INDIANAPOLIS, April 27 (UPI) -- A bill denying state funding to Planned Parenthood and setting a 20-week deadline for abortions received final legislative approval Wednesday in Indiana.
Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican who opposes abortion, has not said whether he will sign the bill, the Indianapolis Star reported.
The anti-abortion bill passed both houses of the legislature easily last week. The House had to take a second vote because the Senate added the provision cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood.
"I believe that with passage of this legislation, we will become one of the most pro-life state in America, and I'll be proud of that," said Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican who wrote the bill.
The bill bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Doctors will have to tell women abortion can lead to infertility and that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier.
Planned Parenthood -- which receives about $3 million in state funding for services like providing birth control and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and cancer -- said it will challenge the bill in court.
Among the bill's critics, Democratic state Sen. Vi Elliott said cutting funding for birth control could mean more abortions. The state might also lose millions of dollars in federal aid.
tl dr - The bill says that abortion after 20 weeks will be illegal in Indiana. In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier. It hasn't been signed yet so it all rests on the governor.
I've been somewhat following the news on Planned Parenthood and it's federal funding. I came across this news today. 20 weeks is pretty late into pregnancy, but each step closer to a total ban scares me.
I'm hoping other states don't follow in Indiana's wake.
Obligatory warning: Chances are you will be banned for arguing for/against the abortion. This thread is talking specifically about the law and the potential for other states to adopt the same law (or a similar one). Discussion about planned parenthood is also ok and encouraged.
Spent years debating this. Abortion is a complex issue and a morally gray area. Both sides have strong argument and weak ones. I'd say the most popular representatives of each side (women's rights vs religion) are both weak.
This actually seems pretty regular to me. Doctors warning about side effects seems like something should be happening anyway. 20 weeks is about halfway through a pregnancy, and something less than 2% of abortion happen after that.
I'm not worried unless they do what they did in South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
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).
This happens when females vote against their interests.
But actually, 20 weeks is pretty late. You really want to abort before that. But then you also need to make sure every woman that can get an abortion gets one before 20 weeks.
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.
Probably what the legislator thought most people could feel ok with. I mean most people are against late abortion if you count it up until birth 7th 8th month even if it's for the health of a mother, one of those sticky issues where it's all gray, 20 weeks put it in about the 4th 5th month about the middle of a pregnancy also late after when most abortions would be done, usually abortions this late would be you found out the kid would be born with a debilitating genetic disease or something and you made a hard decision 20 weeks puts it on the edge to which some tests could be done. I wonder if the state had anyone who actually would do late term abortions from what i hear the places that would do it even for medical reasons is pretty slim.
Do you know what Modernity stands for? Who Locke was... It's pretty dumb to see people that refuse that each individual is the only one owner of his body... And it's silly to argue that what is happening in one's body doesn't belong to this person.
Of course you can say that every philosophical stance taken since the 17th is terrible and that we should come back to the ancients...
Do you know what Modernity stands for? Who Locke was... It's pretty dumb to see people that refuse that each individual is the only one owner of his body... And it's silly to argue that what is happening in one's body doesn't belong to this person.
Of course you can say that every philosophical stance taken since the 17th is terrible and that we should come back to the ancients...
Of course I do. The fetus is a human being and as thus, has all the natural liberties every other individual has. Like I said, abortion is a sticky issue.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
On April 28 2011 11:01 lagmaster wrote: The bill bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Doctors will have to tell women abortion can lead to infertility and that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier.
Carrying a child for 5 months and then deciding you don't want it anymore? Abortionist zealots will jump all over this newspiece, but I'll tend to agree with the state this time.
Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
I think this is reasonable. 20 weeks is about 5 months. A woman will miss 4 periods during this time, and there are plenty of time for a well-informed decision.
I didn't read it carefully, but I hope a woman can still legally abort after 20 weeks if there is a PROFOUND reason.
On April 28 2011 11:01 lagmaster wrote: In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier.
When you can't think of a coherent argument against it, start making shit up.
Although abortion is a huge deal, and I personally don't even know what I think is right or wrong since both sides have great arguments, it is simply not a political issue, it's a moral issue. It's up to the mother, not the politician.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
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 have to disagree with your approach - the fetus is not invading the person's property - it is invading the person. The woman's right of self-ownership gives her authority over her body and everything within it.
By your logic, a woman being raped has no right to kill her assailant because her life is probably not in danger. Not that it matters, but an unwanted pregnancy/birth when summed over 38 weeks could easily be as psychologically damaging and physically uncomfortable as a rape. The woman has a right to intervene forcefully. If the only option is to kill she may do so.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
In many developed countries, there are stricter limits on the time period of allowed abortion, so this law has basis not just in the US: + Show Spoiler +
12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and Britain) Some countries, like Canada, China (Mainland only) and Vietnam have no legal limit on when an abortion can be performed.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
I hope you're vegan... 'cause killing living things seems to be one of the greatest passion of mankind
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
How could you possibly prove that natural rights are only relevant outside the womb. Birth is such arbitrary dividing line. Does a child delivered by C-Section never gain its rights?
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
A fetus is conscious of plenty of things - it feels, responds, and adapts to its environment. Self aware? Babies may not realize that they are whole, separate beings until much later than you seem to think (a year or more iirc). Self-awareness is not a criteria for the right to life.
Don't see how debate on abortion is out of place in this thread at all... 20 weeks is 5 months? I think thats reasonableish, should probably be a little later but what's important is there's some kind of exception for extenuating circumstances where it was impossible for the woman to find out/get the abortion earlier, idk i'm sure there's a way it could happen. But as a general rule i think super late term abortions should be illegal, they're pretty unnecessary and at that point the baby is pretty close to what its like when its born so its pretty brutal.
They definitely shouldn't go any further than this, a ban/heavy restrictions on abortion would be a horrible idea don't get me wrong. What i don't like about this law is the part where the government is making the doctors have to tell the woman that it might cause infertility or pain to the baby, i mean if these things are medically relevant to the woman the doctors have to tell her anyway and if they aren't than the doctors shouldn't have to say it.
Similar clauses like waiting periods and/or laws that make a woman physically look at an ultrasound before deciding (those exist) are ridiculous, nobody takes this kind of decision (its surgery) lightly or without thinking it through and the govt forcing women to be ethically guilt tripped after previously making the decision they know is right for them is cruel and unnecessary. Especially if they're a rape victim or something like that.
Planned parenthood should definitely be invested in considering how much money it saves us in future welfare payments/govt aid/etc, plus its an important service for poor people (often single moms) that don't have time between 3 minimum wage jobs to take care of kids or make perfect decisions or whatever other important shit they help with at planned parenthood.
On April 28 2011 11:01 lagmaster wrote: In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier.
When you can't think of a coherent argument against it, start making shit up.
Oh, I missed that. I actually didn't read carefully into what information was being provided. That's so unbelievably dumb.
Ah the greatest hypocrisy of mankind. Whether you're pro-abortion or against abortion, you're essnetially making a judgement of what you believe is alive or not. When did man get the right to decide what is alive? Are we gods now?
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats
Any distinction between a fetus and you or me also applies to either newborn babies (not really 'human' yet mentally) or siamese twins (not physically independent).
The best option (for respecting both the mother's right to her body and the fetus's right to its body) is the "evict but don't kill" ie you can remove the fetus/embryo prematurely, but you must not kill it for the purposes of removing it. (ie I can have a starving person removed from my kitchen, and let him die in the street, but I can't chop him into bits him if he poses no threat and I can easily remove him without killing him).
Ah the greatest hypocrisy of mankind. Whether you're pro-abortion or against abortion, you're essnetially making a judgement of what you believe is alive or not. When did man get the right to decide what is alive? Are we gods now?
When we started punishing people who killed things, instead of waiting for God to smite them, then we had to decide what was "alive"* and what wasn't.
*alive here = worthy of punishing one who destroys it, even if they "own" it. (even vegans kill plants which are alive in a biological sense)
The issue is what makes someone worthy of those human protections. Mental status? (includes some apes/dolphins, can exclude newborns and some handicappped, and possibly sleeping people) Physical independence (excludes siamese twins... and includes all species) "Feeling"..type of mental status that is even looser (can arguably include plants and even computer operating systems) "Life"..LOW standard (includes bacteria... may exclude sterile people or those who don't plan on having kids) etc.
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 have to disagree with your approach - the fetus is not invading the person's property - it is invading the person. The woman's right of self-ownership gives her authority over her body and everything within it.
By your logic, a woman being raped has no right to kill her assailant because her life is probably not in danger. Not that it matters, but an unwanted pregnancy/birth when summed over 38 weeks could easily be as psychologically damaging and physically uncomfortable as a rape. The woman has a right to intervene forcefully. If the only option is to kill she may do so.
Notice I used the word threat. If you feel your life is threatened, then yes you have the right to defend yourself with all the force which you view is necessary. However, a fetus is not a threat to her life, and she made the decision to have sex which has the possibility of incurring a new human life. She has no choice in a matter of rape. Equivocation is unwarranted as the two scenarios are completely different. Now, if the woman's life is in danger, then yes, she has every right to kill the fetus. Natural Law stipulates that your body is your own property, just as the fruit of your body (labor) is your property. They are one and the same. If the woman has the right to kill because someone happens to be on her property, the equivocation is that anyone who steps on anothers property, but yet, does not put anyone in any danger or is no threat (like for example a child walking onto your front lawn to grab a football) you may kill. Liberty entails mutual rights. The fetus has every right to life as does the Mother.
In the second trimester (after around 15 weeks) the fetus starts being able to feel things, at which point it meets the definition of sentience. 20 weeks is fairly reasonable, it's not as if they're banning abortion completely or even restricting it only to early abortion. It's basically just saying "no late abortions," which seems okay.
I'd have a serious problem if they tried to ban abortion, but this seems like an okay restriction, there's scientific reasoning for it.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
capable of living outside of the womb? Heartbeat doesn't make it living by that assertion a turtle heart is alive in itself even after you cut it out of the turtle becuase it beats for quite some time after. And genetically grown hearts which has been done are alive in it self how does a heartbeat constitute as living. To me one would have to have a sense of identity to be truly alive.
Mostly i wonder if the law bans late term abortions to sick mothers who will likely die with the growth inside her.
Also if you talk liberties, if the growth is nothing but fed and sequestered genetic material taking it's time up in the mother does the mother not have the right to dispose of it? After all it comes from the mother it essentially cannot exist without the mother if my arm essentially is rendered useless from an accident do i not have the right to cut it off? Mostly just wondering if this bans abortions for the sake of the mothers health, becuase after 20 weeks that's usually the 2 categories they will fall in, those doing it for health reasons to the mother and those doing it becuase of health reasons to the growth.
FWIW, fetuses can live outside the womb at approximately 22-25 weeks. Althoguh generally they will have some degree of mental difficulties. 28+ is more normal since there is huge amount of neurological development around the 24-32 week period.
I find it pretty funny that women are allowed to kill off a fetus but people aren't allowed to kill cats and dogs or other pets lest you get put in jail and railed on by PETA for example.
(again, both are living, can feel pain, have heartbeats, but don't have "conscious" thought or rather self aware).
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Definition of individual :
1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
On April 28 2011 11:38 Ichabod wrote: In many developed countries, there are stricter limits on the time period of allowed abortion, so this law has basis not just in the US: + Show Spoiler +
12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and Britain) Some countries, like Canada, China (Mainland only) and Vietnam have no legal limit on when an abortion can be performed.
Wow, that is really surprising. Is most of this true? I wiki'd abortion in France and it seems to confirm the 12 week time limit. What about other countries? I would imagine that the pro-life movement is nothing in these countries compared to what it is in the US so that seems weird if they have even stricter abortion laws.
It was my understanding that abortions, especially repeat ones, do have a chance of causing infertility. Surely that is something doctors should be saying anyways - just look at the disclaimers on medicine, they have to declare everything that medicine might cause happen to you.
Also have to agree 20 weeks seems like a fairly long time to decide if you want to keep the child or not. After that babies have been known to survive outside of the womb - around 22 weeks seems to be the earliest.
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
imo the most important question is when does life start.
are you killing when the fetus is 10 weeks, 20 weeks, etc? some people see that abortion is killing because the baby is going to have a life, and you are ending a life. is that killing? up to you.
personally i'm for abortion because i see that by not allowing one life to start, you can allow another one to start. i'd rather have someone have a baby when ready than to have it at an inopportune time.you can give the child a really shitty childhood or you can give the parent and the child a shitty life by placing a huge burden when they're not ready.
in my opinion religion is not a reason to go against abortion. but the main problem is when people feel like that they can do whatever the fuck they want without consequences.
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Definition of individual :
1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
1. That's like saying it's your genetics fault that you're obese when it's likely only <1% of the population that's the case. Exceptions are never a good case to argue against something.
2. Again, fetuses can survive outside the womb at around 22+ weeks.
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Definition of individual :
1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
A fetus is just as much a human individual as a newborn child
example of reasoning...edited
imo the most important question is when does life start.
are you killing when the baby is 10 months, 20 months, etc? some people see that infanticide is killing because the baby is going to have a life, and you are ending a life. is that killing? up to you.
personally i'm for infanticide because i see that by not allowing one life to start, you can allow another one to start. i'd rather have someone have a baby when ready than to have it at an inopportune time.you can give the child a really shitty childhood or you can give the parent and the child a shitty life by placing a huge burden when they're not ready.
in my opinion religion is not a reason to go against infanticide. but the main problem is when people feel like that they can do whatever the fuck they want without consequences.
However, the point is right... a line must be drawn.. 20 weeks seems a lot more reasonable than birth though.
(and I don't think and Indiana woman who gets an abortion at 21 weeks will be treated the same as one who commts infanticide 3 days after birth)
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Definition of individual :
1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
Let me know when cancer tumors have 46 Chromosomes, or when a cancer tumor gets a job, takes their first walk, eats their first cake, or any other human activity.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
Relegating a whole lot more than the womb. I love how people will cheer on the women's right to kill her own offspring meanwhile we don't even have rights to the products of our labor. She has the right to an abortion while I am forced to pay for it. The state only works for one purpose and that is itself. Abortion is allowed because it is a big step in paving the way towards a Brave New World type of civilization full of drones who all think they are the shit because they get to fuck.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
What would you think if you were forced by law to provide a kidney transplant to someone you didn't know, despite all of the risks involved? What if you were forced by law to run into a burning building to save someone?
Both of those should be choices for individuals to make. Same with carrying a pregnancy to term - pregnancy carries risks of significant injury or even death, a pregnant person should be able to make the choice for themselves.
This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we: Had better sex education Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant). Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape/incest cases).
On April 28 2011 12:00 Harrow wrote: What would you think if you were forced by law to provide a kidney transplant to someone you didn't know, despite all of the risks involved? What if you were forced by law to run into a burning building to save someone?
Both of those should be choices for individuals to make. Same with carrying a pregnancy to term - pregnancy carries risks of significant injury or even death, a pregnant person should be able to make the choice for themselves.
If your kidney was stolen, are you allowed to kill the person that got the transplant to get your kidney back? (even if they weren't the one that stole it)
If I see a starving person in my kitchen, can I kill them to get my food back? (I CAN kick them out... but I can't try to get my food back by killing them)
Ideally, there would be an "abandonment" law. In the same way that parents can abandon a newborn legally as long as they do it at a hospital/police/fire station, Mothers should be allowed to "abandon" their fetus... at any age. (Basically if it is 4-8-12-16-20-24-28 weeks, the mom should be able to get the fetus removed by induced expulsion->c-section/induced labor... and then it immediately goes into an incubator/freezer where the doctors attempt to save it.)
Effectively the procedure is killing the fetus, but only if it is before "viability" because if the fetus if "viable" it will survive.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
On April 28 2011 12:04 OlorinPA wrote: This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we: Had better sex education Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant). Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape cases).
Agreed.
Also, add in incest cases to the rape cases comment.
I don't like that taxpayer dollars go to this either but that's prolly a whole other topic
On April 28 2011 12:04 OlorinPA wrote: This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we: Had better sex education Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant). Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape cases).
Agreed.
Also, add in incest cases to the rape cases comment.
I don't like that taxpayer dollars go to this either but that's prolly a whole other topic
No it's the same topic. Freedom to control your body? Freedom to control the products of your body? Why do people defend one and ignore the other? Because the government and mass media told them to.
On April 28 2011 12:04 OlorinPA wrote: This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we: Had better sex education Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant). Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape/incest cases).
There's far more than two sides of this argument, don't dumb it down.
Personally i doubt states will follow this law considering 20weeks is what the beginning of the last tri-mester? And most women by then have made the decision to either give up the child for adoption or lonnnnng before had an abortion. But i would agree with the law simply because the baby will be developed. They probably had a case of this where the baby came out alive and clearly the parents didnt want it alive.. Its a tough subject to side/argue with without stepping on the feet of people
I don't find the law that terrible. I don't particularly find a meaningful difference between a 6 month old fetus and a newly born baby. Being inside of a body is fairly irrelevant to me; governments give orders to people regulated use of their body all the time.
On April 28 2011 12:00 Harrow wrote: What would you think if you were forced by law to provide a kidney transplant to someone you didn't know, despite all of the risks involved? What if you were forced by law to run into a burning building to save someone?
Both of those should be choices for individuals to make. Same with carrying a pregnancy to term - pregnancy carries risks of significant injury or even death, a pregnant person should be able to make the choice for themselves.
If your kidney was stolen, are you allowed to kill the person that got the transplant to get your kidney back? (even if they weren't the one that stole it)
If I see a starving person in my kitchen, can I kill them to get my food back? (I CAN kick them out... but I can't try to get my food back by killing them)
You seem to think it's actually more humane to induce an extremely early labor, somehow try and coax the fetus to birth, then either watch it die or try and put it up for adoption. SPOILER ALERT: the chances of a baby that premature surviving without brain damage or other defects are pretty low and the chances of that baby being adopted are tiny. Hell, American non-White babies have a hard enough time being paired with adoptive parents.
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote: Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
That fetus is so human it disgusts me to "kill" it.
I think a large part of abortion is whether you consider an unborn child "alive" the fact that it would have become a human with thoughts, feelings, and a life that was thrown away because of some a) irresponsibility of the womens sex life and/or b)insecure feelings of weakness and "I'm not ready" also disgusts me.
EDIT: If they really "are not ready", then its probably fine because it would give both child and parent a shitty life
a) fuck you b) Bullshit, unless you took a huge financial tank, then you have every responsibility and duty to care for that child, and you probably ARE ready, you're just too insecure and timid to go through, and because of this, you do not have my respect nor does your baby live, though it would have done perfectly fine in
UNLESS some disease takes you and your baby will have it, then it's usually terrible to abort. Also fine to abort if the world hits apocalypse and you don't want them to have that kind of life. But still, isn't a life better than none.
regardless the line is VERY blurry for some people, and there ARE some extraneous situations that it's acceptable. But for most people? Oh hell naw.
Anyone who wants an abortion should be getting one well before 20 weeks anyway.
If this law was banning them entirely that would be a different thing but I see nothing unreasonable about this law at all regardless of what side of the abortion debate you are on.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?)
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.
This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?)
Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.
This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand.
At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point.
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 have to disagree with your approach - the fetus is not invading the person's property - it is invading the person. The woman's right of self-ownership gives her authority over her body and everything within it.
By your logic, a woman being raped has no right to kill her assailant because her life is probably not in danger. Not that it matters, but an unwanted pregnancy/birth when summed over 38 weeks could easily be as psychologically damaging and physically uncomfortable as a rape. The woman has a right to intervene forcefully. If the only option is to kill she may do so.
Notice I used the word threat. If you feel your life is threatened, then yes you have the right to defend yourself with all the force which you view is necessary. However, a fetus is not a threat to her life, and she made the decision to have sex which has the possibility of incurring a new human life. She has no choice in a matter of rape. Equivocation is unwarranted as the two scenarios are completely different. Now, if the woman's life is in danger, then yes, she has every right to kill the fetus. Natural Law stipulates that your body is your own property, just as the fruit of your body (labor) is your property. They are one and the same. If the woman has the right to kill because someone happens to be on her property, the equivocation is that anyone who steps on anothers property, but yet, does not put anyone in any danger or is no threat (like for example a child walking onto your front lawn to grab a football) you may kill. Liberty entails mutual rights. The fetus has every right to life as does the Mother.
First of all, unwelcome sex is no more likely to cause death than pregnancy, so my comparison between rape and pregnancy as far as what right the woman has to intervene is valid.
Secondly, the woman's decision to have sex does not contract her carry a fetus. Not only is the notion nonsensical because an embryo cannot voluntarily become a valid contracting entity, but any contract which enslaves the woman into carrying and having a baby against her will is unenforceable.
Moving on, it is true that property rights derive from the rights to one's own body, but by logic it does not work the other way around. Not everything that is true of the rights of a person stepping on your property is true of the rights of a person invading your body.
Finally, I am not debating whether or not the fetus has a right to life. The right to life is not a legal claim on other persons to provide the minimum requirements for life. If I require the use of your body to survive you have no legal or moral obligation to provide it to me just as if I required a ten thousand dollar treatment to survive, it is not forfeit from the nearest person with ten thousand dollars to spare.
the op is obviously trying to incite a debate between abortion and non abortion. from his last comment it's obviously he's pro-choice. 5months is more than enough time to decide if you want to kill your baby or not, why the hell should women be allowed to abort a child up to nine months in just because she changes her mind? this thread is dumb. i think saying 20 weeks is a little misleading as, at least to me, it sounded at first as if it was semi early into the pregnancy, which it's not.
To weigh in on the abortion debate, this is a matter of logic and not emotion.
In any debate, when one side of the argument is arguing to force people into one course of action (not being allowed to have abortions, ever) and the other side is arguing for choice (have an abortion if you want, don't have one if you don't want), it should be a no-brainer which one is the morally acceptable choice.
There is a reason those arguing in favour of legal abortions are called "pro-choice". They are about letting people make the choice themselves. If you think abortions are wrong, thats perfectly fine, don't have one!
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
(Then again, I suppose "not forcing your beliefs on people" is something that a lot of religions tend to have trouble doing)
EDIT: to forestall the inevitable argument of "I believe its okay to murder, you can't force me into not doing that because its my belief", I refer to the axiom that a generally reliable way of determining the objective morality of an action is to imagine what the world would be like if everyone did things a certain way. Thieving and murdering are obviously objectively immoral because if everyone stole and killed as much as they wanted, society would degenerate.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?)
Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.
This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand.
At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point.
On April 28 2011 12:21 Dhalphir wrote: To weigh in on the abortion debate, this is a matter of logic and not emotion.
In any debate, when one side of the argument is arguing to force people into one course of action (not being allowed to have abortions, ever) and the other side is arguing for choice (have an abortion if you want, don't have one if you don't want), it should be a no-brainer which one is the morally acceptable choice.
There is a reason those arguing in favour of legal abortions are called "pro-choice". They are about letting people make the choice themselves. If you think abortions are wrong, thats perfectly fine, don't have one!
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
(Then again, I suppose "not forcing your beliefs on people" is something that a lot of religions tend to have trouble doing)
If you think fetuses at various points of development are a life worth protecting then obviously you'd want legislation protecting them...
To take an extreme example, you wouldn't go around saying, "Killing your two-year-old is just a personal choice" etc.
Prochoice people see the fetus as valuable, like we'd all see a two year old, so sure they want the law passed. They'd probably think your idea of choice in a matter of killing a developing human was pretty strange.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?)
Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was.
On April 28 2011 12:16 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.
This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand.
At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point.
So what is the cut off point?
What am I a doctor? Whenever it's no longer considered a fetus.
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA
On April 28 2011 11:32 Wegandi wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Definition of individual :
1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
1. That's like saying it's your genetics fault that you're obese when it's likely only <1% of the population that's the case. Exceptions are never a good case to argue against something.
2. Again, fetuses can survive outside the womb at around 22+ weeks.
Cancer tumor? seriously?
No it isn't, what are you talking about?
Yes, cancer tumor, a fetus without brain activity is just dead weight cells just like a cancer tumor.
Sure, it has the potential to become a full grown human being and so does the 10 000 children who die to starvation every day aswell as the sperm in my testicles. But the sperm I have are not individuals, they're merely cells with a purpose.
In response to "2", yes I know. And if possible there is reason to save the possibility of life whenever we can. We must not, however, ever push that possibility on raped, abused and tortured woman who want nothing more than their own right to their own body. The rights of a full grown individual must always come before any mere cells, regardless of their potential. (Unless the woman wants the opposite, as when some woman know they might die when giving birth but does it anyway due to love for the child etc)
Let's not discuss this any further in this topic lest it turn into a shitstorm... use PM if anybody wants to chat that much.
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
I don't think most people are just saying abortion is wrong because they wouldn't get one, but because they believe that the fetus is a precious, living thing, that deserves to live. So in essence, they believe that the mother is forcing her belief that the fetus should not live onto the fetus, who they believe doesn't want to die.
To weigh in, I think that a fetus is going to develop into a human, so deserves to be given the same rights as a human.
On April 28 2011 12:21 Dhalphir wrote: To weigh in on the abortion debate, this is a matter of logic and not emotion.
In any debate, when one side of the argument is arguing to force people into one course of action (not being allowed to have abortions, ever) and the other side is arguing for choice (have an abortion if you want, don't have one if you don't want), it should be a no-brainer which one is the morally acceptable choice.
There is a reason those arguing in favour of legal abortions are called "pro-choice". They are about letting people make the choice themselves. If you think abortions are wrong, thats perfectly fine, don't have one!
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
(Then again, I suppose "not forcing your beliefs on people" is something that a lot of religions tend to have trouble doing)
If you think fetuses at various points of development are a life worth protecting then obviously you'd want legislation protecting them...
To take an extreme example, you wouldn't go around saying, "Killing your two-year-old is just a personal choice" etc.
Prochoice people see the fetus as valuable, like we'd all see a two year old, so sure they want the law passed. They'd probably think your idea of choice in a matter of killing a developing human was pretty strange.
i totally agree that the stage of development the fetus is at matters. Quite apart from the moral issues, abortions at past 20 weeks are medically dangerous! I would even be quite happy with a law that said you had to have had the abortion by 5 weeks, provided the infrastructure is in place to allow any woman to get that abortion in a timely fashion.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
So what about killing mold growing in your bathroom? Where is the arbitrary line you draw?
On topic, the thread title is very misleading. Abortion isn't banned. 20 weeks is quite late.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote: [quote] Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?)
Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was.
On April 28 2011 12:16 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:
On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote: [quote] Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.
This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand.
At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point.
So what is the cut off point?
What am I a doctor? Whenever it's no longer considered a fetus.
Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
So what about killing mold growing in your bathroom? Where is the arbitrary line you draw?
On topic, the thread title is very misleading. Abortion isn't banned. 20 weeks is quite late.
Um, I don't think mold has a heartbeat. And it's not human. There is no arbitrary line there.
I'm all for abortions, but that is late enough in the pregnancy that I don't think it is really a factor. I think (hope) any woman would have decided by then whether or not they want to keep the baby and could abort sooner. I wouldn't mind seeing this law passed in other states because it really would affect a small percentage of (potential) abortions. Also, warning them about side effects doesn't really matter, if a woman is having a baby unplanned there are no side effects that aren't worth it unless they have the procedure done unprofessionally.
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote: Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
It may have the shape of a baby and it may be alive but it's still not self-conscious. The elaborate connections required for consciousness begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. The state of consciousness is achieved 2 months later I believe, I might be wrong on that part.
So before that and even though it looks like a baby, the fetus does not know that he exists and therefore many people don't see a problem in killing it.
FWIW, fetuses can live outside the womb at approximately 22-25 weeks. Althoguh generally they will have some degree of mental difficulties. 28+ is more normal since there is huge amount of neurological development around the 24-32 week period.
I find it pretty funny that women are allowed to kill off a fetus but people aren't allowed to kill cats and dogs or other pets lest you get put in jail and railed on by PETA for example.
(again, both are living, can feel pain, have heartbeats, but don't have "conscious" thought or rather self aware).
Shrug.
See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
In my opinion, women shouldn't be able to have an abortion in third trimester unless there is a health concern such as a life-threatening problem with the mother. As far as fetuses being alive, of course they are. However, do they really have a mind? Your mind is who you are, and if something doesn't have one, it really isn't a human being IMO. An example would be Terry Schivo, she was braindead, she no longer had a mind and was just an empty husk.
On April 28 2011 12:32 Tarbosh wrote: I'm all for abortions, but that is late enough in the pregnancy that I don't think it is really a factor. I think (hope) any woman would have decided by then whether or not they want to keep the baby and could abort sooner. I wouldn't mind seeing this law passed in other states because it really would affect a small percentage of (potential) abortions. Also, warning them about side effects doesn't really matter, if a woman is having a baby unplanned there are no side effects that aren't worth it unless they have the procedure done unprofessionally.
Don't you think that women should be allowed to decide for themselves, though? A lot of people in this thread are saying that anyone should've decided by 20 weeks, but I severely doubt that any of the people saying that have been through any kind of pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, healthy or dangerous. I think it's presumptuous and judgmental to speak for the people who are actually involved.
Abortion at any stage is morally wrong, that much should be obvious to practically anyone. That doesn't mean that a ban solves any problems. The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
Just like with prohibition of alcohol and narcotics, we know that prohibition does not reduce demand, and that people will just resort to illegal and unsafe sources.
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
I don't think most people are just saying abortion is wrong because they wouldn't get one, but because they believe that the fetus is a precious, living thing, that deserves to live. So in essence, they believe that the mother is forcing her belief that the fetus should not live onto the fetus, who they believe doesn't want to die.
To weigh in, I think that a fetus is going to develop into a human, so deserves to be given the same rights as a human.
I do somewhat agree here, and I would agree that having an abortion is not something that should be just freely available to anyone to fix a mistake "whoops forgot a condom lol"
But have none of you ever questioned how intertwined anti-abortion beliefs (which are totally reasonable and defensible) are with other, less reasonable beliefs (anti contraception, pro-abstinence, both of which are retarded beliefs).
Its a huge fucking mess and all caused by people trying to force beliefs onto others. Unintended pregnancies wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if there wasn't such constant pressure from religious lobbies trying to prevent thorough sexual education and freely available contraception to all sexually mature people (note I say sexually mature and not necessarily adults. Teenagers are going to have sex as much as they want regardless of laws and beliefs, so it may as well be our priority to at least make sure its as safe as possible when they do.)
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 agree with this. I find it very odd that with all of today's struggles for getting "rights" for different groups of people (different races, LGBT, etc.), no one really considers the rights of the people who can't defend themselves. Many pro-abortionists argue that it is a matter of women's rights, but what about the rights of the unborn child? Aren't our natural rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I'm not sure why this doesn't apply to unborn babies. Perhaps it's because they can't self-advocate. And sure, I'm all for women's rights, but I believe that if you decide to have sex, you should be aware of the possible consequences and be ready to accept them.
On another note, even when a birth is life-threatening for the mother, I still think abortion is pretty unacceptable. This is another instance where pro-abortionists cry "women's rights", but when did their rights become more important than their children's rights?
In fact, one could say that the children's right to life is more important, because they have more unlived life to experience. I'm not saying that's part of my argument, as it's a little "out there," but it's just something to think about.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong, that much should be obvious to practically anyone. That doesn't mean that a ban solves any problems. The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
Just like with prohibition of alcohol and narcotics, we know that prohibition does not reduce demand, and that people will just resort to illegal and unsafe sources.
I pretty much agree with this guy. The one thing that angers me about abortion laws\discussions is the way some pro-choice people try equating fetuses to cancer or useless genetic material or something. Can't exactly pinpoint it, but it bothers the crap out of me. Some respect for your previous stage of development, people.
On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote: Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
I'm usually 100% pro abortion. But 20 weeks (5 months) is alot of time. I don't think I would disagree with a law like that. Seems like a nice middle ground I would agree with.
I mean, the whole point of me being pro abortion is that it's the women who should decide what to do with her own womb. But if she still didn't make up her mind after 5 months then maybe she's not really the best judge
See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
I agree with that. It's hypocritical that most anti-abortionists eat meat.
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 agree with this. I find it very odd that with all of today's struggles for getting "rights" for different groups of people (different races, LGBT, etc.), no one really considers the rights of the people who can't defend themselves. Many pro-abortionists argue that it is a matter of women's rights, but what about the rights of the unborn child? Aren't our natural rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I'm not sure why this doesn't apply to unborn babies. Perhaps it's because they can't self-advocate. And sure, I'm all for women's rights, but I believe that if you decide to have sex, you should be aware of the possible consequences and be ready to accept them.
On another note, even when a birth is life-threatening for the mother, I still think abortion is pretty unacceptable. This is another instance where pro-abortionists cry "women's rights", but when did their rights become more important than their children's rights?
In fact, one could say that the children's right to life is more important, because they have more unlived life to experience. I'm not saying that's part of my argument, as it's a little "out there," but it's just something to think about.
A woman can always have another child. Is a fetus the offspring of humans? Of course, but is a fetus truly a human being? I doubt many people would consider a gastrula a human being, and I certainly wouldn't consider the first stages of development as being a human being.
Those rights apply to human beings, people with a mind. Where we draw the line is a grey area, but I definitely value the life of a mother over her offspring in early development.
A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition.
Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]
The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[6]
That's what the 20 is based off of.
The bill is just updating the criteria set forth in Roe vs. Wade, which is why Blackmun's opinion was so monumentally poor. As it stands, there's nothing wrong with the bill. Eventually, the issue will have to be re-evaluated by the Supreme Court and there's no way Roe v. Wade will stand.
It'll probably just have to become a state issue. "Viability" outside the womb increases with technology and I don't think it's a proper justification for abortion.
The Planned Parenthood thing is troubling to some, but the state is in trouble and since they can't run a deficit, cutting it is a lot easier than cutting other programs.
On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote: Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
Well don't post with vague medical reasoning if you don't know what youre talking about, and you don't give a damn about the subject lol. It's not unrelated, it's a parallel line of understanding that you won't acknowledge.
FWIW, fetuses can live outside the womb at approximately 22-25 weeks. Althoguh generally they will have some degree of mental difficulties. 28+ is more normal since there is huge amount of neurological development around the 24-32 week period.
I find it pretty funny that women are allowed to kill off a fetus but people aren't allowed to kill cats and dogs or other pets lest you get put in jail and railed on by PETA for example.
(again, both are living, can feel pain, have heartbeats, but don't have "conscious" thought or rather self aware).
Shrug.
See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
[insert eye roll here]
Again, the fetus we're talking about ITT past 20 weeks has a consciousness, heartbeat, etc. which is what I stated in the above post because i was making an analogy.
Your "analogy" if you can even call it that is a strawman & red herring at best.
Also, if you think a fetus has less genetic structure than a banana (if that's even true which it may very well be) you also have less genetic structure than a banana and so do I.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
I believe that more education would normalize abortions and put an end to this irrational debate, as people will realize that lol a fetus has more in common with a sperm or the tree in my backyard than me.
On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote: Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
Well don't post with vague medical reasoning if you don't know what youre talking about, and you don't give a damn about the subject lol. It's not unrelated, it's a parallel line of understanding that you won't acknowledge.
I won't acknowledge it because it's irrelevant, there's a difference between someone being alive for 50 years and going into a coma and a fetus that's never seen the light of day. Someone in a coma WAS a fully functioning human being who lived a life and will probably have loved ones/dependants/friends etc., a fetus never did.
On April 28 2011 12:45 VIB wrote: I agree with that. It's hypocritical that most anti-abortionists eat meat.
Uhhhhh? *Scratches head.* I don't follow this logic.
There's a difference between killing an animal for sustenance, and killing an animal, much less a human being because you decide, for whatever reason, that you just plain don't want it.
I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote: Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
It's actually incorrect that a fetus can't feel anything, they can't feel anything until around the second trimester. After that point, although they aren't really self-aware, they are capable of feeling pain and other physical stimulation.
On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote: I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ?
Because we don't care if it is self aware. Your goalpost, not ours.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote: A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm.
Spermies aren't really like somewhat developed fetuses, no. I'm guessing you are using the self aware goalpost again, with everything not self aware needed no consideration.
And we kill animals because we plain "don't want" to eat vegetables, fruits and nuts.
Personally, I consider abortion to be an overall public good, since less unwanted (male) children = less crime. However, less unwanted female children = a generation of bachelors = more crime (see china, india).
Therefore, the utility maximising position is unrestricted abortion of male children, and restricted abortion of female children, with the harsh penalties for the latter, with whatever financial/propaganda incentives needed to maintain a birth rate at or above replacement.
By the way, I consider the right to life to begin when it takes its first, unaided breath.
Obligatory warning: Chances are you will be banned for arguing for/against the abortion. This thread is talking specifically about the law and the potential for other states to adopt the same law (or a similar one). Discussion about planned parenthood is also ok and encouraged.
When writing about the law, you are inevitably implicity arguing about the subject of abortion.
Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
And what happens to the baby too.
In terms of talking about the law specifically, I don't see what the big deal is. 20 weeks after is pretty much 4 months into the pregnancy. Few abortions happen at this time and those that do usually have disastrous consequences. This seems like a sensible legislation that draws a fine line between the "gray area" that people refer to when they talk about reproductive rights.
"May cause infertility"....couple nurses I know laughed at that. Kind of sucks for those who live in Indiana, though hopefully most people are smart enough to prevent that consequence of intercourse.
And on the separate subject of abortion in general:
The notion of a fetus (read: parasite) having some sort of rights is fairly ludicrous. Besides the fact that rights and morals are not objective, and are societal concepts, a fetus does not have rights in the sense that living humans do because it is not its own separate entity.
FWIW, fetuses can live outside the womb at approximately 22-25 weeks. Althoguh generally they will have some degree of mental difficulties. 28+ is more normal since there is huge amount of neurological development around the 24-32 week period.
I find it pretty funny that women are allowed to kill off a fetus but people aren't allowed to kill cats and dogs or other pets lest you get put in jail and railed on by PETA for example.
(again, both are living, can feel pain, have heartbeats, but don't have "conscious" thought or rather self aware).
Shrug.
See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
Oh god... why do these discussions always have to have "the animal rights" activist in it trying to derail and draw parallels to their own cause.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
I believe that more education would normalize abortions and put an end to this irrational debate, as people will realize that lol a fetus has more in common with a sperm or the tree in my backyard than me.
ok come on, if you have any knowledge of basic biology you should not be equating sperm to a fetus. your argument is intellectually dishonest.
sperm are HAPLOID, a fetus is DIPLOID. humans are diploid organisms. fetuses also have unique DNA that is a combination of both the mother and father. these are two main reasons why many pro-lifers view conception as the starting point of life.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
I believe that more education would normalize abortions and put an end to this irrational debate, as people will realize that lol a fetus has more in common with a sperm or the tree in my backyard than me.
ok come on, if you have any knowledge of basic biology you should not be equating sperm to a fetus. your argument is intellectually dishonest.
sperm are HAPLOID, a fetus is DIPLOID. humans are diploid organisms. fetuses also have unique DNA that is a combination of both the mother and father. these are two main reasons why many pro-lifers view conception as the starting point of life.
I disagree with this. I knew a girl in high school that was pregnant and took a paternity test because she wasn't sure who the father was. It turned out the father was an oak tree.
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote: Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
It may have the shape of a baby and it may be alive but it's still not self-conscious. The elaborate connections required for consciousness begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. The state of consciousness is achieved 2 months later I believe, I might be wrong on that part.
So before that and even though it looks like a baby, the fetus does not know that he exists and therefore many people don't see a problem in killing it.
Yeah, that's exactly why this proposed law is sensible imo. Difference between 20 and 24 is not much, can be seen as a buffer.
If I were to make the law I would prefer it to be earlier, because the mere shape taking form makes me shudder.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ?
Because we don't care if it is self aware. Your goalpost, not ours.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote: A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm.
Spermies aren't really like somewhat developed fetuses, no. I'm guessing you are using the self aware goalpost again, with everything not self aware needed no consideration.
You're making an excellent point here, Romantic. I'd be really surprised if it gains any traction though. As I think you're aware, the abortion debate always revolves around a definition of personhood, but most participants in said debate like to conceive of their own definition as the only "rational" one, as if an issue as multifaceted and as ideologically situated as the concept personhood is something about which two reasonable human beings couldn't disagree.
And frankly it's difficult to call which pole in this debate has less of a claim to "rationality." We have seen an unborn child analogized to a cancer tumor, a banana, a sperm, and a parasite. Call me a cynic, but I don't think such fanciful metaphors are actually helping us establish a mutually comprehensible starting point for the discussion. They recall, for me at least, one of my favorite diatribes on the subject:
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Definition of individual :
1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
Guys please don't make these comparisons. Does a cow, pig, cancer tumor have a potential future as a human being? Someone even compared it to bathroom mold. Remember that you were once inside your mother's womb.
First of all, I find it appalling that they decided to cut the funds for Planned Parenthood, which seems to be a sensible and useful programm.
I am pro-choice, however I am quite surprised and kind of disgusted that previously there haven't been any regulations for late abortions (at least that's what I understand from the article). Actually, I'd say that 20 weeks is already pretty late for an abortion as the fetus is already devoleped quite far (btw premature babies can survive from about week 24 on). Here I'd like to list some examples for abortion legislature in Europe: In Germany, Switzerland and Austria abortions are basically allowed until the 12th week. Only under special circumstances is it allowed to have an abortion any later. And I believe this is quite sensible, since up to week 12 the embryo can be viewed simply as "clump of cells". There are no organs and the neural system is basically non-existent. I'd say 12 weeks are more than enough time for a woman to decide if she wants to have a child or not. Even in the Netherlands, which are known for having a very liberal legislature on abortions, these are allowed only until the 22nd week.
Summing up, I don't see any reason why an abortion should be performed as late as the 20th week (or the 12th for that matter). From my point of view the 20 week period set in the Indiana bill is actually set too far in the pregnancy.
I wanna know about the pumpkin too! lol. ^ see spoiler
Anyway, 20weeks is plenty of time to know whether you want to abort or not. Even it is arbitrary I don't think its a big deal. And honestly, I'd like to know how doctors can tell how many weeks it has been exactly.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ?
Because we don't care if it is self aware. Your goalpost, not ours.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote: A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm.
Spermies aren't really like somewhat developed fetuses, no. I'm guessing you are using the self aware goalpost again, with everything not self aware needed no consideration.
You're making an excellent point here, Romantic. I'd be really surprised if it gains any traction though. As I think you're aware, the abortion debate always revolves around a definition of personhood, but most participants in said debate like to conceive of their own definition as the only "rational" one, as if an issue as multifaceted and as ideologically situated as the concept personhood is something about which two reasonable human beings couldn't disagree.
And frankly it's difficult to call which pole in this debate has less of a claim to "rationality." We have seen an unborn child analogized to a cancer tumor, a banana, a sperm, and a parasite. Call me a cynic, but I don't think such fanciful metaphors are actually helping us establish a mutually comprehensible starting point for the discussion. They recall, for me at least, one of my favorite diatribes on the subject:
I can't log in because I don't have a NY times account.
I'm sure I could piss off both sides, though. I think old fully developed people deserve more consideration than ones who aren't, for one. That is likely to make "pro-life" people mad. I've got a million beefs with the "pro choice" camp.
What really gets me is the language and analogies people use. Fetuses aren't cancer, parasites, or goldfish. Things like reproductive rights, childrens rights, womens' rights, and privacy rights are just terms involving some madeup rights that muddle things even further and are usually based on a complete inability to understand or compensate for what the other person is saying and aren't defined.
People try to generalize their views into a principle that they then selectively apply while making up make up rights. It all ends up being pretty nonsensical and partisan with nobody really conceding anything.
I realize this happens on every issue, but with abortion it is just more pronounced.
Abortion at anytime in a pregnancy isn't morally right, because your taking the life of an unborn child and that is something the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life. I don't think that abortion should be illegal though because there are circumstances where it may be needed.
This law seems very reasonable because if you are having an abortion at or after 20 weeks which is almost 5 months and roughly half of a pregnancy.The baby is very well developed at this point and can even hear the mothers heart beat and voice. Taking the life at this point is murder in my eyes and as it seems the lawmakers as well.
Doesn't sound too good to ban the murder of unwanted babies past an arbitrarily defined period of time.
Figuratively, I think a computer user should be able to still fully cancel the installation of an unwanted program after 20 seconds/minutes/hours (aka any amount of time) before the program is fully installed.
On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote: Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
Well don't post with vague medical reasoning if you don't know what youre talking about, and you don't give a damn about the subject lol. It's not unrelated, it's a parallel line of understanding that you won't acknowledge.
I won't acknowledge it because it's irrelevant, there's a difference between someone being alive for 50 years and going into a coma and a fetus that's never seen the light of day. Someone in a coma WAS a fully functioning human being who lived a life and will probably have loved ones/dependants/friends etc., a fetus never did.
Abortion is nothing more than late contraception.
You are very set into your beliefs, even if you have no knowledge on the subject. There is no point in debating you. You already said you don't give a damn about it, so I guess it doesn't matter.
On April 28 2011 14:30 Trajan98 wrote: Abortion at anytime in a pregnancy isn't morally right, because your taking the life of an unborn child and that is something the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life. I don't think that abortion should be illegal though because there are circumstances where it may be needed.
How can you take what it has never experienced?
It can be argued that it's morally wrong to HAVE a child in the first place, the child has no choice in the matter, it may be born with some terrible affliction rendering life not too pleasant, it may simply not want to live etc.
On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote: Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
Well don't post with vague medical reasoning if you don't know what youre talking about, and you don't give a damn about the subject lol. It's not unrelated, it's a parallel line of understanding that you won't acknowledge.
I won't acknowledge it because it's irrelevant, there's a difference between someone being alive for 50 years and going into a coma and a fetus that's never seen the light of day. Someone in a coma WAS a fully functioning human being who lived a life and will probably have loved ones/dependants/friends etc., a fetus never did.
Abortion is nothing more than late contraception.
You are very set into your beliefs, even if you have no knowledge on the subject. There is no point in debating you. You already said you don't give a damn about it, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Very well, we'll agree to disagree. I still fail to see the relevance of a dude in a coma though.
In response to your earlier question about a suitable cut off point, the UK's 24 week limit seems like a reasonable enough one.
FWIW, fetuses can live outside the womb at approximately 22-25 weeks. Althoguh generally they will have some degree of mental difficulties. 28+ is more normal since there is huge amount of neurological development around the 24-32 week period.
I find it pretty funny that women are allowed to kill off a fetus but people aren't allowed to kill cats and dogs or other pets lest you get put in jail and railed on by PETA for example.
(again, both are living, can feel pain, have heartbeats, but don't have "conscious" thought or rather self aware).
Shrug.
See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
Oh god... why do these discussions always have to have "the animal rights" activist in it trying to derail and draw parallels to their own cause.
This is a common argument for both pro-choice and animal rights. Peter Singer made the two synonymous with each other when discussing the morality of both of these subjects. Whether or not that is the right approach to the argument is subjective (obviously), but, after reading Animal Liberation, and Writings on an Ethical Life, one could certainly draw these conclusions logically. For a point of reference, Peter Singer has suggested the idea of abortions up to one month after the birth of the child is morally acceptable, arguing that the brain capacity of that child is that of a feed animal at that point thus allowing for moral equality in their death. Forgive me if this is a supreme oversimplification, but I haven't been involved in the subject for quite a bit of time.
On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote: I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is.
There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not.
The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case.
You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical.
The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human.
So when does a baby become "alive"? For some reason there seems to be this arbitrary point where it's no longer ok. babies can live even if their births are induced... are they not a person until they "should have" been born? if it's wrong to kill a 30 yr old, then it's wrong to kill a 20 week old (in the womb), why act as if being inside the womb makes one less alive? the stupidity. Also, a woman doesn't have a right to "terminate" the "development" of a "fetus". She took a risk, got pregnant, now it's time to be responsible and deal with it. And with rape... that requires another debate, but these points stand.
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ?
Because we don't care if it is self aware. Your goalpost, not ours.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote: A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm.
Spermies aren't really like somewhat developed fetuses, no. I'm guessing you are using the self aware goalpost again, with everything not self aware needed no consideration.
You're making an excellent point here, Romantic. I'd be really surprised if it gains any traction though. As I think you're aware, the abortion debate always revolves around a definition of personhood, but most participants in said debate like to conceive of their own definition as the only "rational" one, as if an issue as multifaceted and as ideologically situated as the concept personhood is something about which two reasonable human beings couldn't disagree.
And frankly it's difficult to call which pole in this debate has less of a claim to "rationality." We have seen an unborn child analogized to a cancer tumor, a banana, a sperm, and a parasite. Call me a cynic, but I don't think such fanciful metaphors are actually helping us establish a mutually comprehensible starting point for the discussion. They recall, for me at least, one of my favorite diatribes on the subject:
What really gets me is the language and analogies people use. Fetuses aren't cancer, parasites, or goldfish. Things like reproductive rights, childrens rights, womens' rights, and privacy rights are just terms involving some madeup rights that muddle things even further and are usually based on a complete inability to understand or compensate for what the other person is saying and aren't defined.
People try to generalize their views into a principle that they then selectively apply while making up make up rights. It all ends up being pretty nonsensical and partisan with nobody really conceding anything.
I realize this happens on every issue, but with abortion it is just more pronounced.
I think you're dead right on all accounts. You run for office, and you have my vote.
But the sort of semantic gymnastics that you're pointing out there are the ones that reminded me of Walker Percy's essay in the first place. I think I found a working link here? I mean it's not like even totally necessary that you read it. It's probably not life-changing or anything. I just love old Doc Percy and have him on my mind these days as he's the subject of the MA thesis that has been beating my ass this whole semester.
Natural Law stipulates that your body is your own property, just as the fruit of your body (labor) is your property.
I think that when you apply Natural Law to this, you should keep in mind the context that humans are naturally viviparous and that only the females have wombs and carry children. So when a baby is in the uterus, he can't really be trespassing against his mother--he's exactly where he's supposed to be. The mother obviously owns her womb as long as it's empty, but once the baby begins to inhabit it I think she has to share her claim to it. After all, the whole reason for the uterus's existence is to house that baby. (It hasn't been menstruating every month for the mother's benefit. :D )
Second, a BIG quibble:
On April 28 2011 12:21 Dhalphir wrote:I refer to the axiom that a generally reliable way of determining the objective morality of an action is to imagine what the world would be like if everyone did things a certain way. Thieving and murdering are obviously objectively immoral because if everyone stole and killed as much as they wanted, society would degenerate.
This is an awful axiom. It leads to a lot of absurd conclusions because of its reliance on the effect on society. For example:
If everyone decides to become a history professor, society collapses. Becoming a history professor is objectively immoral.
If everyone locks one of his daughters in the basement as a sex slave but otherwise leads a normal life, society goes on. Josef Fritzl made an acceptable choice; don't impose your beliefs on him.
On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote: I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is.
There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not.
The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case.
You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical.
The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human.
So you are a believer that a woman who was raped has a responsibility to carry a resulting child?
An arbitary line must be drawn at some point.
My belief however is there should be no arbitrary line drawn at all. A person's body should be their own, and no entity should have rights to live off of them. There are a lot of people here who seem to be saying pregnancy isn't dangerous to mothers. However this is rediculous. Pregnancy destroys the human body doing irrepairable damage and can lead to deadly consequences. Now if the baby is viable, then yes measures should be taken to remove it from the womb without killing it, however no-one should be forced to harm themselves or risk harming themselves for someone else.
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.
Certainly an interesting view.
I am curious, though - why is this the appropriate role of Government? If you are the poster I'm thinking of, you believe in a voluntary society, right? Then shouldn't people who believe that life begins at birth should have the right to live under a chosen set of laws that reflect that axiom?
There are numerous firms that use private resources to encourage pregnant women to choose motherhood or adoption rather than abortion. What about these? Seems no different than relying on private charity to provide for those who cannot afford food or health care (also life and death issues).
I cannot stand the wolf in sheep's clothing "libertarians" who make convenient use of libertarian arguments on poverty/environmental/health care/etc issues, then say that the government should outlaw abortion, grant marriages to heterosexuals but not homosexuals, ban religions they don't belong to, invade the OPEC villain du jour, etc etc. Politics is of course the land of logical inconsistency, but this really bugs me more than the rest.
However, reading more about this philosophy, I don't think this criticism applies to you. Which is good, I want ideological opponents who are principled
As a practical note, though, eviction in (say) the 7th week is going to result in fetal death. Eviction in (say) the 25th week is going to require heavy medical assistance to keep the fetus/baby alive - I assume you are against public use of funds for health care and against laws mandating that the woman purchases health care? This is likely sentencing the fetus to die unless a private donor steps up; even if we assume that a fetus at 25 weeks is alive, natural death on the operating table is arguably a fate more cruel than abortion.
On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote: I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is.
There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not.
The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case.
You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical.
The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human.
So you are a believer that a woman who was raped has a responsibility to carry a resulting child?
An arbitary line must be drawn at some point.
My belief however is there should be no arbitrary line drawn at all. A person's body should be their own, and no entity should have rights to live off of them. There are a lot of people here who seem to be saying pregnancy isn't dangerous to mothers. However this is rediculous. Pregnancy destroys the human body doing irrepairable damage and can lead to deadly consequences. Now if the baby is viable, then yes measures should be taken to remove it from the womb without killing it, however no-one should be forced to harm themselves or risk harming themselves for someone else.
You're imputing an opinion to him about the "responsibilities" of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, but he all he was doing was attempting a definition of what makes a person a person. That strikes me as a really captious move. First of all, the rape discussion is strictly speaking irrelevant to his definition, and, second of all, it's more of an emotional and political appeal than a logical one anyway.
You're also implying that your position has no "arbitrary lines." But actually it's chock full of arbitrariness. It's predicated on arbitrariness. You posit a right (arbitrary). You posit a moral obligation to preserve a "viable" baby (arbitrary on two counts). And you also include in your argument "harm" and "risk of harm" (the definitions of which are almost entirely arbitrary).
I mean... I just feel like you're generalizing a lot from the fact that your assumptions feel completely natural and neutral to you.
I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
Abortion is a sticky issue that I hate to deal with and comment on. I think it is the woman's decision and body in the end, but I dislike hearing about an abortion occurring at all. I wish the abstinence teaching and/or religious zealots would preach contraception and stop making sex an ugly scary monster coming to get you. It is the 21st century and people are still afraid of their sexuality, it makes me sad.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
Listen up, hippie. Equating a fetus to the same level of importance as an egg or an acorn only means anything if you consider killing a chicken or cutting down a tree to be as immoral as butchering a human being.
A fetus represents the potential for a fully grown human life. Potential that has already passed, on the slimmest of odds, through all the preliminary rounds of fate. If someone were to ask you, right now, whether you would prefer it if your mother had aborted you instead of giving birth to you, you would say no. Don't tell me otherwise, because if you felt so you would have shot yourself in the head by now.
I admit, I consider the act of killing a fetus less morally repugnant than killing a fully developed human being, in the same way I consider punching a child less morally repugnant than raping it. But that doesn't mean I consider it in any way morally neutral.
Just ask any expecting mother who receives the news that her 20 week old fetus has died how unimportant it is, and you might get some moral truth past that thick skull of yours and stop spouting this college liberal bullsh!t.
On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote: I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo.
Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
Listen up, hippie. Equating a fetus to the same level of importance as an egg or an acorn only means anything if you consider killing a chicken or cutting down a tree to be as immoral as butchering a human being.
A fetus represents the potential for a fully grown human life. Potential that has already passed, on the slimmest of odds, through all the preliminary rounds of fate. If someone were to ask you, right now, whether you would prefer it if your mother had aborted you instead of giving birth to you, you would say no. Don't tell me otherwise, because if you felt so you would have shot yourself in the head by now.
I admit, I consider the act of killing a fetus less morally repugnant than killing a fully developed human being, in the same way I consider punching a child less morally repugnant than raping it. But that doesn't mean I consider it in any way morally neutral.
Just ask any expecting mother who receives the news that her 20 week old fetus has died how unimportant it is, and you might get some moral truth past that thick skull of yours and stop spouting this college liberal bullsh!t.
My Kiwi brother, I laughed so hard at the "Listen up, hippie" part :D:D:D:D
But yea - it's just so interesting how people these days say "As long as it doesn't harm other people, anything can be done."
Yea right.
And before I ever got into the abortion debate, I was fascinated as a young teenager by the "good news" of pregnancy when our family friends got pregnant. It was something we rejoiced over, because we knew a new life had begun, and that we all rejoiced for their sake that they were going to have a baby and have a beautiful child grow up in their arms.
And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote: I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo.
Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth.
Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : )
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote: Abortion at any stage is morally wrong The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
I believe that more education would normalize abortions and put an end to this irrational debate, as people will realize that lol a fetus has more in common with a sperm or the tree in my backyard than me.
ok come on, if you have any knowledge of basic biology you should not be equating sperm to a fetus. your argument is intellectually dishonest.
sperm are HAPLOID, a fetus is DIPLOID. humans are diploid organisms. fetuses also have unique DNA that is a combination of both the mother and father. these are two main reasons why many pro-lifers view conception as the starting point of life.
I disagree with this. I knew a girl in high school that was pregnant and took a paternity test because she wasn't sure who the father was. It turned out the father was an oak tree.
LOL - and yea... I think half the people in this thread probably need to go see an ultrasound, see the fetus with it's developing organs, see it move and see his/her heart beat. Then hopefully get an abortion specialist hold their hand while they let the TL-netizen do the procedure. I'm sure it'll be a sobering experience
On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote: I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo.
Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth.
Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : )
No, I'm just an English literature dude with an agenda. I'm getting snarky, though, so I'm going to bed!
P.S.: GertHeart, sorry that I was terse with you. I hope we can still be friends.
On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
You know I don't have a position for or against it, though I've always been the more "well it's her choice not mine" kinda guy in that respect. I will say I am okay with the idea of this law coming into being so long as it's a state law and not a Federal Law. Odd how that works huh?
I still think in general the best way to avoid an abortion is don't get in the situation in the first place.(rape/other situations aside of course)
On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator.
Besides that - 1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values.
2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T)
3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case!
On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
He is just trolling, just search post history. He is also unable to edit, maybe a browser malfunction?
There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator.
Besides that - 1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values.
2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T)
3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case!
if your not trolling, then you should understand that no one is going to take you seriously when you use "God" as the basis for your arguments.
On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator.
Besides that - 1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values.
2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T)
3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case!
Yes, well, aside from Jesus...
You claim that that some people who are not against abortion are short-sighted liberals. Why do you call them short-sighted? The most plausible reason I could see from your posts beforehand is that you don't believe they see what you see. What you're doing is placing yourself in their shoes, then calling them short-sighted for reaching a different conclusion.
Abortion by itself is not complicated. It's terminating a fetus. The humanity it comes with is what divides so many of us. Now, biological consequences aside, the question of whether it's right or wrong can not be decided by a roll of a dice, which is basically what they are doing here. Arbitrary numbers and morality don't go hand in hand.
What complexity can we discuss for an abortion? You have potential mothers who suffer severe emotional trauma because they terminated their first "child", but you have others who could care less. This artificial complexity you're placing on abortion is without much merit.
A fetus can survive only after a minimum of 24 weeks in utero and even at 24weeks, it is so preterm that a hundred million things can go wrong. It is 24 weeks in my country. I think one has to consider the consequences of not aborting and the consequences on the child.
An unwilling or a teenage mother no way can rise a child properly. Also, there are many problems during pregnancy. An unwilling mother isn't going to take care of her growing baby when she's pregnant. She's not going to come for regular follow-up. She might smoke. The consequence is that it is the child that suffers for the rest of its life.
Finally, is abortion still wrong if you know for sure that the child will be born with a limited lifespan. For example, a fetus can be diagnosed with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy in utero. The diagnosis is definite. The child is mentally very well developed. However, muscles start wasting by the age of 6. Children are wheelchair bound by the age of 12. Most die by age 20 due to respiratory complications. Do parents have the right to abort at more than 20 weeks if a late diagnosis of Duchenne's is made?
And yet again it's men talking about abortions, telling the women what they can and can't do.
The worst part is you're acting like it's an EASY choice for the women who decides to get an abortion. Are you really that naive? It's nowhere near an easy choice, they go through this whole debate throughout the whole process and you're sitting there behind your keyboard saying "MURDERER!"
I must admit that it can't be traced back to abortion being legalized exactly but it's quite the astonishing "coincidence".
To me, it's irrelevant if it's to kill something or not. It's all about the woman's choice. Here in Sweden you can get an abortion in the 18th week and I guess that seems okay. Getting an abortion is probably the best for both the kid and the woman going through with it. I would not want to be an unwanted baby. Unexpected, sure, but not unwanted.
Some say that the woman can have the baby but send it off for adoption. Don't you think there are enough kids out there that needs to be adopted? Instead of adding more, let's take care of those that are already there.
To argue that the woman can't decide for herself? That's stupid.
In my country we also have a 20 week limit for the absortion. I find it morally wrong... I have couple of friends thare were adopted... why do people find it hard to have a child and then give it to adoption?
Another view that I have in absortion, is that the dad should have a say in the absortion. I find it odd that only women can make the final decision.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
Listen up, hippie. Equating a fetus to the same level of importance as an egg or an acorn only means anything if you consider killing a chicken or cutting down a tree to be as immoral as butchering a human being.
A fetus represents the potential for a fully grown human life. Potential that has already passed, on the slimmest of odds, through all the preliminary rounds of fate. If someone were to ask you, right now, whether you would prefer it if your mother had aborted you instead of giving birth to you, you would say no. Don't tell me otherwise, because if you felt so you would have shot yourself in the head by now.
I admit, I consider the act of killing a fetus less morally repugnant than killing a fully developed human being, in the same way I consider punching a child less morally repugnant than raping it. But that doesn't mean I consider it in any way morally neutral.
Just ask any expecting mother who receives the news that her 20 week old fetus has died how unimportant it is, and you might get some moral truth past that thick skull of yours and stop spouting this college liberal bullsh!t.
Nothing quite like a completely random insult at someone for having an education. I love that going to college is a bad thing in this situation, because dumbing down the argument is always such an effective tactic.
Let me spit that ultra-college liberal hydro-ghetto shit at you: when I was an incognizant fetus, I did not give a fuck if my mother aborted me or not. Your poorly-planned consequentialist insult is the same bullshit other idiots use to frame questions like "What if Hitler had been aborted?" It doesn't matter.
If you can't form a real argument, then don't even attempt it. Maybe appealing to the lowest common denominator of the imbecile's emotions works in backwater New Zealand or next door in Alaska, but where us college educated people come from, that shit don't fly, homie.
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote: There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
lol i love how everytime the abortion debate comes up people always say "well the women shouldn't of been such a slut and had sex without protection" it takes 2 people to procreate!! also read a book called freakenomics it gives pretty convincing evidence that since abortion has been legalized it has directly lowered the crime rate since most aborted babies would have been born into poor communities and thus adopted a life of crime.
20 weeks sounds just about right. The only problem I see is the "foot in the door" argument.
Personally, I think there should be a lot more abortions. What's with dirt poor people having 7+ kids? Or people completely unfit to be parents, who don't even want children, and they end up still having them. Then you get juvenile crackheads murdering normal kids for 10 dollars, or psychotic kids shooting up a school. The only parents who should have kids are those who want them, have the ability to love them and the means to support them.
also read a book called freakenomics it gives pretty convincing evidence that since abortion has been legalized it has directly lowered the crime rate since most aborted babies would have been born into poor communities and thus adopted a life of crime.
Correlation does not imply causation, beside, if you objective is to lower crime rate by allowing people with low economic power to abort then you:
1- Are doing things wrong 2- Haven't any ethics at all
If you want to solve crime rates, abortion is not the way to go.. specially if you want to call your selfs land of the free...
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote: There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
We can certainly disagree on whether this bill is part of an effort to bring down Roe, as I can't see into the minds of the people proposing this and other legislation. That being said, there's a pretty significant revamp of the 90's "culture wars" going on, specifically targeting abortion. A quick google search will yield several articles on this topic.
I'm not intimately familiar with the pro-choice movement and it's strategies, but I do recognize this pattern from another movement with which I'm quite familiar. Proponents of teaching creationism (banning evolution, equal time, ID, etc.) have used similar tactics throughout the last half century. I can think of several Supreme Court cases and at least two federal district court cases (off the top of my head) that came about in a similar way.
The plan works like this: 1) Create a sample law (designed to violate precident) 2) Get state legislatures to pass a version of that law 3) Wait for someone to challenge one of these laws 4) Appeal it (or lobby for appeal) as far as it will go, preferably to the Supreme Court
I'm sure there are other explanations for the resurgence of anti-abortion legislation in the states. I'm just not sure what those reasons are. Perhaps you have an explanation.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
I thought I made a decent effort at moving the discussion past the "When does life begin?" question, but I guess you disagree.
also read a book called freakenomics it gives pretty convincing evidence that since abortion has been legalized it has directly lowered the crime rate since most aborted babies would have been born into poor communities and thus adopted a life of crime.
Correlation does not imply causation, beside, if you objective is to lower crime rate by allowing people with low economic power to abort then you:
1- Are doing things wrong 2- Haven't any ethics at all
If you want to solve crime rates, abortion is not the way to go.. specially if you want to call your selfs land of the free...
Fuck, this pisses me off.
YES IT DOES.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.
As for your other points: if you aren't going to provide some kind of logical argument for the remainder of your statements, they can safely be dismissed as meaningless drivel.
A different person having a different opinion pisses you off? Calm down my friend.. its normal in our society to have different opinions.
If you do not see any problems with ethics, when you have a reason to allowed absortion, be to lower crime rates, then I guess you had never an ethic class, or even a discussion about ethics.
Isn't:
Correlation does not PROVE causation = Correlation does not imply causation?
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote: Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
Personally i'd be against abortions for a fetus older than a couple of weeks , imagine the womans mental trauma for the rest of her life if she caught a glimpse of that 20 week old fetus before it went into the incinerator.
"Abortionist" isn't a term in the real world . Also I'd like to point out human life has no inherent value, and an unformed, unconscious, unthinking developing cellular mass isn't even a human being .
I wonder what the gender demographics are for this kind of argument. Is anyone against abortion in this thread a mature female?
I wonder what the gender demographics are for this kind of argument. Is anyone against abortion in this thread a mature female?
By this I am allowed to guess thayou think that only female should be allowed to make a decision?
Also I'd like to point out human life has no inherent value, and an unformed, unconscious, unthinking developing cellular mass isn't even a human being .
Doesn't the becoming haven't any effect on you? Since that cellular has the capacity to become human?
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote: There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
We can certainly disagree on whether this bill is part of an effort to bring down Roe, as I can't see into the minds of the people proposing this and other legislation. That being said, there's a pretty significant revamp of the 90's "culture wars" going on, specifically targeting abortion. A quick google search will yield several articles on this topic.
I'm not intimately familiar with the pro-choice movement and it's strategies, but I do recognize this pattern from another movement with which I'm quite familiar. Proponents of teaching creationism (banning evolution, equal time, ID, etc.) have used similar tactics throughout the last half century. I can think of several Supreme Court cases and at least two federal district court cases (off the top of my head) that came about in a similar way.
The plan works like this: 1) Create a sample law (designed to violate precident) 2) Get state legislatures to pass a version of that law 3) Wait for someone to challenge one of these laws 4) Appeal it (or lobby for appeal) as far as it will go, preferably to the Supreme Court
I'm sure there are other explanations for the resurgence of anti-abortion legislation in the states. I'm just not sure what those reasons are. Perhaps you have an explanation.
I think each of the things you said is true and is happening, I just don't think they're happening with this bill. Probably the reasons behind the Planned Parenthood decision is separate from the abortion decision, but they're combined because it's a similar issue and they can hit two birds with one stone. Planned Parenthood is part of the "culture war" you described, I don't know the purpose of the abortion section, though. I just know that the bill isn't radically different from Roe v. Wade in any way, besides pushing the date a few weeks forward to account for changes in modern medical technology.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
I thought I made a decent effort at moving the discussion past the "When does life begin?" question, but I guess you disagree.
You're exempt from that criticism. I was talking about everyone else.
Either use proper protection and don't get pregnant in the first place, or carry it out and put up the baby for adoption. Abortion is a non-solution, and a rather creepy one, it should only be used under extreme circumstances like deformations, defects, disease, rape, you get the idea.
On April 28 2011 17:04 Aldehyde wrote: And yet again it's men talking about abortions, telling the women what they can and can't do. [...] To me, it's irrelevant if it's to kill something or not. It's all about the woman's choice. [...] Getting an abortion is probably the best for both the kid and the woman going through with it.
Arrogant statements to say the least. Does the father and the kid (fetus, whatever) not have any say in the matter? Despite the former having at least as much right to the kid as the mother, and the latter's chance to life being at stake? It is NOT solely the women's decision. Stop acting like it is.
Want to know something interesting? Legalizing abortion in the US lowered crime rates. But I don't know, must be a bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect I must admit that it can't be traced back to abortion being legalized exactly but it's quite the astonishing "coincidence".
And the most arrogant of them all, trying to justify it. Poverty is not solved by killing off the poor, what you are essentially suggesting. It is solved by giving them proper education, including about preventing unwanted pregnancies, access to protection, or a chance to emerge from poverty and to raise their offsprings under fair living conditions, without endlessly propagating the poverty they are living in.
Some say that the woman can have the baby but send it off for adoption. Don't you think there are enough kids out there that needs to be adopted? Instead of adding more, let's take care of those that are already there.
Unfortunately it is not only a matter of numbers. There wouldn't be so many child trafficking incidents if it were, for one thing.
To argue that the woman can't decide for herself? That's stupid.
Are we talking about the same woman who got pregnant without wanting to, "by accident"? Why yes, she demonstrated a heavy lack of responsibility and shown she is utterly incapable of correct decisions. She's stupid, indeed, and deserves no say in the matter when other rights, interests and opinions are in play. Especially since she made her decision when she got pregnant.
By the way, it would be nice if I heard swedish people spewing anything else other than state-mandated "correct" opinions.
I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:20 Frigo wrote: Either use proper protection and don't get pregnant in the first place, or carry it out and put up the baby for adoption. Abortion is a non-solution, and a rather creepy one, it should only be used under extreme circumstances like deformations, defects, disease, rape, you get the idea.
You know birth control doesn't prevent all pregnancies right? You have sex education in your schools etc?
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut. If only she had more sense than to fall in love with a man who would leave her as soon as she became pregnant, heh stupid women. Aborting the child is 'creepy' but raising the unwanted child is great, me have good logic me am smart politics
In my point of view the male should have said, after all, it is his child to. For exemple in my country, only right know, only the female can make the decision, I find this really unfair. I give you just one exemple.
A couple breaks up and the female is pregnant:
1-Female does not want to have an absortion, the male as no power to stop it if he does not want to have a child, yet he will have to pay child support. 2-Female does not want to have the child, male as no power to stop the absortion.
I find this unfair. The decision should allways be from both, and not just the female. Is the male as a legal responsability to the child, he must also have power to decide.
Also I'd like to point out human life has no inherent value, and an unformed, unconscious, unthinking developing cellular mass isn't even a human being .
Doesn't the becoming haven't any effect on you? Since that cellular has the capacity to become human?
I've always been slightly annoyed by people using the "it CAN become a human!!11one" argument. The logic behind it is about as valid as the logic behind someone saying "masturbation is murder"
I don't think it's up to you and me to decide where the line should be drawn between "just a bunch of cells" and the "earliest beginnings of a human being"
In my opinion the line should be drawn where science indicates it should be drawn, and if that would be fertilization I'd be fine with that. But turns out it's not, from my understanding that line is not crossed until past the 20-24 week mark.
That leaves plenty of room for abortion - surely there are some drawbacks to that, atleast for the female (For me as a guy I don't think I'd feel much about say, having my girlfriend abort a fetus at the appropriate time) such as big ass depressions and all that good stuff. But in my opinion it is extremely important for women (And ofcourse the guys should have some say in it as well but that's besides the point) to have the opportunity to abort an unwanted pregnancy. -insert tons of good reasons-
For a lot of people fertility is the point where that line is crossed, I don't get that at all. Where'd you get that information from other than your imagination?
You're arguing that a man who breaks up with a pregnant woman should be allowed to force her to have the child? You think monetary child support is even on the same level as childbirth?
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
Lol, I think that's also partly a guy's responsibility. As a matter of fact exactly half of it is the guy's responsibility.
Although I would say that ultimately the woman has a veto right, because they happened to be the ones carrying the little bastards (^_^) however, putting the guy completely out of the equation is retarded.
Aborting the child is 'creepy' but raising the unwanted child is great, me have good logic me am smart politics
Giving the baby to adpotion is a good way to avoid aborsion..
AGREED FRIEND, it's great to have a load of unwanted children around, there's no risk of serious mental and criminal health developing from coming from an extremely broken home (father left when his woman became pregnant to get some real pussy hahah you know what i mean?) and being orphaned off at an early age. It's great, definitely no development or even logistical problems with your solution. Do you care for foster children, may I ask?
For a lot of people fertility is the point where that line is crossed, I don't get that at all. Where'd you get that information from other than your imagination?
Yes.. is that wrong?
And the logic is very diferent from "masturbation is murder". If you kept masturbating all your live there will no child... if you kept the 'mass of cells' to grow there will be a child.
On April 28 2011 18:20 Frigo wrote: Either use proper protection and don't get pregnant in the first place, or carry it out and put up the baby for adoption. Abortion is a non-solution, and a rather creepy one, it should only be used under extreme circumstances like deformations, defects, disease, rape, you get the idea.
You know birth control doesn't prevent all pregnancies right? You have sex education in your schools etc?
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut. If only she had more sense than to fall in love with a man who would leave her as soon as she became pregnant, heh stupid women. Aborting the child is 'creepy' but raising the unwanted child is great, me have good logic me am smart politics
You know that proper condom use or contraceptives does prevent 99.9% though..... The majority of abortions are not from people who were properly using contraceptive measures.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
Lol, I think that's also partly a guy's responsibility. As a matter of fact exactly half of it is the guy's responsibility.
Although I would say that ultimately the woman has a veto right, because they happened to be the ones carrying the little bastards (^_^) however, putting the guy completely out of the equasion is retarded.
This issue can be summarized like this;
"You can't tell me whether I can have an abortion or not. It is my body and I will do what I want."
After it is born, "Judge, he is a deadbeat dad. Doesn't pay for diapers or anything, it takes two to tango, you know. Make him pay up."
On April 28 2011 18:20 Frigo wrote: Either use proper protection and don't get pregnant in the first place, or carry it out and put up the baby for adoption. Abortion is a non-solution, and a rather creepy one, it should only be used under extreme circumstances like deformations, defects, disease, rape, you get the idea.
You know birth control doesn't prevent all pregnancies right? You have sex education in your schools etc?
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut. If only she had more sense than to fall in love with a man who would leave her as soon as she became pregnant, heh stupid women. Aborting the child is 'creepy' but raising the unwanted child is great, me have good logic me am smart politics
You know that proper condom use or contraceptives does prevent 99.9% though..... The majority of abortions are not from people who were properly using contraceptive measures.
Ah I guess those little sluts deserve what's coming to them then. Silly me for thinking they should be able to abort, we as a caring society should force them to go through with unwanted childbirth, that makes sense.
For a lot of people fertility is the point where that line is crossed, I don't get that at all. Where'd you get that information from other than your imagination?
Yes.. is that wrong?
And the logic is very diferent from "masturbation is murder". If you kept masturbating all your live there will no child... if you kept the 'mass of cells' to grow there will be a child.
Masturbation effectively kills the cells that have a potential of becoming a human being.
Explain to me how abortion is any different? As a matter of fact, abortion does exactly the same.
The only difference between the 2 is that the second one requires a penis to have been in a vagina, how is something as trivial and insignificant as sex going to decide whether abortion is murder or not?
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
Lol, I think that's also partly a guy's responsibility. As a matter of fact exactly half of it is the guy's responsibility.
Although I would say that ultimately the woman has a veto right, because they happened to be the ones carrying the little bastards (^_^) however, putting the guy completely out of the equasion is retarded.
This issue can be summarized like this;
"You can't tell me whether I can have an abortion or not. It is my body and I will do what I want."
After it is born, "Judge, he is a deadbeat dad. Doesn't pay for diapers or anything, it takes two to tango, you know. Make him pay up."
Also, is consequentialist a bad word?
Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
For a lot of people fertility is the point where that line is crossed, I don't get that at all. Where'd you get that information from other than your imagination?
Yes.. is that wrong?
And the logic is very diferent from "masturbation is murder". If you kept masturbating all your live there will no child... if you kept the 'mass of cells' to grow there will be a child.
Masturbation effectively kills the cells that have a potential of becoming a human being.
Explain to me how abortion is any different? As a matter of fact, abortion does exactly the same.
The only difference between the 2 is that the second one requires a penis to have been in a vagina, how is something as trivial and insignificant as sex going to decide whether abortion is murder or not?
Dude its middle school biology. Haploid vs Diploid. Sperm has absolutely no chance to become a human being without outside help(needs an egg), an inseminated egg is already well on its way to becoming human. Not sure why you are saying those little sluts, you really should not try and put words in someones mouth. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in what your saying. Personally I'm pro choice, but I do think you should be shown what exactly you are doing.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
Lol, I think that's also partly a guy's responsibility. As a matter of fact exactly half of it is the guy's responsibility.
Although I would say that ultimately the woman has a veto right, because they happened to be the ones carrying the little bastards (^_^) however, putting the guy completely out of the equasion is retarded.
This issue can be summarized like this;
"You can't tell me whether I can have an abortion or not. It is my body and I will do what I want."
After it is born, "Judge, he is a deadbeat dad. Doesn't pay for diapers or anything, it takes two to tango, you know. Make him pay up."
Also, is consequentialist a bad word?
Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
I didn't say it was bad, I just said that is the way it is. If I thought it was wrong I don't know how it would make me a misogynist at any rate.
AGREED FRIEND, it's great to have a load of unwanted children around, there's no risk of serious mental and criminal health developing from coming from an extremely broken home (father left when his woman became pregnant to get some real pussy hahah you know what i mean?) and being orphaned off at an early age. It's great, definitely no development or even logistical problems with your solution. Do you care for foster children, may I ask?
My best childhood friend was adopted... Have you ever asked an adpot child what if her/his mom had choosen another route?
You're arguing that a man who breaks up with a pregnant woman should be allowed to force her to have the child? You think monetary child support is even on the same level as childbirth?
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
I find a alot of reasons why a men could breakup even with a pregnant woman.. but lets not discus stories...
And you are wrong.. its not just her child.. its mine also, and i do have a responsability for it, yet it seems i have no power to decide its future.
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote: Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
The big problem with your "women should be the only ones making the decision" is that the guyhas to deal with the consequence of the decision as well, for the rest of his life.
Compared to that your argument of carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial then, and should not be an argument as to why the woman should be the only one with a say in this.
Dude its middle school biology. Haploid vs Diploid. Sperm has absolutely no chance to become a human being without outside help(needs an egg), an inseminated egg is already well on its way to becoming human.
Lol, that's basically what I said.
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
By me deciding to not use my penis for sex but for masturbation instead I effectively aborted a lot of potential lives.
Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
So if male decision power = female decision power = misogynist? I find that funny.
Dude its middle school biology. Haploid vs Diploid. Sperm has absolutely no chance to become a human being without outside help(needs an egg), an inseminated egg is already well on its way to becoming human.
Lol, that's basically what I said.
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
By me deciding to not use my penis for sex but for masturbation instead I effectively aborted a lot of potential lives.
Thats like saying that not having sex or masturbating is murder because the unused sperm dies, its pointless and not a defendable argument. Those sperm cells from masturbating are going to die either way, and even if you do have sex 99.9999% will still die, its not a valid argument.
Dude its middle school biology. Haploid vs Diploid. Sperm has absolutely no chance to become a human being without outside help(needs an egg), an inseminated egg is already well on its way to becoming human.
Lol, that's basically what I said.
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
By me deciding to not use my penis for sex but for masturbation instead I effectively aborted a lot of potential lives.
Thats like saying that not having sex or masturbating is murder because the unused sperm dies, its pointless and not a defendable argument. Those sperm cells from masturbating are going to die either way, and even if you do have sex 99.9999% will still die, its not a valid argument.
One might say, as valid as... the anti-abortion arguments? :trollface:
Clearly what I said there is retarded, in an attempt to point out the similarities with the anti-abortion arguments. Where the heavy accusation "murder" is put on doctors removing a bunch of cells as alive as your semen.
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote: Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
The big problem with your "women should be the only ones making the decision" is that the guyhas to deal with the consequence of the decision as well, for the rest of his life.
Compared to that your argument of carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial then, and should not be an argument as to why the woman should be the only one with a say in this.
You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman whos been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
Yes there is.. but i guess the discussion between us is pointless, lets agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree? To be honest I've always hated people who use those kind of sentences, except when we're talking about something actually subjective, like taste in food or music.
Scientific evidence suggests the cells that get aborted are as alive as for example semen (Also known as: Not alive at all)
Surely I realize the whole problem with people against abortion is the potential. However once again I'd like to point out that my semen has the same potential right before having sex.
Deciding to put on a condom, or masturbating, both have the exact same effect as abortion. (The semen and egg don't get to grow to a point where a clump of cells actually starts to resemble a human being/something alive)
Dude its middle school biology. Haploid vs Diploid. Sperm has absolutely no chance to become a human being without outside help(needs an egg), an inseminated egg is already well on its way to becoming human.
Lol, that's basically what I said.
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
By me deciding to not use my penis for sex but for masturbation instead I effectively aborted a lot of potential lives.
Thats like saying that not having sex or masturbating is murder because the unused sperm dies, its pointless and not a defendable argument. Those sperm cells from masturbating are going to die either way, and even if you do have sex 99.9999% will still die, its not a valid argument.
One might say, as valid as... the anti-abortion arguments? :trollface:
Clearly what I said there is retarded, in an attempt to point out the similarities with the anti-abortion arguments. Where the heavy accusation "murder" is put on doctors removing a bunch of cells as alive as your semen.
Your not getting the point, that clump of cells is working its way towards becoming a human being, while that sperm is on its way to dying. Well maybe I'm not getting your argument, but either way its not the most effective way to argue for abortion. Anyhow that clump of cells requires outside intervention not to become a child in 9 months, while that sperm requires outside intervention to become a clump of cells.
It's the body of the woman, she gets to decide, it's that simple. The discussion is deluded by discussions about at what point it is considered life or religious morons coining the phrase "sanctity of life".
Some people suggest adoptions, it should be an offered alternative but the women can still decide. Many of those are the same people that will be whispering behind the back of a pregnant team and talk about what a whore she is. Socially stigmatise the pregnant teen whilst demanding they carry the child for 9 months.
Women should have control over their body, that is what this is about. The government shouldn't get this involved in people's personal lives and truth be told nobody should. Abortions don't affect you in any way. It's like gay marriage, if you stopped making such a big deal out of it you would realize it really doesn't affect your life at all.
Allow women to maintain control over their own life, permit abortions, stop forcing other people to live up to your magic book.
if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right
And his child, you arguments did not me change my mind. I still think that the male should always be part of the decidion. If a male has resposabilities for the child after the child is born, i do think that he should have the some responsabilities for the child before the chikd is born.
By me deciding to not use my penis for sex but for masturbation instead I effectively aborted a lot of potential lives
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
Yes there is.. but i guess the discussion between us is pointless, lets agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree? To be honest I've always hated people who use those kind of sentences, except when we're talking about something actually subjective, like taste in food or music.
Scientific evidence suggests the cells that get aborted are as alive as for example semen (Also known as: Not alive at all)
Surely I realize the whole problem with people against abortion is the potential. However once again I'd like to point out that my semen has the same potential right before having sex.
Deciding to put on a condom, or masturbating, both have the exact same effect as abortion. (The semen and egg don't get to grow to a point where a clump of cells actually starts to resemble a human being/something alive)
Instead of saying clump of cells can you actually specify what you are talking about so other people can understand? Is a 8 1\2 month old fetus a clump of cells? We honestly don't know what you are talking about.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
With all due respect, would you liked to be considered justifiable to be murdered, if some big monster ate you and you lived in its belly. Would that give justification for other monsters to suck you out of the belly and break your vertebrae in a brutal manner.
On April 28 2011 18:58 zalz wrote: It's the body of the woman, she gets to decide, it's that simple. The discussion is deluded by discussions about at what point it is considered life or religious morons coining the phrase "sanctity of life".
Some people suggest adoptions, it should be an offered alternative but the women can still decide. Many of those are the same people that will be whispering behind the back of a pregnant team and talk about what a whore she is. Socially stigmatise the pregnant teen whilst demanding they carry the child for 9 months.
Women should have control over their body, that is what this is about. The government shouldn't get this involved in people's personal lives and truth be told nobody should. Abortions don't affect you in any way. It's like gay marriage, if you stopped making such a big deal out of it you would realize it really doesn't affect your life at all.
Allow women to maintain control over their own life, permit abortions, stop forcing other people to live up to your magic book.
Amen. The government if anything should protect her rights to her body . It's nice to live in a progressive state.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
With all due respect, would you liked to be considered justifiable to be murdered, if some big monster ate you and you lived in its belly. Would that give justification for other monsters to suck you out of the belly and break your vertebrae in a brutal manner.
Lmfao, I can't even parody how stupid this is. WELL, does it justify it??? HUH?? Bet you never thought of it this way guys!
On April 28 2011 18:58 zalz wrote: It's the body of the woman, she gets to decide, it's that simple. The discussion is deluded by discussions about at what point it is considered life or religious morons coining the phrase "sanctity of life".
Some people suggest adoptions, it should be an offered alternative but the women can still decide. Many of those are the same people that will be whispering behind the back of a pregnant team and talk about what a whore she is. Socially stigmatise the pregnant teen whilst demanding they carry the child for 9 months.
Women should have control over their body, that is what this is about. The government shouldn't get this involved in people's personal lives and truth be told nobody should. Abortions don't affect you in any way. It's like gay marriage, if you stopped making such a big deal out of it you would realize it really doesn't affect your life at all.
Allow women to maintain control over their own life, permit abortions, stop forcing other people to live up to your magic book.
Amen. The government if anything should protect her rights to her body . It's nice to live in a progressive state.
On April 28 2011 18:58 zalz wrote: It's the body of the woman, she gets to decide, it's that simple. The discussion is deluded by discussions about at what point it is considered life or religious morons coining the phrase "sanctity of life".
Some people suggest adoptions, it should be an offered alternative but the women can still decide. Many of those are the same people that will be whispering behind the back of a pregnant team and talk about what a whore she is. Socially stigmatise the pregnant teen whilst demanding they carry the child for 9 months.
Women should have control over their body, that is what this is about. The government shouldn't get this involved in people's personal lives and truth be told nobody should. Abortions don't affect you in any way. It's like gay marriage, if you stopped making such a big deal out of it you would realize it really doesn't affect your life at all.
Allow women to maintain control over their own life, permit abortions, stop forcing other people to live up to your magic book.
A lot of people who are against abortions are not necessarily religious, just as there are many Catholics who disagree with the churches views on abortion and contraception. Stop trying to demonize religion as the root cause of peoples views that you don't agree with.
You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman who's been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
I'm not a father, nor a woman.
Also wow your arguments are all over the place, making very little sense at all.
You think the difference between a woman's responsibility to her child, and a man's responsibility to his child is only seperated by the 9 months of carrying the child?
Carrying a child for 9 months does indeed seem trivial compared to the lifetime of responsibility that comes with it for both man and woman.
In my eyes both the man and the woman have equal responsibility for the child, which means they will both be "equally burdened (Spelling?) by it"
A lifetime of responsibility compared to 9 months of being pregnant.
Ofcourse I'm assuming the father feels as responsible as he should. I'm not talking about deadbeat dads, fuck those.
You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman who's been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
I'm not a father, nor a woman.
Also wow your arguments are all over the place, making very little sense at all.
You think the difference between a woman's responsibility to her child, and a man's responsibility to his child is only seperated by the 9 months of carrying the child?
Carrying a child for 9 months does indeed seem trivial compared to the lifetime of responsibility that comes with it for both man and woman.
In my eyes both the man and the woman have equal responsibility for the child, which means they will both be "equally burdened (Spelling?) by it"
A lifetime of responsibility compared to 9 months of being pregnant.
Ofcourse I'm assuming the father feels as responsible as he should. I'm not talking about deadbeat dads, fuck those.
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
With all due respect, would you liked to be considered justifiable to be murdered, if some big monster ate you and you lived in its belly. Would that give justification for other monsters to suck you out of the belly and break your vertebrae in a brutal manner.
Lmfao, I can't even parody how stupid this is. WELL, does it justify it??? HUH?? Bet you never thought of it this way guys!
THe difference between a trespasser and a baby in a womb is that the baby did not CHOOSE to violate the property rights of the mom, the mom herself chose that. Hence the claim that abortion is enforcement of womens property rights is incorrect, as a women herself demonstrated the preference of the baby having a right to living in her body, by the action of unprotected sex. This is crucial, because it is the CORE of the anti-life argument, and yet it is completely fallacious.
Instead of saying clump of cells can you actually specify what you are talking about so other people can understand? Is a 8 1\2 month old fetus a clump of cells? We honestly don't know what you are talking about.
I clarified what I ment after using that term even, read please.
You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman who's been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
I'm not a father, nor a woman.
Also wow your arguments are all over the place, making very little sense at all.
You think the difference between a woman's responsibility to her child, and a man's responsibility to his child is only seperated by the 9 months of carrying the child?
Carrying a child for 9 months does indeed seem trivial compared to the lifetime of responsibility that comes with it for both man and woman.
In my eyes both the man and the woman have equal responsibility for the child, which means they will both be "equally burdened (Spelling?) by it"
A lifetime of responsibility compared to 9 months of being pregnant.
Ofcourse I'm assuming the father feels as responsible as he should. I'm not talking about deadbeat dads, fuck those.
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
Women raising children is just a societal thing. Beyond being able to feed them fairly well by having the goods, (uneducated on issue) I think men statistically do just as well. The amount of labor required to provide child support demanded by courts is pretty hefty.
Instead of saying clump of cells can you actually specify what you are talking about so other people can understand? Is a 8 1\2 month old fetus a clump of cells? We honestly don't know what you are talking about.
I clarified what I ment after using that term even, read please.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
With all due respect, would you liked to be considered justifiable to be murdered, if some big monster ate you and you lived in its belly. Would that give justification for other monsters to suck you out of the belly and break your vertebrae in a brutal manner.
Lmfao, I can't even parody how stupid this is. WELL, does it justify it??? HUH?? Bet you never thought of it this way guys!
THe difference between a trespasser and a baby in a womb is that the baby did not CHOOSE to violate the property rights of the mom, the mom herself chose that. Hence the claim that abortion is enforcement of womens property rights is incorrect, as a women herself demonstrated the preference of the baby having a right to living in her body, by the action of unprotected sex. This is crucial, because it is the CORE of the anti-life argument, and yet it is completely fallacious.
You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
So you feel a mother is far more important than a father? I think that's biased and absolutely idiotic.
An unwanted childbirth is as fucked up for the man as it is for the woman. Again, only seperated by 9 months of carrying around a child.
Which by the way I'm told can be pretty awesome and isn't all horrific pain and suffering. :Edit: lol thought about pregnancy in general, clearly unwanted ones aren't awesome at all, haha
On April 28 2011 18:20 Frigo wrote: Either use proper protection and don't get pregnant in the first place, or carry it out and put up the baby for adoption. Abortion is a non-solution, and a rather creepy one, it should only be used under extreme circumstances like deformations, defects, disease, rape, you get the idea.
Wow... I can't even begin to say how pissed off you make me right now. And what, now people can choose which kids to keep anyway? Why should we let people abort kids with some kind of defect. I mean, they can still lead a wonderful and rich life. Why ruin that?
Proper protection... GAH! It pisses me off so. This stems from the same shit that says that girls can't have sex with anyone they want without being looked down upon or being called words like "slut". As if being a slut is a bad thing.
On April 28 2011 17:04 Aldehyde wrote: And yet again it's men talking about abortions, telling the women what they can and can't do. [...] To me, it's irrelevant if it's to kill something or not. It's all about the woman's choice. [...] Getting an abortion is probably the best for both the kid and the woman going through with it.
Arrogant statements to say the least. Does the father and the kid (fetus, whatever) not have any say in the matter? Despite the former having at least as much right to the kid as the mother, and the latter's chance to life being at stake? It is NOT solely the women's decision. Stop acting like it is.
Quite frankly, no. The father doesn't have any say in the matter. You're still acting like it's an easy choice for the woman. Don't, it makes you look so fucking ridiculously stupid.
Want to know something interesting? Legalizing abortion in the US lowered crime rates. But I don't know, must be a bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect I must admit that it can't be traced back to abortion being legalized exactly but it's quite the astonishing "coincidence".
And the most arrogant of them all, trying to justify it. Poverty is not solved by killing off the poor, what you are essentially suggesting. It is solved by giving them proper education, including about preventing unwanted pregnancies, access to protection, or a chance to emerge from poverty and to raise their offsprings under fair living conditions, without endlessly propagating the poverty they are living in.
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.
The mother that puts the child up for adoption is not necessarily poor so poverty has nothing to do with it.
To argue that the woman can't decide for herself? That's stupid.
Are we talking about the same woman who got pregnant without wanting to, "by accident"? Why yes, she demonstrated a heavy lack of responsibility and shown she is utterly incapable of correct decisions. She's stupid, indeed, and deserves no say in the matter when other rights, interests and opinions are in play. Especially since she made her decision when she got pregnant.
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?
"[...] made her decision when she got pregnant". Yeah, that's what she did. She obviously wanted to get pregnant then just changed her mind a few weeks later. That's it.
And even if that IS the case, LET HER CHANGE HER DAMN MIND!
By the way, it would be nice if I heard swedish people spewing anything else other than state-mandated "correct" opinions.
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.
If I was American, what would you say then? I bet if I was Canadian, I'd still be brainwashed.
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.
You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman who's been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
I'm not a father, nor a woman.
Also wow your arguments are all over the place, making very little sense at all.
You think the difference between a woman's responsibility to her child, and a man's responsibility to his child is only seperated by the 9 months of carrying the child?
Carrying a child for 9 months does indeed seem trivial compared to the lifetime of responsibility that comes with it for both man and woman.
In my eyes both the man and the woman have equal responsibility for the child, which means they will both be "equally burdened (Spelling?) by it"
A lifetime of responsibility compared to 9 months of being pregnant.
Ofcourse I'm assuming the father feels as responsible as he should. I'm not talking about deadbeat dads, fuck those.
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
You know I think 18 years of guidance, emotional and financial support is a major major part of a mans life. Hell if he isn't a shitty parent he might be providing guidance on important life decisions till his child is in their 30s and 40s, but hell that doesn't mean anything.
You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman who's been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
I'm not a father, nor a woman.
Also wow your arguments are all over the place, making very little sense at all.
You think the difference between a woman's responsibility to her child, and a man's responsibility to his child is only seperated by the 9 months of carrying the child?
Carrying a child for 9 months does indeed seem trivial compared to the lifetime of responsibility that comes with it for both man and woman.
In my eyes both the man and the woman have equal responsibility for the child, which means they will both be "equally burdened (Spelling?) by it"
A lifetime of responsibility compared to 9 months of being pregnant.
Ofcourse I'm assuming the father feels as responsible as he should. I'm not talking about deadbeat dads, fuck those.
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
Women raising children is just a societal thing. Beyond being able to feed them fairly well by having the goods, (uneducated on issue) I think men statistically do just as well. The amount of labor required to provide child support demanded by courts is pretty hefty.
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
You seem to base your entire argument around the fact that unwanted pregnancy = deadbeat dad who will leave and not care.
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?
"[...] made her decision when she got pregnant". Yeah, that's what she did. She obviously wanted to get pregnant then just changed her mind a few weeks later. That's it.
And even if that IS the case, LET HER CHANGE HER DAMN MIND!
Her changing her mind constitutes murder of the baby, as it violates the implicit transfer of property rights of the inside of the womb from woman to baby during conception
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
An unwanted childbirth is as fucked up for the man as it is for the woman. Again, only seperated by 9 months of carrying around a child.
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
An unwanted childbirth is as fucked up for the man as it is for the woman. Again, only seperated by 9 months of carrying around a child.
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
C-sections aren't illegal. Yes their are whole host of other things involved in pregnancy, but to dismiss a man role in raising a child as trivial is beyond stupid Yes I added some content, but you seem intent on saying that a Father has no role in a child's life, which is stupid. Personally in my 20s I still seek my dads advice on a lot more things than my moms. But apparently the only thing to take into consideration with regards to getting an abortion is the physical trauma of pregnancy. I would think that 18 years of being forced to care for, expected to provide emotional support, putting career aspirations on hold if your single and such would be a bigger concern that the pregnancy itself.
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
You seem to base your entire argument around the fact that unwanted pregnancy = deadbeat dad who will leave and not care.
Daddy issues? :/
It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
With all due respect, would you liked to be considered justifiable to be murdered, if some big monster ate you and you lived in its belly. Would that give justification for other monsters to suck you out of the belly and break your vertebrae in a brutal manner.
Lmfao, I can't even parody how stupid this is. WELL, does it justify it??? HUH?? Bet you never thought of it this way guys!
THe difference between a trespasser and a baby in a womb is that the baby did not CHOOSE to violate the property rights of the mom, the mom herself chose that. Hence the claim that abortion is enforcement of womens property rights is incorrect, as a women herself demonstrated the preference of the baby having a right to living in her body, by the action of unprotected sex. This is crucial, because it is the CORE of the anti-life argument, and yet it is completely fallacious.
You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
So please show the fallacies or false premises of the argument
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
An unwanted childbirth is as fucked up for the man as it is for the woman. Again, only seperated by 9 months of carrying around a child.
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
C-sections aren't illegal.
Oh wow thanks for this. I guess when someone wants an abortion I'll just say "C-sections aren't illegal", this makes sense. Thanks for your input, it's really equal just like the precious male is equal in bearing a child.
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
As I pointed out, a woman does have a veto right because of that.
However to completely cut the guy out of the equation is idiotic, and makes no sense at all.
Also, I didn't use these arguments to somehow give the guy more rights than the woman, I wasn't implying that a man can force a woman through childbirth unwillingly at all.
On second thought I realize I may have implied that after all, considering there are only 2 options.
I guess you should forget everything I posted towards you since I didn't think my side of the story through at all. Wow, I'm pretty amazed by how I was not thinking at all.
Wow
:Edit: I realize this looks very sarcastic, but I'm not. Clearly if a man disagrees with the woman in this specific case the woman's opinion is the one that will count the most obviously.
Agree to disagree? To be honest I've always hated people who use those kind of sentences, except when we're talking about something actually subjective, like taste in food or music.
I do not care what science says in this matter, for me the live of a child starts when egg meets sperm.. and an embryo is form.
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?
"[...] made her decision when she got pregnant". Yeah, that's what she did. She obviously wanted to get pregnant then just changed her mind a few weeks later. That's it.
And even if that IS the case, LET HER CHANGE HER DAMN MIND!
Her changing her mind constitutes murder of the baby, as it violates the implicit transfer of property rights of the inside of the womb from woman to baby during conception
Please tell me this isn't a serious argument. So she violated property rights of some cells? Please explain.
Agree to disagree? To be honest I've always hated people who use those kind of sentences, except when we're talking about something actually subjective, like taste in food or music.
I do not care what science says in this matter, for me the live of a child starts when egg meets sperm.. and an embryo is form.
Local priest told you that?
Again, imagining things and using them as arguments is not really how you should argue.
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: You're arguing that a man who breaks up with a pregnant woman should be allowed to force her to have the child? You think monetary child support is even on the same level as childbirth?
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
Its not her child, its theirs. A woman can't get pregnant without a male. So the choice should be 50/50 no matter what.
What if the woman had broken up with the male and just wants child support while she runs off to raise the kid with another man? Should the real father have no say?
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?
"[...] made her decision when she got pregnant". Yeah, that's what she did. She obviously wanted to get pregnant then just changed her mind a few weeks later. That's it.
And even if that IS the case, LET HER CHANGE HER DAMN MIND!
Her changing her mind constitutes murder of the baby, as it violates the implicit transfer of property rights of the inside of the womb from woman to baby during conception
Please tell me this isn't a serious argument. So she violated property rights of some cells? Please explain.
The premise is the concept of justifiability. In order for justice to have meaning, justice needs to be universal, otherwise it is simply arbitrary judgements(aka state laws, which are due to that an irrelevant concept for arguments about morality like abortions). And propertarian justice is the only possible system of justice. Hence, the violation of the property rights of the fetus constitutes an unjustifiable action.
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: You're arguing that a man who breaks up with a pregnant woman should be allowed to force her to have the child? You think monetary child support is even on the same level as childbirth?
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
Its not her child, its theirs. A woman can't get pregnant without a male. So the choice should be 50/50 no matter what.
What if the woman had broken up with the male and just wants child support while she runs off to raise the kid with another man? Should the real father have no say?
The thing is though, we're talking about abortion. Should the father have a say in that? I mean, imagine the man disagreeing with the woman, what should happen then? A woman should just go through pregnancy because the man doesn't want an abortion, and vice versa?
It actually makes no sense to say the father should have a say in abortion, because he simply cannot, unless he agrees.
The premise is the concept of justifiability. In order for justice to have meaning, justice needs to be universal, otherwise it is simply arbitrary judgements(aka state laws, which are due to that an irrelevant concept for arguments about morality like abortions). And propertarian justice is the only possible system of justice. Hence, the violation of the property rights of the fetus constitutes an unjustifiable action.
What makes you think the fetus has any rights at all? Also I don't really get why what you're saying is not arbitrary. Propertarian justice seems to be as much man-made as any of the other examples you're giving.
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: You're arguing that a man who breaks up with a pregnant woman should be allowed to force her to have the child? You think monetary child support is even on the same level as childbirth?
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
Its not her child, its theirs. A woman can't get pregnant without a male. So the choice should be 50/50 no matter what.
What if the woman had broken up with the male and just wants child support while she runs off to raise the kid with another man? Should the real father have no say?
A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
No.. Actually right know I do not follow any religion, but even if it was a local priest that did told me that? Was there a problem? For me live starts at that point. Because since that point, if there nothing is done, a baby will born. I do not care if the embryo does not think etc...
And although i am against abortion, that does not mean i think people shoudn't abort, its there decision.
What i do think is that both parents should make the decision together and not just the women. Normally it takes two poeple to make them, therefore it should take 2 people to make a decision.
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?
"[...] made her decision when she got pregnant". Yeah, that's what she did. She obviously wanted to get pregnant then just changed her mind a few weeks later. That's it.
And even if that IS the case, LET HER CHANGE HER DAMN MIND!
Her changing her mind constitutes murder of the baby, as it violates the implicit transfer of property rights of the inside of the womb from woman to baby during conception
Please tell me this isn't a serious argument. So she violated property rights of some cells? Please explain.
The premise is the concept of justifiability. In order for justice to have meaning, justice needs to be universal, otherwise it is simply arbitrary judgements(aka state laws, which are due to that an irrelevant concept for arguments about morality like abortions). And propertarian justice is the only possible system of justice. Hence, the violation of the property rights of the fetus constitutes an unjustifiable action.
You are ridiculous and have never known real injustice in your entire life. The 'property rights of the fetus' I can't even mock this it's so fucking stupid.
By me deciding to not use my penis for sex but for masturbation instead I effectively aborted a lot of potential lives
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
Yes there is.. but i guess the discussion between us is pointless, lets agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree? To be honest I've always hated people who use those kind of sentences, except when we're talking about something actually subjective, like taste in food or music.
Scientific evidence suggests the cells that get aborted are as alive as for example semen (Also known as: Not alive at all)
Surely I realize the whole problem with people against abortion is the potential. However once again I'd like to point out that my semen has the same potential right before having sex.
Deciding to put on a condom, or masturbating, both have the exact same effect as abortion. (The semen and egg don't get to grow to a point where a clump of cells actually starts to resemble a human being/something alive)
What's this scientific evidence? That just sounds like you're making things up. I mean a fetus grows has it's own unique dna and consumes energy. You can't just simply compare it to semen, semen is a delivery system for dna that's not growing into a multi-celled organism like a fertilized egg.
Humans develop overtime, a newborn baby's skeleton isn't fully formed, hell it takes us years before we can even reproduce and even longer for our brains to matured. I just think it's stupid to call something not alive just because it hasn't reached a certain state of development yet.
On April 28 2011 19:28 chickenhawk wrote: What i do think is that both parents should make the decision together and not just the women. Normally it takes two poeple to make them, therefore it should take 2 people to make a decision.
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?
By me deciding to not use my penis for sex but for masturbation instead I effectively aborted a lot of potential lives
The difference between masturbation and abortion is sex, just plain sex. There's no actual change in how "alive" the cells are.
Yes there is.. but i guess the discussion between us is pointless, lets agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree? To be honest I've always hated people who use those kind of sentences, except when we're talking about something actually subjective, like taste in food or music.
Scientific evidence suggests the cells that get aborted are as alive as for example semen (Also known as: Not alive at all)
Surely I realize the whole problem with people against abortion is the potential. However once again I'd like to point out that my semen has the same potential right before having sex.
Deciding to put on a condom, or masturbating, both have the exact same effect as abortion. (The semen and egg don't get to grow to a point where a clump of cells actually starts to resemble a human being/something alive)
What's this scientific evidence? That just sounds like you're making things up. I mean a fetus grows has it's own unique dna and consumes energy. You can't just simply compare it to semen, semen is a delivery system for dna that's not growing into a multi-celled organism like a fertilized egg.
Humans develop overtime, a newborn baby's skeleton isn't fully formed, hell it takes us years before we can even reproduce and even longer for our brains to matured. I just think it's stupid to call something not alive just because it hasn't reached a certain state of development yet.
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.
On April 28 2011 19:28 chickenhawk wrote: What i do think is that both parents should make the decision together and not just the women. Normally it takes two poeple to make them, therefore it should take 2 people to make a decision.
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?
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.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
As I and others have pointed out, it is not solely her decision, pointless to argue about it.
You know birth control doesn't prevent all pregnancies right? You have sex education in your schools etc?
There are numerous birth control methods with high rates of success (>99%), as well as emergency contraception. In today's modern world, you don't get pregnant unless you want to, or are incredibly stupid. Which one is you?
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
If only she had more sense than to fall in love with a man who would leave her as soon as she became pregnant, heh stupid women.
There is this thing called child support specifically invented to combat these cases, live with it. Unless of course the kid is not his. Otherwise kudos for being so incredibly stupid for trying to have kids with the inappropriate person at the inappropriate time.
Aborting the child is 'creepy' but raising the unwanted child is great
As I said in the goddamn first sentence of my post, put up the child for adoption if don't want to bother with it. There are lot of options, some with no questions asked.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
What's this scientific evidence? That just sounds like you're making things up. I mean a fetus grows has it's own unique dna and consumes energy. You can't just simply compare it to semen, semen is a delivery system for dna that's not growing into a multi-celled organism like a fertilized egg.
Humans develop overtime, a newborn baby's skeleton isn't fully formed, hell it takes us years before we can even reproduce and even longer for our brains to matured. I just think it's stupid to call something not alive just because it hasn't reached a certain state of development yet.
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)
On April 28 2011 19:05 xarthaz wrote: THe difference between a trespasser and a baby in a womb is that the baby did not CHOOSE to violate the property rights of the mom, the mom herself chose that. Hence the claim that abortion is enforcement of womens property rights is incorrect, as a women herself demonstrated the preference of the baby having a right to living in her body, by the action of unprotected sex. This is crucial, because it is the CORE of the anti-life argument, and yet it is completely fallacious.
No form of birth control is 100% effective, you need to stop talking.
Nobody has ever said that people have a property right in their own body. That isn't stated anywhere in the constitution and no Supreme Court decision has ever come close to ruling to that effect (Not in Roe v. Wade, and fyi you don't even have property rights to your own genes or other body parts, see Moore v. Regents of Uni of California, which expressly rejected the concept of property rights to body).
I don't even know where you're trying to go with your argument.
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
Nobody else is insulating that women are retarded and deserve less rights than a male, only you are. Stop trying to demonize people on a forum by adding derogatory remarks to their words so it sounds as if they want to return to the middle ages, it isn't conductive to meaningful discussion.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
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 .
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
Nobody else is insulating that women are retarded and deserve less rights than a male, only you are. Stop trying to demonize people on a forum by adding derogatory remarks to their words so it sounds as if they want to return to the middle ages, it isn't conductive to meaningful discussion.
The language he used was clearly misogynistic and placed the blame of pregnancy on the woman. Maybe he looked like an intelligent and rational debater to American standards, but over here he looks fucking reprehensible. Sorry if this hurts your precious little feelings, expendable male #21415986
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
Nobody else is insulating that women are retarded and deserve less rights than a male, only you are. Stop trying to demonize people on a forum by adding derogatory remarks to their words so it sounds as if they want to return to the middle ages, it isn't conductive to meaningful discussion.
If men got pregnant instead of women, this discussion wouldn't happen. I am completely sure of that.
Yes you do? I dont know what to say, lots of people get pregnant by accident, you cant deny that. Even if you take every precaution you can it still has a chance of happening. Dont deny facts.
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
Nobody else is insulating that women are retarded and deserve less rights than a male, only you are. Stop trying to demonize people on a forum by adding derogatory remarks to their words so it sounds as if they want to return to the middle ages, it isn't conductive to meaningful discussion.
If men got pregnant instead of women, this discussion wouldn't happen. I am completely sure of that.
CORRECT. If both parties could get pregnant, and could decide which one got pregnant then it would be 50/50.
On April 28 2011 19:38 Frigo wrote: As I and others have pointed out, it is not solely her decision, pointless to argue about it.
Yes it is. The reason is the dad could skip town, and it would be a waste of medical and state resources to track every single abortion request to determine whether there was a father who wanted to contribute to the decision.
There are numerous birth control methods with high rates of success (>99%), as well as emergency contraception. In today's modern world, you don't get pregnant unless you want to, or are incredibly stupid. Which one is you?
Emergency contraception is biochemically-induced abortion. You fail, so very very hard.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Neither is $400. Shut up.
There is this thing called child support specifically invented to combat these cases, live with it. Unless of course the kid is not his. Otherwise kudos for being so incredibly stupid for trying to have kids with the inappropriate person at the inappropriate time.
Your point is irrelevant because fathers cannot force their fetus' momma to get an abortion.
As I said in the goddamn first sentence of my post, put up the child for adoption if don't want to bother with it. There are lot of options, some with no questions asked.
The biggest adoption demands are for caucasian babies. Do you think the majority of abortions are given to white women? You can't just 'give the child up for adoption'. What if nobody wants it? it is preferable to burden the state to raise a kid, or preferable for the state to fund a clothes hanger.
I mean just take a step back and look at the inherent hypocrisy of your argument. On one hand, you say woman should live with their decision and accept responsibility (what about the dad? takes two to make a baby, but the mother is usually the one carrying the burden in these types of cases), and then on the other hand you say "just give it up for adoption" (thereby passing responsibility to someone else). Which is it? Pick a stance and be consistent.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
None of that matters. If a woman decides she doesn't want a kid, finds out she is pregnant, go get rid of it. I personally couldn't care less the reasons or events leading up to the circumstance.
None of that matters. If a woman decides she doesn't want a kid, finds out she is pregnant, go get rid of it. I personally couldn't care less the reasons or events leading up to the circumstance.
A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
Just because you wouldn't, doesn't mean 100% of women wouldn't. Yes a man can't get pregnant so he should have absolutely no say at all? It still takes 2 people to get pregnant.
I dont see why women complain about having to get pregnant, if you dont want kids, dont have them and stop complaining. If you want them, dont complain about having some pain, cravings, and people doing what you ask. If you did get pregnant and dont want the kid, i say abortion.
On April 28 2011 19:49 Deadlyfish wrote: @Frigo - "you dont get pregnant by accident"?
Yes you do? I dont know what to say, lots of people get pregnant by accident, you cant deny that. Even if you take every precaution you can it still has a chance of happening. Dont deny facts.
Actually, Frigo is a male who swears a lot in his language so his opinon is really important. He clearly understands the mental and physical pains of pregnancy and childbirth just as much as a pregnant woman does, as well as the situations leading up to pregnancy, aka some unthinking dumb slut doesn't use a condom (?!?) and gets herself pregnant, so she deserves it, serves her right.
Everyone in all nations has great sex education obviously, there's definitely no misunderstanding of what it takes to avoid being pregnant even in first world nations.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
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.
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?
What's this scientific evidence? That just sounds like you're making things up. I mean a fetus grows has it's own unique dna and consumes energy. You can't just simply compare it to semen, semen is a delivery system for dna that's not growing into a multi-celled organism like a fertilized egg.
Humans develop overtime, a newborn baby's skeleton isn't fully formed, hell it takes us years before we can even reproduce and even longer for our brains to matured. I just think it's stupid to call something not alive just because it hasn't reached a certain state of development yet.
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.
20 weeks is still a lot. Here in Germany the limit for legal abortion is 12 weeks and you have to visit abortion counselling first. I see no reason why this is not sufficient time.
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.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
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.
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.
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
Nobody else is insulating that women are retarded and deserve less rights than a male, only you are. Stop trying to demonize people on a forum by adding derogatory remarks to their words so it sounds as if they want to return to the middle ages, it isn't conductive to meaningful discussion.
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.
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.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
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.
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.
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
Nobody else is insulating that women are retarded and deserve less rights than a male, only you are. Stop trying to demonize people on a forum by adding derogatory remarks to their words so it sounds as if they want to return to the middle ages, it isn't conductive to meaningful discussion.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
The rest of your post is full of pig headed arguments blaming the woman for getting herself pregnant, that little slut.
You don't get pregnant by accident. Your actions have consequences, get used to it. Nine months of pregnancy and nursing ain't a big price to pay after you are being a retard and fail to apply proper birth control methods and don't live with the opportunity of emergency contraception.
Agreed, as I said that little fucking slut deserves what she has coming, haha 9 months of pregnancy cry me a river, am I right? If that stupid fucking woman gets herself pregnant then BIG DEAL, who cares it's not a big price to pay as you said. God I hate these fucking retarded women, if only they had the insight of a privileged and insulated first world male.
Nobody else is insulating that women are retarded and deserve less rights than a male, only you are. Stop trying to demonize people on a forum by adding derogatory remarks to their words so it sounds as if they want to return to the middle ages, it isn't conductive to meaningful discussion.
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.
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 20:08 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?
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.
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.
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.
Not to mention the bullshit about it causing infertility.
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.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
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.
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".
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).
If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility? It seems to me, that it is not just for a man to be fully liable for the choices of a woman.
Whilst a foetus is still a parasite leeching off of another body, it should have zero rights. 1 week, or 52 weeks, it doesn't matter. Once it's popped out, then whatever. But even then, I'd go as far to say it isn't a human until it is is self-aware.
Do you know what Modernity stands for? Who Locke was... It's pretty dumb to see people that refuse that each individual is the only one owner of his body... And it's silly to argue that what is happening in one's body doesn't belong to this person.
Of course you can say that every philosophical stance taken since the 17th is terrible and that we should come back to the ancients...
Then the mother should have closed her damn legs. The baby has no say in this, and that is wrong. Just watch one of you is going to get a dictionary term and prove it's not a baby somehow, lmfao.
On April 28 2011 21:00 Kanin wrote: Whilst a foetus is still a parasite leeching off of another body, it should have zero rights. 1 week, or 52 weeks, it doesn't matter. Once it's popped out, then whatever. But even then, I'd go as far to say it isn't a human until it is is self-aware.
And let me repeat myself, being incredibly stupid, having unprotected sex, not using proper birth control, not using emergency contraception, nine months of "inconvenience" - neither of these contribute positively to your "right" to terminate fetuses.
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.
This whole post is wishy washy garbage, just so you know. No points here are new or challenging to my viewpoint. In fact you seem to be strongly in favor of my side by recognising how damaging illegalising abortion is. Also, you should check out your language in your little pro abortion rant, you blame the woman for having 'unwise' sex and forgetting to remind the Noble man who can do no wrong to wear protection.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
Do you know what Modernity stands for? Who Locke was... It's pretty dumb to see people that refuse that each individual is the only one owner of his body... And it's silly to argue that what is happening in one's body doesn't belong to this person.
Of course you can say that every philosophical stance taken since the 17th is terrible and that we should come back to the ancients...
Then the mother should have closed her damn legs. The baby has no say in this, and that is wrong. Just watch one of you is going to get a dictionary term and prove it's not a baby somehow, lmfao.
On April 28 2011 21:00 Kanin wrote: Whilst a foetus is still a parasite leeching off of another body, it should have zero rights. 1 week, or 52 weeks, it doesn't matter. Once it's popped out, then whatever. But even then, I'd go as far to say it isn't a human until it is is self-aware.
wow... just wow.
You are fucking disgraceful. "Then the mother should have closed her damn legs" Quick to blame the female, aren't you? Funny that some guy whines at me for calling people misogynists . I guess it's her fault for not being ready for pregnancy, or her fault that the father leaves her or something? Her fault that the fetus has crippling disabilities as well?
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
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?
So you're saying that I can't have an opinion if I can't prove it? If you say something ridiculous that I can't prove wrong, fine, I'll acknowledge it as a valid opinion. It's not a fact, and I don't have to take it into consideration, but I'm still going to consider it, however briefly. On the other hand, you're saying that unless it's a proven fact, you're not going to consider it true.
A lot of people who are against abortions are not necessarily religious, just as there are many Catholics who disagree with the churches views on abortion and contraception. Stop trying to demonize religion as the root cause of peoples views that you don't agree with.
The vast majority of them is. All those piles and piles of money that go into pro-life groups is all drenched in holy water.
Not all anti-abortion people are religious but the vast majority of them is and the entire driving force behind the movement would fall away if religion stopped backing it with the green.
Nobody has said that all anti-abortion people are religious but to pretend like it's 50/50 or that religion has a neglible influence on the movement is just outright deceitfull. The anti-abortion movement exists by the grace of organized religion, wether you like that or not.
But wether your ideas come from a boring fantasy/rape novel or from your own mind it doesn't change much. Demanding other people live by your moral standards isn't a noble thing to do. This subject is controversial enough to have two split sides so to each his own.
You can go through life never having an abortion or i suppose forcing your girlfriend/wife to have a child she doesn't want whilst the other half can still have the option. Too each his own. If you don't wanna hurt animals don't eat meat but don't go and make laws that other people shouldn't eat meat.
Living by your own morals should be enough, you shouldn't seek validation by forcing others to live your view of what is right. That is what pro-choice is, everyone gets to live as they like. There is only one side that demands everyone adapt to their way and abolish the choice.
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?
So you're saying that I can't have an opinion if I can't prove it? If you say something ridiculous that I can't prove wrong, fine, I'll acknowledge it as a valid opinion. It's not a fact, and I don't have to take it into consideration, but I'm still going to consider it, however briefly. On the other hand, you're saying that unless it's a proven fact, you're not going to consider it true.
Fine. Prove this: Life is worth living.
What are you even talking about at this point? You think this garbage is relevent to abortion, and the ridiculous superstition that surrounds the fetus?
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?
So you're saying that I can't have an opinion if I can't prove it? If you say something ridiculous that I can't prove wrong, fine, I'll acknowledge it as a valid opinion. It's not a fact, and I don't have to take it into consideration, but I'm still going to consider it, however briefly. On the other hand, you're saying that unless it's a proven fact, you're not going to consider it true.
Fine. Prove this: Life is worth living.
What are you even talking about at this point? You think this garbage is relevent to abortion, and the ridiculous superstition that surrounds the fetus?
It's relevant to your argument of "human life has no value, there is no such thing as souls."
On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote: If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child .
Thanks for responding to the question, mate.
...
Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.
Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible .
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
I'm challenging opinions, I'm sorry if this makes your little brain hurt because the nasty man said you were wrong. It's got a good side effect of annoying sensitive people, which makes them say flat out monstrous things like:
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing.
Thanks for showing your true colors
Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the little frustrations you feel over an internet message board are nothing compared to the physical and mental pain of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, something you are completely insulated from
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
There are always two sides to "freedom", because it only can go so far. We all live in a society which has its own cultures and what is considered to be "murder" in one society is considered "women's rights" in others. The society has to decide where it stands on the scale between those two extremes, but I think we have gone too far into the direction of "individual freedom" in the last 40-50 years, because individuality ultimately teaches us to become selfish and egoistical, which are the primary reasons why we have so many bad things happening to us which are man-made.
"Women's rights" is also an artificial construction ... depending upon the cutlure of the nation.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
I'm challenging opinions, I'm sorry if this makes your little brain hurt because the nasty man said you were wrong. It's got a good side effect of annoying sensitive people, which makes them say flat out monstrous things like:
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing.
Thanks for showing your true colors
What colours was I hiding? (proclamation voice) I SHALL NOW ANNOUNCE, I AM PRO LIFE. I do not support killing a baby, life according to the subjective meaning of the word. I believe that any woman who is making a decision of such weight should see the consequences of her actions in the most effective way possible in order to ensure she has considered everything in making an informed decision. So be it.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
There are always two sides to "freedom", because it only can go so far. We all live in a society which has its own cultures and what is considered to be "murder" in one society is considered "women's rights" in others. The society has to decide where it stands on the scale between those two extremes, but I think we have gone too far into the direction of "individual freedom" in the last 40-50 years, because individuality ultimately teaches us to become selfish and egoistical, which are the primary reasons why we have so many bad things happening to us which are man-made.
"Women's rights" is also an artificial construction ... depending upon the cutlure of the nation.
Yeah the last 40-50 years are a nightmare due to individual rights, I mean think of the good old days prior to 1961, so many happy memories with regards to healthcare, wars and politics. Back then women knew their place, and these uppity guys on the internet wouldn't be talking about "women's rights", which is clearly some artifical construction with no basis in the real world.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
On April 28 2011 21:01 Maxwell3 wrote: Then the mother should have closed her damn legs. The baby has no say in this, and that is wrong.
It's in human nature to enjoy sex, and that alone is the reason why most sexual encounters even happen.
As long as there are means to prevent and resolve unpleasant consequences (and modern medicine provides those means), I can't see the reason anybody should close her "damn" legs if she doesn't want to. The only real concern here are health issues for the people involved in the sexual act.
Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the little frustrations you feel over an internet message board are nothing compared to the physical and mental pain of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, something you are completely insulated from
Those pains are nothing compared to the physical, mental and financial pains, as well as the investment of time I would go through to raise that child should the woman not want it. This is why I think men should have a choice in this matter.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
I'm challenging opinions, I'm sorry if this makes your little brain hurt because the nasty man said you were wrong. It's got a good side effect of annoying sensitive people, which makes them say flat out monstrous things like:
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing.
Thanks for showing your true colors
What colours was I hiding? (proclamation voice) I SHALL NOW ANNOUNCE, I AM PRO LIFE. I do not support killing a baby, life according to the subjective meaning of the word. I believe that any woman who is making a decision of such weight should see the consequences of her actions in the most effective way possible in order to ensure she has considered everything in making an informed decision. So be it.
Misogyny, you know, forcing a woman through a humiliating, inhumane, expensive and unnecessary ritual procedure in order to perform an abortion? Not out of need, but because you think it makes sense, so it must be the right.
On April 28 2011 19:48 scouting overlord wrote: The language he used was clearly misogynistic and placed the blame of pregnancy on the woman.
Oh no not at all. It takes two retards to produce a kid. But thanks to advances in medical technology and the legal system, the father is prevented from running away from responsibility, whereas the mother is essentially encouraged to force a large part of the burden on the father, or simply terminate the problem, lest she be inconvenienced for nine months. And thus the focus is on the latter, quite understandably. If you think the criticism of the enormous double standards surrounding the issue amount to misogyny, then be it, I'm a misogynist. Oh, a male with an opinion, how repugnant!
Sorry if this hurts your precious little feelings, expendable male #21415986
No problem. But in the future when the world and your country is overpopulated, and your single functionality loses all of its significance, making you more useless and expendable than trash, please, please, remember me
Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the little frustrations you feel over an internet message board are nothing compared to the physical and mental pain of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, something you are completely insulated from
Those pains are nothing compared to the physical, mental and financial pains, as well as the investment of time I would go through to raise that child should the woman not want it. This is why I think men should have a choice in this matter.
Hahah you're arguing that pregnancy and childbirth is harder on the man, and that the man is effected as much, if not more than the woman. I don't think you're at any risk of having a child yet, don't worry about your precious 'finances' .
Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the little frustrations you feel over an internet message board are nothing compared to the physical and mental pain of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, something you are completely insulated from
Those pains are nothing compared to the physical, mental and financial pains, as well as the investment of time I would go through to raise that child should the woman not want it. This is why I think men should have a choice in this matter.
Hahah you're arguing that pregnancy and childbirth is harder on the man, and that the man is effected as much, if not more than the woman. I don't think you're at any risk of having a child yet, don't worry about your precious 'finances' .
What are you talking about? I'm talking about the 18 or so years where you are legally entitled to provide for that child. Read the post before rushing to trash it.
On April 28 2011 19:48 scouting overlord wrote: The language he used was clearly misogynistic and placed the blame of pregnancy on the woman.
Oh no not at all. It takes two retards to produce a kid. But thanks to advances in medical technology and the legal system, the father is prevented from running away from responsibility, whereas the mother is essentially encouraged to force a large part of the burden on the father, or simply terminate the problem, lest she be inconvenienced for nine months. And thus the focus is on the latter, quite understandably. If you think the criticism of the enormous double standards surrounding the issue amount to misogyny, then be it, I'm a misogynist. Oh, a male with a worldview and an opinion, how repugnant!
Sorry if this hurts your precious little feelings, expendable male #21415986
No problem. But in the future when the world and your country is overpopulated, and your single functionality loses all of its significance, making you more useless and expendable than trash, please, please, remember me
"Inconvenienced for 9 months". That's what you think pregnancy is, an inconvenience. You think a small % of monetary value is a 'large burden' of child bearing. I don't even need to say anything to prove how stupid your opinions are.
There are no double standards regarding the 'issue' other than the ones in your head.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
When it's born and the umbilical cord is cut you 'very special snowflake'. You know, when the female body naturally gives birth and the now vestigial connection between bodies is cut?
Edit: it's nice to see you just ramble in thought though, it shows how disconnected you are from the reality of abortion or women's rights in general
Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
When it's born and the umbilical cord is cut you 'very special snowflake'. You know, when the female body naturally gives birth and the now vestigial connection between bodies is cut?
And so you have no problem with abortions a very short time before birth (as in less than one week), because they're not a person, right? It doesn't matter because they haven't been born yet, right?
Also, what the hell is the 'very special snowflake' for? It's just condescending. Quit being an asshole and act like you're equal to other humans for once.
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
Wow, i love this kind of argument. Let me see if i understand how this works: You take what the other person wrote wrote, add a lot of stuff they never mentioned and then tell them what the consequences will be of what they (never) wrote. Nice.
In all seriousness in modern societies we use ethics to determine this. The limit for abortions in many countries is set before the fetus is believed to become a person. To determine this we use this thing called science.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
When it's born and the umbilical cord is cut you 'very special snowflake'. You know, when the female body naturally gives birth and the now vestigial connection between bodies is cut?
And so you have no problem with abortions a very short time before birth (as in less than one week), because they're not a person, right? It doesn't matter because they haven't been born yet, right?
Also, what the hell is the 'very special snowflake' for? It's just condescending. Quit being an asshole and act like you're equal to other humans for once.
It's a euphemism friend.
My opinions regarding week before birth abortions don't matter, as week before abortions aren't being discussed by anyone in this thread, or Indiana .
On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote: If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child .
Thanks for responding to the question, mate.
...
Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.
Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible .
Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of:
women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*).
men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave.
Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point.
*children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
a baby is a baby when you could remove it from the womb, and with current medical technology it has a reasonable chance to survive. at that point, like everyone else it can be considered a person. before that a baby is no different from a cancer or a parasite.
On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote: If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child .
Thanks for responding to the question, mate.
...
Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.
Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible .
Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of:
women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*).
men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave.
Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point.
*children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers.
"Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. "
Never said this, not even hinted at it . It's almost like you have some kind of unconscious bias, how strange.
"I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility."
This is fucking disgusting, the poor man and his precious ~wedlock~. Marriage was historically used to oppress women in society, just a heads up.
"men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave."
At this point you're so crazy I don't need to say anything. Those poor, poor single men, when will they ever get a break?
The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
On April 28 2011 21:44 MagmaRam wrote: And so you have no problem with abortions a very short time before birth (as in less than one week), because they're not a person, right? It doesn't matter because they haven't been born yet, right?
I would personally be fine with that if it wouldn't have any serious health consequences for the mother.
Birth signifies the key difference between being a part of mother's own body and being an autonomous, living human being. A mother can do anything she wants with her body that would make her feel better or easier. You can't force a person to accept pain and burden of pregnancy or responsibility for a child (once it is actually born) that they don't want.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
Wow, i love this kind of argument. Let me see if i understand how this works: You take what the other person wrote wrote, add a lot of stuff they never mentioned and then tell them what the consequences will be of what they (never) wrote. Nice.
In all seriousness in modern societies we use ethics to determine this. The limit for abortions in many countries is set before the fetus is believed to become a person. To determine this we use this thing called science.
According to you, the cells "[do] not add up to a person." So when do they add up to a person? How do you define person? I define it as a living human being, human meaning any living thing of the species Homo Sapiens, as determined by their state when fully developed. This would make (according to my definition) a fetus human. I don't know if your definition is different, tell me if it is. I just want to know what makes birth the point where they can be considered a person. Independence? A baby still needs to be provided for, which is in most cases for mammals (which humans are) by breastfeeding. It's still depending on its mother, or at least somebody to provide for it. That doesn't seem like independence to me.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
lol, I want you alive. And I agree about the rape thing, although I'll admit, there was a movie (in religion class, yes, now we must discount the story >_<) I saw about a woman who was conceived through rape, and the mother carried her to birth and gave her up for an adoption. That woman went on to advocate for protecting the lives of the fetuses in those situations. Both the mother and the child were pretty outstanding people in my opinion.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
stop, really. just stop. no one wants you to be dead, no one wants to kill babies.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
stop, really. just stop. no one wants you to be dead, no one wants to kill babies.
It's a very popular 'argument' in the States that you want to kill babies, and/or them. It never sounds any less stupid, trust me.
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
stop, really. just stop. no one wants you to be dead, no one wants to kill babies.
It's a very popular 'argument' in the States that you want to kill babies, and/or them. It never sounds any less stupid, trust me.
I was going to comment on it, but thanks for doing it for me - is that REALLY what you have to discuss against in the states?
On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote: If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child .
Thanks for responding to the question, mate.
...
Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.
Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible .
Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of:
women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*).
men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave.
Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point.
*children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers.
"Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. "
Never said this, not even hinted at it . It's almost like you have some kind of unconscious bias, how strange.
"I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility."
This is fucking disgusting, the poor man and his precious ~wedlock~. Marriage was historically used to oppress women in society, just a heads up.
"men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave."
At this point you're so crazy I don't need to say anything. Those poor, poor single men, when will they ever get a break?
Congratulations for proving yourself to be a quote mining troll. GG?
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
I read through the thread and you are arguing with NO ONE. No one here is wishing for the death of a person out of the womb. The question is WHEN do you consider a child a person? There's no science that can teach us that, it's different from one person to the next.
When did you become a person? Was it when your parents decided to fuck? If so, does not fucking equal "killing babies"? Was it when the sperm reached the egg? Would you consider it "killing babies" if someone used an "acute birth control pill" (eh, English word for it? The ones used the days after conception) to flush the round clump of cells out of their system?
On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote: If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child .
Thanks for responding to the question, mate.
...
Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.
Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible .
Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of:
women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*).
men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave.
Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point.
*children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers.
"Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. "
Never said this, not even hinted at it . It's almost like you have some kind of unconscious bias, how strange.
"I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility."
This is fucking disgusting, the poor man and his precious ~wedlock~. Marriage was historically used to oppress women in society, just a heads up.
"men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave."
At this point you're so crazy I don't need to say anything. Those poor, poor single men, when will they ever get a break?
Congratulations for proving yourself to be a quote mining troll. GG?
Uh, I quoted exactly what you said, and preserved exactly what you meant by each point? I'm not twisting your words in any way, simply articulating them in a more real fashion. This isn't "quote mining", especially in such a small amount of text. I even quoted the whole thing at first, so people can see it in context. You are very sensitive
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
Estimates for the United states are between 11-17/100000 or about .0002% of women die in childbirth, lets not exaggerate.
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
Estimates for the United states are between 11-17/100000 or about .0002% of women die in childbirth, lets not exaggerate.
Ah the United States is the whole world, gotcha. Thanks for this addition friend.
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
Estimates for the United states are between 11-17/100000 or about .0002% of women die in childbirth, lets not exaggerate.
Ah the United States is the whole world, gotcha. Thanks for this addition friend.
Which developed (so that we have the effect of "the modern day and age") country are you thinking of where "many women die in the procedure"?
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
Estimates for the United states are between 11-17/100000 or about .0002% of women die in childbirth, lets not exaggerate.
Ah the United States is the whole world, gotcha. Thanks for this addition friend.
The pain has nothing to do with the women dying >_> The reason why women die whilst giving birth is due to a rapture of the uterus which results in a MASSIVE bleeding. Seriously, has anyone here read anything more complex than "the flower and the honeybee" regarding pregnancy?
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
Estimates for the United states are between 11-17/100000 or about .0002% of women die in childbirth, lets not exaggerate.
Ah the United States is the whole world, gotcha. Thanks for this addition friend.
This law is for Indiana, a state in the United States. The third world seems irrelevant in this discussion? Please explain how it is relevant, enlighten us. You specifically mention modern health care.
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
Wtf? Maternal death during child birth is extremely rare in developed countries, with 20 deaths per 100,000 live births.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want the child, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
I was one of those babies too but I still support a right to abortion. If I'd been aborted then I wouldn't be here to be pissed off about it so I don't see what difference it makes. It would also have saved me the bother of actually experiencing death too, which I can't say I'm looking forward to -_-
I mention the modern age in respect to all nations and women worldwide in the globalised modern world. The point I was making was off-topic to the Indiana bill discussion, and was about the effects of childbirth on the woman, as the person I quoted referred to it as 10hours of casual reading or something. I'm sorry if this detracted from the discussion of the Indiana bill, it's just this thread has been about bigger issues for the last few pages, of which the Indiana bill is a small part of.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
lol, I want you alive. And I agree about the rape thing, although I'll admit, there was a movie (in religion class, yes, now we must discount the story >_<) I saw about a woman who was conceived through rape, and the mother carried her to birth and gave her up for an adoption. That woman went on to advocate for protecting the lives of the fetuses in those situations. Both the mother and the child were pretty outstanding people in my opinion.
Precisely - we wouldn't be reading ANY of this Tl-ers posts. ANY. If his mother went for an abortion. He would've just been wiped off the face of the earth. Is his mother proud of having him as a son? Yes. Did he bring joy into her life? Yes (And also grief mind you, when he's going through his teenage years ^^)
Point is, abortion isn't a simple topic of science. It is a complex issue which has LONG-TERM consequences for everyone involved. A good documentary to watch documenting both sides of the issue, would be on the Yugoslavian wars and how the Serbian military systematically raped thousands of Bosnian woman day and night for 4 months, making sure that every one had conceived and gotten a giant belly before letting them go. It is not even near the most depraved of human acts, but it's pretty bad aye.
The documentary interviews a Bosnian woman, who underwent that experience. Guess what - her young son of 8 years old is in it as well. She concludes that she is both traumatised by her experiences, yet loves her Son dearly and felt he is the greatest blessing to her life.
Very complex issue which is just really really hard. I feel for politicians @_@
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation. Even then, I'd probably still have the baby and give it up, although that is coming from a man who isn't going to be having any babies, so there is my bias.
On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator.
Besides that - 1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values.
2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T)
3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case!
if your not trolling, then you should understand that no one is going to take you seriously when you use "God" as the basis for your arguments.
Interesting. Seeing that only ~5% of post-modern Western society is Bible-believing and bible-practicing Christians, of course a lot of people aren't going to take me seriously. Am I trolling? No. Jesus is coming back and I speak that in truth. When? I don't know and I don't need to speculate. There's plenty of harvest out there that Christians need to go out and work for, such that trolling on internet forums is definitely not going to bring honour to God. I'm not trolling, I'm just stating the Christian opinion on the matter at hand.
Now there's 7500+ active TL-ers, so assuming TL-ers adhere to some sort of normal distribution, I'd expect +/- 375 TL-ers to be followers of Christ. Then again, a gaming forum with many worshiping strong atheists such as IdrA may hint at an even lower proportion of Christians. Who knows. Point being - I'm not trolling, but stating what I believe about the matter at hand.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
Given I have a friend who was born prior to 6 months, incredibly prematurely, but due to current medicine, is now 26 years old, healthy, and a blast to hang out with, I'd have to say that after 20 weeks seems a little late for an abortion.
I'm not pro-life, but I'm all for abortion being more fully regulated (in most of the USA, the regulation isn't up to typical medical standards, or even close, including discussion of potential side effects.)
I also don't think abortion should be legal once the baby can reasonably survive outside the womb. At that point, you're killing an infant.
On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote: If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child .
Thanks for responding to the question, mate.
...
Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.
Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible .
Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of:
women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*).
men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave.
Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point.
*children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers.
"Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. "
Never said this, not even hinted at it . It's almost like you have some kind of unconscious bias, how strange.
"I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility."
This is fucking disgusting, the poor man and his precious ~wedlock~. Marriage was historically used to oppress women in society, just a heads up.
"men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave."
At this point you're so crazy I don't need to say anything. Those poor, poor single men, when will they ever get a break?
Congratulations for proving yourself to be a quote mining troll. GG?
Uh, I quoted exactly what you said, and preserved exactly what you meant by each point? I'm not twisting your words in any way, simply articulating them in a more real fashion. This isn't "quote mining", especially in such a small amount of text. I even quoted the whole thing at first, so people can see it in context. You are very sensitive
Uh, no? You respond to 3 quotes, each pulled out of the context of the argument. That is the very definition of quote mining. In addition, you do not actually provide a counter argument, but merely make wild assertions.
Your 3 points: thank you for admitting that women should bear fiscal responsibility for something which is solely HER decision.
"You are a monster that wants to make women slaves." (Yeah, i do, i want a harem of 816 models, tyvm)
"You are a lunatic. Child support is a pittance" This last is false, as a) I'm quite sane, and b) child support is usually more than 50% of after tax income.
I do think that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. However, at the point when a fetus can be removed and live on its own there is no reason to kill it. Partial birth abortions are murder in my opinion.
Edit: in a situation where there is some severe deformation or genetic abnormality or some other similar circumstance, I'm fine with it. I am referring to perfectly healthy fetus's that pose no danger to the mother.
Warning this spoiler contains a graphic description of exactly what a partial birth abortion is. I think you'll see why I have a problem with it.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote: I do think that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. However, at the point when a fetus can be removed and live on its own there is no reason to kill it. Partial birth abortions are murder in my opinion.
Warning this spoiler contains a graphic description of exactly what a partial birth abortion is. I think you'll see why I have a problem with it.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Bro you just turned me off Obstetrics... although only 2 people in Queensland, Australia are licensed to do Abortions... and most abortions in Australia are only sanctioned before the 3rd trimester.
I'm pro-abortion, but as many have said, the matter is not black and white on when it should be disallowed. 20 weeks is quite a long time in my eyes, so I don't see this law as a big deal. It's 18 weeks here in Sweden, and I may be wrong but I believe Sweden is often mentioned as one of the least religious states as well as being better than most states regarding gender equality (though far from full equality).
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote: There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
Jibba, I normally love your posts but this one just tries to hard too be sensationalist "anti-choice pro-deather" etc. Some interesting points, but I can't really agree with not allowing a mother choose, no matter how hard people yell about it..
On April 28 2011 22:31 JingleHell wrote: Given I have a friend who was born prior to 6 months, incredibly prematurely, but due to current medicine, is now 26 years old, healthy, and a blast to hang out with, I'd have to say that after 20 weeks seems a little late for an abortion.
I'm not pro-life, but I'm all for abortion being more fully regulated (in most of the USA, the regulation isn't up to typical medical standards, or even close, including discussion of potential side effects.)
I also don't think abortion should be legal once the baby can reasonably survive outside the womb. At that point, you're killing an infant.
The last time I saw some figures (3 months ago when we had a prof. from the neonatal department holding a lecture) it was like this:
Week 23: case-basis: i.e. one in a blue moon. Week 24: 7% Week 25: @ 50% Week 27: >90%
On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote: I do think that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. However, at the point when a fetus can be removed and live on its own there is no reason to kill it. Partial birth abortions are murder in my opinion.
Warning this spoiler contains a graphic description of exactly what a partial birth abortion is. I think you'll see why I have a problem with it.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
I didn't know that is how they performed a partial birth abortion. I'm speechless.
there are good reasons for an abortion past the 20th week (eg health issues to fetus and mother). by denying that the goverment doesnt fullfill their responsability towards their citicens IMO.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation.
You mean you would understand her decision to murder a child? Because according to you, that's what abortion is. If we're talking about murder though, I can't see how that situation would justify killing a person - it's not self defense, the "person" in question is a product of the situation but didn't cause it, and is completely defenseless. The woman would be punishing the child for the crime somebody else (the father) committed, seems awfully unfair to me. But still you understand it.
I mean, *I* understand it myself, but I only understand it because I don't see it as a murder in the first place. How can YOU understand it and treat it as a murder at the same time?
em 20 weeks is pro life in america? haha, in whole europe we dont have more then 15 weeks i think, and europe is not called pro life by any means .. so wtf.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want the child, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
You've greatly oversimplified why most women don't want a child that comes from a rape. It's almost offensive how simplistic you've implied it to be.
"Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way."
On April 28 2011 22:43 mmm wrote: there are good reasons for an abortion past the 20th week (eg health issues to fetus and mother). by denying that the goverment doesnt fullfill their responsability towards their citicens IMO.
Those issues are generally special cases not covered by laws like this
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?!
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
Well, the problem is, is that different people can subscribe to different ethical frameworks, which are nevertheless completely valid, to the best of our understanding.
My personally opinion on abortion, is that while its not "nice" and in a perfect world, it would not be necessary, legal abortion is a net public good (within limits).
I say within limits, because gender selection, taken to the extremes of China and India, is very, very bad.
20 weeks is the limit when a pregnanci stops beeing an abortion and the reason for that is the 24weeks is the lowest age that a baby prematurly born has a acceptable chance of survival sure some make it with even less weeks but that is excepcional and the survival rate is very very low That limit is set by the las because any later is not an abortion in medicin
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?!
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
You missed his point. There is no such thing as "the search for the universal truth". Because there is no universal truth. The truth is different for each individual. Even worse, it's different for each culture. Meaning that no matter how sure of the truth you are. If you were born somewhere else, at a different time, having a different education. Chances are, your ethic opinions would be completely different. Your opinion is based on your personal experience.
Morals are an illusion. It doesn't exist. People believe in morals for the same reason others believe in god. It gives you a confortable warm feeling inside to think there's this universal truth we can all agree on. But in reality it's not there.
Basing legislation on illusions is bound to cause problems.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation.
You mean you would understand her decision to murder a child? Because according to you, that's what abortion is. If we're talking about murder though, I can't see how that situation would justify killing a person - it's not self defense, the "person" in question is a product of the situation but didn't cause it, and is completely defenseless. But still you understand it.
I mean, *I* understand it, but I only understand it because I don't see it as a murder in the first place. How can YOU understand it and treat it as a murder at the same time?
I'm not against murder, one can't be so set in stone on that for obvious reasons. However, I do my best to balance fairly the decisions based on pros and cons. In this situation, the women has no control over the issue, and carrying this baby can be a traumatic experience, and not through any fault of her own. For these reasons, I think the woman has a choice in the issue, though it should still be a well informed one, as it's still a matter of life or death. I would also be okay with abortion in the case that the mother will die, because choosing who lives or dies becomes a more balanced (though difficult) choice. I didn't word that last sentence right, and I'm feel it will get picked on, but I hope people can understand the meaning and not the literal interpretation.
In the more usual case, anyone having sex consensually needs to understand that even using contraception, there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. Understanding this, I do not think the negative effects of pregnancy and support of a child warrant an abortion. Education on sex and pregnancy should be better though. Solving the problem upstream is always the better solution.
On April 28 2011 22:44 phil.ipp wrote: em 20 weeks is pro life in america? haha, in whole europe we dont have more then 15 weeks i think, and europe is not called pro life by any means .. so wtf.
thats not correct in germany for example you can abort at any given date, IF the mothers life is at risk.
in Austria its 12-16 weeks p.m. without given reason and later if there is an medical indication( health issue) so dont write crap without looking at least at wikipedia first
On April 28 2011 22:43 mmm wrote: there are good reasons for an abortion past the 20th week (eg health issues to fetus and mother). by denying that the goverment doesnt fullfill their responsability towards their citicens IMO.
Those issues are generally special cases not covered by laws like this
if you ban it its illegal (none askes for a reason)
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?!
I see where you are coming from. By me stating I want abortion to be illegal, it is like me wanting my opinions to be the law, which everyone must adhere to. I guess you are right, and I never thought about it like that. I think the reason why this subject is so difficult is because it's basically a merging of church and state. Abortion is heavily frowned upon in the religious community, but from a science and state/fed law standpoint, it's understandable and justifiable, to a certain extent.
To answer your questions... Yes, we had ultrasounds and bloodwork done. Why? The doctors said it was to test for a healthy baby and to make sure everything was going well.
I think the only Western country left that does not have a legal restriction on the gestation time beyond which abortion can happen is...
CANADA!
But seriously, no doctor in his right mind would abort past 20 weeks unless there was risk of imminent death to the woman or something. This is a non-issue.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want the child, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
You've greatly oversimplified why most women don't want a child that comes from a rape. It's almost offensive how simplistic you've implied it to be.
"Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way."
Uh...what?
You're taking my post out of context. The reply was intended to the person that I replied to, but anyway...
I'm not oversimplifying rape, it's just that others are oversimplifying and discarding OTHER reasons a woman might not want to have a child (and there are many).
The point is that a woman either wants a child or doesn't want it. Whatever her reason for NOT wanting a child are, it shouldn't make a difference for anybody else, the choice what to do with the pregnancy should still be hers.
Until the baby is off the umbilical cord, and breathing, I see it as a parasite, no I don't children. I do however agree with this law, there are just too many complications that can arise after this point for it to be a safe procedure. Also offtopic + Show Spoiler +
For those that think a person has every right to her body why is suicide illegal O.o?
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?!
Aren't you brilliant? Do I really have to walk you through the disorders and which we can do something about and which we can do nothing about? Ultrasound is usually done to determine wheter or not the baby is in risk of having trisomy 21 whilst also checking for other handicaps. Do you think we can surgically remove an extra chromosome 21? How about you go back to scrubs?
On April 28 2011 22:58 bonifaceviii wrote: I think the only Western country left that does not have a legal restriction on the gestation time beyond which abortion can happen is...
CANADA!
But seriously, no doctor in his right mind would abort past 20 weeks unless there was risk of imminent death to the woman or something. This is a non-issue.
The part that bugs me, that seems to have been forgotten on the past couple of pages is that the doctor must tell the patient that the fetus can feel even before the first 20 weeks have passed.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation.
You mean you would understand her decision to murder a child? Because according to you, that's what abortion is. If we're talking about murder though, I can't see how that situation would justify killing a person - it's not self defense, the "person" in question is a product of the situation but didn't cause it, and is completely defenseless. But still you understand it.
I mean, *I* understand it, but I only understand it because I don't see it as a murder in the first place. How can YOU understand it and treat it as a murder at the same time?
I'm not against murder, one can't be so set in stone on that for obvious reasons. However, I do my best to balance fairly the decisions based on pros and cons. In this situation, the women has no control over the issue, and carrying this baby can be a traumatic experience, and not through any fault of her own. For these reasons, I think the woman has a choice in the issue, though it should still be a well informed one, as it's still a matter of life or death. I would also be okay with abortion in the case that the mother will die, because choosing who lives or dies becomes a more balanced (though difficult) choice. I didn't word that last sentence right, and I'm feel it will get picked on, but I hope people can understand the meaning and not the literal interpretation.
In the more usual case, anyone having sex consensually needs to understand that even using contraception, there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. Understanding this, I do not think the negative effects of pregnancy and support of a child warrant an abortion. Education on sex and pregnancy should be better though. Solving the problem upstream is always the better solution.
And this is why, the debate shouldn't be pro-choice/pro-life (pro-death/anti-choice :D ). But rather, it should "legal abortion vs illegal abortion". The truth is, is that immoral or not, legal or not, abortions will occur. With effective contraception, less often, but they will still occur, since the drive to have sex is THE biological imperative of humanity. The only choice the legislature has, is to choose between unsafe abortions occuring and safe ones.
*going off memory, but the abortion rate is not significantly different between countries where abortions are legal/not legal, controlling for national income. The difference is that when abortion is illegal, a very high proportion are unsafe (60+%)
The entire debate on the morality of abortions is a strawman, as I'm pretty sure that everyone would concede that the less abortions, the better.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?!
Aren't you brilliant? Do I really have to walk you through the disorders and which we can do something about and which we can do nothing about? Ultrasound is usually done to determine wheter or not the baby is in risk of having trisomy 21 whilst also checking for other handicaps. Do you think we can surgically remove an extra chromosome 21? How about you go back to scrubs?
Well obviously Down Syndrome is a major reason, but you asked what people can possible find useful if they are against abortion, pre birth surgery for some things is something they would definitely find useful. And guess what you can find with an Ultrasound, Spina bifida. Or is down syndrome the only thing ever found using an ultrasound
A fetus before 20 weeks has no ability to reason, rationalize, or feel emotion. This is biological fact. Google it. These are the traits that seperate us from every other species on the planet. Why should we grant rights to an underdeveloped entity that has no more of a mind than a bug?
A potential person is not a person. I mass genocide sperm every day. Does that make me a murderer?
If you think the fetus has a soul then that is your prerogative, but don't try to force it on everyone else.
As for after 20 weeks... a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is a point where a fetus becomes a human. It's different every time. Easier to draw that line somewhere ahead of that usual point as to not murder anyone.
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote: My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation.
You mean you would understand her decision to murder a child? Because according to you, that's what abortion is. If we're talking about murder though, I can't see how that situation would justify killing a person - it's not self defense, the "person" in question is a product of the situation but didn't cause it, and is completely defenseless. But still you understand it.
I mean, *I* understand it, but I only understand it because I don't see it as a murder in the first place. How can YOU understand it and treat it as a murder at the same time?
I'm not against murder, one can't be so set in stone on that for obvious reasons. However, I do my best to balance fairly the decisions based on pros and cons. In this situation, the women has no control over the issue, and carrying this baby can be a traumatic experience, and not through any fault of her own. For these reasons, I think the woman has a choice in the issue, though it should still be a well informed one, as it's still a matter of life or death. I would also be okay with abortion in the case that the mother will die, because choosing who lives or dies becomes a more balanced (though difficult) choice. I didn't word that last sentence right, and I'm feel it will get picked on, but I hope people can understand the meaning and not the literal interpretation.
In the more usual case, anyone having sex consensually needs to understand that even using contraception, there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. Understanding this, I do not think the negative effects of pregnancy and support of a child warrant an abortion. Education on sex and pregnancy should be better though. Solving the problem upstream is always the better solution.
And this is why, the debate shouldn't be pro-choice/pro-life (pro-death/anti-choice :D ). But rather, it should "legal abortion vs illegal abortion". The truth is, is that immoral or not, legal or not, abortions will occur. With effective contraception, less often, but they will still occur, since the drive to have sex is THE biological imperative of humanity. The only choice the legislature has, is to choose between unsafe abortions occuring and safe ones.
*going off memory, but the abortion rate is not significantly different between countries where abortions are legal/not legal, controlling for national income. The difference is that when abortion is illegal, a very high proportion are unsafe (60+%)
The entire debate on the morality of abortions is a strawman, as I'm pretty sure that everyone would concede that the less abortions, the better.
On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote: I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is.
There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not.
The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case.
You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical.
The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human.
The day before it develops the ability to feel is fine, it's not sentient, and we have this interesting double standard at that point where it's okay to kill animals for various reasons but it's not okay to stop something from eventually becoming alive (I should note that the fetus at this stage cannot really be considered alive, it has no hope of surviving on its own). The rest of this is filled with logical fallacies, you just ignore any and all potential reasons for choosing a set point and then jump to the conclusion that it must result in conception being the only viable point.
And a few more hours makes a difference because at some point during those hours, something significant could develop. And whether there should or should not be estimation is a question of economics, it's infeasible to have someone make a judgment on every individual case legally speaking, so they set a reasonable point.
On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote: I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo.
Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth.
Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : )
No, I'm just an English literature dude with an agenda. I'm getting snarky, though, so I'm going to bed!
P.S.: GertHeart, sorry that I was terse with you. I hope we can still be friends.
I'm not offended, it's a personal opinion. I still believe it's a woman's right to decide not a males, regardless. There are always "Special" situations. Not to mention America hasn't been a democracy for who knows how long.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?!
Aren't you brilliant? Do I really have to walk you through the disorders and which we can do something about and which we can do nothing about? Ultrasound is usually done to determine wheter or not the baby is in risk of having trisomy 21 whilst also checking for other handicaps. Do you think we can surgically remove an extra chromosome 21? How about you go back to scrubs?
Well obviously Down Syndrome is a major reason, but you asked what people can possible find useful if they are against abortion, pre birth surgery for some things is something they would definitely find useful. And guess what you can find with an Ultrasound, Spina bifida. Or is down syndrome the only thing ever found using an ultrasound
It obviously isn't, but the neck-fold scan is specificly aimed at identifying those in risk of having trisomy 21 - I thought it was pretty damn obvious that was what I was referring to, but I can see that I probably should've made that more clear...
I sidewalk counsel at our abortion clinic bi-weekly. The dirty secret is that women never forget what they've done and it leaves lasting, painful emotional scars. The common thread is deep regret.
If there is no God, then we Christians are to be pitied more than anyone and by all means enjoy life and put to death anyone you don't consider a "person". But if God is real, and if he tells the truth when he says he knew us from conception, then may He have mercy on us for not doing everything we can to prevent the murder of his innocent children.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
Who are you to know it wasn't sentient? How dare you claim something like that?!
I am sorry if you feel abortion is about woman rights. It is not. It is about rights of the child. If you want to look beyond that it is as much about mans rights as womans. They are both equally responsible for the baby.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions.
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway.
And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
a baby is a baby when you could remove it from the womb, and with current medical technology it has a reasonable chance to survive. at that point, like everyone else it can be considered a person. before that a baby is no different from a cancer or a parasite.
With this kind of thinking I am wondering if you have anyone that loves you in your life. This train of though is so disturbing I would avoid you in a large circle (and so would almost anyone I know and I come from a liberal/leftwing background). You seriously need to have a kid to brighten your life (or got out more often as sun does wonders for depression) and you would stop this kind of crazy rambling.
INDIANAPOLIS, April 27 (UPI) -- A bill denying state funding to Planned Parenthood and setting a 20-week deadline for abortions received final legislative approval Wednesday in Indiana.
Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican who opposes abortion, has not said whether he will sign the bill, the Indianapolis Star reported.
The anti-abortion bill passed both houses of the legislature easily last week. The House had to take a second vote because the Senate added the provision cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood.
"I believe that with passage of this legislation, we will become one of the most pro-life state in America, and I'll be proud of that," said Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican who wrote the bill.
The bill bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Doctors will have to tell women abortion can lead to infertility and that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier.
Planned Parenthood -- which receives about $3 million in state funding for services like providing birth control and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and cancer -- said it will challenge the bill in court.
Among the bill's critics, Democratic state Sen. Vi Elliott said cutting funding for birth control could mean more abortions. The state might also lose millions of dollars in federal aid.
tl dr - The bill says that abortion after 20 weeks will be illegal in Indiana. In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier. It hasn't been signed yet so it all rests on the governor.
I've been somewhat following the news on Planned Parenthood and it's federal funding. I came across this news today. 20 weeks is pretty late into pregnancy, but each step closer to a total ban scares me.
I'm hoping other states don't follow in Indiana's wake.
Obligatory warning: Chances are you will be banned for arguing for/against the abortion. This thread is talking specifically about the law and the potential for other states to adopt the same law (or a similar one). Discussion about planned parenthood is also ok and encouraged.
Wow 20 weeks???????? Its 12 weeks in canada. I don't by any means agree with banning abortion ( in cases of a girl being raped etc) But I definatly don't think it should be used as a form of birth control
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
My wife was pregnant until few weeks ago and yes, it is not as hard as young boys with no experience like you think. Actually the only bad part of it was science interfering and stupid lazy doctor at the time deciding to do a cezarian when it was not needed (according to doctors that looked at the case later).
Just stop taking about stuff you got 0 experience in. You just look stupid.
On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote: I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo.
Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth.
Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : )
No, I'm just an English literature dude with an agenda. I'm getting snarky, though, so I'm going to bed!
P.S.: GertHeart, sorry that I was terse with you. I hope we can still be friends.
I'm not offended, it's a personal opinion. I still believe it's a woman's right to decide not a males, regardless. There are always "Special" situations. Not to mention America hasn't been a democracy for who knows how long.
Hahaha, you might be right there, buddy. Nevertheless, I'm glad you've extended to me to old democratic courtesy of amicable disagreement even when I didn't extend it to you.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work?
On April 29 2011 00:05 hifriend wrote: Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work?
Abortion activist are generally referred to a pro choice advocates in mainstream media
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
He's insulated from ever raising an orphaned child, so it's not his concern . Clearly if every abortion was instead born, the government will just magic up foster parents for all of them, and they'll have great lives and grow up to be proud anti abortion crusaders.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
On April 29 2011 00:05 hifriend wrote: Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work?
Abortion activist are generally referred to a pro choice advocates in mainstream media
Or "Abortionist" like it's some fucking dogma or something. I've heard anti-life as well.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
As a genetic counselor, I think a few important facts need to be considered:
Many women who have abortions after 20 weeks are in different situations than women who have first trimester abortions. Often, an ultrasound detecting a fatal or severely debilitating anomaly is not detected until the anatomical survey, which is usually not performed until 15-16 weeks. At this point, difficult decisions need to be made. Often, a woman will have an amniocentesis to see, for example, if the baby has trisomy 13/18/21. The woman will also often get second opinions (no matter how obvious the problem is, as there is often some denial). The test results take 7-10 days, second opinions who knows how long, difficult conversations between partners/family, etc and one can easily be pushing 20 weeks. Women who terminate a pregnancy this late are often terminating wanted pregnancies.
Secondly, I haven't gone through all 19 pages yet (I will!), but I have yet to see any conclusive research on when a fetus can feel pain. Additionally, I am almost positive there is no ill-effects on fertility other than the risks associated with any obstetric procedure (like a C-section). This is what happens when people outside the medical field make medical decisions.
I'm personally strongly opposed to abortion and that has nothing to do with religion. I am my own God All Jesus, Mohamed, Zeus, Budda and whoever else you call God, can kiss my butt. 20 weeks is a lot of times. AFAIK here the regulation is/was (not sure) 3 months, which is still a lot IMHO. There are however, cases in which the woman doesn't know she's carrying a baby, well pass her 3rd month. Would rather use preemptive measures, like pills, condoms or the good old "pulling it out the last moment" (which I'm not fan of), rather then take it to need of abortion because of some "good time". But 20 weeks ... Geez, that's A LOT !!! Well, for me even 1 week old fetus is a child (a living human). I really can not understand humanity sometimes and their funny and awkward rules and laws. Abortion - OK, but Euthanasia surprisingly is not OK.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
On April 29 2011 00:05 hifriend wrote: Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work?
Abortion activist are generally referred to a pro choice advocates in mainstream media
Or "Abortionist" like it's some fucking dogma or something. I've heard anti-life as well.
In most mainstream media the camps are described as pro choice and pro life. Other terms are used by both sides like anti life and religious right wing nut, but in general its Pro-Life and Pro-Choice
On April 29 2011 00:05 hifriend wrote: Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work?
Abortion activist are generally referred to a pro choice advocates in mainstream media
Or "Abortionist" like it's some fucking dogma or something. I've heard anti-life as well.
One post above you they are being called Hitler wannabes :D
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
My wife was pregnant until few weeks ago and yes, it is not as hard as young boys with no experience like you think. Actually the only bad part of it was science interfering and stupid lazy doctor at the time deciding to do a cezarian when it was not needed (according to doctors that looked at the case later).
Just stop taking about stuff you got 0 experience in. You just look stupid.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
If it makes you feel any better the unthinking mass of cells is unable to comprehend anything. This is more humane than birthing an unwanted child into this world, just so you know. This is also how miscarriages are treated.
im against abortion, so i of course think this law is a good thing. any step in this direction is a step in the right direction imo. i mean its a little human being inside, how could it be legal to kill it >.>
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Horribly misguided, and I think is part of the reason why discourse is so difficult on this issue. First and most importantly, 3rd trimester abortions are RARELY performed, and only available in 2 (3?) states in the US (bc the doctors keep getting shot). There is an intrauterine, intrathoracic injection of KCl or digoxin which instantly stops the heart beat. Then the fetus is delivered as would be in a normal delivery. Now, this may still be gruesome to some of you (hell, almost all surgeries are gruesome to me), but it is not grabbing the fetus with forceps while vacuuming out its brain like a lot of the propaganda will have you believe.
On April 29 2011 00:16 FrankWalls wrote: im against abortion, so i of course think this law is a good thing. any step in this direction is a step in the right direction imo. i mean its a little human being inside, how could it be legal to kill it >.>
maybe because the mother was raped by a homeless guy. You think its illegal because she doesnt want it?
On April 29 2011 00:16 FrankWalls wrote: im against abortion, so i of course think this law is a good thing. any step in this direction is a step in the right direction imo. i mean its a little human being inside, how could it be legal to kill it >.>
there are big human beings killed every year by the state of america, you call it death penalty, and guess what its legal !
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
If it makes you feel any better the unthinking mass of cells is unable to comprehend anything. This is more humane than birthing an unwanted child into this world, just so you know. This is also how miscarriages are treated.
More humane...in your opinion. Yes, yes, I know... a life without a family and going home to home IS tragic, but everyone has the right to at least try to better themselves, and get into a better position (in my opinion).
As with the miscarriages...they have already passed(I think?).
On April 29 2011 00:13 AyeH wrote: i'm curious to see what the stance on abortion is in 50 years. it'll be quite interesting.
Don't think it will change much in 50 years. But I bet my kidney that in 200 years those against abortion will be such an irrelevant minority that no one will talk about it. ^^
Just a consequence of the information age leading to more logical thinking generations with less emphasis on irrational emotions. As time goes, more and more people realize morals are just an illusion.
On April 29 2011 00:16 FrankWalls wrote: im against abortion, so i of course think this law is a good thing. any step in this direction is a step in the right direction imo. i mean its a little human being inside, how could it be legal to kill it >.>
maybe because the mother was raped by a homeless guy. You think its illegal because she doesnt want it?
dumbass.
Im pro choice, but 20 weeks seems reasonable.
dont call me a dumbass because of one of my opinions. that is illogical. you think that every abortion is the result of rape? i think you will find that is a very small percentage, and that most of it is the result of couples being irresponsible in their sexual life and not using birth control methods right. rape is a special case where maybe i could see that being lawful, MAYBE, but in every other case i think it definitely should be outlawed
On April 29 2011 00:16 FrankWalls wrote: im against abortion, so i of course think this law is a good thing. any step in this direction is a step in the right direction imo. i mean its a little human being inside, how could it be legal to kill it >.>
there are big human beings killed every year by the state of america, you call it death penalty, and guess what its legal !
this might be true but that is a totally different situation and context that cant be really applied here.
On April 29 2011 00:13 AyeH wrote: i'm curious to see what the stance on abortion is in 50 years. it'll be quite interesting.
Don't think it will change much in 50 years. But I bet my kidney that in 200 years those against abortion will be such an irrelevant minority that no one will talk about it. ^^
Just a consequence of the information age leading to more logical thinking generations with less emphasis on irrational emotions. As time goes, more and more people realize morals are just an illusion.
Strongly agreed . Now to figure out how to live for a good 200 or so years, hmm....
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote: Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming.
The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later.
As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain.
Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass?
Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything.
Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
My wife was pregnant until few weeks ago and yes, it is not as hard as young boys with no experience like you think. Actually the only bad part of it was science interfering and stupid lazy doctor at the time deciding to do a cezarian when it was not needed (according to doctors that looked at the case later).
Just stop taking about stuff you got 0 experience in. You just look stupid.
Congratulations, btw. Enjoy your sleep >.>
actually I miss my Sc2 playtime I didn't sleep much before due to gaming and other fun activities (I am one of those that considers sleeping a waste of time that is better spent having fun :D). So now I just reduced gaming to minimum and filled that time with helping my wife around the kid
As a medical student, I would just like to offer a little bit of information on embryogenesis and fetal development.
Prior to 8 weeks, there is nothing you could call a "fetus." It is a largely undifferentiated mass of cells that is gearing up towards cell maturity and fetal formation. Speaking purely from observation of cellular behavior, these cells have the "life" equivalent of any other mammal prior to fetal development. If you watch mammalian embryogenesis there are almost no differences between any animal and humans by this stage. Now if your belief is based on "life's sacredness" includes this timeperiod, I would recommend that you include most mammals in your stance for sake of not being hypocritical. I say this because of the relatively few and far between differences between mammals during this stage.
By 20 weeks, the fetus is hardly a full human, from a medical standpoint. It has little brain mass, almost no ability to control respirations and no ability to make gas exchange, no real regulation of critical life functions, little bony structures, an incomplete nervous system, and no real senses besides very basic touch. I say this just to put into perspective what exactly a fetus is capable of at this stage, which is to say, nothing. I don't actually know how people could insist that a woman have a child against her will because it is also alive. A 20 week old fetus is not as "alive" as a person in a coma or vegetative state clearly, and still less "alive" than any sort of animal, adult or newborn.
I personally do believe in the sanctity of all life, not just humans. But I don't see how we what gives me the right to tell anyone else what to do with their body.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
If it makes you feel any better the unthinking mass of cells is unable to comprehend anything. This is more humane than birthing an unwanted child into this world, just so you know. This is also how miscarriages are treated.
The almost 9 month baby is an unthinking mass of cells? Are you trying to make me go mad and start flaming you so you can get me banned? Or maybe this is you trolling so I can get you banned?!
On April 29 2011 00:05 hifriend wrote: Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work?
Abortion activist are generally referred to a pro choice advocates in mainstream media
Or "Abortionist" like it's some fucking dogma or something. I've heard anti-life as well.
One post above you they are being called Hitler wannabes :D
I was referring to the doctors preforming that procedure I quoted, not to all abortionists.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
Nope, I don't think that abortion is a "gender-neutral" issue.
I think that you're conducting a campaign of condescension and personal attacks in lieu of actual debate, which is what I said.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban.
Thank you for such a useful comment. The opinions of deluded people not being able to read the post they reference are so precious to me.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban.
Thank you for such a useful comment. The opinions of deluded people not being able to read the post they reference are so precious to me.
I was referring to what Reborn wrote
EDIT: Nevermind, OP was nested and just found it now. If that is actually legal then that is fucked......... I thought it was just some idiot spewing some garbage, but if that's true then wow. I am insta sad
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question)
Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban.
Thank you for such a useful comment. The opinions of deluded people not being able to read the post they reference are so precious to me.
I was referring to what Reborn wrote
Ah sorry. Well net forum use 101, do not quote wrong people :D
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
Nope, I don't think that abortion is a "gender-neutral" issue.
I think that you're conducting a campaign of condescension and personal attacks in lieu of actual debate, which is what I said.
I'm conducting a campaign of reality checking . I'm sorry the language I use doesn't coddle the "pro-life" (lol) crowd, but none of their arguments demand it. I know "debate" that is seen on television tries to present opposing viewpoints as equal and deserving respect, but I'm afraid it's just not the case in reality.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
That would be a dream come true. My Wife and I really want to adopt our second child, because there are so many children in need of a loving family.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
There isn't a foster family for every unwanted child, how can you be so naive? That's a rhetorical question by the way friend . Do you think each foster child is received into a loving home, and develops just like one raised with their biological parents?
Also you're shifting responsibility for unwanted children onto people who might not want children at all -- which is definitely a step up than holding the responsibility solely on the mother, so I have to commend you on that.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
That would be a dream come true. My Wife and I really want to adopt our second child, because there are so many children in need of a loving family.
My wife and me were talking if we could not have a child normally to adopt one instead of hunting for expensive medical procedures that let her become pregnant (and fail most of the time).
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
There isn't a foster family for every unwanted child, how can you be so naive? That's a rhetorical question by the way friend . Do you think each foster child is received into a loving home, and develops just like one raised with their biological parents?
Also you're shifting responsibility for unwanted children onto people who might not want children at all -- which is definitely a step up than holding the responsibility solely on the mother, so I have to commend you on that.
From my experience (not 1st hand) that is more a problem of the system then the children or a lack of parents.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
Nope, I don't think that abortion is a "gender-neutral" issue.
I think that you're conducting a campaign of condescension and personal attacks in lieu of actual debate, which is what I said.
I'm conducting a campaign of reality checking . I'm sorry the language I use doesn't coddle the "pro-life" (lol) crowd, but none of their arguments demand it. I know "debate" that is seen on television tries to present opposing viewpoints as equal and deserving respect, but I'm afraid it's just not the case in reality.
Right. You conceive of yourself as a purveyor of Truth and Reality to a group of hopelessly backward and uninformed individuals. That's exactly why your contributions to this discussion are so full of vitriol and self-overestimation as to be... well... not really contributions at all in any constructive sense.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
Right. You conceive of yourself as a purveyor of Truth and Reality to a group of hopelessly backward and uninformed individuals.
Such is the burden of debating science and humanity to a lot of the population .
Edit: I'm not even sure what you mean by "contributions", this isn't a stage where everyone chips their precious little opinions in and they get rewarded for "contributing", it's about the rights of a woman to her own body, to prevent anyone from bearing an unwanted child.
it makes me sick how decrepit society is today... i cant believe how callous people are to even think about supporting abortion. yeah, it's your body, why should i stop you from killing a child? its amazing how people would view a mother killing her 3 year old "unwanted" (what a sick world where being unwanted is an excuse to die...)child as an utter travesty, but dont give a crap if she kills her child while she's still inside her? its just sad... maybe im just weird for loving kids :/
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
Difference is that my opinion is morally consistent, yours isn't due to several points:
1) As soon as you begin to talk about exceptions (if the fetus is a result of a rape), you aren't being morally consistent any more - it is still a "life" (according to you) that is being murdered no matter how it was produced.
2) You neglect the mothers right to govern her own body in favor of a lump of cells which as you say yourself can't survive without her.
These were only 2 of the reasons, others would be to ask if you used contraceptives? If you mastubated? I could go on... If a rule is to serve universally, consistency is the absolute most important feature...
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
You just answered his question.
It also sounds like you are very bitter from a past experience with a boyfriend (or husband?). I'm sorry for that, but you don't have to be spitting venom every time you try to discuss the topic at hand.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men.
I'm not even going to get into this with you.
You are not helping with the discussion, and I'd like to ask for you to refrain from posting anything else, please.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
The man's feelings are just as important as a woman's on everything of course, even biogical events that a man cannot even begin to imagine the experience of. I'm some crazy radical feminist for suggesting that the woman's say over her own body is more important than her lover's.
Right. You conceive of yourself as a purveyor of Truth and Reality to a group of hopelessly backward and uninformed individuals.
Such is the burden of debating science and humanity to a lot of the population .
I suppose. There is a tendency, however—one that comes with intellectual maturity—to view oneself less as a missionary sent by science to convert the unwashed masses into right thinking and more as a fellow inquirer into and observer of the complex phenomena of lived experience against which convenient certainties and glib assertions of one's own intellectual superiority sound increasingly hollow.
Right. You conceive of yourself as a purveyor of Truth and Reality to a group of hopelessly backward and uninformed individuals.
Such is the burden of debating science and humanity to a lot of the population .
I suppose. There is a tendency, however—one that comes with intellectual maturity—to view oneself less as a missionary sent by science to convert the unwashed masses into right thinking and more as a fellow inquirer into and observer of the complex phenomena of lived experience against which convenient certainties and glib assertions of one's own intellectual superiority sound increasingly hollow.
You should definitely apply that advice to yourself friend . Any perspectives on abortion by the way? Might sound crazy but that's what we're discussing, not whatever wank you thought was clever to say.
Right. You conceive of yourself as a purveyor of Truth and Reality to a group of hopelessly backward and uninformed individuals.
Such is the burden of debating science and humanity to a lot of the population .
Edit: I'm not even sure what you mean by "contributions", this isn't a stage where everyone chips their precious little opinions in and they get rewarded for "contributing", it's about the rights of a woman to her own body, to prevent anyone from bearing an unwanted child.
Oh I pressed quote instead of edit, oops.
I certainly wish some individuals in this thread would refrain entirely from chipping in their precious opinions, starting with those who denigrate the practice in the first place.
Right. You conceive of yourself as a purveyor of Truth and Reality to a group of hopelessly backward and uninformed individuals.
Such is the burden of debating science and humanity to a lot of the population .
I suppose. There is a tendency, however—one that comes with intellectual maturity—to view oneself less as a missionary sent by science to convert the unwashed masses into right thinking and more as a fellow inquirer into and observer of the complex phenomena of lived experience against which convenient certainties and glib assertions of one's own intellectual superiority sound increasingly hollow.
You should definitely apply that advice to yourself friend . Any perspectives on abortion by the way? Might sound crazy but that's what we're discussing, not whatever wank you thought was clever to say.
That's not what I am discussing. What I am discussing is the disheartening pattern of vacuous ad hominems in your posting, of which the above quoted addition is a prime example.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
That would be a dream come true. My Wife and I really want to adopt our second child, because there are so many children in need of a loving family.
My wife and me were talking if we could not have a child normally to adopt one instead of hunting for expensive medical procedures that let her become pregnant (and fail most of the time).
Wait what?! Have you utilized fertilitytreatment or IVF and you are against abortion?! I'm going to stop all discussion right here, because obviously consistency isn't your strong suite (note, I'm not against IVF or the likes, I'm against inconsitency.) Congratulations on your daughter.
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.
your not an individual when you are part of someone elses body and live off what she eats.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
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.
your not an individual when you are part of someone elses body and live off what she eats.
IMO give fetus' the right to vote, also the God given right to bear arms. They are individuals just like a 3 year old child, or you, or me.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
The man's feelings are just as important as a woman's on everything of course, even biogical events that a man cannot even begin to imagine the experience of. I'm some crazy radical feminist for suggesting that the woman's say over her own body is more important than her lover's.
Fact of the matter is, the decision to abort is contructed as a medical one, taken by doctors in their patients' best interests, it is unsurprising that the pregnant woman's sexual partner has no right to obstruct medical discretion and prevent her from obtaining an abortion. Plus, it would be very difficult for the law to impose a pregnany on a woman who wants to get an abortion...
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
You just answered his question.
It also sounds like you are very bitter from a past experience with a boyfriend (or husband?). I'm sorry for that, but you don't have to be spitting venom every time you try to discuss the topic at hand.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men.
I'm not even going to get into this with you.
You are not helping with the discussion, and I'd like to ask for you to refrain from posting anything else, please.
You're confusing me with the girl who they were talking about, pay attention to who you quote I'm a man who thinks the woman should have the final word about what to do with her own body.
Of course both parties should talk it out and come to consensus. But failing that, no matter what you decide to do, it's still her belly carrying a baby for 9 months. She's in a much better position to decide what's good for herself than we are.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
The man's feelings are just as important as a woman's on everything of course, even biogical events that a man cannot even begin to imagine the experience of. I'm some crazy radical feminist for suggesting that the woman's say over her own body is more important than her lover's.
Fact of the matter is, the decision to abort is contructed as a medical one, taken by doctors in their patients' best interests, it is unsurprising that the pregnant woman's sexual partner has no right to obstruct medical discretion and prevent her from obtaining an abortion. Plus, it would be very difficult for the law to impose a pregnany on a woman who wants to get an abortion...
I was taking the piss! But what I expressed is an articulation of a lot of male viewpoints on abortion.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
You are more than welcome to elaborate that opinion, provide rationale, defend your position, etc. etc.. That would be excellent in the context of this thread. What I think you should refrain from doing in service of that opinion is a) claim that the fact that a woman opines it gives it some special status of validity and b) denigrate the intelligences of people who disagree with it.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
You are more than welcome to elaborate that opinion, provide rationale, defend your position, etc. etc.. That would be excellent in the context of this thread. What I think you should refrain from doing in service of that opinion is a) claim that the fact that a woman opines it gives it some special status of validity and b) denigrate the intelligences of people who disagree with it.
That's nice sweety, but I don't care about your feelings or opinion on what constitutes 'substance' and 'contribution', neither do the vast majority of people. Keep it to yourself next time, this is a discussion thread about abortion, and you appear to be lost as you're not discussing anything related to this topic.
By the way, thanks for telling me what I can and can't do I wouldn't have any idea without a big strong man to guide me.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
Your behaviour in this thread is disrupting the actual discussion because you're just going around insulting and belittling everyone. HULKMANIA is 100% right. Stop it.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
You just answered his question.
It also sounds like you are very bitter from a past experience with a boyfriend (or husband?). I'm sorry for that, but you don't have to be spitting venom every time you try to discuss the topic at hand.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men.
I'm not even going to get into this with you.
You are not helping with the discussion, and I'd like to ask for you to refrain from posting anything else, please.
You're confusing me with the girl who they were talking about, pay attention to who you quote I'm a man who thinks the woman should have the final word about what to do with her own body.
Of course both parties should talk it out and come to consensus. But failing that, no matter what you decide to do, it's still her belly carrying a baby for 9 months. She's in a much better position to decide what's good for herself than we are.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
Your behaviour in this thread is disrupting the actual discussion because you're just going around insulting and belittling everyone. HULKMANIA is 100% right. Stop it.
Ever consider that some opinions deserve derision for the benefit of society? That some people cannot be reasoned with, despite arguing against medical knowledge or humanity?
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
You are more than welcome to elaborate that opinion, provide rationale, defend your position, etc. etc.. That would be excellent in the context of this thread. What I think you should refrain from doing in service of that opinion is a) claim that the fact that a woman opines it gives it some special status of validity and b) denigrate the intelligences of people who disagree with it.
That's nice sweety, but I don't care about your feelings or opinion on what constitutes 'substance' and 'contribution', neither do the vast majority of people. Keep it to yourself next time, this is a discussion thread about abortion, and you appear to be lost as you're not discussing anything related to this topic.
By the way, thanks for telling me what I can and can't do I wouldn't have any idea without a big strong man to guide me.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
You are more than welcome to elaborate that opinion, provide rationale, defend your position, etc. etc.. That would be excellent in the context of this thread. What I think you should refrain from doing in service of that opinion is a) claim that the fact that a woman opines it gives it some special status of validity and b) denigrate the intelligences of people who disagree with it.
That's nice sweety, but I don't care about your feelings or opinion on what constitutes 'substance' and 'contribution', neither do the vast majority of people. Keep it to yourself next time, this is a discussion thread about abortion, and you appear to be lost as you're not discussing anything related to this topic.
By the way, thanks for telling me what I can and can't do I wouldn't have any idea without a big strong man to guide me.
Once again you're simply being insulting.
Insulting is being told that abortion is murder, and being expected to coddle the stupid in the name of fairness or contribution. I'm sorry this is distressing to you.
On April 29 2011 01:24 LostDevil wrote: HULKAMANIA + scouting overlord need to get a room. Don't forget the protection or she might plop out an ultralisk fetus sometime in the 3rd trimester.
This is just nonsense at this point and why this topic shouldn't get discussed on tl.net
That mental image will keep me up tonight. Thanks.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
Difference is that my opinion is morally consistent, yours isn't due to several points:
1) As soon as you begin to talk about exceptions (if the fetus is a result of a rape), you aren't being morally consistent any more - it is still a "life" (according to you) that is being murdered no matter how it was produced.
2) You neglect the mothers right to govern her own body in favor of a lump of cells which as you say yourself can't survive without her.
These were only 2 of the reasons, others would be to ask if you used contraceptives? If you mastubated? I could go on... If a rule is to serve universally, consistency is the absolute most important feature...
You got me confused with another poster. 1) I never said raped woman should be able to abort. I only said I support abortion due to medical reasons. 2) When she gives a birth to the baby and does not take care of it, the baby will die. That is not much different then what happens in her body except her body does everything automatically while later she has to do it herself.
I am not sure what are you talking about later. If that was to imply I am a religious freak or something I need to disappoint you as I do not follow any religion and do not believe there is enough proof that God exists.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
You are more than welcome to elaborate that opinion, provide rationale, defend your position, etc. etc.. That would be excellent in the context of this thread. What I think you should refrain from doing in service of that opinion is a) claim that the fact that a woman opines it gives it some special status of validity and b) denigrate the intelligences of people who disagree with it.
That's nice sweety, but I don't care about your feelings or opinion on what constitutes 'substance' and 'contribution', neither do the vast majority of people. Keep it to yourself next time, this is a discussion thread about abortion, and you appear to be lost as you're not discussing anything related to this topic.
By the way, thanks for telling me what I can and can't do I wouldn't have any idea without a big strong man to guide me.
Once again you're simply being insulting.
Insulting is being told that abortion is murder, and being expected to coddle the stupid in the name of fairness or contribution. I'm sorry this is distressing to you.
It's not distressing to me. It doesn't really get to me. I have an almost infinite patience for coddling the stupid in the name of fairness, of facilitating contributions to a thread, and common decency. You'll notice that I almost never lapse into name calling and blanket assertions of my own monopoly on the insights of "science and humanity."
On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote: [quote] As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard.
Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
That would be a dream come true. My Wife and I really want to adopt our second child, because there are so many children in need of a loving family.
My wife and me were talking if we could not have a child normally to adopt one instead of hunting for expensive medical procedures that let her become pregnant (and fail most of the time).
Wait what?! Have you utilized fertilitytreatment or IVF and you are against abortion?! I'm going to stop all discussion right here, because obviously consistency isn't your strong suite (note, I'm not against IVF or the likes, I'm against inconsitency.) Congratulations on your daughter.
No, we had a child naturally But we were talking about all the options and in this country it is either free really ineffective system of government sponsored fertility treatment or really expensive private version (something like 4 months pay for one treatment).
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.
your not an individual when you are part of someone elses body and live off what she eats.
IMO give fetus' the right to vote, also the God given right to bear arms. They are individuals just like a 3 year old child, or you, or me.
Of course, 3 year old children everywhere have a right to vote or carry arms If you plan to write anything, at least make it worth of reading.
On April 28 2011 23:27 gimpy wrote: If there is no God, then we Christians are to be pitied more than anyone and by all means enjoy life and put to death anyone you don't consider a "person". But if God is real, and if he tells the truth when he says he knew us from conception, then may He have mercy on us for not doing everything we can to prevent the murder of his innocent children.
I assume you are referencing Jer 1:5 ""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (NIV)
This doesn't say God knew you from conception, it actually says God knew you *before* conception. One way to interpret thus is that God knows everything, including the future, and therefore knows people even before they have been conceived. Another is that the soul existed before conception. On the latter, however, the question then is at what point is the soul put into the body? (or if it has been there all along; some Catholics do consider contraception to be the same as abortion) Ecc 11 in fact states that we can not know these things; it is a mystery.
imo the biblically supported interpretation is that life begins at some unknown time after conception but before birth. The body cannot receive the soul before it is fully formed. From this perspective, I don't think a stance like "safe, legal, and never" contradicts that, because it strives to reduce abortions even though it does not send women to prison or give them a death sentence for having one. Likewise, allowing abortions up until a certain point in development (of course, any time if the woman's life is in danger) is our closest estimate of determining when the fetus should be considered a person.
I also think Christians should consider that life is as precious after birth as it is the day before birth. A truly life-affirming society would have universal healthcare, ban capital punishment, see war as a last resort, and care for the poor. (whether to achieve these privately or through government is another matter, but I like to see people strive for consistency here. It would be tragic and senseless from either side's perspective for a mother to be forced to go through pregnancy, only to die of an infection months later that could have been prevented if her family had better access to health care.)
I'm not presuming to know your stance on these other issues. Nor do I particularly care about how you interpret scriptures (our nation's laws are secular anyways). These are just things to consider.
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
The man's feelings are just as important as a woman's on everything of course, even biogical events that a man cannot even begin to imagine the experience of. I'm some crazy radical feminist for suggesting that the woman's say over her own body is more important than her lover's.
Fact of the matter is, the decision to abort is contructed as a medical one, taken by doctors in their patients' best interests, it is unsurprising that the pregnant woman's sexual partner has no right to obstruct medical discretion and prevent her from obtaining an abortion. Plus, it would be very difficult for the law to impose a pregnany on a woman who wants to get an abortion...
It would not if they actually helped any woman in this situation with money and personal medical/psychological help. Yes, it would cost money, but it would save a life. Lots of other things in out society cost a lot of money so they could save lives.
I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on late-term abortions.
Description of a 18-22 week fetus: "She may have some head hair and eyebrows by now. She can make facial expressions, frowning and grimacing expressively. Her ears are well developed and she can hear your voice and your heartbeat."
I'm an avid supporter of abortions but when the baby has reached a certain point of maturity you aren't killing a fetus. You're killing a baby. No one has the right to kill a baby, regardless of whether it's in you or not.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
Your behaviour in this thread is disrupting the actual discussion because you're just going around insulting and belittling everyone. HULKMANIA is 100% right. Stop it.
Ever consider that some opinions deserve derision for the benefit of society? That some people cannot be reasoned with, despite arguing against medical knowledge or humanity?
And just who the hell are you to know exactly what benefits society more than the other 6 billion people contributing to it?
You may have the intellect, but you sure aren't exercising a lot of wisdom.
On April 29 2011 01:35 yema1 wrote: I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on late-term abortions.
Description of a 18-22 week fetus: "She may have some head hair and eyebrows by now. She can make facial expressions, frowning and grimacing expressively. Her ears are well developed and she can hear your voice and your heartbeat."
I'm an avid supporter of abortions but when the baby has reached a certain point of maturity you aren't killing a fetus. You're killing a baby. No one has the right to kill a baby, regardless of whether it's in you or not.
God forbid your wife/yourself ever births an 18 week old fetus. I think your opinion would change.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
In that case there is no basis in the future to have your baby genetically tested and if its eyes are NOT BLUE like you always wanted you can have it aborted as well!!! You are really starting to piss me off. Better to quit talking to people like you.
EDIT: I think you were born in the wrong time and place. I hear Hitler really liked doctors and scientists that were into creating a master race...
In that case there is no basis in the future to have your baby genetically tested and if its eyes are NOT BLUE like you always wanted you can have it aborted as well!!! You are really starting to piss me off. Better to quit talking to people like you.
Wow you've got me and the anti-lifers-pro-destructionists summed up here mate, good going.
On April 29 2011 01:35 yema1 wrote: I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on late-term abortions.
Description of a 18-22 week fetus: "She may have some head hair and eyebrows by now. She can make facial expressions, frowning and grimacing expressively. Her ears are well developed and she can hear your voice and your heartbeat."
I'm an avid supporter of abortions but when the baby has reached a certain point of maturity you aren't killing a fetus. You're killing a baby. No one has the right to kill a baby, regardless of whether it's in you or not.
God forbid your wife/yourself ever births an 18 week old fetus. I think your opinion would change.
Stop twisting my words, please. I never implied that the baby was ready to be born. However, the baby can make facial expressions, it can hear you and it can feel pain. I think it's immoral to execute a fetus at that fetal stage. Please tell me, why do you think it's a-ok to kill a baby that will obviously suffer during the abortion?
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote: I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote: Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote: You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote: I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote: It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind.
Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time.
No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime .
Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
The man's feelings are just as important as a woman's on everything of course, even biogical events that a man cannot even begin to imagine the experience of. I'm some crazy radical feminist for suggesting that the woman's say over her own body is more important than her lover's.
Fact of the matter is, the decision to abort is contructed as a medical one, taken by doctors in their patients' best interests, it is unsurprising that the pregnant woman's sexual partner has no right to obstruct medical discretion and prevent her from obtaining an abortion. Plus, it would be very difficult for the law to impose a pregnany on a woman who wants to get an abortion...
It would not if they actually helped any woman in this situation with money and personal medical/psychological help. Yes, it would cost money, but it would save a life. Lots of other things in out society cost a lot of money so they could save lives.
I assume that your 'would not' refers to abortion 'would not' be in the patient's best interests...?
There may certainly be women out there who want an abortion without lack of money or psychological/medical issues? How could you 'help' if there were no such issues present?
EDIT: also, to offer psychological help on request of abortion implies that women who seek abortion are in some way psychologically ill...?
I'm for abortion, mainly due to the factor of rape, etc etc. Same ol song and dance everyone has heard before, but I think making it illegal is retarded. People do figure out that they don't want the kid anymore at or above 20 weeks. And a lot of mothers can't give up for adoption, so.
Even as someone who is politically pro-choice, this reductio ad absurdum crap is pissing me off. It just as much as those who say "you might as well legalize killing 20 year olds!"
Men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion? Fine, women (not eligible for the draft) shouldn't have an opinion on war unless they are actually in the military.
Besides, due to child support laws, men are affected by whether abortion is legal or not. Not in the same extent that women are, but men do have a personal stake in this issue if that is your criteria for having an opinion. (based on the fact that abortion is legal, it seems that politicians have acknowledged the fact that women have a greater stake in the issue) If you want to take men completely out of the equation, get rid of child support payments and instead give single mothers the same amount as a publicly funded subsidy.
Whatever you believe, saying something shouldn't be approved out of fear of what it could potentially lead to, even though it's the best choice, doesn't seem like a logical argument. I think this is a step in the right direction. *Holds off bashing of Planned Parenthood*
I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
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.
your not an individual when you are part of someone elses body and live off what she eats.
IMO give fetus' the right to vote, also the God given right to bear arms. They are individuals just like a 3 year old child, or you, or me.
that way of thinking is incredibly black and white. I assume you havent seen baby developing during adult age. early fetus doesn't have feelings, eyesight or capability of thinking like born people. There's no emotional relationships between a fetus and other people. No one would suffer becouse of abortion. Mental damage hurts way more than physical damage.
Yes you can call abortion a murder. but not a murder of a human. just a murder of a fetus. even a chicken you eat has more feelings and complex brains than an early stage fetus. do you eat meat? didn't even "Jesus" eat meat?
and it's better not to be born than give a birth to someone that propably would end up living in misery.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
it would reduce very little abortions most are done before the 20th week the latter is usually because health risk to the mother or deformities in the baby. Later abortions for not those two reasons usually are because of being poor and being young unable to afford an abortion by the 1st month unable to notice you're pregnant until the 2nd-3rd month not able to get the money in time etc.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
Although, with around 1.2 million abortions per year, that'll be ~18,000 more newborns per year (totally hypothesising, since this law just affects Indiana).
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.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
Although, with around 1.2 million abortions per year, that'll be ~18,000 more newborns per year.
Edit: Oh, 2000th post. Yay me.
Oh and given that there are around 4 million new births every year in the states, that's a 0.5% jump in birth rate, which saw a pretty sharp decline (~4%) between 2007 and 2009.
Again, total hypothesizing since the law only affects Indiana, and not the whole of the U.S.
First of all, making abortion illegal does not lower abortion rates. It lowers safe abortion rates, just like witholding anti-conception doesn't lower the rate of teenage sex, but lowers the rate of safe teenage sex. Also note how the people wanting to ban abortion are the ones that generally oppose the distribution of contraception in, lets say, public schools.
Secondly, who the hell are you to force your belief system upon someone else? It is not your body, it is not your future, therefore it is not your choice whether someone should be allowed to abort or not. If you believe it is morally wrong, fine, but there is absolutely no reason for you to force other people to behave according to your convictions.
Should we try to reduce the number of abortions? Ofcourse. Is the way to do this to scare women into adoption/having it anyway? Obviously not. This bill is a complete abomination because it does exactly that. What happens between a doctor and a patient is entirely personal, and the state absolutely no right to interfere in this relationship except for maintaining professional standards. Fear mongering has no place in a doctors office, the choice to abort or not is one that is hard enough already.
This bill is exactly what's wrong with the US: republicans trying to limit that what they say they value most (personal freedom), under the cover of christian values. I for one hope it gets struck down in the courts.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
it would reduce very little abortions most are done before the 20th week the latter is usually because health risk to the mother or deformities in the baby. Later abortions for not those two reasons usually are because of being poor and being young unable to afford an abortion by the 1st month unable to notice you're pregnant until the 2nd-3rd month not able to get the money in time etc.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
Although, with around 1.2 million abortions per year, that'll be ~18,000 more newborns per year.
Edit: Oh, 2000th post. Yay me.
Yeah, I figured that the vast majority of abortions were done early on. I'd imagine that those in favor of having abortions would have made up their mind by then (unless they later found out that their baby was going to be born with certain disorders, that there may be complications with the pregnancy, or other controversies that people may use to justify third-trimester abortions).
Thanks for the replies, and congratulations on your 2000th post!
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
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.
You really think it's that black and white? You think the rest of society is just trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause? How about considering that the act of abortion ends a life/a potential life (however you quantify it)? Consider how it could be equated to murder based on what your personal definition of 'when life starts' is? Come on, man. There's a reason these debates rage - it's a huge moral grey area.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
By the way, first post :D
Watching Dog Whisperer on animal planet makes me doubt about the consensus on animal self awareness. Dogs seem pretty damn smart and self aware imho Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to measure self awareness, so it's hard to make an informed guess.
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.
As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law.
It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights .
Who are you to know it wasn't sentient? How dare you claim something like that?!
I am sorry if you feel abortion is about woman rights. It is not. It is about rights of the child. If you want to look beyond that it is as much about mans rights as womans. They are both equally responsible for the baby.
Because sentience is defined by having the ability to feel, a fetus at 12 weeks has not yet developed that, thus, by definition, it isn't sentient yet. So.......... that's how he dares. Science.
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.
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.
You really think it's that black and white? You think the rest of society is just trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause? How about considering that the act of abortion ends a life/a potential life (however you quantify it)? Consider how it could be equated to murder based on what your personal definition of 'when life starts' is? Come on, man. There's a reason these debates rage - it's a huge moral grey area.
LOL, let me say it again. Regardless of what society, 'god', or your definition of 'when life starts' is, it's not your choice.
and YES, society is trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause. where have you been?
You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman who's been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
I'm not a father, nor a woman.
Also wow your arguments are all over the place, making very little sense at all.
You think the difference between a woman's responsibility to her child, and a man's responsibility to his child is only seperated by the 9 months of carrying the child?
Carrying a child for 9 months does indeed seem trivial compared to the lifetime of responsibility that comes with it for both man and woman.
In my eyes both the man and the woman have equal responsibility for the child, which means they will both be "equally burdened (Spelling?) by it"
A lifetime of responsibility compared to 9 months of being pregnant.
Ofcourse I'm assuming the father feels as responsible as he should. I'm not talking about deadbeat dads, fuck those.
I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child.
Women raising children is just a societal thing. Beyond being able to feed them fairly well by having the goods, (uneducated on issue) I think men statistically do just as well. The amount of labor required to provide child support demanded by courts is pretty hefty.
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
I dunno if you've ever known anyone who has had an abortion, but it can have a dramatic mental effect as well. I knew a girl who had one when she was 18 and at 26, it still haunted her. Obviously it has different effects on different people, but it's not something you can do and then forget about it.
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.
You really think it's that black and white? You think the rest of society is just trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause? How about considering that the act of abortion ends a life/a potential life (however you quantify it)? Consider how it could be equated to murder based on what your personal definition of 'when life starts' is? Come on, man. There's a reason these debates rage - it's a huge moral grey area.
LOL, let me say it again. Regardless of what society, 'god', or your definition of 'when life starts' is, it's not your choice.
and YES, society is trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause. where have you been?
The legality of abortion in the FREE United States of America or anywhere else in the world should never be in question. 20 weeks? Okay that will suffice. Permanent ban. No Thanks.
Pain? Pain that this unborn "person" will feel? Sure that is one way to look at it. But how about the pain and misery this baby is going to endure from the years of neglect and pain he/she will feel if abortion is no longer an option. Derelicts raising kids = extreme long term pain.
Abortion should not only be legal, but mandatory in most cases.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
By the way, first post :D
Watching Dog Whisperer on animal planet makes me doubt about the consensus on animal self awareness. Dogs seem pretty damn smart and self aware imho Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to measure self awareness, so it's hard to make an informed guess.
Grats on first post ^^
I also doubt the general consensus, but sometimes we got to simplify things in order for them to be logical.
Going for it the moral way is not the way to do it, because there will always be ones who agree and ones who disagree. I am more into the rational way of thinking. Society (taxpayers) does not have to pay for people with important mental or physical disorders. Unwanted babies often come from unresponsible parents, who will not raise their child into a good member of society. But now of course, legal abortion can be seen as a way to fix mistakes (unprotected sex), and that's where I believe there should be a certain way to coerce parents (or the single mother) who will abort their unborn child for no good reason (disease, "rape" pregnancy)
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
By the way, first post :D
What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
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.)
all this talk of pain... what if I sedated you and then killed you? there is no pain... with that in your system, you CANNOT feel pain. So what if it's not natural? this argument of feeling is actually stupid. The idea that anything is ok "as long as it doesn't effect someone else" is horrible. besides, abortion removes the kid's ability to EVER feel. Who are you to decide? in 99% of cases, the situation could have been avoided, one doesn't just randomly become pregnant -_-
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.)
Err, the same grounds as everyone else? Why am I not allowed to walk over to my neighbour's house and steal all their shit? Because society said no. Whether you like it or not, the greater opinion of the collective society controls our behaviour.
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.
On April 28 2011 11:33 LojiQaen wrote: My general idea:
Although abortion is a huge deal, and I personally don't even know what I think is right or wrong since both sides have great arguments, it is simply not a political issue, it's a moral issue. It's up to the mother, not the politician.
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.
Ideally electing and performing a late-term abortion should be socially stigmatized for actively destroying a developing human soul. If there is enough of a life-valuing culture, peer pressure would dissuade the abortions better than a legal proscription. The same stigma would apply to a much less extent for earlier abortions. But publicizing procedures like that would violate patient-doctor confidentiality so I don't know about the solution.
I would rather it not be illegal. Frankly, abortion doctors alarm me more than the mothers electing abortions. I don't understand how they can do that for a living. The main school of obstetrics is caring for a fetus for a safe healthy delivery. Then there's a school that's all about killing it. Creepy.
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.
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 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.
The line that is conception is non arbitrary. Sperm or an egg, on their own, will NEVER become a human being. A fertilized egg WILL become a human being. Before conception the human to-be didn't exist, you can't kill it.
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 02:15 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 02:46 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.
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.
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 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 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...
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?
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 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".
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 02:46 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 03:21 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.
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 03:21 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.
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.
Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder.
TL White Knights... Protecting the rights of unborn babies and women they will never meet.
Politicians and the public should never get a vote on this, it should be an individual medical decision made for each case by the women based on advice from her physician.
Edit: most funny of all are of course the anti abortion freaks who are for the death penalty. That's a lovely juxtaposition eh?
On April 29 2011 03:41 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: The definition of murder is ending a life.
The law, the dictionary and the consensus of most people disagrees with you. Something isn't what you want it to be only because you want it to be so to satisfy your personal opinions
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.
ehhh... as a mathematician, I think you're a little off in your understanding of induction. Props for even bringing it up though.
You're trying to say: Assume it is wrong to stop a pregnancy at time t=0 (which you've labeled as birth) If it is wrong at time t=k, an arbitrary point in time, then this implies it is also wrong at t=k-1 Then it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy at any t < 0. That's the thing about induction, it goes in that direction infinitely
So abortion, contraception, tampering with those molecules 1000 years before the pregnancy, are all wrong if we accept your t=k -> t=k-1 premise (ie the inductive step).
This is why it's rare to use induction going backwards in time for real world problems. It literally takes you back to the beginning of time. On the other hand, using induction going forward gives more sensible results. From this, you could easily show that the wrongness of killing a baby at birth implies that it is wrong to kill the same being in 10 years. But you have to define the starting point. Which you think is conception, others think is birth, others in between, and a few really do define conception as murder. But just as your belief that abortion at conception is murder does not imply that contraceptive use is murder, a belief that killing at/after birth is murder does not imply that abortion is murder.
Sign a law into effect that states that consensual sex is a contract with the scientifically proven end result of producing a child. Allow abortions. Fine or imprison mothers who do so for violating the contract for consensual sex.
I got nothing for rape or incest, I'm not touching that one.
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.
Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder.
But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine.
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.
No the definition of murder is killing another human being. I don't agree that a lump of cells is a human being yet. Therefore you analogy is faulty.
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.
Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder.
But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine.
So in an apocalyptic world it's fine to kill people. Got ya.
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". [/QUOTE]
The most sound argument in this thread. GG Alzadar.... You just hard countered everything.
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.
Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder.
But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine.
So in an apocalyptic world it's fine to kill people. Got ya.
Babies born on rainy days are 10% more likely to be depressed in their lives, I say it's okay to kill it if it's raining out on the day of expected delivery.
also, unrelated, 54.5% of statistics are made up on the spot.
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.
Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder.
But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine.
Yes, I understand your point of view, I am merely expressing the position of the law. (And also defining the appropriate terms of the discussion). Your point of 'life that may be spectacular and successful' is not that relevant as there is also a chance that the fetus will be stillborn, have defects, be run over etc etc. It is also not a FACT but more of a probability...or it should qualified by 'all things considered' but I'm just nitpicking now (...you need not respond to any of this...)
Killing the fetus may end its chance for life, however, that does not mean killing the fetus is murder. If I kill what will become a humam being, I am not killing THE human being. Just in the same way that if someone is committed of murder, they are not committed of the murder of all the people that the victim may have spawned or the lives of people that the victim may have potentially saved. Furthermore, if one only considered the fetus to be a group of cells equivalent in property as one's hair, then in this vein, it would also not be murder.
EDIT: my above analogy is a bit...meh. If I steal some clay, I am not stealing the vase that the clay may become.
There are natural miscarriages and spontaneous early term abortions. The mother's body can react to physical trauma or hormones and dislodge a fetus and out it goes. That happens quite often, sometimes to the great sadness of the expecting mother.
I don't have any moral qualms about that natural phenomenon and there is no moral imperative to replant the fetus into the uterus. If doctors and the mother wants to simulate that, it's a technicality and should not be illegal. They will have to live with the morality of their own decision and the consequences of their actions.
Taking a knife to fetal tissue or any type of invasive action against fetus is extremely reprehensible. I wouldn't want any part of that and probably won't want to have anything to do with anyone that was part of it.
The only weapon and threat the man rightly has against a woman aborting his baby over his objections is kicking the girl out of his life and never having anything to do with her again. If there is no civil way to reach an agreement, it probably wasn't going to be a good match. On the other hand, when the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the man is forced to pay child support and go along with the decision. For equality, treatment of the situation should be a bit more symmetrical.
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.
Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder.
But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine.
Yes, I understand your point of view, I am merely expressing the position of the law. (And also defining the appropriate terms of the discussion). Your point of 'life that may be spectacular and successful' is not that relevant as there is also a chance that the fetus will be stillborn, have defects, be run over etc etc. It is also not a FACT but more of a probability...or it should qualified by 'all things considered' but I'm just nitpicking now (...you need not respond to any of this...)
Killing the fetus may end its chance for life, however, that does not mean killing the fetus is murder. If I kill what will become a humam being, I am not killing THE human being. Just in the same way that if someone is committed of murder, they are not committed of the murder of all the people that the victim may have spawned or the lives of people that the victim may have potentially saved. Furthermore, if one only considered the fetus to be a group of cells equivalent in property as one's hair, then in this vein, it would also not be murder.
EDIT: my above analogy is a bit...meh. If I steal some clay, I am not stealing the vase that the clay may become.
well according to the transitive property i learned in geometry. if a=b and b=c , then a=c. therefore, if clay=vase clay =stolen then vase is stolen. lol
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.
Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder.
But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine.
Yes, I understand your point of view, I am merely expressing the position of the law. (And also defining the appropriate terms of the discussion). Your point of 'life that may be spectacular and successful' is not that relevant as there is also a chance that the fetus will be stillborn, have defects, be run over etc etc. It is also not a FACT but more of a probability...or it should qualified by 'all things considered' but I'm just nitpicking now (...you need not respond to any of this...)
Killing the fetus may end its chance for life, however, that does not mean killing the fetus is murder. If I kill what will become a humam being, I am not killing THE human being. Just in the same way that if someone is committed of murder, they are not committed of the murder of all the people that the victim may have spawned or the lives of people that the victim may have potentially saved. Furthermore, if one only considered the fetus to be a group of cells equivalent in property as one's hair, then in this vein, it would also not be murder.
EDIT: my above analogy is a bit...meh. If I steal some clay, I am not stealing the vase that the clay may become.
well according to the transitive property i learned in geometry. if a=b and b=c , then a=c. therefore, if clay=vase clay =stolen then vase is stolen. lol
haha, but the element of time does not mean that clay=vase...
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".
You're just making the same point over and over and over. Abortion is not the same thing as murder. There is no such thing as a 'right to life', which is essentially another way of saying 'sanctity of life'. The fact that you (and a considerable portion of people around the world) feel that this right should excist doesn't change anything.
The concept of individual rights only gets extended to, you know, an actual individual. At the time of an abortion, there is no individual yet, in the most extreme case there's a clump of 2-4 cells that might one day develop into an individual.
To rebutt your examples: 1) Robbery - Society as a whole endorses the concept of property, and property is crucial to our current social system, so government has a right to enforce it. In a society with no concept of property, robbery wouldn't be a crime. 2) Murdering your basement dwelling son - Society extends individual rights to every individual. No matter if you hide him in your basement. Again, the concept of individual rights (and responsibilities) is crucial to the functioning of our society and therefore needs to be enforced by the government.
You can't make a similar case for abortion, and especially on an issue this divisive, government should stay the hell away from it. Be happy you're allowed to live your life according to your own morality, and allow me to do the same.
(Oh and I take it morning after pills are murder too?)
On April 29 2011 01:35 yema1 wrote: I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on late-term abortions.
Description of a 18-22 week fetus: "She may have some head hair and eyebrows by now. She can make facial expressions, frowning and grimacing expressively. Her ears are well developed and she can hear your voice and your heartbeat."
I'm an avid supporter of abortions but when the baby has reached a certain point of maturity you aren't killing a fetus. You're killing a baby. No one has the right to kill a baby, regardless of whether it's in you or not.
This isn't true. I posted a very detailed explanation of what a fetus is capable of. They CANNOTmake actual facial expressions, cannot heart properly, does not have any clear hair growth, but does have a heartbeat, which they are unable regulate to any real degree. Any "facial expressions" are incidental and not responses. Their nervous system IS NOT developed and cannot possibly convey meaningful information because their BRAIN is not not developed to any useful degree. Higher brain development happens towards 22 and up, not by 20 weeks.
EDIT: For reference, a baby at BIRTH does not have ears capable of distinguishing sounds well.
I'm sorry for these graphic images, but this is an adult topic and it shouldn't be treated lightly. Sometimes waxing philosophical clouds what should be obvious. These are children and we must protect them. How can you tell these babies that they are better off if we dispose of them before they have a chance? Any one of us could have been terminated.
On April 29 2011 04:35 gimpy wrote: I'm sorry for these graphic images, but this is an adult topic and it shouldn't be treated lightly. Sometimes waxing philosophical clouds what should be obvious. These are children and we must protect them. How can you tell these babies that they are better off if we dispose of them before they have a chance? Any one of us could have been terminated.
20 Weeks:
Yes, these are very emotive images...but one must also remember that at 20 weeks, the fetus is only around 15cm long...
Also, is it not up to human beings, to use their rationality and question our own moral intuition? To reject a theory/action on the basis of a reaction to it is not a good way of going about things, then we wouldn't really progress much as a race...things like vaccinations, blood transfusion etc would all have stopped in their tracks because of an initial 'YUK' factor.
Babies born on rainy days are 10% more likely to be depressed in their lives, I say it's okay to kill it if it's raining out on the day of expected delivery.
also, unrelated, 54.5% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Oh man, for a second I was like "54.4% huh, that's really interesting." Then I laughed at myself for my hubris.
On a more related note; I am against any ban of abortion under any condition because I can't think of anything more cruel to a child then bringing it into the world when no one wants it to exist or the parents don't feel they are in a situation to raise it right. On the other side I think it is even too cruel to the parent to bring them into that situation.
I always feel that people are too prone to drawing black and white situations out of life and death. There are very many situations where death is preferable to life and I think there are even more times when it would be preferable to have never been born.
Dying is a natural and beautiful thing that everyone does, we shouldn't look at it as some unspeakable evil.
Premature babies have greater and greater survivability as neo-natal medicine progresses. In my opinion, this is pretty important for the abortion debate since one of the arguments for abortion is that the fetus is a helpless leech, dependent on the mother completely, and abortion is no different than shutting off life support essentially.
As neo-natal medicine continues to improve survivability of these babies, it will become harder and harder to argue that late second and third trimester abortions are not in fact ending a viable human life.
Babies born on rainy days are 10% more likely to be depressed in their lives, I say it's okay to kill it if it's raining out on the day of expected delivery.
also, unrelated, 54.5% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Oh man, for a second I was like "54.4% huh, that's really interesting." Then I laughed at myself for my hubris.
On a more related note; I am against any ban of abortion under any condition because I can't think of anything more cruel to a child then bringing it into the world when no one wants it to exist or the parents don't feel they are in a situation to raise it right. On the other side I think it is even too cruel to the parent to bring them into that situation.
I always feel that people are too prone to drawing black and white situations out of life and death. There are very many situations where death is preferable to life and I think there are even more times when it would be preferable to have never been born.
Dying is a natural and beautiful thing that everyone does, we shouldn't look at it as some unspeakable evil.
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
Yes, these are very emotive images...but one must also remember that at 20 weeks, the fetus is only around 15cm long...
Also, is it not up to human beings, to use their rationality and question our own moral intuition? To reject a theory/action on the basis of a reaction to it is not a good way of going about things, then we wouldn't really progress much as a race...things like vaccinations, blood transfusion etc would all have stopped in their tracks because of an initial 'YUK' factor.
Here's the problem, if you and I put our heads together, given enough time, we would come up with some very convincing reasons to kill eachother. Everything can be rationalized with our limited minds. When someone comes up to us and tells us not to kill eachother because life has value, we might very well agree that he is a backward thinking traditionalist and disregard him.
We have value, don't kill eachother, don't kill these children either.
On April 29 2011 04:11 TanGeng wrote: There are natural miscarriages and spontaneous early term abortions. The mother's body can react to physical trauma or hormones and dislodge a fetus and out it goes. That happens quite often, sometimes to the great sadness of the expecting mother.
I don't have any moral qualms about that natural phenomenon and there is no moral imperative to replant the fetus into the uterus. If doctors and the mother wants to simulate that, it's a technicality and should not be illegal. They will have to live with the morality of their own decision and the consequences of their actions.
Taking a knife to fetal tissue or any type of invasive action against fetus is extremely reprehensible. I wouldn't want any part of that and probably won't want to have anything to do with anyone that was part of it.
The only weapon and threat the man rightly has against a woman aborting his baby over his objections is kicking the girl out of his life and never having anything to do with her again. If there is no civil way to reach an agreement, it probably wasn't going to be a good match. On the other hand, when the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the man is forced to pay child support and go along with the decision. For equality, treatment of the situation should be a bit more symmetrical.
Oops, sorry to double post but I just noticed this post. I like TanGent's style and feel that the point he brings up is a lot more debatable then the abortion/no abortion debate.
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
A lot of people who are against abortions are not necessarily religious, just as there are many Catholics who disagree with the churches views on abortion and contraception. Stop trying to demonize religion as the root cause of peoples views that you don't agree with.
The vast majority of them is. All those piles and piles of money that go into pro-life groups is all drenched in holy water.
Not all anti-abortion people are religious but the vast majority of them is and the entire driving force behind the movement would fall away if religion stopped backing it with the green.
Nobody has said that all anti-abortion people are religious but to pretend like it's 50/50 or that religion has a neglible influence on the movement is just outright deceitfull. The anti-abortion movement exists by the grace of organized religion, wether you like that or not.
But wether your ideas come from a boring fantasy/rape novel or from your own mind it doesn't change much. Demanding other people live by your moral standards isn't a noble thing to do. This subject is controversial enough to have two split sides so to each his own.
You can go through life never having an abortion or i suppose forcing your girlfriend/wife to have a child she doesn't want whilst the other half can still have the option. Too each his own. If you don't wanna hurt animals don't eat meat but don't go and make laws that other people shouldn't eat meat.
Living by your own morals should be enough, you shouldn't seek validation by forcing others to live your view of what is right. That is what pro-choice is, everyone gets to live as they like. There is only one side that demands everyone adapt to their way and abolish the choice.
Dude.. nobody is tripping out because of abortion. If you don't see something wrong with killing a fucking fetus then I hope you find a good Physiatrist.
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote: There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
You can never be past "initial moral arguments." The heart, not the feet, or hands, or face, of the matter, is a moral one.
Science cannot answer the question of what is right or wrong in this case. Science can only answer what happens in week 20, in week 19, week 10, week 1, day 1, conception, preconception.
Science can answer when the egg is fertilized, when the 'baby' starts to look like a baby, when the heart starts beating, when the brain starts functioning. It cannot answer at which point the baby is a baby, to be cared for, to be loved, or not a baby, to be discarded, like any other trash or inconvenience.
Science is neutral. On every issue. Science merely explains the physical; it can never explain the moral.
So, do not presuppose your opinion and try to get science to back it up. You are not standing on science, then, you are standing on your own wisdom, and claiming the former!
If we are all just an accidental chemical reaction, then none of this relativistic moral poop means anything, and abortion is not only not wrong, it's inconsequential; let these people do what they want to do, for there is no right or wrong.
If there is a truth, however, and we are searching for it, even on this forum, the truth must reside outside of us or else we create the truth ourselves and it is not truth, but perception.
And if there is a truth that is outside of us, a real truth, for what else can truth be, then it must come from something, and if truth comes from something, you must ask yourself what that something is because, as we see, it is not something produced within. The very fact that so many are arguing their side so zealously indicates this very thing. Otherwise, who would care?
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way.
Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...
This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God.
Jeremiah 1:5a "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."
This verse is not speaking directly to abortion, but it is clear that we were known of God before we were born.
So, what day, what hour, and what minute, are we finally a baby? A human worth saving? I'm not sure that is the point. But, there is strong evidence in the Bible for conception. And anyway, erasing someone else's life on earth is not a line I want to come close to.
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
what does the wishes of the mother have to do with it if it is a question of murder?
I'm confident you would not advocate the legality of killing children that have been born already, regardless of whether the mother wants the child or not.
So are you saying the unborn child is not a human life? that is the crux of the debate, not the mother's wishes or whether the child might or might not have a miserable life.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
By the way, first post :D
What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
By the way, first post :D
What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
Don't want to get into the debate of abortion, but I did want to say that the statement is true. Humans are thought to become self-aware around the age of 2.
http://sharepoint.niles-hs.k12.il.us/north/renser/Lecture Notes/Module 4 Research Strategies/The Mirror Test Article.pdf Self-Recognition in Humans In parallel with the comparative studies of nonhuman primates, developmental psychologists have tried to map the ontogeny of self-recognition in children, and elucidate the relationship between self-recognition and other aspects of the developing sense of self. The modern era of self-recognition studies on humans began when Amsterdam (1972) observed the reactions of young infants and toddlers to a mirror and devised a less rigorous version of the mark test that involved applying rouge to the child’s nose (see Gallup 1994 for a critique). Children toward the end of the first year of life show mostly social responses to their reflection (e.g., smiling, The Cognitive Animal -- Gallup, Anderson, and Shillito, page 9 vocalizing). These sometimes persist into the second year, when coy reactions and avoidance are also observed. Not until around 18 months do some infants use the reflection to investigate the mark on their nose, the majority doing so by two years of age. One study reported a positive relationship between performance on tasks related to self-recognition and tasks related to object permanence (Bertenthal and Fischer 1978), but age as a covariate can rarely be ruled out in such studies. In an attempt to establish more precise age-norms, subsequent research has used video techniques to demonstrate the importance of contingency cues in the infant’s developing understanding of its own image (Johnson 1982; for a review see Anderson 1984).
On April 29 2011 05:24 danl9rm wrote: Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way.
Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...
This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God.
Did you just quote a passage of the bible where god says it's cool to kill people to rationalize why abortion is bad?
C'mon. If you just want to believe something for no good reason other then your own opinion. Then just admit it's just your own opinion. Don't go try to cherry pick stuff from the bible to support you because you'll end up like the WBC zealots.
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
what does the wishes of the mother have to do with it if it is a question of murder?
I'm confident you would not advocate the legality of killing children that have been born already, regardless of whether the mother wants the child or not.
So are you saying the unborn child is not a human life? that is the crux of the debate, not the mother's wishes or whether the child might or might not have a miserable life.
The difference in my mind is that children do not become self aware until well after birth and the life being ended never knew it existed so to me at least (and I acknowledge that my moral compass is at odds with that of the general populace) there is nothing cruel to the fetus itself in killing it and there is everything cruel about forcing it to live when the odds are stacked against it.
Regardless, this to me is a subtext to the moral dilemmas involving the mother. How anyone could value the life of something that doesn't know it exists over the basic human freedoms of a living breathing human is beyond me.
EDIT:
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
I am in favor of the freedom of the parents to chose this for their children.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
By the way, first post :D
What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
OMG A guy who believes in magical cures for cancer using resonance are being hidden from us in a conspiracy by the evil drug companies just posted saying that dumb people shouldn't vote!
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
Are you living a life of misery? How do you know any of this? If you were killed before you were born you could not know if it would have been better to live. Rich and happy people die each day and poor and those that were miserable find happiness or richness. Who are you to claim they are better dead?!
As Tyrion says in Game of Thrones: "Death is so final where life, life is full of possibilities."
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
By the way, first post :D
What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
OMG A guy who believes in magical cures for cancer using resonance are being hidden from us in a conspiracy by the evil drug companies just posted saying that dumb people shouldn't vote!
Hmm, personal attacks. On internet that is the next step after a persons arguments fail and he does not want to admit defeat. Other reason people become personal is when they get pissed which does not seem to be the case by your post. No, you are just clueless.
EDIT: By the way: Any technology that is not understood by others (or not wanted to be understood) is no different then magic. Just like in the Thor movie
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
Are you living a life of misery? How do you know any of this? If you were killed before you were born you could not know if it would have been better to live. Rich and happy people die each day and poor and those that were miserable find happiness or richness. Who are you to claim they are better dead?!
As Tyrion says in Game of Thrones: "Death is so final where life, life is full of possibilities."
Sorry for being unclear, I only brought in the extreme example to highlight the fact that there is a grey area and that banning abortion is just as stupid as making it mandatory.
I'm not claiming I know who is better off dead and who isn't, but the mother of a child has a much more informed and consequential say in the matter and my point is that the state regulating abortions is like turning a blind eye to the most important factor who can see the child's potential situation better than anyone. Ignoring facts, all though it may be more comfortable, is in it's ends cruel to all parties involved.
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
Are you living a life of misery? How do you know any of this? If you were killed before you were born you could not know if it would have been better to live. Rich and happy people die each day and poor and those that were miserable find happiness or richness. Who are you to claim they are better dead?!
As Tyrion says in Game of Thrones: "Death is so final where life, life is full of possibilities."
Half of those possibilities are misery.
Imagine a family, who are poor and can barely live like they are (a man and a woman) and it so happens that the women gets pregnant. Should they keep the baby? es, they can always win the lottary and make their lifes better, but why would want to have the baby, it will most likely live in poverty.
I remember when I ask my mom to have another brother and she said "if I had enough money to provide 10 more children with good lives, then you would have had 10 more brothers and sisters, but sadly I don't, I have enough for you and your brother."
Most of the women who have abortions are young and their husband or boyfriend doesn't have a stable job to support a whole family. I cannot imagine anybody willing to put somebody through a life of misery.
On April 29 2011 05:35 -Archangel- wrote: I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
OMG A guy who believes in magical cures for cancer using resonance are being hidden from us in a conspiracy by the evil drug companies just posted saying that dumb people shouldn't vote!
Hmm, personal attacks. On internet that is the next step after a persons arguments fail and he does not want to admit defeat. Other reason people become personal is when they get pissed which does not seem to be the case by your post. No, you are just clueless.
I agree with your second post in principle... but did you seriously post that *after* resorting to a personal attack against him?
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote: There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
You can never be past "initial moral arguments." The heart, not the feet, or hands, or face, of the matter, is a moral one.
Science cannot answer the question of what is right or wrong in this case. Science can only answer what happens in week 20, in week 19, week 10, week 1, day 1, conception, preconception.
Science can answer when the egg is fertilized, when the 'baby' starts to look like a baby, when the heart starts beating, when the brain starts functioning. It cannot answer at which point the baby is a baby, to be cared for, to be loved, or not a baby, to be discarded, like any other trash or inconvenience.
Science is neutral. On every issue. Science merely explains the physical; it can never explain the moral.
So, do not presuppose your opinion and try to get science to back it up. You are not standing on science, then, you are standing on your own wisdom, and claiming the former!
If we are all just an accidental chemical reaction, then none of this relativistic moral poop means anything, and abortion is not only not wrong, it's inconsequential; let these people do what they want to do, for there is no right or wrong.
If there is a truth, however, and we are searching for it, even on this forum, the truth must reside outside of us or else we create the truth ourselves and it is not truth, but perception.
And if there is a truth that is outside of us, a real truth, for what else can truth be, then it must come from something, and if truth comes from something, you must ask yourself what that something is because, as we see, it is not something produced within. The very fact that so many are arguing their side so zealously indicates this very thing. Otherwise, who would care?
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way.
Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...
This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God.
Jeremiah 1:5a "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."
This verse is not speaking directly to abortion, but it is clear that we were known of God before we were born.
So, what day, what hour, and what minute, are we finally a baby? A human worth saving? I'm not sure that is the point. But, there is strong evidence in the Bible for conception. And anyway, erasing someone else's life on earth is not a line I want to come close to.
Ok, this is going to be crude but the point has to be made.
Why should any of this matter to me? I don't believe in a god, I don't hold the bible in any higher regard then the average text written by Homer (not the guy from the simpsons) and I certainly don't believe it applies to life in the 21st century.
Next step, what gives you the right to impose your morality on the rest of the a country? What is this obsession with demanding everyone lives by your rules? In a century marked by diminishing numbers of religious people, what could be more crucial then allowing everyone to live their life the way they want it? By assuring I can live by my own morality, you're also assuring you can live by yours. You can live by your thruth, I get to live by mine.
For all I know, the bible held the best of humanity's knowledge at the time, and I understand that it can help people in search of moral guidance/ a sense of purpose even today. But large parts of it (especially the old testament) are simply not applicable to the modern world anymore.
Sorry for being unclear, I only brought in the extreme example to highlight the fact that there is a grey area and that banning abortion is just as stupid as making it mandatory.
I'm not claiming I know who is better off dead and who isn't, but the mother of a child has a much more informed and consequential say in the matter and my point is that the state regulating abortions is like turning a blind eye to the most important factor who can see the child's potential situation better than anyone. Ignoring facts, all though it may be more comfortable, is in it's ends cruel to all parties involved.
It really sounds silly whenever someone says they are killing someone for their own good. It's a good thing our government protects us from these people.
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.
Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this.
The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak.
Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not.
Ok, this is going to be crude but the point has to be made.
Why should any of this matter to me? I don't believe in a god, I don't hold the bible in any higher regard then the average text written by Homer (not the guy from the simpsons) and I certainly don't believe it applies to life in the 21st century.
Next step, what gives you the right to impose your morality on the rest of the a country? What is this obsession with demanding everyone lives by your rules? In a century marked by diminishing numbers of religious people, what could be more crucial then allowing everyone to live their life the way they want it? By assuring I can live by my own morality, you're also assuring you can live by yours. You can live by your thruth, I get to live by mine.
For all I know, the bible held the best of humanity's knowledge at the time, and I understand that it can help people in search of moral guidance/ a sense of purpose even today. But large parts of it (especially the old testament) are simply not applicable to the modern world anymore (not touching a pigs skin, not working on a sunday). What is so wrong about facing that and adjusting your beliefs accordingly?
You have your morality and I have my morality. Sounds good. Guess what, my morality says that I should kill you for something you just said that insults me. Still have no problem with my morality? You probably want someone to impose their version of morality on me now don't you?
On April 29 2011 05:55 -Archangel- wrote: Hmm, personal attacks.
On April 29 2011 05:55 -Archangel- wrote: This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
Hmm, personal attacks.
The whole point of my post was to show YOU were resorting to personal attacks. Pay attention for once. You accuse me of personal attacks after JUST making one? lol...
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.
Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this.
The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak.
Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not.
Even though the fetus may be a separate entity, the uterus still belongs to the woman and it is her who must provide the fetus nutrition etc. The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus that causes many physiological changes. Of course the moral ramifications are what makes the dilemma.
Ok, this is going to be crude but the point has to be made.
Why should any of this matter to me? I don't believe in a god, I don't hold the bible in any higher regard then the average text written by Homer (not the guy from the simpsons) and I certainly don't believe it applies to life in the 21st century.
Next step, what gives you the right to impose your morality on the rest of the a country? What is this obsession with demanding everyone lives by your rules? In a century marked by diminishing numbers of religious people, what could be more crucial then allowing everyone to live their life the way they want it? By assuring I can live by my own morality, you're also assuring you can live by yours. You can live by your thruth, I get to live by mine.
For all I know, the bible held the best of humanity's knowledge at the time, and I understand that it can help people in search of moral guidance/ a sense of purpose even today. But large parts of it (especially the old testament) are simply not applicable to the modern world anymore (not touching a pigs skin, not working on a sunday). What is so wrong about facing that and adjusting your beliefs accordingly?
You have your morality and I have my morality. Sounds good. Guess what, my morality says that I should kill you for something you just said that insults me. Still have no problem with my morality? You probably want someone to impose their version of morality on me now don't you?
Which incidentally is what it would be like to live in a country under Old Testament law. There are laws punishing things like disrespecting one's parents or having gay sex (to name two) with death. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to live like that should move to a country where they have Sharia.
It's good that those laws worked over 2000 years ago when the world was a more cruel, primitive place. Maybe it was necessary for that group of people to survive then, but things have changed. There is no justification for many of these old laws in a modern society. And there is no sense in cherry-picking some to keep and others to discard, that is simply using the Bible as an excuse for an ulterior philosophy.
Therefore, those among us who believe in God should find personal comfort and enlightenment in the scriptures and through prayer. They should not force us to live under a barbaric system of law.
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote: There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
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.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
You can never be past "initial moral arguments." The heart, not the feet, or hands, or face, of the matter, is a moral one.
Science cannot answer the question of what is right or wrong in this case. Science can only answer what happens in week 20, in week 19, week 10, week 1, day 1, conception, preconception.
Science can answer when the egg is fertilized, when the 'baby' starts to look like a baby, when the heart starts beating, when the brain starts functioning. It cannot answer at which point the baby is a baby, to be cared for, to be loved, or not a baby, to be discarded, like any other trash or inconvenience.
Science is neutral. On every issue. Science merely explains the physical; it can never explain the moral.
So, do not presuppose your opinion and try to get science to back it up. You are not standing on science, then, you are standing on your own wisdom, and claiming the former!
If we are all just an accidental chemical reaction, then none of this relativistic moral poop means anything, and abortion is not only not wrong, it's inconsequential; let these people do what they want to do, for there is no right or wrong.
If there is a truth, however, and we are searching for it, even on this forum, the truth must reside outside of us or else we create the truth ourselves and it is not truth, but perception.
And if there is a truth that is outside of us, a real truth, for what else can truth be, then it must come from something, and if truth comes from something, you must ask yourself what that something is because, as we see, it is not something produced within. The very fact that so many are arguing their side so zealously indicates this very thing. Otherwise, who would care?
The majority of this section has no meaning, it's just aggrandizement and fluff. Even agreeing that it's partially a moral issue, there are actual experts such as philosophers, doctors, researchers, religious experts, and so on that discuss these issues and do so much better than the vast majority of this forum. I've kept tabs on this thread and have seen nothing but rudimentary arguments going back and forth, rarely ever having a counter-point. My argument is that if there is a debate to be had, the people having it should be well read and well prepared. Regardless of my position on abortion, most of the posts here are full of glaring holes.
Owarida and a few others are the only ones who have actually critically examined things in their posts. The rest are just gut level reactions.
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way.
Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...
This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God.
Jeremiah 1:5a "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."
This verse is not speaking directly to abortion, but it is clear that we were known of God before we were born.
So, what day, what hour, and what minute, are we finally a baby? A human worth saving? I'm not sure that is the point. But, there is strong evidence in the Bible for conception. And anyway, erasing someone else's life on earth is not a line I want to come close to.
The Bible is not a source of infallible information. Regardless of your faith and whether God exists, it did not write the Bible. It was written by a selective group of men who picked and choose what to include as the foundation of their religious movement. Any Christian historian will tell you that. I'm not trying to challenge your faith, I'm simply saying that using that as evidence is akin to the people who cite Michael Crichton when it comes to global warming.
Even among the portions you cited, there are two main translations of Jeremiah which carry significant differences, and many believe it went through external editing.
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.
Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this.
The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak.
Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not.
Even though the fetus may be a separate entity, the uterus still belongs to the woman and it is her who must provide the fetus nutrition etc. The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus in the same way that one may determine whether to cut their hair. Of course the moral ramifications are what makes the dilemma.
Again, your missing the point. Hair growing from a woman's body that has the same genetic makeup of the woman is by definition the woman's. A child with a separate genome and separate organs ect is NOT the woman's. It is no where near the same as cutting hair. Not even introducing morality in the argument.
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.
Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this.
The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak.
Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not.
Even though the fetus may be a separate entity, the uterus still belongs to the woman and it is her who must provide the fetus nutrition etc. The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus in the same way that one may determine whether to cut their hair. Of course the moral ramifications are what makes the dilemma.
Again, your missing the point. Hair growing from a woman's body that has the same genetic makeup of the woman is by definition the woman's. A child with a separate genome and separate organs ect is NOT the woman's. It is no where near the same as cutting hair. Not even introducing morality in the argument.
Yes, I concur, it is different from cutting hair, I did go back and edit after deciding that the analogy was crap. I changed it to 'The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus that causes many physiological changes.' and no, I didn't change it after you posted
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
My English teacher is an older lady, and she always says something similar to that. Our class had a paper assigned on a topic in the 1920s and one girl chose birth control (the equivalent of abortion now) and the teacher wouldn't shut up about how men govern women's bodies. She pretty much gave the girl a perfect thesis in class, and a little bias might of scored her some extra credit lol.
On April 29 2011 05:55 -Archangel- wrote: This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
Hmm, personal attacks.
The whole point of my post was to show YOU were resorting to personal attacks. Pay attention for once. You accuse me of personal attacks after JUST making one? lol...
Yes, that could be interpreted as a personal attack but it really wasn't. I just got pissed by his post so went on a rant about all kinds of people having a right to vote and used his post as an example. I didn't talk only about him. So, while it was a personal attack it wasn't just towards him but all the people in this world that would fail this test that at the moment make my life worse because of their voting (and trust me in this country some system like this one was needed 8 years ago and not only now as it is run by gangsters with a good media machine behind them).
A fetus has not achieved any rights because it hasn't been born (this is the logic in sweden which has no laws for unborn "people"). A women has the right over her own body.
So in principal it's woman rights vs anonymous mammal rights (yes it's impossible for a layman to distinguish a human fetus from a pig fetus up to 20 weeks). I choose to trust the women decisions rather than a conservative group of people.
Also if the woman dies the fetus dies too, they are interconnected. This means that you can say that abortion is like killing a part of the woman not another human being.
The way I see it, it's an implicit responsibility for the woman to care for the fetus, just like it's an implicit responsibility of the parents to take care of a born baby. Likewise, it's a moral responsibility of a doctor to do no harm and whenever possible take care of an unborn child. An abortion violates both of the implicit responsibility of the mother and the moral responsibility of the doctor.
The dilemma of making abortion illegal is that the law cannot force an unwilling mother to assume responsibility and the law cannot prevent demand from finding supply. For women, if the mother is unwilling to follow through on the responsibility of bearing the baby and then taking care of a child, illegality of the abortion isn't going to change that. There needs to be someone to take responsibility for the child if it is to continue to term. I'm not busy-body enough to want the public take that responsibility through the force of law. In my mind, that is why it should not be illegal for the mother to elect.
For doctors, it is a total violate of the Hippocratic Oath, but unscrupulous doctors will cater to the demand for abortions by irresponsible mothers. In the past, I would have though that it should be illegal for doctors to perform the abortions, but that only invites black market health hazards. Today, I would suggest that abortion fall into the category of extremely morally reprehensible, but legal procedure. I would ostracize all doctors that perform abortions under all but the most extreme of circumstances and would urge others to do the same.
The ideal outcome would be that abortion is legal but socially taboo. The closer to term, the more socially taboo it becomes. I also make the distinction between dislodging the fetus from the uterus and invasive destruction of the fetus. An invasive action against the fetus is a much more serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
On April 29 2011 07:57 TanGeng wrote: The way I see it, it's an implicit responsibility for the woman to care for the fetus, just like it's an implicit responsibility of the parents to take care of a born baby. Likewise, it's a moral responsibility of a doctor to do no harm and whenever possible take care of an unborn child. An abortion violates both of the implicit responsibility of the mother and the moral responsibility of the doctor.
The dilemma of making abortion illegal is that the law cannot force an unwilling mother to assume responsibility and the law cannot prevent demand from finding supply. For women, if the mother is unwilling to follow through on the responsibility of bearing the baby and then taking care of a child, illegality of the abortion isn't going to change that. There needs to be someone to take responsibility for the child if it is to continue to term. I'm not busy-body enough to want the public take that responsibility through the force of law. In my mind, that is why it should not be illegal for the mother to elect.
For doctors, it is a total violate of the Hippocratic Oath, but unscrupulous doctors will cater to the demand for abortions by irresponsible mothers. In the past, I would have though that it should be illegal for doctors to perform the abortions, but that only invites black market health hazards. Today, I would suggest that abortion fall into the category of extremely morally reprehensible, but legal procedure. I would ostracize all doctors that perform abortions under all but the most extreme of circumstances and would urge others to do the same.
The ideal outcome would be that abortion is legal but socially taboo. The closer to term, the more socially taboo it becomes. I also make the distinction between dislodging the fetus from the uterus and invasive destruction of the fetus. An invasive action against the fetus is a much more serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
I understand where you are coming from regarding doctors who perform abortions. When I interviewed for medical school (ended up choosing math grad school instead but this was before I had decided), the panel asked questions about abortion where we had to defend our position. I was politically pro life at the time. They asked challenging questions, but were probably more interested in my ability to reason and feel empathy than which side I took. One of the final questions was whether, as a future physician, I would be willing to perform an abortion under circumstances where there was not another person qualified to perform the procedure but I was. My response was that I would do it only if necessary as a matter of life or death for the woman; that if it was a matter of her elective I could not bring myself to perform the procedure and she would have to wait to find another doctor. In his response, the interviewer concluded that "people who do things that are against their conscience live tortured lives." Although it is a quite obvious statement, that particular phrase has stuck with me since then, even as I have forgotten most of the rest of that day. It would be terrible to do a job that you believe is wrong, harmful, evil, etc.
I can only assume that practically all doctors who perform abortions honestly believe that life begins at birth. They probably see it as doing a service for the woman to help her improve her life, so that she can live as she wishes, possibly have a child when the time is right.
Some people's job is to kill what is unquestionably a living person. An Executioner probably feels that what he does is in the interests of protecting society. It would otherwise be an impossible job to fulfill. A Soldier does not look at his job as murdering enemy soldiers who might only be trying to defend their country. He sees it as fighting for what is right, fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves, etc. A General may have to send some soldiers to their certain death to achieve a tactical objective, but he must believe that the sacrifice is worth it.
On April 29 2011 07:57 TanGeng wrote: The way I see it, it's an implicit responsibility for the woman to care for the fetus, just like it's an implicit responsibility of the parents to take care of a born baby. Likewise, it's a moral responsibility of a doctor to do no harm and whenever possible take care of an unborn child. An abortion violates both of the implicit responsibility of the mother and the moral responsibility of the doctor.
The dilemma of making abortion illegal is that the law cannot force an unwilling mother to assume responsibility and the law cannot prevent demand from finding supply. For women, if the mother is unwilling to follow through on the responsibility of bearing the baby and then taking care of a child, illegality of the abortion isn't going to change that. There needs to be someone to take responsibility for the child if it is to continue to term. I'm not busy-body enough to want the public take that responsibility through the force of law. In my mind, that is why it should not be illegal for the mother to elect.
For doctors, it is a total violate of the Hippocratic Oath, but unscrupulous doctors will cater to the demand for abortions by irresponsible mothers. In the past, I would have though that it should be illegal for doctors to perform the abortions, but that only invites black market health hazards. Today, I would suggest that abortion fall into the category of extremely morally reprehensible, but legal procedure. I would ostracize all doctors that perform abortions under all but the most extreme of circumstances and would urge others to do the same.
The ideal outcome would be that abortion is legal but socially taboo. The closer to term, the more socially taboo it becomes. I also make the distinction between dislodging the fetus from the uterus and invasive destruction of the fetus. An invasive action against the fetus is a much more serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Just an FYI - getting an abortion is still looked down upon - especially late term.
I think everyone would love abortion to cease to exist in the future, but I do not think any reasonable person could call for a complete ban tomorrow.
We have not come far enough to afford such luxuries. Many underlying issues need to be weeded out of society before you can go out and save the lives of everyone.
On April 28 2011 11:01 lagmaster wrote: The House had to take a second vote because the Senate added the provision cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood.
Can anyone here explain that to me? How much funding was cut off and how does that affect Planned Parenthood?
On April 29 2011 09:24 oo inflame oo wrote: I'm an athiest, nihlist, determinist, but also a utilitarian, and I cannot agree with abortion.
Justify your statement. Explain how utility is increased by disagreeing with abortion.
I'm a vegetarian because I want to limit the amount of suffering of all beings. Their lesser intelligence doesn't affect their suffering. If, after 20 weeks, a fetus may experience pain, I would want to limit their suffering.
Personally, I think that the 20 week period sounds like a reasonable amount of time. That's more than half way through pregnancy, and at that point, the fetus is already mostly developed and taking it out would be quite the hassle. Besides, I think if women want abortions, they would most likely get it a decent amount of time before 20 weeks.
On April 29 2011 09:24 oo inflame oo wrote: I'm an athiest, nihlist, determinist, but also a utilitarian, and I cannot agree with abortion.
Justify your statement. Explain how utility is increased by disagreeing with abortion.
I'm a vegetarian because I want to limit the amount of suffering of all beings. Their lesser intelligence doesn't affect their suffering. If, after 20 weeks, a fetus may experience pain, I would want to limit their suffering.
How is it nihilistic to care about suffering? Nietzsche specifically said suffering is irrelevant for a nihilist.
On April 29 2011 09:24 oo inflame oo wrote: I'm an athiest, nihlist, determinist, but also a utilitarian, and I cannot agree with abortion.
Justify your statement. Explain how utility is increased by disagreeing with abortion.
I'm more curious how could a nihilist not agree with abortion
As worthless creatures in a worthless expanse of space, one of the few distinguishes we can make are the differences between pleasure and pain. Locked in a dark room with bags over our head (which is what we are), we still experience positive and negative sensations. I believe promoting unconditional happiness or causing suffering are our only two choices in life. I choose the former.
On April 29 2011 09:24 oo inflame oo wrote: I'm an athiest, nihlist, determinist, but also a utilitarian, and I cannot agree with abortion.
Justify your statement. Explain how utility is increased by disagreeing with abortion.
I'm more curious how could a nihilist not agree with abortion
As worthless creatures in a worthless expanse of space, one of the few distinguishes we can make are the differences between pleasure and pain. Locked in a dark room with bags over our head (which is what we are), we still experience positive and negative sensations. I believe promoting unconditional happiness or causing suffering are our only two choices in life. I choose the former.
On April 29 2011 09:24 oo inflame oo wrote: I'm an athiest, nihlist, determinist, but also a utilitarian, and I cannot agree with abortion.
Justify your statement. Explain how utility is increased by disagreeing with abortion.
I'm more curious how could a nihilist not agree with abortion
As worthless creatures in a worthless expanse of space, one of the few distinguishes we can make are the differences between pleasure and pain. Locked in a dark room with bags over our head (which is what we are), we still experience positive and negative sensations. I believe promoting unconditional happiness or causing suffering are our only two choices in life. I choose the former.
What about the suffering of the mother? ^^
That's another story. Rape shouldn't be part of society. A flawed society shouldn't be justification to cause more suffering.
On April 29 2011 09:24 oo inflame oo wrote: I'm an athiest, nihlist, determinist, but also a utilitarian, and I cannot agree with abortion.
Justify your statement. Explain how utility is increased by disagreeing with abortion.
I'm more curious how could a nihilist not agree with abortion
As worthless creatures in a worthless expanse of space, one of the few distinguishes we can make are the differences between pleasure and pain. Locked in a dark room with bags over our head (which is what we are), we still experience positive and negative sensations. I believe promoting unconditional happiness or causing suffering are our only two choices in life. I choose the former.
What about the suffering of the mother? ^^
That's another story. Rape shouldn't be part of society. A flawed society shouldn't be justification to cause more suffering.
Except you're causing more suffering for the mother? Not to mention the possibly very expensive medical bills+continued money needed to support a child, something that the mother can't put up in the first place if she's below the poverty line. So in the end you got a starving mother, starving kid, and a shitty situation. Why should she be burdened with something that she didn't want in the first place that was forced upon her with a crime?
Fact for any realists in the thread: percentage wise, abortion is more common it countries where it is illegal than countries where it is legal. I am not morally against abortion but even if you are, there is indisputable evidence and logic behind the fact that making it illegal would be a horrible idea. source
This post is not directed at the law posted in the OP
On April 29 2011 09:24 oo inflame oo wrote: I'm an athiest, nihlist, determinist, but also a utilitarian, and I cannot agree with abortion.
Justify your statement. Explain how utility is increased by disagreeing with abortion.
I'm more curious how could a nihilist not agree with abortion
As worthless creatures in a worthless expanse of space, one of the few distinguishes we can make are the differences between pleasure and pain. Locked in a dark room with bags over our head (which is what we are), we still experience positive and negative sensations. I believe promoting unconditional happiness or causing suffering are our only two choices in life. I choose the former.
What about the suffering of the mother? ^^
That's another story. Rape shouldn't be part of society. A flawed society shouldn't be justification to cause more suffering.
Hi my name is inflame and we are going to debate on my terms. kk?
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.
No, the mother doesn't want to carry a baby that (she)
a) Didn't plan to carry b) Didn't have with her husband, male friend, sperm donor, boyfriend, or partner c) A stranger (rapist) forced upon her and the traumatic events of which may make her guilty.
20 weeks is legit and the precedent around most of the country anyway. It's somewhere between week 20 and 24 that the fetus develops even the slightest chance of surviving outside of the womb, so this law makes sense. However, requiring doctors to say those things to patients is absolutely ridiculous. This country just sickens me with the bullshit that goes on in politics.
On April 29 2011 11:21 funnybananaman wrote: Fact for any realists in the thread: percentage wise, abortion is more common it countries where it is illegal than countries where it is legal. I am not morally against abortion but even if you are, there is indisputable evidence and logic behind the fact that making it illegal would be a horrible idea. source
This post is not directed at the law posted in the OP
Going to go easy on you bud, but your "indisputable evidence and logic" is wrong. ~40-45million abortions world wide per year, China has 13 million a year. Its legal in China. So about 25% of the abortions world wide are coming out of one country, where it is legal.
On April 29 2011 11:21 funnybananaman wrote: Fact for any realists in the thread: percentage wise, abortion is more common it countries where it is illegal than countries where it is legal. I am not morally against abortion but even if you are, there is indisputable evidence and logic behind the fact that making it illegal would be a horrible idea. source
This post is not directed at the law posted in the OP
Going to go easy on you bud, but your "indisputable evidence and logic" is wrong. ~40-45million abortions world wide per year, China has 13 million a year. Its legal in China. So about 25% of the abortions world wide are coming out of one country, where it is legal.
K, indisputable.
Stop posting please.
when will people stop using statistical outliers to support their argument? China is the only country on earth with FORCED abortions.
On April 29 2011 11:21 funnybananaman wrote: Fact for any realists in the thread: percentage wise, abortion is more common it countries where it is illegal than countries where it is legal. I am not morally against abortion but even if you are, there is indisputable evidence and logic behind the fact that making it illegal would be a horrible idea. source
This post is not directed at the law posted in the OP
Going to go easy on you bud, but your "indisputable evidence and logic" is wrong. ~40-45million abortions world wide per year, China has 13 million a year. Its legal in China. So about 25% of the abortions world wide are coming out of one country, where it is legal.
K, indisputable.
Stop posting please.
when will people stop using statistical outliers to support their argument? China is the only country on earth with FORCED abortions.
Stop posting please.
Bravo sir! You are getting at what I am trying to say. Pulling out random statistics without consideration as to A) What the stat is saying B) The bias of the stat/study C) The implications of it, makes the arguments made using that stat pointless and irrelevant.
On April 29 2011 11:21 funnybananaman wrote: Fact for any realists in the thread: percentage wise, abortion is more common it countries where it is illegal than countries where it is legal. I am not morally against abortion but even if you are, there is indisputable evidence and logic behind the fact that making it illegal would be a horrible idea. source
This post is not directed at the law posted in the OP
Going to go easy on you bud, but your "indisputable evidence and logic" is wrong. ~40-45million abortions world wide per year, China has 13 million a year. Its legal in China. So about 25% of the abortions world wide are coming out of one country, where it is legal.
K, indisputable.
Stop posting please.
China also has 1.3 billion people. Obviously China is going to have more abortions per year than, say, Iceland, regardless of what laws are in place in those nations. For a relevant comparison, you'd compare rates (abortions per capita) among nations where it is legal versus rates among nations where it is illegal.
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
At what point am is anyone telling a women what to do with her body when it comes to abortion? Let me guess, endure 9 months of being pregnant and then birth the baby? Does that pretty much sum it up? I don't know about you but where I come from its called taking responsibility for your actions. Now I am not talking about rape or insest. That is where the issue gets gray for me. I am talking about a women who doesn't take the necessary precautions to prevent getting pregnant and then gets upset when she does get pregnant...
Take responsibility for your actions people. And don't bring up breaking condoms and non-effective birth control either...those are to be considered as part of the risks of sex IMO...besides they, along with rape and insest, make up a small percentage of the abortions taking place and I am referring to the majority.
And another thing...It is SO silly to me that people are actually debating if the fetus is alive or not...People if we consider single-celled organisms, bacteria, fungus, mold, yeast, etc....hell even a fucking tree to be living, than I am pretty sure we can safely say that the little human shaped fetus with a beating heart it is also living too regardless of its complete dependency on its mother. Is it any less dependent after it is born? Nope, it is still 100% dependent on mom after it is born too and nobody would be willing to kill it then...
Sorry people but it IS alive and it IS human so to me it IS murder.
On April 29 2011 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote: 20 weeks is legit and the precedent around most of the country anyway. It's somewhere between week 20 and 24 that the fetus develops even the slightest chance of surviving outside of the womb, so this law makes sense. However, requiring doctors to say those things to patients is absolutely ridiculous. This country just sickens me with the bullshit that goes on in politics.
Requiring a doctor to say what is the truth is ridiculous? Would you rather your doctor not to tell you what is true about any conditions you have, maybe they'll lie to you about your cancer or heart condition to make you feel better.
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
At what point am is anyone telling a women what to do with her body when it comes to abortion? Let me guess, endure 9 months of being pregnant and then birth the baby? Does that pretty much sum it up? I don't know about you but where I come from its called taking responsibility for your actions. Now I am not talking about rape or insest. That is where the issue gets gray for me. I am talking about a women who doesn't take the necessary precautions to prevent getting pregnant and then gets upset when she does get pregnant...
Take responsibility for your actions people. And don't bring up breaking condoms and non-effective birth control either...those are to be considered as part of the risks of sex IMO...besides they, along with rape and insest, make up a small percentage of the abortions taking place and I am referring to the majority.
And another thing...It is SO silly to me that people are actually debating if the fetus is alive or not...People if we consider single-celled organisms, bacteria, fungus, mold, yeast, etc....hell even a fucking tree to be living, than I am pretty sure we can safely say that the little human shaped fetus with a beating heart it is also living too regardless of its complete dependency on its mother. Is it any less dependent after it is born? Nope, it is still 100% dependent on mom after it is born too and nobody would be willing to kill it then...
Sorry people but it IS alive and it IS human so to me it IS murder.
Unfortunately we can't piss around with this issue. Its either entirely allowed or entirely banned. Theres no inbetween. So really it comes down to can you overlook your point of women irresponsibly getting pregnant or do you basically say screw it and make it illegal for all women seeking an abortion regardless of the circumstance.
Referring to the fetus being alive part, it really can't survive without the woman. True, a newborn baby can't really survive, but it can sure as hell breathe on its own.
Unfortunately we can't piss around with this issue. Its either entirely allowed or entirely banned. Theres no inbetween. So really it comes down to can you overlook your point of women irresponsibly getting pregnant or do you basically say screw it and make it illegal for all women seeking an abortion regardless of the circumstance.
Referring to the fetus being alive part, it really can't survive without the woman. True, a newborn baby can't really survive, but it can sure as hell breathe on its own.
[/QUOTE]
Mr Cloud I agree there is no pissing around on the issue. I believe we all know what side of the fence I am on. Unfortunately I don't believe in letting people get away with acting irresponsibility at such a high level. Because I believe it is murder (just my opinion) I believe it is very very serious. I would not agree to people getting away with drinking and driving or ignoring necessary safety precautions on the job either. When your choices can negatively effect someone else I believe you must be held accountable...especially if there is someones life on the line.
And I would agree with you again that the fetus might not be able to breathe on its own either...but I certainly don't consider THAT a logical reason to make it a candidate for abortion...Breathing is about the only thing a newborn can do...
On April 29 2011 14:28 Essentia wrote: Every civilization from the beginning has performed some kind of child sacrifice, this is just the modern form of it and how we do it in our society.
sorry but I consider this the stupidest thing I have read in a long time...was this a joke? Is there a REASON for this "child sacrifice"? Is it necessary? Because some hooting superstitious clan of ignorants decides to knife a child 1000 years ago, that suddenly that makes it okay to do it now? From this perspective our race is pretty shallow and disgusting...
On April 29 2011 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote: 20 weeks is legit and the precedent around most of the country anyway. It's somewhere between week 20 and 24 that the fetus develops even the slightest chance of surviving outside of the womb, so this law makes sense. However, requiring doctors to say those things to patients is absolutely ridiculous. This country just sickens me with the bullshit that goes on in politics.
Requiring a doctor to say what is the truth is ridiculous? Would you rather your doctor not to tell you what is true about any conditions you have, maybe they'll lie to you about your cancer or heart condition to make you feel better.
Seeing as it is not the truth it is ridiculous yeah.... It hasn't been established at what point the fetus is able to feel and react to outer stimuli...
On April 29 2011 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote: 20 weeks is legit and the precedent around most of the country anyway. It's somewhere between week 20 and 24 that the fetus develops even the slightest chance of surviving outside of the womb, so this law makes sense. However, requiring doctors to say those things to patients is absolutely ridiculous. This country just sickens me with the bullshit that goes on in politics.
Requiring a doctor to say what is the truth is ridiculous? Would you rather your doctor not to tell you what is true about any conditions you have, maybe they'll lie to you about your cancer or heart condition to make you feel better.
Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.
On April 28 2011 19:05 xarthaz wrote: THe difference between a trespasser and a baby in a womb is that the baby did not CHOOSE to violate the property rights of the mom, the mom herself chose that. Hence the claim that abortion is enforcement of womens property rights is incorrect, as a women herself demonstrated the preference of the baby having a right to living in her body, by the action of unprotected sex. This is crucial, because it is the CORE of the anti-life argument, and yet it is completely fallacious.
No form of birth control is 100% effective, you need to stop talking.
Nobody has ever said that people have a property right in their own body. That isn't stated anywhere in the constitution and no Supreme Court decision has ever come close to ruling to that effect (Not in Roe v. Wade, and fyi you don't even have property rights to your own genes or other body parts, see Moore v. Regents of Uni of California, which expressly rejected the concept of property rights to body).
I don't even know where you're trying to go with your argument.
The error youre making is using the concept of state law as description of justifiability. It isnt, because state law is arbitrary, not universal. You see, the whole concept of justice is meaningless without universality, because if it isnt universal, it is just actions with arbitrary value judgements. And the reason propertarianism MUST be used as a premise of justice is because it is the only universal premise of justice that can conceivably exist.
On April 29 2011 14:28 Essentia wrote: Every civilization from the beginning has performed some kind of child sacrifice, this is just the modern form of it and how we do it in our society.
sorry but I consider this the stupidest thing I have read in a long time...was this a joke? Is there a REASON for this "child sacrifice"? Is it necessary? Because some hooting superstitious clan of ignorants decides to knife a child 1000 years ago, that suddenly that makes it okay to do it now? From this perspective our race is pretty shallow and disgusting...
No I'm not for sacrificing innocent children, I was merely making a reference to history that this has been going. on since the beginning.
Whether or not you think Abortion is morally 'correct' or not, we're facing very serious issues with overpopulation if we don't use birth control methods. Telling people to not have sex is wishful thinking, it feels good and we'll keep doing it.
If we continue at the current birth rate we're going to see a very, very serious die off in our species once we realise that we can't sustain it.
On April 29 2011 15:39 Shrewmy wrote: Whether or not you think Abortion is morally 'correct' or not, we're facing very serious issues with overpopulation if we don't use birth control methods. Telling people to not have sex is wishful thinking, it feels good and we'll keep doing it.
If we continue at the current birth rate we're going to see a very, very serious die off in our species once we realise that we can't sustain it.
No. If Africa and Asia continue at their birth rates, THEY will have a malthusian catastrophe.
Pop growth in the developed world is due entirely to migrant intake and the birth rate among migrant groups. If Australia had maintained the white australia policy, we would be seeing birth rates at 1.5-1.8.
As an aside, people arguing that the amount of abortions due to failed birth control is negligible, need to think again. Think about how many sexually active fertile women there are. Think about how often they have sex during ovulation. And think about the failure rates of the pill/condoms (1%, 3-5% respectively). This very quickly adds up to a lot of unintentional pregnancies, especially when you consider that the two methods are not always used in tandem.
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.
No she does not. If her life was in question then you could make this statement. Until it is not this statement and all the similar ones I see people writing here are just pure bullshit.
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Wegandi, you mention philosophy a lot, yet you missed the biggest debate relevent to the topic, the idea of self. When is a human a human, and what identifies us as being us. A fetus hasnt developed many of the "features" that we identify ourselves by, not to mention the whole idea of the conscious self, not the physical self being what we predominantly identify ourselves by. Its a very complicated issue, and Locke doesnt have an answer for it lol. I personally think late term abortions are wrong, but am completely pro choice for abortions in a timely manner.
A fetus is not a human being in its early stages, it is merely potential, just as a sperm and an egg are merely potential. Its a step on the way to an end. The reason religion leads the charge for the pro life side of the debate, is because they believe youre a person before youre a person. That you were sent into your mothers womb by a deity. From a logical or scientific standpoint, we wouldnt see it as such, and we'd see that we are actually being developed from "potential" to "reality" during the term of a pregnancy.
Also GetSome, your argument in this quote "It is SO silly to me that people are actually debating if the fetus is alive or not...People if we consider single-celled organisms, bacteria, fungus, mold, yeast, etc....hell even a fucking tree to be living, than I am pretty sure we can safely say that the little human shaped fetus with a beating heart it is also living too regardless of its complete dependency on its mother.", is completely flawed. Just because something is "alive" doesnt mean it is human, and has the rights afforded to human beings. When we get sick, its because of a virus or bacteria, it is inside our body, and is alive. Should we not be allowed to kill it because we took the risk of being alive and going into an environment that has bacteria in it, knowing it could potentially get us sick? People arent arguing that it isnt alive, theyre arguing it isnt human yet, and isnt "portected" by the law.
A fetus hasnt developed many of the "features" that we identify ourselves by, not to mention the whole idea of the conscious self, not the physical self being what we predominantly identify ourselves by.
These criterions you consider to be necessary for someone to be subject to rights have a huge problem. and that is: they are not universal. They are arbitrary.
The premise is the concept of justifiability. In order for justice to have meaning, justice needs to be universal, otherwise it is simply arbitrary judgements. And propertarian justice is the only possible system of justice. Hence, the violation of the property rights of the fetus constitutes an unjustifiable action.
On April 29 2011 07:57 TanGeng wrote: The way I see it, it's an implicit responsibility for the woman to care for the fetus, just like it's an implicit responsibility of the parents to take care of a born baby. Likewise, it's a moral responsibility of a doctor to do no harm and whenever possible take care of an unborn child. An abortion violates both of the implicit responsibility of the mother and the moral responsibility of the doctor.
The dilemma of making abortion illegal is that the law cannot force an unwilling mother to assume responsibility and the law cannot prevent demand from finding supply. For women, if the mother is unwilling to follow through on the responsibility of bearing the baby and then taking care of a child, illegality of the abortion isn't going to change that. There needs to be someone to take responsibility for the child if it is to continue to term. I'm not busy-body enough to want the public take that responsibility through the force of law. In my mind, that is why it should not be illegal for the mother to elect.
For doctors, it is a total violate of the Hippocratic Oath, but unscrupulous doctors will cater to the demand for abortions by irresponsible mothers. In the past, I would have though that it should be illegal for doctors to perform the abortions, but that only invites black market health hazards. Today, I would suggest that abortion fall into the category of extremely morally reprehensible, but legal procedure. I would ostracize all doctors that perform abortions under all but the most extreme of circumstances and would urge others to do the same.
The ideal outcome would be that abortion is legal but socially taboo. The closer to term, the more socially taboo it becomes. I also make the distinction between dislodging the fetus from the uterus and invasive destruction of the fetus. An invasive action against the fetus is a much more serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
I understand where you are coming from regarding doctors who perform abortions. When I interviewed for medical school (ended up choosing math grad school instead but this was before I had decided), the panel asked questions about abortion where we had to defend our position. I was politically pro life at the time. They asked challenging questions, but were probably more interested in my ability to reason and feel empathy than which side I took. One of the final questions was whether, as a future physician, I would be willing to perform an abortion under circumstances where there was not another person qualified to perform the procedure but I was. My response was that I would do it only if necessary as a matter of life or death for the woman; that if it was a matter of her elective I could not bring myself to perform the procedure and she would have to wait to find another doctor. In his response, the interviewer concluded that "people who do things that are against their conscience live tortured lives." Although it is a quite obvious statement, that particular phrase has stuck with me since then, even as I have forgotten most of the rest of that day. It would be terrible to do a job that you believe is wrong, harmful, evil, etc.
I can only assume that practically all doctors who perform abortions honestly believe that life begins at birth. They probably see it as doing a service for the woman to help her improve her life, so that she can live as she wishes, possibly have a child when the time is right.
Some people's job is to kill what is unquestionably a living person. An Executioner probably feels that what he does is in the interests of protecting society. It would otherwise be an impossible job to fulfill. A Soldier does not look at his job as murdering enemy soldiers who might only be trying to defend their country. He sees it as fighting for what is right, fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves, etc. A General may have to send some soldiers to their certain death to achieve a tactical objective, but he must believe that the sacrifice is worth it.
How do you feel about these professions?
These professions provide plenty of opportunity to be sadistic, cynical, and devalue life, while rationalizing the inhumane behavior with good intentions. Their work also involves deep moral dilemmas and it is admirable if they arrive at a good decision. On average, I'd be inclined to not treat them favorably, but it's better to judge on individual circumstances.
In my mind, the executioner comes out best the because the profession is the conducting of justice for crimes deemed serious enough to merit death. The act should be grim and swift. Glee in torturing the criminal with pain would be poor in character. However, a justice system that employs an executioner has a major problem in how to handle false convictions when it can mete out punishment with the finality of death. Executioners may have to deal with the guilt of killing an innocent man or the doubt of having killed a man that was possibly innocent.
The general has a good chance of being a cynical character with a huge ego. Much of the question of morality has to deal with the nature of the war the general is fighting and how willing the general is to fight a battle of attrition. Respect for civilians and reduction of collateral damage are virtues that generals on the offensive often lack. For example, General Sherman of the US Civil War committed a string of atrocities by engaging in total war.
Soldiers are tragic figures. Most army train their soldiers to be robots and pawns - robots to take orders well, pawns to sacrifice themselves for objectives. In battle, soldiers are conditioned to have low inhibition for killing and soldiers often drive themselves into a frenzy. Right now, I can't think of the right way to describe what I think of soldiers, but hopefully that gives you a bit of an idea.
On April 29 2011 14:28 Essentia wrote: Every civilization from the beginning has performed some kind of child sacrifice, this is just the modern form of it and how we do it in our society.
sorry but I consider this the stupidest thing I have read in a long time...was this a joke? Is there a REASON for this "child sacrifice"? Is it necessary? Because some hooting superstitious clan of ignorants decides to knife a child 1000 years ago, that suddenly that makes it okay to do it now? From this perspective our race is pretty shallow and disgusting...
you don't need perspective to see that our race IS shallow and disgusting, don't you think? i mean we stack waste in the ground, remove decomposing fossil liquid to burn it in open air, destroy entire ecosystems daily to catch some fish; i mean, how can you think we are NOT shallow and disgusting?
As for my opinion, is that my opinion should not be forced upon anyone, thus if the pregnant women should be allowed here own choice and opinion, which shouldn't take 20 weeks to form anyways. Person who doesn't want/can't have a child should know this prior anyways and if its accident, well it should be dealt with earliest possible. The timeline is not against one persons will or 'opinion' its matter of common sense.
This one guy I knew years ago got his girlfriend pregnant. He was excited to be a dad, about 5 months down the road they broke up ( She ended up cheating on him I believe ). He was pissed, but still excited about being a dad. He called her to see when the next ultrasound was so he could go, but she decided she didn't want the kid anymore and got a abortion and didn't even say anything to him. He didn't take this well at all, lost his job because he started doing lots of drugs. What would you do if that happened to you? I for one believe there has to be a time where the doctors say "Are you stupid? Why didn't you come and get an abortion like 2 months ago? Give the kid up for adoption!".
On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote: So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats!
Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Wegandi, you mention philosophy a lot, yet you missed the biggest debate relevent to the topic, the idea of self. When is a human a human, and what identifies us as being us. A fetus hasnt developed many of the "features" that we identify ourselves by, not to mention the whole idea of the conscious self, not the physical self being what we predominantly identify ourselves by. Its a very complicated issue, and Locke doesnt have an answer for it lol. I personally think late term abortions are wrong, but am completely pro choice for abortions in a timely manner.
A fetus is not a human being in its early stages, it is merely potential, just as a sperm and an egg are merely potential. Its a step on the way to an end. The reason religion leads the charge for the pro life side of the debate, is because they believe youre a person before youre a person. That you were sent into your mothers womb by a deity. From a logical or scientific standpoint, we wouldnt see it as such, and we'd see that we are actually being developed from "potential" to "reality" during the term of a pregnancy.
Also GetSome, your argument in this quote "It is SO silly to me that people are actually debating if the fetus is alive or not...People if we consider single-celled organisms, bacteria, fungus, mold, yeast, etc....hell even a fucking tree to be living, than I am pretty sure we can safely say that the little human shaped fetus with a beating heart it is also living too regardless of its complete dependency on its mother.", is completely flawed. Just because something is "alive" doesnt mean it is human, and has the rights afforded to human beings. When we get sick, its because of a virus or bacteria, it is inside our body, and is alive. Should we not be allowed to kill it because we took the risk of being alive and going into an environment that has bacteria in it, knowing it could potentially get us sick? People arent arguing that it isnt alive, theyre arguing it isnt human yet, and isnt "portected" by the law.
Oh I would not say my argument is flawed. I was arguing a point against somebody saying it is okay to abort the fetus cause it is not "alive" for one reason or another...taking that into account my argument is dead on! Yours is a different point all together and deserves its own response. I believe that a fetus inside its mother is human and deserves all the rights and protections extended to the rest of us.
So at what point do fetuses become human? I am going to guess that nobody knows and that is why the debate is centered around when the fetus can be aborted as apposed to IF it should be aborted at all. I can say that I understand your point of view even though I do not agree with it. I would argue that a fetus is and always has been human. I guess this is going to lead us to discuss and define what it is to be human where there are dozens of different definitions...
In the end it is going to come down to opinion sadly. There is no real proof one way or the other that suggests on point of view is more right than another. I guess that is why this issue is so sticky. No hard feelings though...I do understand that we don't all view things the same.
In the end I will error on the side of caution. I will never support or engage in something so serious and potentially could be considered the murdering of babies...
A fetus hasnt developed many of the "features" that we identify ourselves by, not to mention the whole idea of the conscious self, not the physical self being what we predominantly identify ourselves by.
These criterions you consider to be necessary for someone to be subject to rights have a huge problem. and that is: they are not universal. They are arbitrary.
The premise is the concept of justifiability. In order for justice to have meaning, justice needs to be universal, otherwise it is simply arbitrary judgements. And propertarian justice is the only possible system of justice. Hence, the violation of the property rights of the fetus constitutes an unjustifiable action.
They arent arbitrary at all. Are animals protected by propetarian justice? Are any lifeform that isnt a human being protected by these laws? No. If a fetus before a certain point, is ruled to not yet be a human (Which they have been, since abortion is legal in many places) then its not arbitrary at all. The reason late term abortions arent allowed in most places, is because the baby's brain is functioning, it has the ability to think, to dream, and to hear and recognize its mothers voice for example. Its nervous system functions, and at this point, it is deemed to be a "living human". Some places dont afford it rights until its born, other places think its deserving of rights at the point of conception. Everywhere, the rules are dictated by the majorities belief systems. That is the only arbitrary factor at play.
Edit* Thats spot on GetSome. As I stated above, the decision is arbitrary in the sense that the ruling on the issue is different depending on the concensus of the majorit in any given area. Its not cut and dry like murder for example. I respect some peoples pro life stances, especially those only against late term abortion, because banning it totally only leads to bad things (people will still get an abortion if they want one, and it will be under much less safe conditions). Not only that but things happen and sometimes its a better solution. I am prsonally 23, getting engaged this month, and me and my gf have no plans on having kids until were about 30. We want to travel for a couple years, settle in and get a solid footing before having kids. If a kid were to accidentally be made, even though it would hinder our plans, I personally couldnt go through with it, I just dont think that because I wouldnt want to go through that (or want my gf to for that matter) should dictate whether someone else can or cannot.
A fetus hasnt developed many of the "features" that we identify ourselves by, not to mention the whole idea of the conscious self, not the physical self being what we predominantly identify ourselves by.
These criterions you consider to be necessary for someone to be subject to rights have a huge problem. and that is: they are not universal. They are arbitrary.
The premise is the concept of justifiability. In order for justice to have meaning, justice needs to be universal, otherwise it is simply arbitrary judgements. And propertarian justice is the only possible system of justice. Hence, the violation of the property rights of the fetus constitutes an unjustifiable action.
.Everywhere, the rules are dictated by the majorities belief systems. That is the only arbitrary factor at play. ..
That is a MAJOR arbitrary factor, because that is the only thing determining most legal systems. ie Slavery, Infanticide, Genocide... all were justified by the majority belief system at the time in a Lot of areas.
"Who"/"what" qualifies as "human", and how we should treat those qualified as "human" are supported by absolutely Nothing but belief systems. (although some belief systems are more widely believed than others that says little about the truth of such things).
The laws will work towards expressing the beliefs of the people (statement of fact as opposed to 'they should')... However, people Should work towards changing beliefs of their own or others that are wrong. (and therefore reasonable people will work towards changing the beliefs of others that they believe are wrong)
On April 30 2011 00:18 gold_ wrote: This one guy I knew years ago got his girlfriend pregnant. He was excited to be a dad, about 5 months down the road they broke up ( She ended up cheating on him I believe ). He was pissed, but still excited about being a dad. He called her to see when the next ultrasound was so he could go, but she decided she didn't want the kid anymore and got a abortion and didn't even say anything to him. He didn't take this well at all, lost his job because he started doing lots of drugs. What would you do if that happened to you? I for one believe there has to be a time where the doctors say "Are you stupid? Why didn't you come and get an abortion like 2 months ago? Give the kid up for adoption!".
I, for one, wished more doctors would do that and refuse to perform the abortion. But that's one disgustingly irresponsible and untrustworthy girl. What an awful human being.
Well, yes there is no pissing around. It's one or the other, no in between. Knowing this, I am against abortion because I feel it is murder. However, there is a point where the parents must decide, or insent/rape takes factor.
Therefore, I am turned. It is up to the mother, but I strongly advise against it for everyday circumstances such as social issues.
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote: Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
Where's the treshold? One cell? Two cells? 1000 Cells? As soon as it starts looking human?
For me, human life is defined by the abilities of active sensitivity, thinking, feeling. Imagine we would transplant the cognitive abilities of a fly into a -before lifeless- human body. Would it suddenly be wrong smashing that fly? Yeah, it would feel damn wrong, but actually not making a moral difference (much of a difference to possible observers though, because they'ld feel empathy with the fly just because it looks human. It would be pretty cruel for any observers.)
Still it's true that there has to be a treshhold. I think 20 weeks is still "kinda okay" for women beeing in a possibly serious situation, although I'm not sure. Obviously the treshold should be noticably below 8 months though.
On April 29 2011 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote: 20 weeks is legit and the precedent around most of the country anyway. It's somewhere between week 20 and 24 that the fetus develops even the slightest chance of surviving outside of the womb, so this law makes sense. However, requiring doctors to say those things to patients is absolutely ridiculous. This country just sickens me with the bullshit that goes on in politics.
Requiring a doctor to say what is the truth is ridiculous? Would you rather your doctor not to tell you what is true about any conditions you have, maybe they'll lie to you about your cancer or heart condition to make you feel better.
No, requiring a doctor to spout pro-life propaganda is ridiculous. Of course the doctor should inform the patient of the procedure and the possibly risks of it, but this information is completely unnecessary for the procedure itself and shouldn't be forced to be given. It should be available if asked for. Hell, this information has zero immediate bearing on the person whatsoever. If they are worried about it, they should be free to ask for it and the information should be given, but you shouldn't guilt-trip a patient like this. It's fucking ridiculous.
Oh, and lets not forget how biased and potentially wrong some of these "facts" are.
At what point am is anyone telling a women what to do with her body when it comes to abortion? Let me guess, endure 9 months of being pregnant and then birth the baby? Does that pretty much sum it up? I don't know about you but where I come from its called taking responsibility for your actions. Now I am not talking about rape or insest. That is where the issue gets gray for me. I am talking about a women who doesn't take the necessary precautions to prevent getting pregnant and then gets upset when she does get pregnant...
Take responsibility for your actions people. And don't bring up breaking condoms and non-effective birth control either...those are to be considered as part of the risks of sex IMO...besides they, along with rape and insest, make up a small percentage of the abortions taking place and I am referring to the majority.
And another thing...It is SO silly to me that people are actually debating if the fetus is alive or not...People if we consider single-celled organisms, bacteria, fungus, mold, yeast, etc....hell even a fucking tree to be living, than I am pretty sure we can safely say that the little human shaped fetus with a beating heart it is also living too regardless of its complete dependency on its mother. Is it any less dependent after it is born? Nope, it is still 100% dependent on mom after it is born too and nobody would be willing to kill it then...
Sorry people but it IS alive and it IS human so to me it IS murder.
The human species is designed by evolution to survive and grow in a social context. The human fetus is not designed by evolution to survive at all outside of the womb in any natural capacity or with any possible chance of survival before ~week 20. Furthermore, simply being considered alive doesn't qualify something as having the right to human liberties, being a human does, and that's a significantly harder thing to categorize.
Where do rights come from? Why does the woman have rights but the fetus doesn't?
A fetus only gets rights that can contend with the mother's rights once it's considered human. I'm not about to give random animals, plants, fungi, etc. rights that supersede a human's rights, so why would a fetus get it if it isn't considered human? That's the line in question - when do you consider it human?
I'm pro-abortion, but I think this is a good change, its currently 24 weeks in Britain and at that is just too late. Currently you have babies being born prematurely and surviving at 24 weeks and then you have foetuses of the same age being aborted.
The article seems to make it sound like doctors are basically forced to give a biased pro life account. I'm fine with them giving a fair account, but that means putting numbers to their statements.
Stratos_spear - I would agree that being human qualifies you for the rights and liberties extended to the rest of us...not simply being alive. However we have already discussed this too about 8-9 post above this one.! Glad we are on the same page here.
I find it hard to understand how people can argue against abortion, but find it ok to live in air conditioned houses, browse the web, and just go about a daily life as when if you look at the things required for a daily life in developed countries its simply appalling. The sheer amount of wildlife, animals, and ecosystems destroyed along with other humans taken advantage of to produce simple goods to give you electricity, comfort and basic non-animal food stuffs and the sheer amount of of animals slaughtered to provide you with meat at the market/restaurants. Its really unfathomable how ignorant people are when they look at human life as something special and think "I would never harm anything, let alone an human infant" when they are part of the group destroying the entire planet and killing an unknown amount of "life".
I recognize I'm a part of the group that lives a daily life and thus ends "life" on a regular basis, but I also recognize that its pretty "bleeping" horrible if you really think about it. Luckily I can just put that behind me and go on with my life of not caring since I will hopefully die of old age before any of the horrible habits currently used matter.
you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after.
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after.
Yeah, it sucks when people base their morals on logic, reason, and scientific evidence.
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after.
Yeah, it sucks when people base their morals on logic, reason, and scientific evidence.
Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro.
On April 30 2011 02:53 Silver777 wrote: I find it hard to understand how people can argue against abortion, but find it ok to live in air conditioned houses, browse the web, and just go about a daily life as when if you look at the things required for a daily life in developed countries its simply appalling. The sheer amount of wildlife, animals, and ecosystems destroyed along with other humans taken advantage of to produce simple goods to give you electricity, comfort and basic non-animal food stuffs and the sheer amount of of animals slaughtered to provide you with meat at the market/restaurants. Its really unfathomable how ignorant people are when they look at human life as something special and think "I would never harm anything, let alone an human infant" when they are part of the group destroying the entire planet and killing an unknown amount of "life".
I recognize I'm a part of the group that lives a daily life and thus ends "life" on a regular basis, but I also recognize that its pretty "bleeping" horrible if you really think about it. Luckily I can just put that behind me and go on with my life of not caring since I will hopefully die of old age before any of the horrible habits currently used matter.
Silver - it seems as though you have taken a very extreme point of view on this issue...more so then even me. If I understand you point of view correctly you are saying that we as humans, because of our "need/desire" for comforts, destroy an untold amount of life on a daily basis and therefore it makes those fighting for life (against abortion) hypocrites? Did I get that right? And if I read your post correctly you don't value human life any greater than the life of the cow we slaughter for food than?
Well I do value human life above all other types of life and I do not apologize for it. This mentality drives many decisions I make and I will not apologize for those either. I believe that we could definitely do a hell of a lot better at managing our consumption, how we operate, how we treat the world around us, what we use, why, when, and where, etc...this can really use some improvement. But with that said I would not go as far as to categorize those of us enjoying everything this world has to offer as ignorant or hypocrites. Simply labeling us in one big group shows more ignorance on your part than those you are accusing...
It is possible to care for and preserve nature, life, this world, etc and still value humans and our way of life too...
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after.
Yeah, it sucks when people base their morals on logic, reason, and scientific evidence.
Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro.
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after.
Yeah, it sucks when people base their morals on logic, reason, and scientific evidence.
Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro.
ar·bi·trar·y 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. 2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. 3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
Since it is based on law, the time lines are not arbitrary. They are, however, based as much as science, logic and reason as possible.
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after.
But it's impossible not to draw an "arbitrary" line. Even if you say conception is the line, that's arbitrarily saying that it's okay to destroy the sperm and egg but not okay to destroy the zygote.
The only possible moralities that wouldn't draw an arbitrary line are a) It's immoral to tamper with any chemical that could eventually become a building block of a life form (or human if you prefer) b) It's not immoral to kill.
On April 30 2011 04:07 Kaonis wrote: Fetus qualifies as a human because unlike a tree or fungus or animal it will eventually BE human, barring some event.
Or an abortion.
Yes, it'll eventually be human, but because of that potential, is it ok to infringe on the rights of someone that is currently a human?
What about when it threatens the woman, or it was due to rape/contraceptives not working properly?
What if the child is going to have a terrible life because the mother can't provide (and no, adoption isn't a legitimate answer to this)? Is it morally ok to say that the mother must suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, then potentially have the child suffer through a terrible childhood (or even their entire life)?
Is it morally ok to put a further burden on world resources, potentially making it more difficult for others that are already living, if we have the tools not to?
On April 30 2011 02:53 Silver777 wrote: I find it hard to understand how people can argue against abortion, but find it ok to live in air conditioned houses, browse the web, and just go about a daily life as when if you look at the things required for a daily life in developed countries its simply appalling. The sheer amount of wildlife, animals, and ecosystems destroyed along with other humans taken advantage of to produce simple goods to give you electricity, comfort and basic non-animal food stuffs and the sheer amount of of animals slaughtered to provide you with meat at the market/restaurants. Its really unfathomable how ignorant people are when they look at human life as something special and think "I would never harm anything, let alone an human infant" when they are part of the group destroying the entire planet and killing an unknown amount of "life".
I recognize I'm a part of the group that lives a daily life and thus ends "life" on a regular basis, but I also recognize that its pretty "bleeping" horrible if you really think about it. Luckily I can just put that behind me and go on with my life of not caring since I will hopefully die of old age before any of the horrible habits currently used matter.
Silver - it seems as though you have taken a very extreme point of view on this issue...more so then even me. If I understand you point of view correctly you are saying that we as humans, because of our "need/desire" for comforts, destroy an untold amount of life on a daily basis and therefore it makes those fighting for life (against abortion) hypocrites? Did I get that right? And if I read your post correctly you don't value human life any greater than the life of the cow we slaughter for food than?
Well I do value human life above all other types of life and I do not apologize for it. This mentality drives many decisions I make and I will not apologize for those either. I believe that we could definitely do a hell of a lot better at managing our consumption, how we operate, how we treat the world around us, what we use, why, when, and where, etc...this can really use some improvement. But with that said I would not go as far as to categorize those of us enjoying everything this world has to offer as ignorant or hypocrites. Simply labeling us in one big group shows more ignorance on your part than those you are accusing...
It is possible to care for and preserve nature, life, this world, etc and still value humans and our way of life too...
All you's are general you's, not directed at you.
Labeling everyone in a large group is incorrect as people and groups are different, what I am mostly referring to in the bolded part of your post is the large group of people that fit into that category(which is a large part of the pro-life group in America imo) that simply assume something is bad because of how they were raised, their religion, etc and really don't give any thought to the matter beyond that.
As for the the value of human life, I don't really see how its more valuable then other life and from this saying a cat wants to live less then a human makes no sense, all life would prefer to live, its simply the entire goal of everything. Now if you told me that you have issues with killing a cat, a bird, a cow, etc, then the viewpoint of not wanting abortion makes sense, as you have demonstrated that your overall issue isn't with the abortion, but with the killing of life in general.
On the other hand when you say, "I have issues with abortion, but killing a deer, buffalo, or anything of the sort is fine", well I don't see where your issue with abortion is and if you simply go on to tell me something like all human life is precious and thats your issue, I just think about how so many people are treated so poorly by other people on a daily basis it seems almost like the exact opposite or a less extreme view that people only value others as long as they are getting value from them.
I simply find that the majority of people, like those trying to get this law passed are so contradictory in their views that they are just assuming they are correct and really have no actual reason to support their view.
Recently at my University, there was a pro life event. It frustrated me to look at the posters which for the most part, contained either a baby, or a fetus that was almost fully developed so it resembled a baby. In the Earlier stages of development, you can barely differentiate between a human, a chicken and a fish.
Yes, fetuses have the potential to become babies, but stating that they ARE babies is like claiming that a pile of scrap metal is a car. The pro life arguments that I mainly see seem to seemed to be based primarily on emotion rather than rationality.
I don't really mind laws that dictate a time frame in which abortions can be performed, as arbitrary as they may be; as long as the time frames are fairly reasonably long. (20 weeks seems like enough time to decide). At the moment, we don't have enough data to fruitfully argue what that deadline should be.
On April 30 2011 04:07 Kaonis wrote: Fetus qualifies as a human because unlike a tree or fungus or animal it will eventually BE human, barring some event.
Or an abortion.
Yes, it'll eventually be human, but because of that potential, is it ok to infringe on the rights of someone that is currently a human?
What about when it threatens the woman, or it was due to rape/contraceptives not working properly?
What if the child is going to have a terrible life because the mother can't provide (and no, adoption isn't a legitimate answer to this)? Is it morally ok to say that the mother must suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, then potentially have the child suffer through a terrible childhood (or even their entire life)?
Is it morally ok to put a further burden on world resources, potentially making it more difficult for others that are already living, if we have the tools not to?
Should you really be having sex if you can't handle the consequence of a child?
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after.
Yeah, it sucks when people base their morals on logic, reason, and scientific evidence.
Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro.
Please don't call it murder, its an oxymoron designed to shock people into becoming pro-life. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. I won't go into whether or not a foetus is a person, since personally I believe that is the only question that the pro-life/pro-choice debate actually hinges on.
I've done some research on this, and from what I understand the general consensus among experts is that foetuses can't feel pain until the third trimester, which starts at about 29 weeks. For this reason I don't think its right for them to tell mothers that they may feel pain. If mothers are honestly that concerned about their foetus feeling pain they can anaesthetise the foetus and guarantee that it won't.
On April 30 2011 04:07 Kaonis wrote: Fetus qualifies as a human because unlike a tree or fungus or animal it will eventually BE human, barring some event.
Or an abortion.
Yes, it'll eventually be human, but because of that potential, is it ok to infringe on the rights of someone that is currently a human?
What about when it threatens the woman, or it was due to rape/contraceptives not working properly?
What if the child is going to have a terrible life because the mother can't provide (and no, adoption isn't a legitimate answer to this)? Is it morally ok to say that the mother must suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, then potentially have the child suffer through a terrible childhood (or even their entire life)?
Is it morally ok to put a further burden on world resources, potentially making it more difficult for others that are already living, if we have the tools not to?
Should you really be having sex if you can't handle the consequence of a child?
Yes, the age that people become emotionally ready to have sex, and emotionally ready to have a baby are different. Its better to use contraception so conception doesn't happen, but people shouldn't be forced to have children they don't want. Its not fair to the mother of the child, I value the rights of a living human over something that can become a human.
On April 30 2011 04:07 Kaonis wrote: Fetus qualifies as a human because unlike a tree or fungus or animal it will eventually BE human, barring some event.
Or an abortion.
Yes, it'll eventually be human, but because of that potential, is it ok to infringe on the rights of someone that is currently a human?
What about when it threatens the woman, or it was due to rape/contraceptives not working properly?
What if the child is going to have a terrible life because the mother can't provide (and no, adoption isn't a legitimate answer to this)? Is it morally ok to say that the mother must suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, then potentially have the child suffer through a terrible childhood (or even their entire life)?
Is it morally ok to put a further burden on world resources, potentially making it more difficult for others that are already living, if we have the tools not to?
Should you really be having sex if you can't handle the consequence of a child?
Absolutely, and this is one of the most worst arguments pro-lifers can bring up. Not only are you emotionally and physically ready to have sex far sooner than you are emotionally, physically, or materially ready to have a child, sex is pretty important for the emotional well being of a human being as well as being an integral part of a healthy romantic relationship. What, are you going to start telling teenagers and young adults that they just can't have a real romantic relationship until they're ready to support a child because they shouldn't be having sex until they're ready for that?
Furthermore, with contraceptives out there, people have the reasonable expectation that proper, responsible use of them stops pregnancy, so small errors that are no fault of the user don't automatically mean that they should just have to raise a child like that.
Oh, and you answered a grand total of zero of my questions.
On April 30 2011 06:07 Powerpill wrote: Not much difference between aborting a post week 20 baby than smothering a newborn at home and throwing it in the dumpster.
Something like this happened about a decade ago in Calgary, Canada. A late-term abortion was performed (I think around week 35) which the baby survived. The mother refused to take the viable child, and he was exposed and permitted to die. Nurses were permitted to coddle and comfort the infant, but not permitted to feed him. As someone mentioned, the vast majority of abortions in Canada are performed in the first two trimesters, but freak cases like these still occasionally happen, and there are no legal instruments in place to stop them.
On April 28 2011 11:07 Courthead wrote: Spent years debating this. Abortion is a complex issue and a morally gray area. Both sides have strong argument and weak ones. I'd say the most popular representatives of each side (women's rights vs religion) are both weak.
Morally gray area?
A hypothetical situation for you:
Lets pretend you are an officer in Nazi Germany during WWII. There is a trench of bodies laying in front of you, with some Jews who are still alive among others that are dead. Your superior tells you to get in a bulldozer and push a mound of dirt over the bodies, burying some alive. If you refuse, your superior would shoot you himself and ask someone else to do it.
Would you do it?
Lets say you refuse, so your superior, though mad at your insubordination, orders you to shoot those that are still alive first.
Would you do it?
Are either of those morally gray?
If the debate comes down to when life begins, then we have a Minority Report situation: Would the ball have still hit the ground had the detective not stopped it from doing so?
One final challenge if you still think it is OK for a woman to abort a baby. Finish this sentence: It's ok to kill a baby in the womb when...
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.
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote: Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
It's a tricky argument on both sides even when entirely negating religion. I mean in most cases aborting a child is ending a humans life before it even begins, which in reality is in some senses wrong. On the other hand, it's not really a human, if it even feels pain or can think consciously is highly debatable, to the point where even i believe that fetuses are hardly if anything what we see as human. The point of the matter it's a hard case to argue on either side of the debate
I wonder what the specific choice for the 20th week in particular is.
And I wonder what happens if on the 21st week (or later), the doctors recognize that there are complications with the pregnancy that may cause the woman to die (with the incoming baby anyway) if the pregnancy isn't terminated. I would still think that shades of gray and unfortunate circumstances could potentially exist after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although women could have decided in ideal circumstances to abort or not abort beforehand.
Hey how do you enforce this? They probably won't admit when they had sex/conceived, besides who really knows the exact night you get pregnant?... Any objective way to differentiate 21 week from 19 week? I'm probably supposed to know but I'm blanking so hard right now. Maybe use respiratory bronchioles as a landmark? They develop around that time... however it's different for every fetus.
On November 04 2011 09:01 FIStarcraft wrote: I think it's reasonable, except for the part "herpa derp abortions make you infertile!!!"
You don't need 20 weeks to decide weather or not you want your baby.
although at a glance a lot of people would probably agree with you, myself included, i dont think its smart to say it like that because it is a hard decision. it takes people months to decide whether or not they really want to get married to their bf / gf and im certain that aborting your child is more than just a "yea i slept on it and i decided" kind of choice.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
It's a tricky argument on both sides even when entirely negating religion. I mean in most cases aborting a child is ending a humans life before it even begins, which in reality is in some senses wrong. On the other hand, it's not really a human, if it even feels pain or can think consciously is highly debatable, to the point where even i believe that fetuses are hardly if anything what we see as human. The point of the matter it's a hard case to argue on either side of the debate
That argument could be applied to a 3 month old or a 3 year old, or even with some stretching a 13 year old.
conception is definitely arguable, but there is no significant justification for a moral difference between killing a 20 week old fetus and killing a 20 week old newborn.
I think I would be able to get behind this law if it weren't for the fact that half of the US is still going to be obnoxiously upset over any abortion, even if it is clearly legal.
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
It's a tricky argument on both sides even when entirely negating religion. I mean in most cases aborting a child is ending a humans life before it even begins, which in reality is in some senses wrong. On the other hand, it's not really a human, if it even feels pain or can think consciously is highly debatable, to the point where even i believe that fetuses are hardly if anything what we see as human. The point of the matter it's a hard case to argue on either side of the debate
That argument could be applied to a 3 month old or a 3 year old, or even with some stretching a 13 year old.
conception is definitely arguable, but there is no significant justification for a moral difference between killing a 20 week old fetus and killing a 20 week old newborn.
One arguable place to draw the line might be when the fetus is big enough to be viable outside the womb.
I may be wrong about this - but I think that most Europe has stricter abortion laws (This may have more to do with shrinking population). My mother was almost aborted so obviously I have a little bias here (Seeing as how I like to be in existance) but I don't think it should be too easy to get an abortion. THAT being said people have a right to make choice which I don't agree with and I think we need a little more of that kind of respect in this country.
Some people often think that the government in the U.S is too big,I don't entirely agree with that but regulating either a woman can have an abortion or not is stepping on her civil liberties,for fucks sake its regulating what she can do with her womb .
Humor me Krikkitone. Make the argument for a 3 month old, a 3 year old and a 13 year old. I'll accept quite a bit more leeway at each age jump. I'm having difficulty not seeing your post as a crock.
And the overall thread.. Second trimester abortions are dodgy. If the fetus isn't directly putting the mother at risk.. there are too few distinctions between a living human and a fetus past 13-16 weeks. First trimester is your womb; your business. But 20 weeks is more than conservative enough to outlaw.
just what we non-americans needed ... more ammunition when laughing at the u.s' insanity when it comes to laws
Please don't bash my country when it is a states law and not even related to the entire nation. Indiana is a one fiftieth of my country and you are a jerk.
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.
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.
Personally I don't think theres any magical point where a human becomes more than just a bunch of cells. This doesn't mean I think abortion is fine in all circumstances though. I think people should always do what is most likely to be best for society in the long run. On this same note I don't think murder is necessarily wrong, however the problem with these sorts of things is who is actually qualified to make the decision as to what's likely better for society and the answer to that is not many if any at all. Using this reasoning I think as long as murder is illegal because most people can't make rational decisions then abortion should be as well even though I don't think either is innately wrong. Ironically if people were rational enough to do these things correctly they wouldn't be needed.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 09:54 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.
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
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 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.
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.
Are some people in this thread seriously suggesting that abortions in the 8th and 9th month should be allowed? (I know this law says 20 weeks, but some people in the thread keeps making the case that their line is essentially drawn the moment the child is born which seems pretty messed up to me)
I should add, in Sweden, you are only allowed to abort up until the 18th week, and the 22nd if there are medical complications etc. After 22 weeks the fetus is considered formed enough to diswarrant abortions.
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
I don't know to much about the topic, if 20 weeks is to be consider short for example. for me this has never been a science issue but always an ethics issue. in my opinion, every country, state in this case should be able to decide what in their view is considered abortion or murder
about the law spreading, i guess it will be like any law some people will be in favor and some opposed to it. if it stick, more pro-life states may accept it but i don't think generally pro-choice states will incorporate it. and to be honest i find 20 weeks a decent time to make the choice/find out
20 weeks is really late, tbh, you'd very likely know whether or not you wanted to keep the baby by then and you'd already have the child tested for most diseases. Few people would actually abort past 20 weeks outside of when it is proven to be a health concern for the woman (in which case abortion is still allowed), a line has to be drawn to when abortion should be allowed, and 5-6 months is very reasonable
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
OK, first off I'm in the middle of the line here. I believe that there should be acceptable limits of time (like 15-20 weeks) before which the woman can chose to keep or abort her baby, after that the decision is no longer hers to make.
Having said that, that video is complete bullshit. Its like those people were put under tremendous emotional stress, being on camera and also being asked about killing a field full of jews, and they are in a kind of vulnerable spot and suddenly...BAM...they just get blindsided by the question on abortion. It was totally disingenuous, disgusting, manipulative and he was just shocking people into accepting his viewpoint. It was horrible to watch, and even more ridiculous to see people linking and saying "it attempts to go into the heart of abortion". No it does not. You would be a fool to believe that.
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
OK, first off I'm in the middle of the line here. I believe that there should be acceptable limits of time (like 15-20 weeks) before which the woman can chose to keep or abort her baby, after that the decision is no longer hers to make.
Having said that, that video is complete bullshit. Its like those people were put under tremendous emotional stress, being on camera and also being asked about killing a field full of jews, and they are in a kind of vulnerable spot and suddenly...BAM...they just get blindsided by the question on abortion. It was totally disingenuous, disgusting, manipulative and he was just shocking people into accepting his viewpoint. It was horrible to watch, and even more ridiculous to see people linking and saying "it attempts to go into the heart of abortion". No it does not. You would be a fool to believe that.
I dunno... that video kinda shows that nazis and pro-choicers have a lot in common...
/sarcasm.
It's more or less a complete sham, trying to play on emotions to keep people from making a logical statement.
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
OK, first off I'm in the middle of the line here. I believe that there should be acceptable limits of time (like 15-20 weeks) before which the woman can chose to keep or abort her baby, after that the decision is no longer hers to make.
Having said that, that video is complete bullshit. Its like those people were put under tremendous emotional stress, being on camera and also being asked about killing a field full of jews, and they are in a kind of vulnerable spot and suddenly...BAM...they just get blindsided by the question on abortion. It was totally disingenuous, disgusting, manipulative and he was just shocking people into accepting his viewpoint. It was horrible to watch, and even more ridiculous to see people linking and saying "it attempts to go into the heart of abortion". No it does not. You would be a fool to believe that.
I dunno... that video kinda shows that nazis and pro-choicers have a lot in common...
/sarcasm.
It's more or less a complete sham, trying to play on emotions to keep people from making a logical statement.
Actually, it was the people he was interviewing judging by their emotions. He was the one being logical. Sounded pretty fair to me.
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
OK, first off I'm in the middle of the line here. I believe that there should be acceptable limits of time (like 15-20 weeks) before which the woman can chose to keep or abort her baby, after that the decision is no longer hers to make.
Having said that, that video is complete bullshit. Its like those people were put under tremendous emotional stress, being on camera and also being asked about killing a field full of jews, and they are in a kind of vulnerable spot and suddenly...BAM...they just get blindsided by the question on abortion. It was totally disingenuous, disgusting, manipulative and he was just shocking people into accepting his viewpoint. It was horrible to watch, and even more ridiculous to see people linking and saying "it attempts to go into the heart of abortion". No it does not. You would be a fool to believe that.
I dunno... that video kinda shows that nazis and pro-choicers have a lot in common...
/sarcasm.
It's more or less a complete sham, trying to play on emotions to keep people from making a logical statement.
Actually, it was the people he was interviewing judging by their emotions. He was the one being logical. Sounded pretty fair to me.
It's a terrible and disingenuous way to make your point. It's the equivalent of an anti-evolutionist throwing his arguments at high school students and using their discombobulated, unresearched, unauthoritative responses as clear evidence of the validity of his points.
The arguments for and against abortion are tricky and this guy is horrifically oversimplifying them. Murder per se is not morally wrong. Murdering a mad paedophile rapist who is chasing a child with a chainsaw is not morally wrong. You can't load the act of murder with per se moral baggage. You have to be reasonable. To my mind, a foetus that can't survive outside of the womb is nothing more than a growth of cells within the mother. If you want to argue 'but it has the potential to grow into a human therefore it's murder', then you have to accept all these things are murder:
- using contraception
- interrupting coitus between two parties
- discouraging your friend from having unprotected sex with his girlfriend.
I'm sorry but you have to be reasonable. I don't know if Americans use the term 'reasonable' much in their legal system, but ours is littered with it. The actus reus (guilty act) of murder in the UK is (to use a useful definition by Coke) 'unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the queen's peace'. The important phrase is 'reasonable person in being', which means an entity who it would be reasonable to say is a human being. You have to make a reasonable point of distinction.
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. Where there is a reasonable point at which the baby can survive outside of the womb, without a ludicrous assortment of complicated medical equipment and paraphernalia, you can switch to say that abortion becomes trickier to defend.
I think the analogy with the jews is awful and flawed, and manipulative. There is no way to honestly reconcile the moral dilemma of being ordered to kill jews with having an abortion. The two concepts merely give the impression of moral compatibility.
EDIT: I made a bit of a mess of the actus reus of murder part. For anyone who caught my edits. Sorry it's late here :/
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
That video was terrible, ive never seen such trash.
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
OK, first off I'm in the middle of the line here. I believe that there should be acceptable limits of time (like 15-20 weeks) before which the woman can chose to keep or abort her baby, after that the decision is no longer hers to make.
Having said that, that video is complete bullshit. Its like those people were put under tremendous emotional stress, being on camera and also being asked about killing a field full of jews, and they are in a kind of vulnerable spot and suddenly...BAM...they just get blindsided by the question on abortion. It was totally disingenuous, disgusting, manipulative and he was just shocking people into accepting his viewpoint. It was horrible to watch, and even more ridiculous to see people linking and saying "it attempts to go into the heart of abortion". No it does not. You would be a fool to believe that.
I dunno... that video kinda shows that nazis and pro-choicers have a lot in common...
/sarcasm.
It's more or less a complete sham, trying to play on emotions to keep people from making a logical statement.
Actually, it was the people he was interviewing judging by their emotions. He was the one being logical. Sounded pretty fair to me.
It's a terrible and disingenuous way to make your point. It's the equivalent of an anti-evolutionist throwing his arguments at high school students and using their discombobulated, unresearched, unauthoritative responses as clear evidence of the validity of his points.
The arguments for and against abortion are tricky and this guy is horrifically oversimplifying them. Murder per se is not morally wrong. Murdering a mad paedophile rapist who is chasing a child with a chainsaw is not morally wrong. You can't load the act of murder with per se moral baggage. You have to be reasonable. To my mind, a foetus that can't survive outside of the womb is nothing more than a growth of cells within the mother. If you want to argue 'but it has the potential to grow into a human therefore it's murder', then you have to accept all these things are murder:
- using contraception
- interrupting coitus between two parties
- discouraging your friend from having unprotected sex with his girlfriend.
I'm sorry but you have to be reasonable. I don't know if Americans use the term 'reasonable' much in their legal system, but ours is littered with it. The actus reus (guilty act) of murder in the UK is (to use a useful definition by Coke) 'unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the queen's peace'. The important phrase is 'reasonable person in being', which means an entity who it would be reasonable to say is a human being. You have to make a reasonable point of distinction.
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. Where there is a reasonable point at which the baby can survive outside of the womb, without a ludicrous assortment of complicated medical equipment and paraphernalia, you can switch to say that abortion becomes trickier to defend.
I think the analogy with the jews is awful and flawed, and manipulative. There is no way to honestly reconcile the moral dilemma of being ordered to kill jews with having an abortion. The two concepts merely give the impression of moral compatibility.
EDIT: I made a bit of a mess of the actus reus of murder part. For anyone who caught my edits. Sorry it's late here :/
Well if you're referring to the interviewer in the movie (Ray Comfort) being "reasonable", you've got a problem. Ray Comfort is well-known as being a complete nutjob. He's a super-Creationist and anti-evolution evangelist, who just pretty much makes shit up as he goes along.
He's also known for creating a video about how bananas prove that God exists, spoilered here: + Show Spoiler +
Obviously, he became a laughingstock, everyone was quick to disprove him (and pretty much everything else he says about anything), and even other pro-religious groups distance themselves from his radical approaches to... well, everything.
But to address your other point, I also wonder if it's a slippery slope or a logical extension to say that if a woman can't abort a baby due to rape because a fetus is a potential baby... then can't all sperm and eggs be potential babies? Do people of that mindset have to be against contraception or stopping sex as well (as you said), because that's also prohibiting a future life? And what about a woman passing an egg every month? Each one of those is a potential baby! And let's not forget about masturbation... Or is the key there the actual pregnancy?
I really can't have much issue with a ban on abortion past the 20th week. Obviously there's a problem if this is a blanket ban on abortion that would prohibit a woman from having an abortion when serious medical concerns arise, but 20 weeks is a very generous amount of time. If you haven't decided to have an abortion by that time then there's something pretty wrong.
"In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
Laws allow a lot of causing pain. (it might not be practical to outlaw causing pain in all circumstances though)
Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there.
Wow! That's a great video, totally worth the watch.
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
Laws allow a lot of causing pain. (it might not be practical to outlaw causing pain in all circumstances though)
They why the frick would they say it if it has nothing to with the law?? "Oh by the way, I know your in a tough situation, and you're probably in panic, but what you might choose to do could cause someone(or something depending how you define) pain too, and there's nothing to do about it!"
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.
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: This actually seems pretty regular to me. Doctors warning about side effects seems like something should be happening anyway. 20 weeks is about halfway through a pregnancy, and something less than 2% of abortion happen after that. I'm not worried unless they do what they did in South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Blatant waste of resources to seemingly create a guilt trip. Amazing, isn't it? I hope for humanity's sake that is not he case anymore or never was. As for OP, seems about right to me. Gives time to decide whether you want it or not and (somewhat) appeases to the whole "it's a human" crowd.
I Suppose Everyone Here fails to understand how U.S Laws Work. This bill is to ban abortion completely in Indiana. The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws.
The Law could have been "Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded." "Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded" "team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded"
Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana. it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups.
On November 04 2011 13:52 Viciousvx wrote: I Suppose Everyone Here fails to understand how U.S Laws Work. This bill is to ban abortion completely in Indiana. The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws.
The Law could have been "Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded." "Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded" "team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded"
Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana. it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups.
I'm reposting this from the Herman Cain thread. I'm really surprised by some of the views that a lot of people seem to have about abortion. There is a huge difference between aborting a baby/fetus/fertilized egg and using contraceptives that prevent fertilization. Life exists past conception; and aborting a baby prior to or after the 20th week still amounts to the taking of a life.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
Last I checked, life definitely starts at conception. A fertilized egg has the ability to grow and divide. I suppose the U.S. government has sidestepped the issue of taking a life by redefining when life begins, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the murder of a living being.
With that being said, the government also has the power to establish when it is legal to take a life (ie capital (capitol?) punishment). Even if laws were passed stating that life starts at conception (which it does) the government would still have the ability to declare abortion legal, although it would look a lot worse.
More on topicish: Herman Cain is pretty fucked now with all these sexual harassment complaints. Republicans seem increasingly desperate to find a suitable candidate whose name is not Mitt Romney but appear unable to do so.
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote: While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason.
What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
A) Of course that just because the potential exists doesn't mean you should treat the potential in a certain way. But I'm not making the claim. I'm asking the proponents of abortion to justify THEIR position that t=future is less valuable than t=0 consciousness.
What is the difference between 9 newborn babies at t=0 and 10 fetuses that will survive childbirth 90% of the time if they're not aborted? There are of course many differences. By what is your basis for taking one of those differences as your basis for concluding that abortion is fine?
What is the rational basis for this bias towards t=0? That's what I really want answered.
B) Yes, this is indeed the outcome of this type of thinking. Although a proponent wouldn't be arguing that killing sperm or egg is morally wrong because FAPP there's infinite of them, hence killing the sperm won't have any consequences. But somebody taking the position that I outlined in my previous post and that's ALSO a consequentialist or some type of scientific utilitarian is FORCED to conclude that never choosing to be pregnant is equally morally abhorrent as aborting a fetus which is equally morally abhorrent as sedating then killing a 1 day old baby (disregarding any flow on effects that any of these actions may cause).
I understand that this moral position is intuitively absurd. But remember that your intuition and gut reaction to a proposition is an evolved response. It only exists because it was selected or because of random drift, it is not the product of rationality..
On November 04 2011 13:52 Viciousvx wrote: I Suppose Everyone Here fails to understand how U.S Laws Work. This bill is to ban abortion completely in Indiana. The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws.
The Law could have been "Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded." "Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded" "team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded"
Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana. it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups.
GG to the Red State of Indiana.
Now you're just making stuff up.
He is, but he is more right then you think. Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion legal per se, the SCOTUS said a women/(person) has a right to privacy until the baby is viable with artificial aid. There may very well come a day in our life time when starting at day one the baby is viable with artificial aid.
Unless there is a major change to the law, it's only logical and legal that states start lowering the date when abortion is illegal.
On November 04 2011 13:52 Viciousvx wrote: I Suppose Everyone Here fails to understand how U.S Laws Work. This bill is to ban abortion completely in Indiana. The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws.
The Law could have been "Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded." "Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded" "team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded"
Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana. it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups.
GG to the Red State of Indiana.
Now you're just making stuff up.
He is, but he is more right then you think. Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion legal per se, the SCOTUS said a women/(person) has a right to privacy until the baby is viable with artificial aid. There may very well come a day in our life time when starting at day one the baby is viable with artificial aid.
Unless there is a major change to the law, it's only logical and legal that states start lowering the date when abortion is illegal.
At that point we could probably extract the egg and let in grow in an artifical uterus. No prop.
I am entirely anti abortion after a certain amount of development, I'd say as soon as it starts to look more baby than egg is pretty much the line. But I am no doctor, it just doesent seem normal, although I get sick when I try to eat eggs too so that might have something to do with it. (but of course I will eat things eggs were used in)
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote: While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason.
What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
Basically, I think that when you have the life of someone entirely dependant on you, you should be able to detach from this responsibility. You should be able to require of your human brethren 'please, look after this dependant person, I don't wish to do it any more'. But it goes further with childbirth, they are dependant on you more than in any other relationship in life, seeing as they are literally absorbing your nutrients like a parasite and living inside of you. Seeing as you are the one being relied on, and you are the one giving nutrients...I think it's reasonable to say that you can withdraw from this process at a point where it's not reasonable to say to your fellow humans 'please, look after this dependant person'.
I think my position is flexible. If we were running out of children, and had extremely efficient technology that could sustain children with minimal difficulty from 1 week after conception, I might see it right that abortions be outlawed and all foetuses be raised by the state if the parents don't want to be involved. Don't consider us to be in that position though...so I think abortions before a certain period are right and fair.
Also, I have thought up another argument that runs alongside what Mr. Hicks is saying. Basically, there is less justification for total anti-abortion if there are still kids waiting for families in the foster system. It might make me sympathetic towards the pro-lifers if the foster rate were so high that the state were WAITING for new opportunities to give children to expectant families. But as far as we can say that most of these foetuses will grow up shuffled through a foster care system, I'm not convinced we as a society have a right to demand that this occur.
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote: While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason.
What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so:
"If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?"
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote: While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason.
What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so:
"If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?"
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
Neither scientific knowledge nor truth have ever prevented politicians from doing something...
Well in the violinist case, you can detatch yourself (even if it would mean their death)... but you Can't kill them first and then detatch.
Ie you should be able to detach, but it must be in a way that attempts to preserve the violinist (after all, they Might live, especially if you are detatching from them with the help of a medical professional, that medical professional should be duty bound to care for the violinist as much as they care for you after the detatching)
Most current abortions are about killing the baby before it detatches (ie chopping it up in bits and then vacuming it out)
As such a law that outlawed "abortion" but allowed "forced premature "birth" " would be potentially reasonable.
Currently however abortion of a "viable" fetus (depending on the state) is legal. partially because "viable" is a moving and uncertain target. (ie its legal in many cases to kill the violinist because that makes the detatchment easier, even if the violinist has a chance, even a good chance to survive the detatching)
Holding a dogmatic viewpoint that life begins at conception is so ridiculous and insane I'm seriously amazed TL members can hold it. I thought we were a smart community? Didn't you watch Monty Python and The Meaning of Life?
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote: While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason.
What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so:
"If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?"
On November 04 2011 23:37 njnick wrote:
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
Neither scientific knowledge nor truth have ever prevented politicians from doing something...
Well in the violinist case, you can detatch yourself (even if it would mean their death)... but you Can't kill them first and then detatch.
Ie you should be able to detach, but it must be in a way that attempts to preserve the violinist (after all, they Might live, especially if you are detatching from them with the help of a medical professional, that medical professional should be duty bound to care for the violinist as much as they care for you after the detatching)
Most current abortions are about killing the baby before it detatches (ie chopping it up in bits and then vacuming it out)
As such a law that outlawed "abortion" but allowed "forced premature "birth" " would be potentially reasonable.
Currently however abortion of a "viable" fetus (depending on the state) is legal. partially because "viable" is a moving and uncertain target. (ie its legal in many cases to kill the violinist because that makes the detatchment easier, even if the violinist has a chance, even a good chance to survive the detatching)
So are you saying that if we don't directly kill the fetus, instead just take it out of the womb and let it die of natural causes it would be ok?
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?
Because if you use logic like that every time you ejaculate without having 10 billion children you're effectively killing 10 billion children. It's broken logic. A "person" only starts to matter when it has developed consciousness, not if it can "potentially become a human being, maybe", because that would be stupid. That's just a weird way of looking at the world. How about we go arrest someone with iron because it can "potentially become a gun and owning guns is illegal here". Makes no sense.
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.
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote: While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason.
What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so:
"If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?"
On November 04 2011 23:37 njnick wrote:
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
Neither scientific knowledge nor truth have ever prevented politicians from doing something...
Well in the violinist case, you can detatch yourself (even if it would mean their death)... but you Can't kill them first and then detatch.
Ie you should be able to detach, but it must be in a way that attempts to preserve the violinist (after all, they Might live, especially if you are detatching from them with the help of a medical professional, that medical professional should be duty bound to care for the violinist as much as they care for you after the detatching)
Most current abortions are about killing the baby before it detatches (ie chopping it up in bits and then vacuming it out)
As such a law that outlawed "abortion" but allowed "forced premature "birth" " would be potentially reasonable.
Currently however abortion of a "viable" fetus (depending on the state) is legal. partially because "viable" is a moving and uncertain target. (ie its legal in many cases to kill the violinist because that makes the detatchment easier, even if the violinist has a chance, even a good chance to survive the detatching)
You are completely right. This is one of the flaws of the violinist argument.
Consider this though: Being forced into this position, do you have the obligation to damage your body to prevent damage to the violinist? If it was possible to remove the connection without damage to the unwilling host, it should be done. So it becomes a question of degree. How much damage are you obligated to accept to prevent damage to the violinist? I would say none, as you were forced into this position and force cannot constitute obligation.
Same with abortion. Sure you could remove the fetus and try to make it survive, but this would involve a more damaging and invasive surgery than the regular abortion.
On November 05 2011 00:04 Grumbels wrote: Holding a dogmatic viewpoint that life begins at conception is so ridiculous and insane I'm seriously amazed TL members can hold it. I thought we were a smart community? Didn't you watch Monty Python and The Meaning of Life?
Actually TL has some really smart posters. They are easy to spot too. This thread is a great example: In some posts you can tell the poster does not read the academic literature on the subject, but comes up with the current arguments for the position all on his own or spots flaws in current arguments. I find this impressive.
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.
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.
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 00:42 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 11:09 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.
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.
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
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 00:19 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 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 00:19 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 =\ )
The record for the youngest baby to survive birth is 21 weeks. how are we even discussing this law? every abortion after 20 weeks is straight murder. you might as well say that baby's in the first year are not ready to live yet, so we might throw them away.
it's pretty damn hard to draw a line here, but better safe then sorry.
in my personal opinion every abortion after the first trimester should be banned. three month is plenty of time to decide whether to have a baby.
and I'm 100% pro abortion. there should be an option after conception. but not calling the decision and waiting is definitely not the way to go.
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?
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.
Just because I believe someone, or ANYTHING has the right to life, or has potential to interact with this world in a beautiful way (This includes animals) , does not directly mean I think all life should live, as is the nature of this world things die and not everything gets a fair chance, which is the case with natural selection. However when it comes to humans this natural law is being smeared out with the arrival society and western medicine. I feel overpopulation and this intrinsic right are separate things, and should be considered as such. Overpopulation is a result of out current environment and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
This all comes down to if my mother said I was going to abort you, would you have wanted to live, I would have said yes. I would have wanted to right to make that choice. I would not want some shit wad telling me hey you don't have the right to even get a fucking chance to make that choice because your just some shitty sludge in a bio womb that doesn't constitute life.
Also I am not educated enough in the area of sperm and egg cells to comment on such topics, and whether or not these are potential life. Shit for all I know. Sperm A could be of genetic code, A B A D D, is he a unique set of genetics or is he repeated millions of times. I find it hard to believe each sperm and egg are unique (if so please enlighten me). And even if they are they are nothing until combined so this area is very gray for me.
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.
The argument from potential is really nonsense to me. One can look at every unborn fetus and claim, "one of these could have later cured cancer," and then in the very same breath also propose, "yes, and one of these could have also become a serial killer."
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.
The argument from potential is really nonsense to me. One can look at every unborn fetus and claim, "one of these could have later cured cancer," and then in the very same breath also propose, "yes, and one of these could have also become a serial killer."
There needs to be a more solid ground than that.
Correct, I don't think this area is so cut and dry as, its a 2 week old fetus, its not life because it doesn't have a name and doesn't have X Y or B attributes for us to consider it life. Therefore it is 100% morally correct to destroy this being. That's a fucking easy way out of a very difficult subject, EACH mother needs to weigh ALL the options before choosing to kill the baby. Let's set up a scenario, 17 year old Sally gets knocked up @ a party by Johnny be cool, Sup son! And instead of having the baby and putting it up for adoption, she chooses abortion because she doesn't want to look fat, or let anyone know shes pregnant, her parents agree and let her go through with the abortion. Now in my awesome opinion this is MORAL TRASH, how is that ever a fucking reason to kill a life. Now I can see if the girl was gonna die and shit, then go ahead, abort. But to just say, how old is it?? 19 weeks???? Oh fucking EZ PZ kill that lil som bitch he ain't life herp a fucking derp............Makes me sick son...
scary, I have actually had my girlfriend (At the time) get an abortion in Indiana when I lived there... It wasn't at 20 weeks, but with a law like that.... good thing im not in indiana any more, or dating nymphos
On November 05 2011 01:36 Jayjay54 wrote: in my personal opinion every abortion after the first trimester should be banned. three month is plenty of time to decide whether to have a baby.
The prenatal tests for downs syndrome and cerebral anencephaly (the fetus' head does not close) are most accurate in the weeks after the 18th. If abortions after the 3rd month are banned completely, you will have babies dying a cruel death after 4 years of agony and unhappiness.
Limiting abortion after a certain grace period is fine, banning it forces people to care for a child they don't want to have.
On November 05 2011 01:30 Thorakh wrote: 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.
Your statement implies that we should always accept any consequence of an action we take. If you drive your car without the intention of getting into an accident and you get into an accident, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to drive that car. If you have sex without the intention of getting pregnant and you get pregnant, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to have sex.
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.
Just because I believe someone, or ANYTHING has the right to life, or has potential to interact with this world in a beautiful way (This includes animals) , does not directly mean I think all life should live, as is the nature of this world things die and not everything gets a fair chance, which is the case with natural selection. However when it comes to humans this natural law is being smeared out with the arrival society and western medicine. I feel overpopulation and this intrinsic right are separate things, and should be considered as such. Overpopulation is a result of out current environment and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
This all comes down to if my mother said I was going to abort you, would you have wanted to live, I would have said yes. I would have wanted to right to make that choice. I would not want some shit wad telling me hey you don't have the right to even get a fucking chance to make that choice because your just some shitty sludge in a bio womb that doesn't constitute life.
Also I am not educated enough in the area of sperm and egg cells to comment on such topics, and whether or not these are potential life. Shit for all I know. Sperm A could be of genetic code, A B A D D, is he a unique set of genetics or is he repeated millions of times. I find it hard to believe each sperm and egg are unique (if so please enlighten me). And even if they are they are nothing until combined so this area is very gray for me.
And at what age should we ask people if they want to be alive? What age does someone actually have the competency to make that decision? How would it be ethical to kill someone if at that point they decided they didn't want to live? Who would we get to carry out these murders? If people have the right to life, do they have the right to death as well? What about life as the result of a crime--Does a women raped have the right to terminate a pregnancy that was forced on her through violence? If potential for continued life exists but isn't allowed, is it then considered always a crime? (To use an abstract, someone who needs an organ transplant.)
I understand you're passionate about this, but consider that pain in the here and now is a lot more real than the loss of something that never happened. If the values of the person are to bring a child into the world once it is conceived, they should be more than welcome to do that--and like wise the legal validity of that option should always be allowed to those who feel they are not responsible, capable, or wanting of that pregnancy. It's a far stretch to not think that this decision would be a heavy one to consider for any person.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never 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.
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.
The argument from potential is really nonsense to me. One can look at every unborn fetus and claim, "one of these could have later cured cancer," and then in the very same breath also propose, "yes, and one of these could have also become a serial killer."
There needs to be a more solid ground than that.
Correct, I don't think this area is so cut and dry as, its a 2 week old fetus, its not life because it doesn't have a name and doesn't have X Y or B attributes for us to consider it life. Therefore it is 100% morally correct to destroy this being. That's a fucking easy way out of a very difficult subject, EACH mother needs to weigh ALL the options before choosing to kill the baby. Let's set up a scenario, 17 year old Sally gets knocked up @ a party by Johnny be cool, Sup son! And instead of having the baby and putting it up for adoption, she chooses abortion because she doesn't want to look fat, or let anyone know shes pregnant, her parents agree and let her go through with the abortion. Now in my awesome and educated opinion this is MORAL TRASH, how is that ever a fucking reason to kill a life. Now i can see if the bitch was gonna die and shit, then go ahead abort, but to just say, how old is it?? 19 weeks???? Oh fucking EZ PZ kill that lil som bitch he ain't life herp a derp............Makes me sick son...
Obviously not allowing people to have control over what happens to their own bodies is a morally pristine position to take. Honestly, how many women do you think decide to have abortions for the hell of it?
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
20 weeks is half the pregnancy. The fetus is moving and drinking amniotic fluid; if you feel like it, you can even have its organs checked for development disorders. The fetus' heart is beating since week 6. From a medical point of view, abortion after this event is destroying a human life. Personally, I think that a woman has the right to decide wether she wants to keep a child or to abort it, but it should happen at a reasonable time. 20 weeks is in no way acceptable and, to be honest, it simply doesn't make any sense to me to "reduce" it to that limit when you could go further and thus make a more reasonable decision. Does anyone know until which week it was legal before the new bill?
Your statement implies that we should always accept any consequence of an action we take. If you drive your car without the intention of getting into an accident and you get into an accident, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to drive that car. If you have sex without the intention of getting pregnant and you get pregnant, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to have sex.
are u trolling now? i mean, if there were a device or medicine that i would take that would prevent 98-99% of all car accidents, i am sure that it would be government mandate that every single person take it.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
Usually a human life, as opposed to any other life, is defined by self-awareness and not being too hairy. If we take only these attributes, babies do not become human between half a year and 1 year after birth. That is a little late though and we do want to err on the side of caution, so we arbitrarily set the number to 3 month for a healthy fetus and 6 month for a severely damaged one.
On November 05 2011 02:17 missefficiency wrote: 20 weeks is half the pregnancy. The fetus is moving and drinking amniotic fluid; if you feel like it, you can even have its organs checked for development disorders. The fetus' heart is beating since week 6. From a medical point of view, abortion after this event is destroying a human life. Personally, I think that a woman has the right to decide wether she wants to keep a child or to abort it, but it should happen at a reasonable time. 20 weeks is in no way acceptable and, to be honest, it simply doesn't make any sense to me to "reduce" it to that limit when you could go further and thus make a more reasonable decision. Does anyone know until which week it was legal before the new bill?
The ban is for all abortions. If the doctors discover in week 21 that your baby is severely disabled and will be in pain for all his life or that you will die during the birth, you are out of luck.
Usually there is a difference until what point you can abort because you just dont want a baby and because of medical reasons.
I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here but first let me state this disclaimer that I am absolutely pro abortion...
But have you guys actually seen a 12 week old fetus in real life or even a 8 weeks old? I did while studying anatomi at the university where they had this exhibition, and it's actually scary how they look exactly like a little human being. Kinda made me think twice...
Also people keep bringing up that it's the woman choice what she wants to do with her body - that is true, but the choice she is making is for have someone else to remove the fetus for her. The actual choice of what she herself is doing with her body is when she decided to have sex with someone. Not to mention the fact that the man of course has no saying in this whatsoever which I think is shitty but of course there seems to be no other way.
That being said, I am a huge believer in only having kids when you are ready to give them your utmost. For their sake of the kid's future, your own future and the future of everyone else....
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
This is a very gray area, and one that should be discussed extensively. Like I have said in one of my previous post's I am uneducated in the area of sperm and egg. I do not know if each sperm is unique or if they are replicated. For @ the moment I am to lazy to look it up, however I will.
But I will give my two cents real quick, @ the moment I do not consider sperm to be potential life, as I do not have the ability to birth a child from my ass. A zygote which is an egg and a sperm DOES have the potential for life however.
Again this topic is a morally gray area for me and I must do more research to find a moral compass on the subject, but for now, I do not consider sperm potential life. Guess I gotta figure this out for myself. I can say thank you for inadvertently showing me I need to read some science on this topic. I am going to work now, ill be back later to to pwn you with my amazing atheistic scientific morality! =p
Edit; you saying potential life has no value is morally black, how would any of us even be alive if potential life has no value. Consider the world to be a womb and protozoa to be the zygote, if the world didn't give us the chance to show her our potential (All life) then no life would have ever existed, if you find life to be disgusting then that's on you. I on the other hand respect the rarity of life and would prefer it over rocks and the void.
The preceding opinion coming from a standpoint of evolution, which I consider to be true.
On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote: A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old.
I think you mean months.
Anyway, I don't want to get into the whole abortion argument, I'm personally pro-choice, but I find that there's really no objective measure of what is and what isn't baby killing.
A blastocyst isn't a human being. Maybe an 8-month fetus is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that abortion is wrong, and it's also perfectly reasonable to think that it's not.
Unwanted children brought up by incompetent and unfit parents is not a preferable option to terminating the development of a as-of-yet-non-sentient fetus, in my opinion.
I think this law is unnecessary, and is used as a wedge tactic to introduce more draconian restrictions. Very few abortions are carried out that late in the pregnancy, and it's usually done for good reason, such as health complications, or serious birth defects. No one has "conveniency abortions" that late.
I don't see who this law is protecting, except for social conservatives who turn it into a binary, black and white choice of "delivery or murder".
On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote: A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old.
So... you're saying it's ok to get rid of kids under 5 since they aren't 'human beings'? Or how about people in comas considering they aren't conscious either? Or how about people with severe mental disabilities?
On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote: A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old.
Then it's not a baby anymore I think you probably meant months? At the age of 3 months, a baby cries to have a personal need fulfilled. They do it because they've learnt over the past months that it actually works and gives them an advantage. A child is playing "role games" with dolls and teddy bears at the age of about 2. It's thoroughly selfish at the age of 3. The personality isn't complete at the time, but certain basic structures have already been established.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
On November 05 2011 02:37 missefficiency wrote: At the age of 3 months, a baby cries to have a personal need fulfilled. They do it because they've learnt over the past months that it actually works and gives them an advantage.
No, that's not learned behavior, it's a basic animal instinct found in most vertebrates.
(note that I'm not arguing for infanticide! just correcting a misconception)
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
well, to be quite honest, alot of cultures had this habit of not naming children till the were of a certain age. (ie could survive). many cultures still treat the baby and mother as one being until around 4-5. a name defines you, it tells the rest of the world that you are a separate being.
as for
Or how about people in comas considering they aren't conscious either?
do we keep any other creature in an artificial state of life (coma)? of course we dont, because its not humane. humans should learn to be humane to each other.
humans are animals. and we havent fallen that far from the tree. go study some anthropology or visit the inner city or a college dorm if you think differently
Never mind the suspect argbitrary timing issue what about the claim of pain?
I would love to see scientific evidence on that one. It smells of BS to me - how do you do carry out that study properly?
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way. Go argue about god, it has the same formal structure.
As for the morality of it? We goto war .. that is about the most immoral thing you can do. If we cannot avoid doing that then everything else pales into insignificance and everything is just in some circumstances - as is war sadly. Why create a rule that we are not going to break when we know that exceptions will exist?
On November 05 2011 02:39 -_- wrote: If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
That's not really a sensible argument. The question isn't about duration of time spent in the womb, it's about being an independent organism. A 5 year old fetus wouldn't be any more or less sentient than a 9 month old fetus, because they do not have to respond to external stimuli.
Sure, you could hypothesize that the baby becomes fully conscious and sentient before delivery, but that's just complete fantasy, you may as well be proposing that babies grow on trees, and is it ethical to keep watering the fetuses in times of drought.
The ban is for all abortions. If the doctors discover in week 21 that your baby is severely disabled and will be in pain for all his life or that you will die during the birth, you are out of luck.
Usually there is a difference until what point you can abort because you just dont want a baby and because of medical reasons.
When talking about a reasonable time, I was referring to "normal" pregnancies, not to explicit medical reasons that force a woman to abort since the child is severely disabled or a continued pregnancy would endanger her own life. This is a whole different topic and a much more painful discussion. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here.
I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic.
I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?".
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way
I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things.
The ban is for all abortions. If the doctors discover in week 21 that your baby is severely disabled and will be in pain for all his life or that you will die during the birth, you are out of luck.
Usually there is a difference until what point you can abort because you just dont want a baby and because of medical reasons.
When talking about a reasonable time, I was referring to "normal" pregnancies, not to explicit medical reasons that force a woman to abort since the child is severely disabled or a continued pregnancy would endanger her own life. This is a whole different topic and a much more painful discussion. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
Actually it wasn't a different issue. You were arguing against an abstraction of the real situatuion. Much like the people who passed the law were. The problem is that they had an agenda that was fuelled by their preconceptions rather than the fact that it is a medical decision and really should fall under legislation at all as it shuodl be a case by case basis. Its an example of nanny state imo - but really don't want to get into an argument justifying that - I am happy with people having other views on the matter.
RAther than a law this shuold of been something passed on as a recommendation from whatever medical association there is in the states. I can;t help but note that there are a crap ton of religious people over there with some VERY scary views.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here.
I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic.
I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?".
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way
I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things.
Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.
As for your tangible claims lol
How do you measure sentience? - in case you hadn;t noticed we have had a VERY hard time describing what conscious even is let alone define what is and is not sentient.
How do you test if a foetus can feel pain? seriously how can you do that experiment? Ethical rules would stop you but even so you cannot test for that.
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.
Just because I believe someone, or ANYTHING has the right to life, or has potential to interact with this world in a beautiful way (This includes animals) , does not directly mean I think all life should live, as is the nature of this world things die and not everything gets a fair chance, which is the case with natural selection. However when it comes to humans this natural law is being smeared out with the arrival society and western medicine. I feel overpopulation and this intrinsic right are separate things, and should be considered as such. Overpopulation is a result of out current environment and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
This all comes down to if my mother said I was going to abort you, would you have wanted to live, I would have said yes. I would have wanted to right to make that choice. I would not want some shit wad telling me hey you don't have the right to even get a fucking chance to make that choice because your just some shitty sludge in a bio womb that doesn't constitute life.
Also I am not educated enough in the area of sperm and egg cells to comment on such topics, and whether or not these are potential life. Shit for all I know. Sperm A could be of genetic code, A B A D D, is he a unique set of genetics or is he repeated millions of times. I find it hard to believe each sperm and egg are unique (if so please enlighten me). And even if they are they are nothing until combined so this area is very gray for me.
And at what age should we ask people if they want to be alive? What age does someone actually have the competency to make that decision? How would it be ethical to kill someone if at that point they decided they didn't want to live? Who would we get to carry out these murders? If people have the right to life, do they have the right to death as well? What about life as the result of a crime--Does a women raped have the right to terminate a pregnancy that was forced on her through violence? If potential for continued life exists but isn't allowed, is it then considered always a crime? (To use an abstract, someone who needs an organ transplant.)
I understand you're passionate about this, but consider that pain in the here and now is a lot more real than the loss of something that never happened. If the values of the person are to bring a child into the world once it is conceived, they should be more than welcome to do that--and like wise the legal validity of that option should always be allowed to those who feel they are not responsible, capable, or wanting of that pregnancy. It's a far stretch to not think that this decision would be a heavy one to consider for any person.
God damn, yes a woman has the right to abort a rape I think one has the right to make the choice, if thought through very very carefully weighing the options and choosing what is best relatively, however great moral dilemmas occur here and I would walk on the edge of respecting potential life.
And in the argument about choosing not to live after being asked, there is no murder team lol, I believe one can only make such decisions once they are an adult, and @ this point you either commit suicide or keep living.
On November 05 2011 02:45 missefficiency wrote: @ Brotkrumen:
The ban is for all abortions. If the doctors discover in week 21 that your baby is severely disabled and will be in pain for all his life or that you will die during the birth, you are out of luck.
Usually there is a difference until what point you can abort because you just dont want a baby and because of medical reasons.
When talking about a reasonable time, I was referring to "normal" pregnancies, not to explicit medical reasons that force a woman to abort since the child is severely disabled or a continued pregnancy would endanger her own life. This is a whole different topic and a much more painful discussion. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
Actually it wasn't a different issue. You were arguing against an abstraction of the real situatuion. Much like the people who passed the law were. The problem is that they had an agenda that was fuelled by their preconceptions rather than the fact that it is a medical decision and really should fall under legislation at all as it shuodl be a case by case basis. Its an example of nanny state imo - but really don't want to get into an argument justifying that - I am happy with people having other views on the matter.
RAther than a law this shuold of been something passed on as a recommendation from whatever medical association there is in the states. I can;t help but note that there are a crap ton of religious people over there with some VERY scary views.
That's the crux of this thing. That law is not motivated by any sort of reasonable justification. Late-term abortions are very, very rarely, if at all, used as delayed birth control. They are almost always a reaction to unforeseen medical complications or defects. The law pretends to solve an issue that doesn't exist, solely to open a door for interpreting Roe v Wade in "creative" ways. The victims here will be mothers who have to risk their lives or mental health by giving birth to horrendously malformed children.
god, some people. pain is not a function of the brain per-se. it is a function of the nervous system. the brain only recognizes the i/p coming from whatever part and then adjusts blood pressure/heart rate/respiration rate. this can happen and be seen in any creature. any. at all. the pain response has absolutely nothing to do with sentience. absolutely nothing.
Aside from rape, it's hard to see how a girl in this day and age can get pregnant if she doesn't want to.
When people realize that creating life is a HUGE deal, maybe they will stop treating abortion like it isn't murder and start to act responsibly with their sex organs.
Or is a woman's right to protection free sex more important than human lives?
Men should take this responsibility as well. Use a condom if she ain't on the pill, for christ sake.
On November 05 2011 03:00 blinken wrote: Aside from rape, it's hard to see how a girl in this day and age can get pregnant if she doesn't want to.
When people realize that creating life is a HUGE deal, maybe they will stop treating abortion like it isn't murder and start to act responsibly with their sex organs.
Or is a woman's right to protection free sex more important than human lives?
Men should take this responsibility as well. Use a condom if she ain't on the pill, for christ sake.
Condom breaking? that took me both seconds ... i can probably come up with hundreds of ways if i thought about it ... from pool cues to toilet seats.
On November 05 2011 02:54 MrTortoise wrote: Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.
It's not nonsense. It is a scientific fact that pain sensation is a neurological function of the brain. People with brain damage can become incapable of feeling any pain.
What we know for sure about fetal brain development is that the visual center of the brain is entirely dormant until well after birth. I don't honestly care what anyone's philosophical beliefs on the issue are, facts are facts.
My point was that there are answerable questions in this debate, and one of them is certainly "when can a fetus experience pain, if at all". I don't know whether this has been answered or not, but I do know that it's answerable.
allowing abortion is the only rational choice. anything else and you are trying to justify your own ideology with whatever scraps of science you can pretend to know. there are way way too many conceivable situations where abortion is the absolutely right idea logically
On November 05 2011 03:00 teer wrote: More abortions the better. The human race is on an unsustainable rate of growth to continue reproducing as much as we are.
All first world societies are either at equilibrium or decline, population-wise. Overpopulation takes place in developing countries, and the abortion debate is completely pointless there because morality aside, no one can afford one.
The nervous systems sends the information of pain to the brain, the brain processes it and tells you it hurts, IE you cannot feel pain without the brain.
On November 05 2011 02:59 Brutland wrote: god, some people. pain is not a function of the brain per-se. it is a function of the nervous system. the brain only recognizes the i/p coming from whatever part and then adjusts blood pressure/heart rate/respiration rate. this can happen and be seen in any creature. any. at all. the pain response has absolutely nothing to do with sentience. absolutely nothing.
2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it.
the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory
On November 05 2011 03:04 Brutland wrote: allowing abortion is the only rational choice. anything else and you are trying to justify your own ideology with whatever scraps of science you can pretend to know. there are way way too many conceivable situations where abortion is the absolutely right idea logically
The problem is rationally you have to allow EVERY choice because you end up in relativism - yet we need a legal system.
As for the cost of abortion from above ... abortions are traditionally very cheap ... Just use a nitting needle. Which is a VERY strong argument for legalising. Its like any form of prohibition - harmful. So thrid worldl countries can easily have abortions ... except we gave them all Christianity and other nice religions that say don't use contraception.
I would truly love to see an example of prohibition that has had good consequences overall. Things like murder are illegal it doesnt stop people doingit. The reason why we make murder illegal is because of the effect on the rest of society. An abortion is a really personal and private thing imo - people who want one will do it anyway, they need support.
you my friend are very very wrong about pain. pain is absolutely not a neurological function of the brain. it is a direct result of substance-p, which is released in response to localized cell damage. substance-p causes a cascade effect in the nervous system that is recognized by the brain as pain. that said, you can feel pain without conscious functioning. i see pain responses in people everyday that are, by all intents and purposes, mostly brain dead.
On November 05 2011 03:05 MrTortoise wrote: 2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it.
the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory
Pain sensation and pain response are completely different things.
It's like cortical blindness. The eyes are completely functional, they transmit visual signals, but the person is incapable of seeing because they can't process it. They are for all practical purposes blind, and can't even conceptualize what vision is.
you my friend are very very wrong about pain. pain is absolutely not a neurological function of the brain. it is a direct result of substance-p, which is released in response to localized cell damage. substance-p causes a cascade effect in the nervous system that is recognized by the brain as pain. that said, you can feel pain without conscious functioning. i see pain responses in people everyday that are, by all intents and purposes, mostly brain dead.
I said pain sensation, not reflexive response to stimuli by the autonomous nervous system.
On November 05 2011 03:05 MrTortoise wrote: 2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it.
the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory
Pain sensation and pain response are completely different things.
It's like cortical blindness. The eyes are completely functional, they transmit visual signals, but the person is incapable of seeing because they can't process it. They are for all practical purposes blind, and can't even conceptualize what vision is.
Yes i agree they are different things, yet both part of what it is to feel pain. you are trying to defefine pain to mean something that required a word pre/postfixed in front of/behind pain to make sense. that is not what is meant by the word 'pain' but a more specialised form of the meaning.
as for the pain of phantom limb, the nerves were still sending the signal. the brain is still receiving input that says, "ouchie over here!".
its actually very NOT grey where the secondary nervous system and the brain are delineated. one is inside the skull, the other isnt. fun fact, the brain has no sensory neurons to feel pain.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here.
I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic.
I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?".
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way
I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things.
Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.
You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward.
Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain.
i meant pain as the definition of it without getting tied up in anthropomorphism. pain is a signal sent by sensory neurons in response to substance-p being released. the thing you are describing is the feeling of pain and the appropriate choice of reaction to avoid said feeling. amoeba do that. without being conscious. we dont run around protecting amoeba
Yeah i totally agree and do not dispute your facts
The brain merley reports in effect. But to describe what pain is you require references to all parts of the system is my point. Anyway i am making a nit picky point ... the problem i really have with this whole thing is proving that a foetus feels pain at some times and not others.
The problem is that i think that if you said scientifically that it felt pain you would also qualify that quite heavily. I am not sure that legally that happened - and if it did it took a very narrow view on what pain really means.
On November 05 2011 03:05 MrTortoise wrote: 2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it.
the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory
Pain sensation and pain response are completely different things.
It's like cortical blindness. The eyes are completely functional, they transmit visual signals, but the person is incapable of seeing because they can't process it. They are for all practical purposes blind, and can't even conceptualize what vision is.
Yes i agree they are different things, yet both part of what it is to feel pain. you are trying to defefine pain to mean something that required a word prefixed in front of pain to make sense. that is not what is meant by the word 'pain' but a more specialised form of the meaning.
The word "pain" has a very specific meaning, and it should not be used to describe autonomous responses in a vacuum. Pain, like any sensation, is something experienced. Higher animals interpret what we call pain responses as highly unpleasant sensations. Lower animals have similar responses but do not have any capacity to process interpretations, they simply react.
When discussing whether a fetus "feels pain", we are explicitly talking about pain sensation, not pain response.
On April 28 2011 11:07 Courthead wrote: Spent years debating this. Abortion is a complex issue and a morally gray area. Both sides have strong argument and weak ones. I'd say the most popular representatives of each side (women's rights vs religion) are both weak.
YES! Someone actually thinks so. I am pro-life, but am an atheist. It is terrible that the most common argument is in the name of someone's religion. The issue goes much more core and it is not do any justice for the unborn child (a term I agree with) leaving it up to "God".
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here.
I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic.
I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?".
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way
I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things.
Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.
You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward.
Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain.
That proves nothing ... you are inferring. you may or may not be right ... is the experience of pain for a foetus the same as for me? Pain is when i burn myself and go 'ouch' - if a foetus does react like that then i stand corrected. People talk of psychological pain - that is clearly not what is being talked about here. My problem is qualifying what we mean against what was legally meant. Saying in a biological context that it feels pain where pain is a refined concept is one thing. Use of the unqualified word pain as quoted is another.
Part of sensing is reponse. If something has no effect then how can it be caused?
Sorry maybe there is a fact that can simply shut me up. Do foetus have a mechanical response to pain?
'When discussing whether a fetus "feels pain", we are explicitly talking about pain sensation, not pain response.'
No i disagree, biologists are talking about this. Lawyers are not, judges are not, most people are not. I am certianly not interpreting pain to be that definition. you may think your right, (and technically you are) however that is not the meaning of the word to the person in the street. If that makes sense? Its a big problem, we all use the same words but mean very different things by them. Your meaning is not more correct than the common sense view - it is just mroe useful in a particular context. We are not in that context though we are in a legal one. But don't let me stop you discussing the biological meaning - its interesting :D I'm just an ass that likes beating things with logical sticks.
an out of context example would be laws being put in place regarding IP on the internet. To people in the know its hilarious how little legal beagles understand what they are talking about.
of course it hasnt happened legally. can u imagine what our legal system looked like if you actually let scientists and engineers at it? it would be all of like 10 pages. then who would need politicians and lawyers.
On November 05 2011 03:17 Brutland wrote: i meant pain as the definition of it without getting tied up in anthropomorphism. pain is a signal sent by sensory neurons in response to substance-p being released. the thing you are describing is the feeling of pain and the appropriate choice of reaction to avoid said feeling. amoeba do that. without being conscious. we dont run around protecting amoeba
Okay, first of all, I'm on your side in this argument.
Second, when we discuss pain in the context of ethics, we are explicitly talking about pain sensation in higher animals. If anything is anthropomorphic, it is using the same word for the sensation as well as the reflexive response. It muddles the issue and lets people make silly arguments about pain response "proving" that pain sensation is there.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I think what you're saying is that it's not, because whatever it's attributes are, it's a parasite. And if I'm understanding you correctly parasites can't be humans. Is that what it is?
Or, are you saying that even if it is a human, the mother's rights supersede its rights because it's a parasite? And thus not living?
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me.
What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: 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.....
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here.
I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic.
I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?".
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way
I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things.
Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.
You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward.
Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain.
That proves nothing ... you are inferring. you may or may not be right ... is the experience of pain for a foetus the same as for me? Pain is when i burn myself and go 'ouch' - if a foetus does react like that then i stand corrected. People talk of psychological pain - that is clearly not what is being talked about here. My problem is qualifying what we mean against what was legally meant. Saying in a biological context that it feels pain where pain is a refined concept is one thing. Use of the unqualified word pain as quoted is another.
Part of sensing is reponse. If something has no effect then how can it be caused?
Sorry maybe there is a fact that can simply shut me up. Do foetus have a mechanical response to pain?
It does, we just don't know if it's a reflex or a silent "ouch" - reaction that is processed and controlled by the brain. Unless I know for sure it isn't, I'll go for the second theory.
Psychological pain is a different issue - personally, I think that bothering kids with the universe of their own unknown inner self as some "Supermothers" do is BS. Problems will come to you when you get older without anyone imposing something like an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on you simply because they want you to have it. /end offtopic
On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote: I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I think what you're saying is that it's not, because whatever it's attributes are, it's a parasite. And if I'm understanding you correctly parasites can't be humans. Is that what it is?
Or, are you saying that even if it is a human, the mother's rights supersede its rights because it's a parasite? And thus not living?
Or are you saying something else?
He is saying that the womb is private property that belongs to a woman, and therefore she has the right to "evict" an embryo/fetus/etc from her property. Once the fetus reaches viability, the state then has an interest in protecting the life of that individual. They both have an equal right to life once the fetus reaches viability, however, this right does not outweigh the woman's private property rights
This does not mean that the woman can destroy a viable fetus or evict it violently, but she can have it removed from her body in the most non-violent manner possible.
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me.
What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
I think sentience makes a human a human, for the purposes of ethical considerations. I think killing is wrong because because it causes suffering. If it causes no suffering to anyone, it is not inherently wrong, and we can do cost/benefit analyses. On moral issues I mostly agree with Sam Harris, if you're interested in my personal beliefs.
I don't agree with Kwark's parasite argument either, but I think your "what if it's a 5 year old in the womb" argument is not a good counter to it, because it just doesn't make sense. A fetus cannot develop mentally in the womb, and thus will never become a 5 year old. Being independent of the mother's organism is a prerequisite for becoming the thing you mean by "5 year old".
being a human vice a fetus is the capability to survive independently of another creature. as i posted earlier, most cultures consider the babe and mother to be one creature till the child reaches 4. anything prior to being able to survive childbirth unassisted is where it is just a blob a cells.
On November 05 2011 02:12 KwarK wrote: [quote] And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here.
I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic.
I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?".
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way
I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things.
Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.
You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward.
Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain.
That proves nothing ... you are inferring. you may or may not be right ... is the experience of pain for a foetus the same as for me? Pain is when i burn myself and go 'ouch' - if a foetus does react like that then i stand corrected. People talk of psychological pain - that is clearly not what is being talked about here. My problem is qualifying what we mean against what was legally meant. Saying in a biological context that it feels pain where pain is a refined concept is one thing. Use of the unqualified word pain as quoted is another.
Part of sensing is reponse. If something has no effect then how can it be caused?
Sorry maybe there is a fact that can simply shut me up. Do foetus have a mechanical response to pain?
It does, we just don't know if it's a reflex or a silent "ouch" - reaction that is processed and controlled by the brain. Unless I know for sure it isn't, I'll go for the second theory.
Psychological pain is a different issue - personally, I think that bothering kids with the universe of their own unknown inner self as some "Supermothers" do is BS. Problems will come to you when you get older without anyone imposing something like an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on you simply because they want you to have it. /end offtopic
Ok well cool they 'feel' pain. [edited my view of abortion out of it]
Morality is the luxuary of those that are not fighting for their lives and those that seek to control those minions that make their lives bearable imo.
The other big question was how did you cause pain .. how would you differentiate that from other sensations such as hot and cold. It is not merley enough to be sensing to call it pain otherwise you have broadened the definition of pain to any sensory input.
This is the point where i should start reading for myself ;p
I only brought up psychological pain to make the point about how vaguely the word pain can be used. I like bashing psychology.
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me.
What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
But you aren't. You're asking about something completely separate.
The other big question was how did you cause pain .. how would you differentiate that from other sensations such as hot and cold. It is not merley enough to be sensing to call it pain otherwise you have broadened the definition of pain to any sensory input.
Pain is the sensation we feel when our cells are damaged. Cold is the sensation we feel when our body reacts to lower temperature by preventing heat loss. Warm is the sensation we feel when our body reacts to higher temperature by increasing heat loss. Both can lead to pain when the temperature change is drastic enough that we begin to take damage.
Anyway, I've gotten way more involved in this argument than I wanted to, and I want to go ladder now.
On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote: A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old.
I think you mean months.
Anyway, I don't want to get into the whole abortion argument, I'm personally pro-choice, but I find that there's really no objective measure of what is and what isn't baby killing.
A blastocyst isn't a human being. Maybe an 8-month fetus is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that abortion is wrong, and it's also perfectly reasonable to think that it's not.
Unwanted children brought up by incompetent and unfit parents is not a preferable option to terminating the development of a as-of-yet-non-sentient fetus, in my opinion.
I think this law is unnecessary, and is used as a wedge tactic to introduce more draconian restrictions. Very few abortions are carried out that late in the pregnancy, and it's usually done for good reason, such as health complications, or serious birth defects. No one has "conveniency abortions" that late.
I don't see who this law is protecting, except for social conservatives who turn it into a binary, black and white choice of "delivery or murder".
Consciousness is what makes a human being a human being. Self awareness on our level as humans that is. A baby has no concept of anything except the most basic of instincts. The brain's connections are what makes us alive, not our beating hearts or organs.
A fully grown adult that's now brain dead isn't, "Human" anymore because the memories and thought processes that once inhabited him is gone. A fetus has not developed these things yet and is no more "Human" than the brain dead adult, it has potential to be. However, potential =/= life. Potential = potential.
funnily enough. pain sensations travel along the exact same pathway as temperature sensations. thats why icy-hot and the like work. the level of temperature drowns out the pain signal.
I'm pretty sure that I could use most reasons to have abortions as reasons to kill "humans". They don't feel pain: I could kill you in a painless way. They are parasites: My kid depends on me for food/shelter/medication, guess I have the right to end that immediately. They don't have a fully developed brain: Your young brain isn't as fully developed as mine. I have the right to end yours. We don't consider them human: I don't consider you human. You're opinion on your own humanity is irrelevant to me, just like a fetus's. They were the result of a rape: Lets find adults who were the result of rape. Open season on them I guess. They will have a bad life: Open season on people with bad lives. Yours is much "badder" than mine so I'll free you. Just a collection of cells: So are you mister collection of cells. Choice should be made between Mother and Doctor: If I find a Doctor to ok me killing my 10 year old, I'm set.
These may seem like shallow examples, but they can be very easily developed to fit the criteria needed to "morally" kill an unborn.
That's why "Human Life" cannot be narrowly defined. And it must always be valued. If their is a doubt, then treat it like a human.
On November 05 2011 02:39 popdawg wrote: The way i look at it is.. since fetus' are completely dependent upon the mother until birth, the mother should have the choice to do with her own body
If you had to hold on to someone for 9 months on the edge of a cliff (still have food ect.) in order to save the life would you do it?
Ya, but when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, guess who doesn't get charged with murder? Yet, if the father causes a miscarriage his ass goes to jail.
If either parent don't consent to a baby being born I recommend to that couple have an abortion for the greater good of society.
On November 05 2011 03:54 gimpy wrote: I'm pretty sure that I could use most reasons to have abortions as reasons to kill "humans". They don't feel pain: I could kill you in a painless way. They are parasites: My kid depends on me for food/shelter/medication, guess I have the right to end that immediately. They don't have a fully developed brain: Your young brain isn't as fully developed as mine. I have the right to end yours. We don't consider them human: I don't consider you human. You're opinion on your own humanity is irrelevant to me, just like a fetus's. They were the result of a rape: Lets find adults who were the result of rape. Open season on them I guess. They will have a bad life: Open season on people with bad lives. Yours is much "badder" than mine so I'll free you. Just a collection of cells: So are you mister collection of cells. Choice should be made between Mother and Doctor: If I find a Doctor to ok me killing my 10 year old, I'm set.
These may seem like shallow examples, but they can be very easily developed to fit the criteria needed to "morally" kill an unborn.
This is why the entire debate is pointless. People actually make arguments like these and think they're being reasonable.
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.
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me.
What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
I think sentience makes a human a human, for the purposes of ethical considerations. I think killing is wrong because because it causes suffering. If it causes no suffering to anyone, it is not inherently wrong, and we can do cost/benefit analyses. On moral issues I mostly agree with Sam Harris, if you're interested in my personal beliefs.
I don't agree with Kwark's parasite argument either, but I think your "what if it's a 5 year old in the womb" argument is not a good counter to it, because it just doesn't make sense. A fetus cannot develop mentally in the womb, and thus will never become a 5 year old. Being independent of the mother's organism is a prerequisite for becoming the thing you mean by "5 year old".
I've always felt consciousness was the answer as well, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly what that consisted of.
I also see your point regarding suffering. However, I've never been able to ignore "lost future fun." Misusing a business term, maybe opportunity cost describes what I mean.
Let's say you have no friends, no family, no nothing. Nobody to miss you when you're gone. You're alone in the woods. I come up to you and shoot your head off with a big bullet. You die without feeling any pain. You didn't suffer, and nobody around you suffered, but you might have had some sick fun in the future.
Separating potentiality and actuality is tough for me.
Kwark made a good point though. If a fetus is life, why isn't sperm, why isn't a date, why don't you have an obligation to get every girl in the world pregnant. Why don't you have an obligation to rape women. Rape a girl to save a life, fair trade, right. I've always been stumped.
On November 05 2011 03:54 gimpy wrote: I'm pretty sure that I could use most reasons to have abortions as reasons to kill "humans". They don't feel pain: I could kill you in a painless way. They are parasites: My kid depends on me for food/shelter/medication, guess I have the right to end that immediately. They don't have a fully developed brain: Your young brain isn't as fully developed as mine. I have the right to end yours. We don't consider them human: I don't consider you human. You're opinion on your own humanity is irrelevant to me, just like a fetus's. They were the result of a rape: Lets find adults who were the result of rape. Open season on them I guess. They will have a bad life: Open season on people with bad lives. Yours is much "badder" than mine so I'll free you. Just a collection of cells: So are you mister collection of cells. Choice should be made between Mother and Doctor: If I find a Doctor to ok me killing my 10 year old, I'm set.
These may seem like shallow examples, but they can be very easily developed to fit the criteria needed to "morally" kill an unborn.
That's why "Human Life" cannot be narrowly defined. And it must always be valued. If their is a doubt, then treat it like a human.
You could use your same logic on a grapefruit. I guess eating fruit is murder now?
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me.
What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
I think sentience makes a human a human, for the purposes of ethical considerations. I think killing is wrong because because it causes suffering. If it causes no suffering to anyone, it is not inherently wrong, and we can do cost/benefit analyses. On moral issues I mostly agree with Sam Harris, if you're interested in my personal beliefs.
I don't agree with Kwark's parasite argument either, but I think your "what if it's a 5 year old in the womb" argument is not a good counter to it, because it just doesn't make sense. A fetus cannot develop mentally in the womb, and thus will never become a 5 year old. Being independent of the mother's organism is a prerequisite for becoming the thing you mean by "5 year old".
I've always felt consciousness was the answer as well, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly what that consisted of.
I also see your point regarding suffering. However, I've never been able to ignore "lost future fun." Misusing a business term, maybe opportunity cost describes what I mean.
Let's say you have no friends, no family, no nothing. Nobody to miss you when you're gone. You're alone in the woods. I come up to you and shoot your head off with a big bullet. You die without feeling any pain. You didn't suffer, and nobody around you suffered, but you might have had some sick fun in the future.
Separating potentiality and actuality is tough for me.
Kwark made a good point though. If a fetus is life, why isn't sperm, why isn't a date, why don't you have an obligation to get every girl in the world pregnant. Why don't you have an obligation to rape women. Rape a girl to save a life, fair trade, right. I've always been stumped.
Because sperm and eggs look icky while a baby looks cute. It's in our instinct to protect something with an abnormal eye to head ratio. This is also why puppies and kittens are so appealing to people.
A fetus =/= a god damn human being ffs, just because it's cute doesn't mean anything.
If you kill some detached individual then it's still murder. Unless he or she was brain dead it would be murder to take the life of a conscious human being.
On the issue of infants being self-aware, there was an interesting test done called the Rouge Test. It has some interesting implications, one being that even 1 year olds may not be self-conscious. Although I'm curious if the use of a mirror makes the study invalid for the general population (those infants that don't know what a mirror is). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_test
Whoever said it's religion vs woman's rights, I think you got the argument wrong. From my perspective it's woman's rights vs the unborn's rights. Just determining when the unborn has to have rights is the gray area. It saddens me to know that abortions are still legal, but it's a free country and people should have their own rights.
Although I think there should be at least a cutoff for when the baby can actually feel pain, which from the article infers is 20 weeks. It seems like that if your going to have an abortion, most mothers end it earlier than later.
On a side note, there's been huge arguments over whether the father has rights to his fetus also since he has to pay child support if it's not aborted.
Edit :
I read a few more comments and in regards to liberal / conservative bashing nobody wants to kill anyone. Both are hypocrites. Conservatives want more freedoms for people yet insist abortions should be illegal. Liberals always talk about basic human rights and needs, but then support abortions.
I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again.
However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you?
When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment.
I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10?
Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother.
A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite.
Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here.
I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic.
I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?".
as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way
I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things.
Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.
You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward.
Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain.
That proves nothing ... you are inferring. you may or may not be right ... is the experience of pain for a foetus the same as for me? Pain is when i burn myself and go 'ouch' - if a foetus does react like that then i stand corrected. People talk of psychological pain - that is clearly not what is being talked about here. My problem is qualifying what we mean against what was legally meant. Saying in a biological context that it feels pain where pain is a refined concept is one thing. Use of the unqualified word pain as quoted is another.
Part of sensing is reponse. If something has no effect then how can it be caused?
Sorry maybe there is a fact that can simply shut me up. Do foetus have a mechanical response to pain?
It does, we just don't know if it's a reflex or a silent "ouch" - reaction that is processed and controlled by the brain. Unless I know for sure it isn't, I'll go for the second theory.
Psychological pain is a different issue - personally, I think that bothering kids with the universe of their own unknown inner self as some "Supermothers" do is BS. Problems will come to you when you get older without anyone imposing something like an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on you simply because they want you to have it. /end offtopic
Ok well cool they 'feel' pain. [edited my view of abortion out of it]
Morality is the luxuary of those that are not fighting for their lives and those that seek to control those minions that make their lives bearable imo.
The other big question was how did you cause pain .. how would you differentiate that from other sensations such as hot and cold. It is not merley enough to be sensing to call it pain otherwise you have broadened the definition of pain to any sensory input.
This is the point where i should start reading for myself ;p
I only brought up psychological pain to make the point about how vaguely the word pain can be used. I like bashing psychology.
There is a difference between the personal interpretation of facts and morality. But discussing that would mean to become more and more offtopic.
There's a whole load of medical articles as e.g. this one (just googled "Perception of pain") who deal with the topic extensively. You seem pretty interested in how pain works, so you might even enjoy them despite the huge amount of medical terms
On November 04 2011 10:06 NicolBolas wrote: 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.
Noone just "happens to get pregnant". If you don't don't want a child it's really easy to make sure that you don't get pregnant, and if you were irresponsible enough to make a mistake that could lead to a unwanted child, the least you could do is make it your number 1 priority to find out whether you're pregnant, and if you are, do an abortion immediately. I'm not entirely against abortion, but I think women needs to be more responsible in this area. No one should have to wait until the 20th week, not even the 10th week. This is a decision that you should be able to make in 24 hours, and you can figure out whether you're pregnant in a matter of days. If the border is pulled back, there will be less negative stigma around the subject, and that makes it easier to make a decision.
On November 05 2011 02:59 Brutland wrote: god, some people. pain is not a function of the brain per-se. it is a function of the nervous system. the brain only recognizes the i/p coming from whatever part and then adjusts blood pressure/heart rate/respiration rate. this can happen and be seen in any creature. any. at all. the pain response has absolutely nothing to do with sentience. absolutely nothing.
2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it.
the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory
On November 05 2011 03:04 Brutland wrote: allowing abortion is the only rational choice. anything else and you are trying to justify your own ideology with whatever scraps of science you can pretend to know. there are way way too many conceivable situations where abortion is the absolutely right idea logically
The problem is rationally you have to allow EVERY choice because you end up in relativism - yet we need a legal system.
As for the cost of abortion from above ... abortions are traditionally very cheap ... Just use a nitting needle. Which is a VERY strong argument for legalising. Its like any form of prohibition - harmful. So thrid worldl countries can easily have abortions ... except we gave them all Christianity and other nice religions that say don't use contraception.
I would truly love to see an example of prohibition that has had good consequences overall. Things like murder are illegal it doesnt stop people doingit. The reason why we make murder illegal is because of the effect on the rest of society. An abortion is a really personal and private thing imo - people who want one will do it anyway, they need support.
So is infanticide, or child abuse, or for that matter child sexual molestation in some of those polygamous cults... they were private things not affecting anyone outside of that group. Why should my government care?
Wasn't after the 20th week abortions only done in extreme cases where the mother's life was at risk? If thats the case, then this law does little, since you can easily go to a neighboring state. Of course, if the mother is unable to travel (meaning move) then the pregnancy is probably already in dire shape.
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.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
I hope you're vegan... 'cause killing living things seems to be one of the greatest passion of mankind
In addition to that, plants are living things that feel pain as well, so you might as well not eat.
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me.
What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
I think sentience makes a human a human, for the purposes of ethical considerations. I think killing is wrong because because it causes suffering. If it causes no suffering to anyone, it is not inherently wrong, and we can do cost/benefit analyses. On moral issues I mostly agree with Sam Harris, if you're interested in my personal beliefs.
I don't agree with Kwark's parasite argument either, but I think your "what if it's a 5 year old in the womb" argument is not a good counter to it, because it just doesn't make sense. A fetus cannot develop mentally in the womb, and thus will never become a 5 year old. Being independent of the mother's organism is a prerequisite for becoming the thing you mean by "5 year old".
I've always felt consciousness was the answer as well, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly what that consisted of.
I also see your point regarding suffering. However, I've never been able to ignore "lost future fun." Misusing a business term, maybe opportunity cost describes what I mean.
Let's say you have no friends, no family, no nothing. Nobody to miss you when you're gone. You're alone in the woods. I come up to you and shoot your head off with a big bullet. You die without feeling any pain. You didn't suffer, and nobody around you suffered, but you might have had some sick fun in the future.
Separating potentiality and actuality is tough for me.
Kwark made a good point though. If a fetus is life, why isn't sperm, why isn't a date, why don't you have an obligation to get every girl in the world pregnant. Why don't you have an obligation to rape women. Rape a girl to save a life, fair trade, right. I've always been stumped.
A fetus is life because it maintains the ability to undergo cell division independently of other cells.
A sperm/egg (and date/obligation to get every women in the world pregnant/etc) should not be classified as life because they do not have the ability to undergo cell replication.
That is how I view the difference. It's very cut and dry, none of this 20 weeks or self-aware stuff.
On November 05 2011 03:54 gimpy wrote: I'm pretty sure that I could use most reasons to have abortions as reasons to kill "humans". They don't feel pain: I could kill you in a painless way. They are parasites: My kid depends on me for food/shelter/medication, guess I have the right to end that immediately. They don't have a fully developed brain: Your young brain isn't as fully developed as mine. I have the right to end yours. We don't consider them human: I don't consider you human. You're opinion on your own humanity is irrelevant to me, just like a fetus's. They were the result of a rape: Lets find adults who were the result of rape. Open season on them I guess. They will have a bad life: Open season on people with bad lives. Yours is much "badder" than mine so I'll free you. Just a collection of cells: So are you mister collection of cells. Choice should be made between Mother and Doctor: If I find a Doctor to ok me killing my 10 year old, I'm set.
These may seem like shallow examples, but they can be very easily developed to fit the criteria needed to "morally" kill an unborn.
That's why "Human Life" cannot be narrowly defined. And it must always be valued. If their is a doubt, then treat it like a human.
I'm shocked at how you think these strawmen are actually reasonable representations of good arguments for abortions.
Where's the analogy that compares complications in a pregnancy that may kill the mother to a human causing the harm of another? I guess terminating the pregnancy would be the equivalent of self-defense, which is completely justifiable, legal, and morally sound.
But instead, you say things like "Fertilized eggs aren't humans yet... well, I say *you* aren't a human, so aha!" What the heck?
On November 05 2011 05:20 Canadium wrote: I think the law is justified. Any step towards a total ban is a welcome change in this time of moral ambiguity.
LOL, as apposed to before when other horrible things were common and acceptable.
If you're against abortion that's cool, but don't act like it some modern moral degradation that has caused it to be acceptable.
Why do people feel the need to make a black and white situation out of a grey area why not just draw a legal line somwhere in the grey. I myself do not believe in abortion, but as a man its not my decision and if my gf was pregnant I would want to keep the child good timing or not. My own opinions however aren't to be forced on anyone. Yet, I still agree with this in the sense that, with all our science and technology now, we should be able to test to find out the "general average" time a fetus is self away and able to feel pain and at that point say that is the point a fetus becomes a human being BY LAW and has rights.
Pills when taken properly are 99.9% effective perfectly 92 - 97% in general usage, in stopping pregnancy and you can still use condoms and spermicidal lubes and jellies on top of them, or better get just get your tubes tied, unlike a vasectomy it can be undone. If you dont like the idea of an operation to NOT get pregnant, I don't believe you should have an operation to remove a pregnancy so readily availible. If you have a baby these days its YOUR fault so why so you get to have a be all and end all say until the baby breaths fresh air, its not like you had the respect to protect your body from getting pregnant in the first place. If an abortion is not such a big deal where are Mens rights that a woman should have an abortion because he doesn't want that child. It is half my genetic material anyways and I will be forced to be responsible financially for the next 18 years. Even so, by law if the woman wants it and a man doesn't there is no law exonerating men from legal responsibility even if they decide within 10 weeks of gestation they dont want the child. Why should rights be given to women so freely and then men get the shaft we are equal after all aren't we?
Would everyone here feel as sorry for someone who had unprotected sex and got HIV or would we just call them dumb and irresponsible? Otherwise why not go completely the other way and say until the child is 18 years old and legally completely responsible for itself you can just throw your kid in a blender if you don't fancy them anymore. Cause generally that what an abortion is if you look how it is actually preformed, and its not a safe operation is has lasting side effects. If a women gets an abortion its her choice, but I can't agree that it should be so easily accessible as "another" type of contraception. I support this on the basis that it doesn't remove rights but gives a serious moral debate a timeline to decide by. If it was up to me I would say 10 weeks OR before an scientifically government funded agreed legal time in gestation that the baby should feel pain and realize it. In reality if you cant make a decision in 10 weeks whether you want one or not your probably not fit to be a parent anyways let alone have sex.
The difference in studying gestation and deciding when an abortion can no longer be preformed is the difference between killing an animal quickly to eat or skinning it alive. One is a necessity that we give animals, that other animals do not give to each other because we have higher cognitive thinking. The other is animal cruelty based on the fact we have a higher cognitive thinking and should know better. This morale line needs to be drawn in the legal sand and this is a step towards this. In the end I support this because it forces people to use their cognitive abilities to rather then Herp Derp their way through live and their feelings be protected anyways.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://critical-thinkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img862.imageshack.us/i/1300245458476.png/)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3_d9tnI7TJw/TWlAazrDuHI/AAAAAAAAAQE/zLx2EZsIprc/s1600/nilsson_rm_photo_of_20_week_fetus.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0l6wzhDBq5A/TSuQVZrPwPI/AAAAAAAAAA4/5OixTWG6JdM/s1600/fetus20+weeks.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://pregnancy-and-baby-tips.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/baby-20weeks.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.abortionincanada.ca/images/8%20week%20embryo.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.abortionincanada.ca/images/20%20week%20fetus.JPG)
