|
On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted?
Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid...
|
On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid...
I don't know about there but there is a higher supply than demand of adoption here for that reason. The point also still stands: giving up your child for adoption will still negatively affect both the parents and the child.
You also use the term "kid" very loosely if you can define the mess created by the morning after pill as a kid.
|
On June 29 2013 22:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:48 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish... No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought. Which is a direct result of the pro-choice lobby getting its way. That might not be the reason behind advocating for legal abortion, but it makes abortions on a whim just as legal as abortions for serious reasons...
You equated taking a pill that induces a miscarriage to "abortion on a whim". I pointed out why that was completely false. Also, I'd like to see some evidence behind your claim of the existence - and multiplicity - of "abortions on a whim".
|
On June 29 2013 22:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:48 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish... No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought. Which is a direct result of the pro-choice lobby getting its way. That might not be the reason behind advocating for legal abortion, but it makes abortions on a whim just as legal as abortions for serious reasons... Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:31 DoubleReed wrote:
Maybenexttime, you're accusing him of strawmanning when you think pro-choice means "abortion on a whim"?
The whole idea of "abortion on a whim" is some serious bullshit. It's like you have this weird idea that women go to the grocery store for some food, grab a pedicure, and then swing by the abortion clinic to get a "quickie aborsh." You're living in some weird fairy tale land where women don't take their health very seriously.
Are people really still against me throwing around words like "misogynist," when these are the arguments that people use? I mean the whole argument is that women cannot be trusted with their own health decisions (yet apparently politicians can be). When a woman is not required to provide a substantial reason to get an abortion (which is what you're advocating) then this is essentially legalizing abortion on a whim. I am not claiming all abortions are like that. But the earlier into pregnancy, the bigger the portion of women getting an abortion for trivial reasons gets. What "trivial" means depends on how serious the topic of discussion is. In this case, we're talking about killing another human being, so for a reason to be considered non-trivial, it has to be something very, very serious - like the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy, for example. Those reasons don't seem that trivial to them. So apparently you think women cannot be trusted with medical decisions. Exactly. I wonder who determines that a reason is a "substantial reason"??? Surely not the woman! That would be crazy! Women can't be trusted! This seems to the be the exact reasoning of The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. I highly suggest that article. Stop making idiotic remarks, please. The decision whether to kill another human being is not a as simple as the mother making a decision regading her health...
Gosh, you're right. It affects her whole life. This should clearly be a panel of penis-wielders and not a private family decision with their doctor.
|
On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid...
Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids.
|
On June 29 2013 23:02 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... I don't know about there but there is a higher supply than demand of adoption here for that reason. The point also still stands: giving up your child for adoption will still negatively affect both the parents and the child.
What can possibly affect the child worse than outright killing him/her? I am pretty sure that if you asked children in orphanages whether they'd rather be dead, the vast majority would say "no".
And like I said earlier, it's not simply a matter of making abortion illegal, but making a systemic changes I described, so that the number of women who feel like they have to resort to killing their offspring becomes marginal.
I also believe that people's unrealistic expectations of their quality of life (furthered by living on credit) are at fault, too, to a degree. I mean, if women from my mother's generation had such expectations of their quality of life as women who cite "decreased quality of life" as the reason for getting an abortion, my whole generation wouldn't have existed. I'm pretty sure it's even worse in the West, as it's come further down that road. Priorities changed, that's why Europeans delay getting a child on and on, and treat abortion as a plan B solution in case of an unplanned pregnancy. For that reason, we're dying out and are getting replaced by non-Europeans with a more healthy approach to reproduction, moreso in Western Europe than in Poland or such.
|
On June 29 2013 21:18 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 29 2013 18:25 xM(Z wrote:
a spermatozoid in an incubator does not make a human.
i wasn't talking about life expectancy, #gruff did; equating those 9 month with time/years lost. i was just pointing out how women are doing better then men and can afford to toss around couple years.
i'm not voicing opinions, i'm voicing valid logical arguments. Since women live longer than men, arguably they can toss around a couple years. This is a valid logical argument, yes, if you ignore that this increased life expectancy is spread over their entire life and doesn't mean they could just spend an entire year in early life locked in a room and it wouldn't make any difference to them as a person. Regardless, when the context is an abortion debate your "valid logical argument" turns into gibberish, though in any context it's clearly not realistic in the slightest. Your bolded statement is a blatant lie, all gruff did was point out how blatantly wrong you are. On June 29 2013 16:00 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 15:11 Chocobo wrote:On June 29 2013 14:59 Valon wrote:
Abortion is never justified. It is not the Childs fault and should not be killed ever. Why do I think that you would feel differently, if you were raped and then forced to bear the unwanted child of your rapist for 9 months, undergoing drastic changes to your body, and being forced to pay for the medical costs of it all. 9 months of further damage to you beyond the rape. 9 months of being unable to get over your attack and try to put it in the past. Have you ever even considered what that would be like? In my experience, few pro-life advocates have. that can be pragmatically countered: 9 months in a lifetime is not much(~1.2%). women spend 9 years of their lives watching useless TV anyway; not to mention those other years of doing useless activities. That's a direct quote of what you wrote, don't try to backtrack on what you said. who the hell would lock away a pregnant woman? and what does "life expectancy spread over their entire life" even mean?. 81yrs life expectancy is a statistic. it doesn't mean that every woman would live 'till 81. some women would inevitably die at an younger age. me me locking them up is irrelevant. statistics ignore exceptions to the rule because those are irrelevant not because they don't exist. Who the hell would make someone go through an unwanted pregnancy using longer life span as a justification? The point is having for e.g. one year longer life expectancy doesn't mean that at 25 you magically stop aging for 1 year. This 1 year of "extra life" is spread out over your ENTIRE life. So like for every 80 seconds a man gets a woman gets 81. Pregnancy doesn't happen like that. It's not spread out over 80 years. It happens all at once and it's a huge deal, that's the point, nothing to do with statistics. That was why I mentioned what I did, you need to learn to interpret data properly. Just because you live an extra year in terms of average life expectancy doesn't mean you could be locked up in a room for a year and not care, or hmm I don't know how about go through a pregnancy for 9 months and not care, nevermind the whole host of psychological and physical issues that arise due to even wanted pregnancies.
psychological issues don't exist. they are just bio-imbalances exacerbated by the permissiveness of our current society.
what does "This 1 year of "extra life" is spread out over your ENTIRE life." suppose to mean?. who the hell spreads it?.
"Life expectancy is the expected (in the statistical sense) number of years of life remaining at a given age."
if life expectancy is 81 and i kill everyone for 1 year (just humor me for the sake of this argument), life expectancy will be 80. it doesn't matter, statistically, if that year is from 18 to 19 or from 79 to 80.
also, life expectancy doesn't change if you add one more year to your life. if you are 1, life expectancy is 81. if you are 80, life expectancy is still 81.
life expectancy is not like the statistic that says women watch TV for 9 years during their entire life; now that is spread over the entire course of their life.
(edits)
|
On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids.
In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans?
|
On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans?
Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now.
|
On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans?
Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself!
My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout.
But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit.
|
On June 29 2013 22:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish... No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought.
There may be thought behind the decision whether you want to have a child at the time, but not necessarily behind getting an abortion at an early stage in case of an unplanned pregnancy. Those two are not the same thing. Most people don't realistically consider that it might happen to them.
There may or may not be thought and consideration behind a decision to get an abortion if you grew up and live in a society where killing a fetus is not considered a big deal, at least not because it's an act of killing another human being, but rather because of some potential risk associated with the procedure. This may not be the case in the US, but it is the case in many countries. Just look at the posts of some of the posters from Denmark. Their attitude is basically: "How is that even a question?! It's a violation of the women's rights. The fetus doesn't have any."
On June 29 2013 23:07 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:55 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:48 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish... No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought. Which is a direct result of the pro-choice lobby getting its way. That might not be the reason behind advocating for legal abortion, but it makes abortions on a whim just as legal as abortions for serious reasons... You equated taking a pill that induces a miscarriage to "abortion on a whim". I pointed out why that was completely false. Also, I'd like to see some evidence behind your claim of the existence - and multiplicity - of "abortions on a whim".
You did not point out anything. Taking that pill does result in killing a fertilized egg, a new human being. You may consider that human being somehow inferior and underserving of human rights, but that doesn't change that fact...
|
On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now.
On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit.
I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons.
|
On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons.
You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing?
|
If one claims that personhood begins with conception because it is a potential human being, then I think we should start persecuting menstruating women and masturbating males, both of whom are wasting genetic information that encodes for a unique human being, that will never exist.
|
On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing?
I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact.
Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way.
edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons?
On June 29 2013 23:59 SpiffD wrote:
If one claims that personhood begins with conception because it is a potential human being, then I think we should start persecuting menstruating women and masturbating males, both of whom are wasting genetic information that encodes for a unique human being, that will never exist.
There's a qualitative difference between a gamete and a fertilized human egg.
edit: Also does a newborn possess personhood according to you?
|
Hmmm, why do you arbitrarily draw the line at zygote?
What is it that makes a zygote "human", and a gamete, just an ordinary cell?
If you claim that one has the potential to grow into a human and the other doesn't, that is just one extra step in a looooooong list of steps that a zygote already needs.
Also, zygotes fail to settle into the uterus all the time, thereby "aborting" human life. Shouldn't we be doing something against this woeful killing of millions (yes) of humans a year? It's due to natural causes, but that doesn't make it any less terrible if you consider zygotes as humans.
|
On June 29 2013 18:12 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 15:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 14:57 MiraMax wrote:On June 29 2013 14:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 29 2013 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:So then you should say every person that dies a normal death means that somebody has to investigate this and put up a trial. Because punishing murder etc. means that if people die there has to be a trial. What? Please think about this argument for a second, and think about when police investigate a murder. If you want abortion to be illegal, you obviously have to scrutinize miscarriages in some way to ensure that people aren't having abortions. This isn't a weird position. It's the only possible way it can work. Otherwise, abortion isn't illegal, because I can just say it was a miscarriage. Furthermore: You bring up this creationism vs evolution examples, something anybody can bring up in any discussion to prove the point for themselves?
How do you know that you are not on the creationism side of things? Let us say somebody against your position uses this argument against you, how do you react? Bringing up this examples doesnt make any sense since everybody is able to claim to be on the right side and the other one is wrong. And even then it is totally unrelated, using this kind of arguments means that in no discussion ever there is a middle ground since you always are able to say "this discussion is about creationism vs evolution". It just doesnt make sense.
Let's we discuss about legalisation of weed, then naturally there are just two positions: the total ban of weed or the total liberty of consuming weed. Because it is about creationism vs evolution, man. The weed example is simply a matter of pragmatism. So explain to me how my position is not completely pragmatic. People get freedom, they get reproductive rights, politicians aren't intervening in medical affairs, doctors are granted more options for treating their patients, women get to take the risks to their own body that they choose. What the hell is your problem? My main point with the creationism thing was that there are plenty of issues where moderate positions are completely unacceptable. This isn't that unusual at all. And since you like insults a lot, i have a very good idea what a person like you would do 500 years ago... Smoke weed? 1.So if someone dies you have to ensure that nobody did kill them right? So you have to scrutinize death of a person. Hmmm...it seems this comes as a surprise to you but "deaths" are routinely scrutinized in our day and age. Depending on the circumstances either a doctor, coroner or policeman has to fill in a bunch of papers to certify the time and potential/plausible cause of death and should anything be suspicious there will be further investigations. DoubleReed has a point in saying that if miscarriages were to be seen as "accidental" deaths of (unborn) persons then here should be similar measures for detecting, registering and controlling miscarriages, don't you think? So? Whats your point? The point is you kept saying "so, what you're saying is that every death then has to be investigated in case it's a murder" as if that would be something ridiculous when in actual fact that's exactly what happens.
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
|
I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact.
Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way.
edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons?
Uhhh... no that's not biological fact. See, this is the problem with pro-life ideas. They try to simplify complex human biology to simplistic (and nonsensical) terms.
Plenty of fertilized eggs end up just going through ovulation without ever metastasizing. It's like calling the placenta a human being because it has DNA different from the mother. Last I checked, we don't care too much about placentas.
That's why we typically use viability.
|
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials.
Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind.
|
On June 30 2013 00:06 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing? I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact. Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way. edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons?
Why would I? A fully developed mentally-hadicapped person is different from a human mass that has yet to achieve sentience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
