On June 16 2013 04:15 layingthelaw wrote: What makes the 20th week so different that aborion is suddenly wrong? It is still the same organism.
A fetus can survive outside the womb after ~20 weeks. At that point they will induce labor and put the baby up for adoption rather than performing an abortion.
The survival chance of a 20 week fetus is less than 50%. The usual viability limit is around week 26. The 20 week limit for abortion was set due to the uncertainty of date of conception (as well as it was set somewhat arbitrarily).
EDIT: This wiki-link is actually rather precise - has the survival chance at week 20 at zero.
On June 16 2013 02:18 Acertos wrote: I wonder how 60 yrs old rich biggots with wives full of silicon can decide what s good for someone's life.
No im not talking about the baby, he doesnt even know hes alive. Im talking the 25yr old single lady who wants to abort or the couple because their child has a severe desease. Abortion should be possible everywhere because accidents can happen not only for rape and incest.
And suppose it talks about incests because they are the same biggots. A brother sister couple has a child. Ups the brother dies, the sister can abort because she cant take care of the baby but no if it was a normal couple the girl shouldnt have the right to abort.
The sister shouldn't be able too either. If a child is conceived because you willingly opened your legs or didn't wrap your dick. Take care of it...
Oh I bought a dog but I just lost my job. let's me just go take him out back with my shot gun....
How on earth can you compare a living dog already born with some non-living thing that doesn't feel and think. That's disgusting.
The fact that you don't is disgusting, just because it isn't fully developed doesn't mean it isn't a soon to be living breathing thing. You rip it's heart out before it can fully develop it.
" abortion is a violation of life " .... so is eating beef and stepping on ants...
Imagine your father rapes you. Right, with me? You find out you got pregnant by it. Now you are forced to carry the child to term or till it can be removed and survive it. How the fuck does this sound normal? How is it normal to force someone to carry their fathers child? And how many foster children do you want to take care of?
ITS SO WEIRD! USA U R SO WEIRD
(and other countries...)
And to answer the question: Abortion is bloody well a human right! Regardless of incest, rape, gangbanging real whores that do it for the sex and like to be cummed inside. Even them have a right to abort all 60 of her children. Abortion is an individuals CHOICE! Yes, even late term! (though they should have therapy if they abort a way late term baby...)
Pro-choice much? Isn't the choice of the woman enough of a reason? Isn't it her right by law (at least here it is). That's where I stand. . Funny thing is I hate abortions and would advise against it and my opinion is against it (would it concern me personally). However we live in the Free World so there should be no law preventing people from doing it (human right wise). Even if there should be or would be a law against it we'll never stop abortions... Women desperate enough to have an abortion will find ways to get rid of the baby anyway. Sad truth..
On June 16 2013 04:06 Pulimuli wrote: i have no idea why abortion should be illegal, the world contains more humans than it can support already, we dont need a larger population, all we need is to have enough children so the human race does not die out
Anyone who doesnt see this needs to get their heads out of their asses and smell the reality
If you want children there are plenty of starving and homeless/orhpan children in 3rd world countries that you can adopt and give a better life instead of bringing another child into this world when there are thousands dying each day
I think you are mixing up birth control with abortion. They are not necessarily synonymous.
I don't think there is anything that makes me quite as mad as these exceptions.
Regardless of any individual convictions you might have, I think everyone can agree that there's some sort of moral argument to be made against abortion: if killing a baby is wrong, how far back in its development do you have to go before its ok? There's obviously the same sort of argument to be made for its legalization - the law shouldn't mandate the personal relation between a woman and her doctor, or try and regulate her reproductive system.
What I don't exactly get is this: where in either of those are the stipulations that the baby be/not be the product of sexual assault or incestuous relations. If its inhumane to force someone who's been raped to carry the child to term, isn't it also inhumane to force someone who's experienced some other sort of violence (abuse, etc.) from the father of the child to carry it to term? And isn't it just as inhumane to force someone who can't financially support the child to carry it to term?
The point being, if abortion is immoral, then it just is, and if it isn't, then it isn't. No exceptions either way, I don't imagine.
But this is NOT a valid argument against Abortion - Especially unwanted pregnancies, even unplanned. Pregnancy is an enormous strain on the human body. The changes it brings both in lifestyle, physical and psychological change must be a choice.
On June 16 2013 05:32 Kleinmuuhg wrote: ^ If you thought about this topic more than the usual 5 seconds you would find that it is not that easy.
the only thing "not easy" about abortion is that it can be physically stressful on the woman - even with modern procedures. So abortion should not be the first line of birth control. But morally, there is zero problems with abortion. Maybe if we were down to a very small population of people and every life counts. But there are more than enough people in the world. It's more morally reprehensible to keep birthing unwanted children into the world to drain social, economic and environmental resources, than it is to end a pregnancy.
On June 16 2013 04:43 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: There are many justifications for abortion, but I still can't help but giggle at the thought of a bunch of guys discussing if abortion is justified. Not sure what to think about all of this.
Luckily your giggles do not constitute reasoned argument. Whether or not someone has a uterus has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to engage in reasoned discussion about it. This idea that only women should be able to even discuss abortion is patently absurd, and is akin to saying that only people who have actually been raped should be able to conclude that rape is immoral. At its core, your argument is a conversation-stopper and an excuse not to think. It injures the abortion-rights movement more than it helps it, by the way, because if the reason abortion should be legal is something only women can comprehend, then it's not a logical reason but an emotional, esoteric one, and therefore is utterly detached from the impartiality required of the law.
On June 16 2013 02:18 Acertos wrote: I wonder how 60 yr old rich biggots with wives full of silicon can decide what s good for someone's life.
No im not talking about the baby, he doesnt even know hes alive. Im talking the 25yr old single lady who wants to abort or the couple because their child has a severe desease. Abortion should be possible everywhere because accidents can happen not only for rape and incest.
And suppose it talks about incests because they are the same biggots. A brother sister couple has a child. Ups the brother dies, the sister can abort because she cant take care of the baby but no if it was a normal couple the girl shouldnt have the right to abort.
The sister shouldn't be able too either. If a child is conceived because you willingly opened your legs or didn't wrap your dick. Take care of it...
Oh I bought a dog but I just lost my job. let's me just go take him out back with my shot gun....
Let's be careful with analogies. This is really inadequate. Firstly, no one is suggesting the murder of adolescents or adults. If that was not what you meant by your analogy, you need to remind us all why you keep dog fetuses as pets. Secondly, if we are going cross species on this, you commit hundreds of abortions everytime you eat corn.
On June 16 2013 04:43 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: There are many justifications for abortion, but I still can't help but giggle at the thought of a bunch of guys discussing if abortion is justified. Not sure what to think about all of this.
Luckily your giggles do not constitute reasoned argument. Whether or not someone has a uterus has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to engage in reasoned discussion about it. This idea that only women should be able to even discuss abortion is patently absurd, and is akin to saying that only people who have actually been raped should be able to conclude that rape is immoral. At its core, your argument is a conversation-stopper and an excuse not to think. It injures the abortion-rights movement more than it helps it, by the way, because if the reason abortion should be legal is something only women can comprehend, then it's not a logical reason but an emotional, esoteric one, and therefore is utterly detached from the impartiality required of the law.
Agreed, and also what refmac said above that if you agree that killing a baby is wrong, then surely you can understand why there are arguments against abortion. What's contested is at what stage of development a fetus should be considered a person, and that is not a simple and easy matter.
On June 16 2013 04:43 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: There are many justifications for abortion, but I still can't help but giggle at the thought of a bunch of guys discussing if abortion is justified. Not sure what to think about all of this.
Luckily your giggles do not constitute reasoned argument. Whether or not someone has a uterus has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to engage in reasoned discussion about it. This idea that only women should be able to even discuss abortion is patently absurd, and is akin to saying that only people who have actually been raped should be able to conclude that rape is immoral. At its core, your argument is a conversation-stopper and an excuse not to think. It injures the abortion-rights movement more than it helps it, by the way, because if the reason abortion should be legal is something only women can comprehend, then it's not a logical reason but an emotional, esoteric one, and therefore is utterly detached from the impartiality required of the law.
The way it currently stands in our government, this issue, which only has direct implications for one gender, will be decided by 80% men and 20% women. Still not giggling yet? That's because it's not fucking funny.
On June 16 2013 05:55 TaigaBerry wrote: Do you guys consider cousin-cousin relations to be incest? Uncle-niece / aunt-nephew? Or is it only sibling-sibling and parent-child?
Cousin-cousin depends on where you live, really. It feels like it to me based on swedish culture and my upbringing, but seeing as it seems to be fairly accepted in some parts of the world... I'm not certain of where I really stand on that question. The others, I'd say yes.
On June 16 2013 04:43 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: There are many justifications for abortion, but I still can't help but giggle at the thought of a bunch of guys discussing if abortion is justified. Not sure what to think about all of this.
Luckily your giggles do not constitute reasoned argument. Whether or not someone has a uterus has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to engage in reasoned discussion about it. This idea that only women should be able to even discuss abortion is patently absurd, and is akin to saying that only people who have actually been raped should be able to conclude that rape is immoral. At its core, your argument is a conversation-stopper and an excuse not to think. It injures the abortion-rights movement more than it helps it, by the way, because if the reason abortion should be legal is something only women can comprehend, then it's not a logical reason but an emotional, esoteric one, and therefore is utterly detached from the impartiality required of the law.
The way it currently stands in our government, this issue, which only has direct implications for one gender, will be decided by 80% men and 20% women. Still not giggling yet? That's because it's not fucking funny.
Seems irrelevant to me. Whether or not men tend to have irrational opinions about abortion is not necessitated by their maleness i.e. the fact that one is male doesn't mean one can't be logical about abortion. Abortion has an obvious effect on the entirety of society, but even if it didn't, that still doesn't mean only some group should be able to talk about it. I have literally zero stake in whether Native Americans in Canada should be granted more land/funding, because I'm not Native American, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding the arguments for and against increasing their funding. By the same token, I am against capital punishment even though I have never encountered a murderer or been the victim of a murderer. I am a pacifist even though I've never been a soldier. I despise corruption in government even though I have never understood what it feels like to be a politician. Do you understand yet?
Similarly, do we throw out the emancipation proclamation because Abraham Lincoln and his entire Congress were white males? Of course not, because what they argued was true regardless of their skin colour. Slavery is bad because it infringes on liberty; this is true if a white person says it instead of a black person.
On June 16 2013 05:27 Lord Lunga wrote: The whole "abortion is wrong" is based on the faulty assumption that religion and religious values has any worth at all.
To further explain:
You say that, and its a nice silly picture and all, but i struggle to see how life doesn't start at conception. At the end on the day an abortion is an intervention, a human effort to cease the life of a foetus or whatever. Before that the eggs die in the process of a period and the sperm die, well, probably on a tissue. From then on all milestones, like the heart being developed, baby leaving the mother, ect are all just statements of its progress, none have an tangible reason to be called the starting process. I don't like the pro life movement but i do see their point. And it's all very well saying its the mothers choice, but the person that would otherwise survive, gets no say in this whatsoever. Unless its the case of rape i don't really think it should be encourage, and sits very uncomfortably with me.
I really want to be pro choice because i think the idea of at least birthing a baby you don't want even if you give it up for adoption is a huge thing to ask of a women. But can someone give me a strong reason why its not killing a human being essentially? because ive heard the debates before i don't see any rational explanation on how this is not just basically murder. Just because the foetus is not capable of standing up for itself doesn't mean it should be denied the right to live. There are plenty of people in comas and with mental illness that cannot possibility speak up for themselves yet they are still granted human rights.
On June 16 2013 04:43 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: There are many justifications for abortion, but I still can't help but giggle at the thought of a bunch of guys discussing if abortion is justified. Not sure what to think about all of this.
Luckily your giggles do not constitute reasoned argument. Whether or not someone has a uterus has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to engage in reasoned discussion about it. This idea that only women should be able to even discuss abortion is patently absurd, and is akin to saying that only people who have actually been raped should be able to conclude that rape is immoral. At its core, your argument is a conversation-stopper and an excuse not to think. It injures the abortion-rights movement more than it helps it, by the way, because if the reason abortion should be legal is something only women can comprehend, then it's not a logical reason but an emotional, esoteric one, and therefore is utterly detached from the impartiality required of the law.
The way it currently stands in our government, this issue, which only has direct implications for one gender, will be decided by 80% men and 20% women. Still not giggling yet? That's because it's not fucking funny.
Seems irrelevant to me. Whether or not men tend to have irrational opinions about abortion is not necessitated by their maleness i.e. the fact that one is male doesn't mean one can't be logical about abortion. Abortion has an obvious effect on the entirety of society, but even if it didn't, that still doesn't mean only some group should be able to talk about it. I have literally zero stake in whether Native Americans in Canada should be granted more land/funding, because I'm not Native American, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding the arguments for and against increasing their funding. By the same token, I am against capital punishment even though I have never encountered a murderer or been the victim of a murderer. I am a pacifist even though I've never been a soldier. I despise corruption in government even though I have never understood what it feels like to be a politician. Do you understand yet?
Similarly, do we throw out the emancipation proclamation because Abraham Lincoln and his entire Congress were white males? Of course not, because what they argued was true regardless of their skin colour. Slavery is bad because it infringes on liberty; this is true if a white person says it instead of a black person.
On the one hand, this is true, the gender of the person making the argument has absolutely no impact on the validity of it. However if an issue is divided on gender lines with one gender predominantly favouring one action and the other gender favouring the other then the two explanations are that they are working from different data or that one gender is better at understanding the same data. The argument that men are making abortion laws is not that men are incapable of making a rational argument but rather that the fact that men will never have to deal with the reality of the laws, such as being forced to carry a foetus to term, is giving them different starting data. Imagine if a predominantly female legislative instituted a male only military draft, you might not doubt their intelligence nor their understanding of warfare and the need for the draft but you probably would wonder if they really understood what being shipped off to war while still a teenager would do to your life, your goals, your body and who you are as a person.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/this-is-not-a-difficult-concept.jpeg)
