Abortion Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Politics, Philosophy, and Religion' started by I REALLY HATE PUMPKINS!, Oct 26, 2016.

  1.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,670
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    Just to clarify, I didn't create this topic so I could pick on other's views, I appreciate them and I'm genuinely curious; however, I know that's your opinion here but that statement is something I need to challenge (separate from your stance). How did living, breathing humans get here? The stork?
  2.  
    Sonic 5

    Sonic 5 Not Actually a Sonic Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,126
    Location:
    Bamamama
    They were born. A fetus is not born. People, who've lived, had experiences, formed memories, etc. are wildly different from a fetus that isn't even self-aware. Pretty simple. Good try at bringing an unrelated argument (the stork, really?) to discredit me. I don't think a twenty-week old fetus and a twenty year old human are the same. If you do, fine, there's likely literally nothing I can do to change your point of view.
  3.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,670
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    Just trying to break down the logic of "the other side." The stork thing was just a product of how I talk, I like throwing out extremes and the use of outlandish sarcasm, it isn't (usually) meant to offend or discredit. Anyway, so to my question of how a person gets here you say "they're born," so does that mean right up until the minute they leave the mother they're not people? Or is it until the cord is cut? If the former, does that mean just moments prior to the actual birth that person wasn't actually a person? Even among pro-choice people I see different views on that, and I just don't get where the seemingly arbitrary cutoff points on being human come from.

    Defining a person by how long they've lived, how many experiences they've had, and memories they've formed...what's the point if you don't give someone the opportunity to do and gain the things you require them to have/do in order to be a person? You've got them in a catch-22, way I see it.

    You don't have to try to change my point of view, I'm not trying to change yours, I'm only attempting a dialogue here, and you can decline it if you want.
  4.  
    Sonic 5

    Sonic 5 Not Actually a Sonic Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,126
    Location:
    Bamamama
    Hoo boy, the "arbitrary line" drawing game. Just love playing this moving goalpost favorite.

    If you have to draw a line in the sand, birth is a good place to do it. Otherwise, the point of "personhood" constantly slides back until women have virtually no time to get an abortion or, worse, are suspects of a crime for a first trimester miscarriage.

    As far as giving opportunity to a fetus: moot point for me. The woman's right to not be pregnant trumps any potential opportunity for the fetus. Pregnancy carries lifelong physical repercussions; it's not over once you give birth.
  5.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,670
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    Actually, as far as I'm concerned we're trying to make find out where the goalpost is and keep it stationary; it's something glossed over all too often, imo.

    So draw the line at birth? And the reason why is because you say that, otherwise, personhood slides back to where women can't get an abortion. However, that line of logic is already heavily favoring the woman and not the baby. We're concerned with her and maintaining her ability to get an abortion and using that to justify where the line is drawn. Is that fair? Reminds me of that saying about wolves and sheep voting on what to eat... If we're discussing where personhood is for this baby, why are we focusing on making sure the woman maintains the right to kill this person first and foremost? Objectively unfair, I'd say.

    How can that be a moot point for you, btw, if you're the one who set baby's requirements for personhood in the first place? And is there a reason the woman's right to not be pregnant takes priority or is it just 'cuz? I mean, I imagine it ties into the forming memories and having experiences thing but as I said, the baby is robbed of the ability to even meet the requirements set...

    That is true, pregnancy does carry repercussions, no denying that.
    Booyakasha likes this.
  6.  
    Sonic 5

    Sonic 5 Not Actually a Sonic Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,126
    Location:
    Bamamama
    Alright.

    First, for me at least, fetus =/= baby. And the woman's rights ultimately trump the fetus's because the latter is wholly dependent on the former. That's it for me. I don't view the fetus as a person deserving of any rights other than what the woman carrying it chooses to give it.

    The issue here is that you keep saying "baby" and "person" while I don't view the matter that way. To me, it's a parasite. This is a fundamental difference in our worldview. There's literally no amount of discussion that will change either viewpoint. Personally, I would ultimately be okay with late-term elective abortions (although those essentially never happen). However, I've conceded that most people are only okay with the elective period lasting until 20-ish weeks (depending on where you live).

    Maybe that makes me a monster. I don't care. As I've said before, I absolutely never want to have children. I've had people scream at me to "close your legs" while I was in a long-term monogamous relationship. So I chose celibacy and it absolutely ruined my relationship. What if I were raped? The few abortion providers in my state are in constant danger of being shut down in addition to mandatory waiting periods (so I can "think it over and be informed" over an issue that has caused me so much anxiety that my hair falls out). If anything, abortion availability needs to favor women (actual, living women) more than fetuses. In my opinion.

    It's fine with me if you as an individual want to view your (or your spouse or girlfriend or whatever) fetus as a baby and a person. If you lose that pregnancy, I will sympathize with you. You lost what felt like a person to you. I won't trivialize that loss if you feel that way.

    I wish you would stop trying to force that view on me though. I will never view it the same way you do. I get the argument that "pro-lifers view abortion as the murder of a person". I get it. I don't see it that way and there's no way to break it down. I don't view a parasitic organism that could kill me as being a person.

    As I said, there's literally no point in arguing with me. You're never going to convince me that a parasite that I never consented to is worth years of suffering for me. I'm never going to convince you that what you view as a person isn't one.
  7.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,670
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A

    Well that's fine to view it as you wish, but a "fetus" is a person, what word we use matters very little. Fetus is defined as a person:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

    Dependence doesn't define what a person is or is not, our DNA does. If one were to test the DNA of a fetus they'd know it was from a homosapien, and probably know the gender and everything else (I ain't no scientist *insert Walk Hard gif*). By that logic a dependent elderly person isn't a human either, if they're stuck on machines to live. And whether they're dependent on another person or a machine is a trivial, infinitesimal difference if we're going to be splitting hairs here.

    I'm not sure why you keep thinking I'm trying to convert you (though if it happens as a side effect that's great but meh). I'm just trying to boil the aspects down to their core, see where we stand. I'm just asking questions and trading statements, really. Although as this is a topic about our views and how we changed them/why we don't, so I think it's worth discussing...

    I don't believe world views have much to do with the this. We should consider facts first. Biologically speaking, there's no good argument that a fetus isn't a person. It's our earliest stages of life, that's simply undeniable. There's nothing magical about birth that makes us human, even if our early existence is parasitic in nature.

    I used to view anyone who supported abortion as evil but I've refined my views there as well. If someone truly believes a "fetus" isn't a person then they're not a monster, how could they be? They're not killing people, at least not in their eyes, so the intent isn't there. However, if one does acknowledge that they're killing people and still support it, yeah, that'd be pretty monstrous. It's why I think finding out where personhood really begins is very important.

    I respect your decision to never have children, it's your right, and everyone else should as well. As for your question about if you were raped, that still hinges on what the "fetus" is. If it isn't human then obviously killing it isn't murder whether you're raped or not, so abort it if you so choose, but if it is then the rape becomes irrelevant, so the question is sort of pointless because it all ties back to what the fetus is. I think you'll agree with that at least.

    Is there a way to discuss this without you feeling like something is being forced on you? If not then I'll take the initiative and drop it myself, I'm not trying to go against anyone's will.

    I considered it a discussion more than an argument, but if I made you feel like we're arguing I apologize for that. I enjoyed the discussion thus far, for what it's worth.
  8.  
    I am nobody

    I am nobody I am not mean spam Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Location:
    -89.97814998,-42.2333493
    Crap thread title can be changed if anyone cares.
  9.  
    Booyakasha

    Booyakasha ...swingin the chain... Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Messages:
    16,952
    Location:
    Wisconsinland
    ^...changed solely because you offered. Hahahahahahaha. (*spits on floor and leaves*) (*flips everyone off on his way out*) (*boo the 'is a complete and total bastard' guy*)
  10.  
    I am nobody

    I am nobody I am not mean spam Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Location:
    -89.97814998,-42.2333493
    Better than mine.
  11.  
    Booyakasha

    Booyakasha ...swingin the chain... Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Messages:
    16,952
    Location:
    Wisconsinland
    Changed it again, because I felt 'jubilant' rather than 'joyous' fit the occasion better. Feel free to screw it up from here on out. (*double deuce*) (*deucifix*)
  12.  
    е и ժ е я

    е и ժ е я ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,061
    Location:
    I rub my tilde all over your asterisk
    I am interested in people who have feelings and I think the rights of any conscious adult greatly outweigh the question of whether or not it is conventionally moral when it involves their own body and their own parenthood.

    I still don't see all the people beating this corpse as being especially useful. It's not like they are all chipping in to improving the foster system in any meaningful way. If you want to do something about abortion rates, improve the financial and social security of potential parents in low income areas and make healthcare accessible and free to pregnant women. This sort of direction for argument is otherwise useless semantics. Law can and should be about fair and unbiased support of the people who inhabit the nation, not about deciding what core morals we all should share. I don't care to humor the opinions of anyone who does not agree with that sentiment, nor do I think anyone else should.
  13.  
    SKELETOR

    SKELETOR Overlord of Evil

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,261
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
    The line drawn is not arbitrary. There is historical and scientific reasoning that approximately 20-23 weeks is when a fetus is considered viable life.
  14.  
    Sonic 5

    Sonic 5 Not Actually a Sonic Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,126
    Location:
    Bamamama
    IRHP, you're splitting hairs and straw manning hard.

    Pulling a dictionary definition is one of the weakest arguments ever.

    As far as comparing an elderly dependent person to a fetus: the elder is not physically depedent (as in leeching nurtients) on a living human being.

    I've never encountered anyone arguing "personhood" that wasn't ultimately trying to outlaw abortion or effectively do so by lowering the bar for personhood. If you put an eight week limit, for instance, that gives a woman maybe four weeks to realize she's pregnant and then another four weeks to get the money for an abortion and schedule it (so, schedule at least two days off of work, get gas money, potentially have to cover up the reason for her absence, etc.) That puts an extreme burden on women.

    What are we discussing? I've said my piece and you've said yours. I don't see a parasitic fetus as a person. You do. There's nothing further to be said.

    I'm done with this. I didn't come here to beat a dead horse. You drew me into this when I just wanted to say what I did in the original thread.
  15.  
    Marilink

    Marilink Sailboat to the Island of Your Desires Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    39,440
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Location, Location.
    Regardless of stance on abortion, calling a fetus a parasite is ridiculously negative. I hate to pull an "as a father" here, but after interacting with my pregnant wife and unborn child for several months before the birth, I can't even imagine using the word parasite to describe what was living inside her.
  16.  
    Apollo the Just

    Apollo the Just Dragon Enthusiast Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    14,090
    Location:
    Piccolo is Gohan's Real Dad
    If I may weigh in, I think it's important to note that parents who intended to get pregnant and want to have children would never view their child as a parasite. Parents who want children (from my experience talking with such people) don't view their fetus as a fetus, but as a life that will grow into their child. It's a beautiful and hopeful thing for these people. This is a decidedly different perspective than someone who does not want to have children.

    Because parents who intend to get pregnant and are actively trying to have children, parents who want children, aren't the parents getting abortions (except in the tragic cases of birth defects or other issues with pregnancy where the fetus is not viable and will die). It's people who don't want children, aren't able to care for children, aren't ready for children, are in environments where they could be punished for being pregnant (teens who aren't supposed to be having sex, for example), maybe didn't even want to have sex in the first place, or are otherwise in situations where having a child is an extremely negative or even dangerous thing for them. If I were somehow magically pregnant today, I can tell you right now that I would not be joyous or happy. I would be absolutely terrified. I do not feel ready for that responsibility, I do not want children, I am not willing to change my entire life for a child, and I would not view the life inside of me as a gift, but as a ****ing terrifying choice that will potentially deeply impact every single aspect of my life moving forward. The thing inside me would feel like something sad and horrifying, like an invasive being that is a part of me but that I would want to eject. I would want to separate myself from it; the fact that it is attached to me would be unwanted and frightening. I've actually had a couple nightmares where I found out I was pregnant, and yes, I would classify them as nightmares. They felt very real and I spent most of them dream-crying.

    That is the mindset that referring to fetuses as parasites is coming from. Being pregnant when you don't want to be is a very real and extremely paralyzing fear, just as being pregnant when you do want to be is an absolutely miraculous and wonderful thing. I completely understand if using that kind of language is uncomfortable to you as a father with a beautiful child, but to pregnant people who do not want to be pregnant, fetuses are negative things that represent shame, fear, and helplessness.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
  17.  
    Marilink

    Marilink Sailboat to the Island of Your Desires Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    39,440
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Location, Location.
    Well said. I still can't condone the use of that word, but I see the perspective.
  18.  
    Sonic 5

    Sonic 5 Not Actually a Sonic Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,126
    Location:
    Bamamama

    It's a parasite for me. It's a wonderful thing for you. For pretty much the exact same reasons that CL laid out.
  19.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,670
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    As I brought up before, if we're only interested in people with feelings then how is it fair to rob people of the ability to develop them in the first place? I'd say robbing a person of everything outweighs another person's potential hardships, and unless we're talking about rape here then this person is completely responsible for their situation. For argument's sake, sure, kill the rape babies, and incest babies, innocent though they be, but it's nigh indefensible a position to willfully allow the creation of a life and then destroy it.

    I'm not even fond of contraceptives, but again, for argument's sake, let's fully endorse them and sexual education. At least the prevention of life is huge step away from outright murder of the innocent.

    At this point the arguments usually boil down to "well it's not a person," but it is. Why wouldn't it be? As I said earlier, and we all know, birth isn't magic. We don't just become a person as soon as we leave the mother or have the cord cut, meaning a moment earlier we were not. That's stupid. So what is it then, only "viable" people deserve life? We require independence to retain our rights? Clear out the hospitals, then, gas up the chambers--we got work to do.

    That's all a distraction from the issue. Foster systems and such. Worry about that after we curb the murder, maybe. Good points nonetheless, though, more needs to be done in those regards, certainly.

    This logic dictates that anyone unable to live on their own is murderable. Why does it only apply to unborn children? If I walk into a hospital and crush the skull of a newborn on a machine clinging to life minutes after birth, will I not be charged with murder? Should I not be?

    How am I "straw manning," and how do you propose we define what a "fetus" or "baby" is, then? Words have meanings and we should understand them, I figure. A fetus is a baby by both common sense and definition, so why isn't it then?

    So why is how the dependent person is dependent important? If it's a person nonetheless then the details are of zero importance, we've established it is a person and we're murdering it. Ho Perhaps make it a crime punishable by death to "leech nutrients" and process each case accordingly, then.

    Well I'm not trying to outlaw abortion, so you've encountered someone now. It should be restricted, certainly, but by no means "outlawed."

    To your question about what we're discussing, a main point was establishing personhood and when it begins. I think "at birth" as you said is unreasonable because not a moment earlier the baby would not be considered a person, and would hinge on an arbitrary birthing event despite that the person is "viable." At least hinging on the "viability" argument isn't arbitrary, it's based on something significant.

    Well it's less that I "do" see a "fetus" as a person and more that I'm interested in establishing what a person is, and where life begins. Aren't you? I think it's conception, but I'm curious to see if there's a good argument out there for a different conclusion. "At birth" isn't one, IMO.

    Okay, you're done then. I've been pretty open about dropping it if you wanted to. I mean, I'm obviously going to respond to what you say but you shouldn't feel you need to respond to me. Thanks for discussing it as much as you did.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
  20.  
    SKELETOR

    SKELETOR Overlord of Evil

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,261
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
    It doesn't really dictate that at all. After all, how could you murder that which is not alive to begin with?
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016

Share This Page