that this fetus will grow up into at t=future? Why does the exact point that we currently exist in on the timeline even play into this moral consideration?
btw:
- I hate religion
- I'm a materialist
so yep
Condensed question: Plz adduce some rational or evidence based reasoning that justifies the value difference that you attribute to t=0 consciousness above and beyond t=future consciousness. Everytime I fap I kill like what, millions of 'potential' consciousnesses?
That argument just doesn't work. I believe abortion is only justified in case of:
1) rape
2) high risk of the mother dying
3) baby will not fit in any way, shape or form in the mother's life
Just 'not wanting' it isn't a valid argument, you should've thought of that before you had sex.
As for the law, 20 weeks seems really, really late. I believe we in the Netherlands have 16 week limit.
|
On November 05 2011 00:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 00:19 Moochlol wrote:
There is no difference between a 2 week old fetus and 2 month old fetus, both, if left to mature WILL be born into this world. There is no fucking moral difference, both is murder of an innocent human being, BTW I'm am a militant atheist and I'm pro life, go figure. Do you not see the contradiction in saying if the following conditions are all met then it BOLDTEXT will be a life. The argument of the pro-choicers is that it is a potential life, not a life. You have accepted their premise, that conditions need to be met before it becomes a life by saying "if left to mature" and somehow glossed over that and then followed it with the definite "will". It seems that you can't decide if it will definitely happen or conditionally happen.
You're incorrect. He is not saying that there WILL be life. He is saying that the fetus will be BORN into the world. The fetus/embryo is a the moment conception takes place and the zygote gains the ability to replicate its DNA and divide.
And why are you saying we "have" to accept the pro-choice argument? It's possible that their argument is flawed. The government has the right to decide when it is legally acceptable to take a life regardless.
|
I didn't read much into other people's comments but I have had experience in this (I'm a guy). This girl I know wanted to get an abortion because she had no financial means to sustain and take care of a baby. (in her case, the condom broke). She took the morning after pill, but apparently didn't work. The girl obviously didn't want the abortion. But she went to get one done after 6-7 weeks.Once she got there, she was asked the questions and so on to make sure that that's what she wanted really. She said yes. (they didn't make her feel bad or anything ... it was a private clinic).
Anyways, she goes there and they don't find anything, so they suspect an ectopic pregnancy (little fetus grew up in her tube instead). They sent her to the hospital and she had to have surgery. I think she felt "better" that she was forced in giving up the potential of having a kid more than anything. I know another girl that went through the same thing but she went through the abortion process. She felt like shit and was only 16.
Trust me, this is not the type of thing you should take lightly. The choice of giving up on a potential is hard for most woman. A lot of them also do it because of heredity. The first girl, for example, had her mother and grandmother go through ectopics and abortion (and miscarriages). She was also young and had the BRAINS to know better than to bring something in this world that she wouldn't be able to take care of.
I think choice is essential, but at the same time, i think delaying it to 20 weeks is a bit too much. Usually, unless you're extremely obese (no jokes here) and/or don't have a regular cycle, then you should be able to make a decision with the man that you're with. For some (mostly religious people), it's a no brainer ( unless done outside marriage). For others, it depends if the man wants to take responsibility. There are some that have a medical condition that they need to go through it or they die, ie if the first girl didn't try to get an abortion, she would have basically died. Some just don't want to have kids.
I guess ethically speaking, people are pro/con life or w/e, but there are issues around the world much more important than this one when it comes to ethical belief. Sure as a society you might want to choose one over another, and I think this 20 week limit (5-6 months), is usually sufficient for a woman with/without her man to make a decision, unless she's overly obese/has weird cycles and didn't know ( seriously I've seen this happen =\ )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
