Abortion Discussion Thread

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

  1.  
    ZeldaGirl

    ZeldaGirl Awesome member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    Messages:
    17,656
    Location:
    Why do YOU want to know...?
    A few thoughts from skimming the thread:

    1) This once-pregnant person absolutely considered the being growing inside me a parasite. Because it was. It drained my life-force. I was exhausted. Constantly sick. Depressed. Pregnancy took a very taxing toll on me, one (as Sonic5 put excellently) that is still taxing me. And because of my experience, I fully, unequivocally, support abortion, in any instance. It is vital to the health of pregnant people everywhere that they have full autonomy over their bodies. And that means privileging their life above that of the thing growing inside them, unable to survive without literally draining the other.

    2) Anthropologists have recorded the existence of abortion in pretty much every studied culture. Across the globe, through time, women have shown time and time again that they recognize the importance to being able to have complete control over one's reproduction is a prerequisite to an equal society. I am privileged to be where I am now in the world as a woman because a woman before me had an abortion. That is the honest truth of this world - women having control of their reproduction is just necessary for them to be treated fairly. I didn't understand until I had a child, until I went through an experience that was truthfully quite traumatizing and still has left me scarred.

    3) I've already ranted before about the true way to reduce the number of abortions. I will once again reiterate that any "pro-life" politician that ignores these sensible measures in favor of measure that are far more life-threatening to the mother (e.g. Texas' recent laws around PP clinics resulted in a jump in the maternal death rate) just proves to me that for them, it's about controlling women, not reducing abortion.
    Greenmarioman, CuccoLady and Sonic 5 like this.
  2.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    The bolded part is what I want to address most here. You say this as if it being unable to survive independently means it is worthy of a death sentence when really your perspective should be that it deserves care because it cannot survive independently. I would like to know why one can capitalize upon another's disadvantaged state, why their weakness is justification for their murder.

    A mother's uncomfortable state does not trump another's right to life. "Oh but it's not a person/alive." The reason pro-choice vehemently refuse to acknowledge the painfully obvious fact that the child is a human, simply in its earliest stages, as we all have been through, is because then abortion would be off the table. Killing a baby can't be justified but if we can only cling to this "fetus" business we can get by. Of course, ignoring the fact that fetus means child/offspring anyway.

    Lots of unsavory things have been parts of many cultures, I don't think we even need to delve into that absurd logical justification. And you only exist here because your right to life was respected, I don't see any aborted pro-choicers running around. What's that saying, "check your privilege?"

    There is work to be done in those areas you refer to, but is there a good reason not to restrict unnecessary abortions across the board? Let's say those measures you speak of are addressed, and a person still simply has an "unwanted pregnany," should it be allowed? Should there no reasonable restrictions at all?

    This doesn't even address the father's rights (or rather, the lack thereof) which is a whole other issue.
  3.  
    spooky scary bearatons

    spooky scary bearatons professional censorevasionposter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,107
    Location:
    Wales
    the long and short of my views are thus, i'm not a fan of abortion, hell, i exist as a result of my mothers pro-life beliefs, since she gave birth to me at a pretty damn young age, despite advice to abort. BUT, there are two very strong reasons why I am ultimately pro-choice.

    1) its everyones right to do what the hell they want with their bodies, I, or no other person has the right to say what a person can and can't do with themselves.
    2) even with more restrictions, or outright banning, people will have abortions, no matter what your personal moral stance on the topic is. At least whilst its legal with sensible regulations women can make this choice safely, informed and with little risk to the womans life. I'd rather that than people start resorting to filthy, unsafe, back alley abortions, which DOES happen in countries where abortion is outlawed.

    tl;dr, from a moral perspective, i think life is a thing we should actively preserve but we shouldnt have the right to make that same call for other people who likely have perfectly valid reasoning to want the opposite. *Shrugs*
    ~spookylady~ likes this.
  4.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    You start off stating that you believe I'm just talking semantics but, well yeah, y'know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. Unless someone can show me sheets growing human children from them, unaided by man's direct and purposeful interference, then arguments comparing growing human children to sperm, or any similar comparison, just won't fly. Tell me when a kidney becomes a person, then I'll be interested.

    Factors contributing to abortion need to be dealt with, I don't think any reasonable person would argue otherwise, but it's just a roadblock thrown out to keep unnecessary and unreasonable abortions going in the meantime. It's like saying that until we solve the problems leading to murders we can't outlaw them, it doesn't work that way. Abortion is a problem in itself and should be dealt with appropriately.

    You say that you're concerned with fairness but that only seems to extend to those whom you believe are entitled to it. Not a very fair sense of fairness in my estimation. One of your questions is how can one tackle abortion without violating the rights of others, but that's the wrong way to look at it because abortion violates the rights of others in the first place.

    Life ends, sure, but we live in what should be a civilized society, and the mass murder of children doesn't have a place in it.
  5.  
    My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller

    My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller Supermod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    40,794
    Location:
    I rub my tilde all over your asterisk
    More semantics. Your thoughts are structured around the notion that conception is important. Mine acknowledge that life cannot and will not continue to grow from conception without parasitism, and that personhood begins when it is utterly determinable that it has begun - not when it is questionable that it may begin soon. It is the right of the mother to lend her body or not, and you are ignoring this. She possesses overwhelming certitude of her person. The unviable, unborn and undeveloped 'child' you are addressing is your projection and supposition that it may one day become a child. One cannot say it is a child when it has not yet become such a being. A zygote is not a person. We are talking about the rights of persons. Not simply whether matter is human or not, and the same can be said of the kidney.
    ZeldaGirl, SKELETOR and ~spookylady~ like this.
  6.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    You can dismiss things you don't want to have to face as semantics, it is your right.

    If your argument hinges on the fact that life won't continue without "parasitism" then you've acknowledged that it is indeed alive, and the rest of your argument is already self-defeated. You're simply criminalizing "parasitism," tacking onto it a death penalty punishment where all women are judge, jury, and executioner, where the father has no say, and the child has no right. And why doesn't this child have a right to live? It is "unviable"? I already argued that out the window. "Unborn"? An arbitrary birthing event isn't a magical ceremony which bestows humanity upon non-human entities, with or without it the being in question is still what it is; the DNA says it all, as does our knowledge of the process. And "undeveloped"? Seeing as humans aren't even fully developed until mid 20's when the skull finishes fusing, I'd say that is the worst one of the bunch to argue. The only reason for being undeveloped is that said development is impeded.

    You keep saying it's "my projection," but funny you mention "projection" because that's exactly what you're doing right now. You're shoving your logical flaws onto me, hiding behind technicalities about kidneys that can't ever naturally grow into their own being, they don't fit the definition of life, which I've earlier cited for convenience.

    So no, we're not differentiating between "persons" and "humans" because we're talking about murder. Go kill a "human" and a "person," neither of which being an unborn child, and see what happens. I'll write.
  7.  
    SKELETOR

    SKELETOR Overlord of Evil

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,036
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
    It has the same life as any other cell would. Besides, that definition derails your odd argument about the trees. When I said the fetus is not a living thing, I meant it is not living in the capacity that you believe it to be. It is not human.
    ZeldaGirl likes this.
  8.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    Does any other cell invariably become a person? I know kidney cells don't. I know trees don't. And if you're saying the fetus is not human I'd like to know why aside from false comparisons. It being dependent and not fully formed are not reasons for ineligibility, neither is lacking memories, etc. Is it biologically human is the question, and the answer is yes. Just because you think early human life doesn't count doesn't make it so.
  9.  
    SKELETOR

    SKELETOR Overlord of Evil

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,036
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
    I blundered in this topic, not realizing that there is no real consensus in the scientific (or any other) community when human life actually begins. But it's a topic in which a consensus will likely never be reached because of the inherently unscientific nature of the question. Women are indisputably human, though, and restricting abortions impedes their rights as human beings.

    However, I will say, my spit is biologically human. That doesn't make it a human being. It is potential life, though. It contains enough of my DNA to create a human clone.

    So should my spit be given human rights?
  10.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    I scanned to the bottom and read first, "should my spit be given rights" lol. I mean, it's funny, but comparing spit to a growing person is pretty enlightening as to how the abortion situation has stayed out of control.

    Anyway, it's good that you brought up the matter of a consensus, because if there isn't one how can we proceed with abortions with a clear conscience? Think about it from a criminal court-type perspective, is there enough evidence to convict the baby (crime being "not a person" and the penalty being "death")? Is there not reasonable doubt as to the accusation of it lacking of personhood? There's certainly no doubt that it is well on its way there even if it is not yet, something sperm and rocks and trees and kidneys cannot say, not spit either might I add. That's important, even if AI doesn't think so.

    I want to harp on this; what if we considered elderly to lose their personhood once they reach a life-support stage? Should they lose their personhood? I honestly cannot see a difference outside of the nature of the life support keeping the elder and babies alive (mechanical and biological structures, respectively). Is it because the elder has a name and memories and is fully developed? Then I should be able to murder nameless, unconscious, premature babies. Can I? If not, is it because of each being's perceived value? It's just an endless rabbit hole of justifications and it needs to end somewhere.

    I should add, I don't think there's anything unscientific in the nature of the question of when an observable, biological being's life begins. It isn't some spiritual question, we're not asking if it has a soul or something. It's a biological process with a beginning and an end, all perceivable and fully understood by medical science. Some people just don't like that conception is where it starts, it doesn't fit with their agenda, so they choose arbitrary limits on where life begins according to them rather than science. "Ah, it isn't viable yet, oh, it doesn't look like me yet, um...it doesn't remember being an ******* its whole life, kill it."

    In fact, speaking of science, the abortion limit is 24 weeks right now but babies have been born and turned out healthy at that age, and ones have survived earlier than that. Supposedly the youngest on record (healthy too) is 21 weeks, 5 days. Shouldn't the limit be set to that at least? And if it is, would the prior abortions past that date be retroactively considered murder? What if one survives 21 weeks, 4 days old? Maybe play it safe and round down to 21? What if we somehow come across one at 21 weeks, what then? Just raise the bar to an unreachable height and hack away with a clear conscience, I guess.
    Booyakasha likes this.
  11.  
    SKELETOR

    SKELETOR Overlord of Evil

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,036
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
    What makes my spit, hair, or blood any different than an embryo or fetus if they can be used to invariably create another human life? We currently clone embryos for stem cell research. The only thing preventing us from cloning a human is bioethics.

    Okay, so, legally there is still no consensus on when a fetus becomes a human being either. So that supposition doesn't make any sense. The problem with your argument is that to make it you have to assume that a fetus is human being, but this is not an objective fact since it is debatable and subjective as to what the status of a fetus is. Since you are assuming the very thing that needs to be proven, you have fallen into a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. That is also why I say the rights of the fetus should not impede the rights of the mother, as the mother is certainly a human being.

    In fact, by conceding that in the case of rape or the woman's health abortion should be fine, you have already inadvertently noted that the life of the already-born mother inherently has more rights and is more important than the potential life of the fetus.

    Not a relevant argument. The elderly are indisputably human beings, too.

    "Life beings at conception" is again, circular reasoning. A fertilized egg is a continuation of the life of sperm and ovum, and while some argue that the new genetic makeup constitutes a new person, I would refer to the cloning question again. Should anything containing my or your genetic makeup be given rights just because it can definitely turn into a unique individual?

    Fringe cases closer to the 24-week limit are likely looked over by the physician to ensure it is ethical and safe. Those have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

    Abortion has not once in society been considered on-par with murder. This stance is actually quite unique in comparison to the rest of our history.
  12.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    We're not talking about Frankensteining, just a natural biological process. When your hair can become a person without a laboratory I'll be interested.

    Keep in mind there's no proof provided by pro-choice for their claims, and there's there's not even a consensus on the matters. If there is reasonable doubt, as in criminal court, there should not be a conviction. Why is it different here? We could very well be killing people without having proof, the least we can do is not move forward without a consensus (which isn't proof). In fact, you know that whole "fetus don't feel pain" thing? Even that is not a fact:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/us/utah-abortion-law-fetal-anesthesia.html?_r=0

    ..."Unlikely?" Is that supposed to be a joke on their part? They can't even conclusively prove whether or not they're torturing their victims, let alone dictate their status of "personhood."

    Aside from all of that, we don't even need a consensus or proof or any of that either way because we have functioning brains and common sense. A baby is one entity, it is not something else before it "becomes" human. What, it's just tissue? Then what is that tissue doing, what is its function? I can tell you what your heart does, it pumps your blood. So what's this "random tissue's" purpose, hm? Conception just means nothing, and random growing tissue just sits there, becoming more and more distinct, until, "oh **** a person where did that come from, one second there was tissue and BAM a baby was there, how magic"

    Sometimes I can't even believe this is a subject of contention.

    I believe that I explicitly stated that I only conceded as much for argument's sake at one point, it isn't my stance at all. The baby shouldn't be punished for the crime of another. I do admit that I've toyed with the idea of conceding on such points if only to protect at least some more people, but even that wouldn't mean what you're saying.

    What were the qualifications for being human, again? Sonic 5 put forth a couple, memories and experiences. Where are their memories and experiences in a vegetative state? Braindead means that sh*t it gone. I guess we better define things better than that, then.

    I'm not sure what your argument against conception is here, but I'll answer that last part; no, not anything containing our DNA should be given rights. Why would they? They're not in the process of independently growing into their own being. Hell, if you did clone something from your hair and it was in the process of becoming its own individual life, no longer just hair, then at that point I'd definitely defend its personhood. Clones are people too, but hair isn't a person any more than sperm is. Whatever the scientific version of clone conception is would be where clone life begins...if this is making sense.

    To more directly ask, do you think that in light of the 21-week baby that it should be the new limit? If not, why not? It's proven to be a viable age and being a "fringe case" doesn't change that.

    We're a more advanced society. We've eliminated slavery, given women equal rights, so it is time to extend similar considerations to people of all ages. "Don't be on the wrong side of history," some would say.
  13.  
    My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller

    My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller Supermod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    40,794
    Location:
    I rub my tilde all over your asterisk
    Mate, I could say you're not getting it and that wouldn't even begin to cover it. Your discussion is not convincing, it does not appear to have any particular aim aside from establishing that you do not appreciate the practice of abortion in and of itself, and for some reason you think this qualifies your opinion as universally just. No matter how many mental hoops you can jump through to make your preference sound like possible fact, it is still a semantic preference. There is no objectivity here. I do not consider a zygote to possess personhood because it does not. I don't actually care how much more development it requires to become a person, if it requires any it is still not a person. One could make an equally subjective but rational argument that any egg or sperm wasted when life could be made from them is a criminal decision made by those who refuse to become parents. There is nothing to sympathize with, here. I say you are projecting because your sympathy is a projection. There is no person to sympathize with in a zygote, and to characterise a zygote as having personhood because it has a chance of greater than none of someday to become a person if all factors cooperate to produce that outcome is a matter of preference. Beyond that, you are neglecting to sympathize with the would-be mother who does possess personhood. This tells us that you favor your fantasy and your preference over the will of others, even to the point of neglecting their own personhood.

    If you do not understand this, it doesn't make me incorrect because it is observable fact. To deny that a zygote does not possess personhood can mean any number of things, perhaps that you do not understand the concept of personhood, but most of all it means that you are incorrect.

    Beyond that, you don't apparently have any idea what you want because talking about issues which enable you to pursue your supposed preference for life is not enough. Your words express to us that you want control. Why you want it or you feel entitled to it, one cannot say, but it is a selfishness that the rest of us recognise. I see no point in sugar-coating this. You don't care about the accuracy of data or lives bettered, you clearly only care about blame. Talking to you on the terms that you prefer about the subject would only be giving in to your selfishness. I see no reason to do this. So yes, more semantic nonsense. It's not a matter of not facing these things and it is rather hypocritical of you to say so when you clearly do not want to address your motivation. Handwaving social policy is literal dismissal of things you don't want to face. These garbage yes-no arguments only prove that you want people to agree with you, not that any side is more correct.
    ZeldaGirl, SKELETOR and Sonic 5 like this.
  14.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    EDIT: What's the point.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2016
  15.  
    I am nobody

    I am nobody I am not mean spam Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    11,584
    Location:
    Over there.
    As I said in the other thread, I absolutely cannot be ****ed to get into this conversation, but I have to point out for the record that that article is making exactly the same argument most people here have:

    ZeldaGirl and SKELETOR like this.
  16.  
    SKELETOR

    SKELETOR Overlord of Evil

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,036
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
    So then we're picking and choosing which DNA-harboring thing is more important.

    What claims are you referring to? That is rather vague. There's no reasonable doubt, either. Just a random claim that a fetus is a person. Based on what? Nothing.

    A quick Google search reveals that the nervous system isn't finished developing until the third trimester. Scientifically, however, there will always be random outliers. Nothing on this planet is absolute, so the choice of the term "unlikely" is probably just to provide a margin of error.

    So then you're appealing to common sense now. A vague notion that the conclusion you've come to is so obvious it shouldn't need to be proven and evidence does not need to be provided.

    The tissue is meant to grow into a person, but that doesn't make it a person until it has completed, or has nearly completed, its job.

    Perhaps I misinterpreted something you said, my bad.

    There is no universally accepted point in which a human being's life truly begins. It is a debatable subject, but it seems that lawmakers and the medical field both agree that ~23 weeks is the cutoff, and they have decided this with, in my opinion, fair reasoning.

    Then we are picking and choosing. Some people would say that a cell becomes its own person once it has a unique set of DNA and is ready to become its own entity, but what I am saying is that point is flawed, as I could spit into a test tube for similar results. Does my spit only get rights once its in the test tube? Once it is used to clone an embryo, does that embryo have rights? I think not. I think that's a silly idea.

    Being a fringe case doesn't change that, but what it does do is complicate the situation. Complicated situations should never be given general solutions.
  17.  
    Sonic 5

    Sonic 5 Not Actually a Sonic Fan Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,038
    Location:
    Bamamama
    One aspect I rarely see addressed in this debate came up on reddit.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5b79z4/_/

    I see a lot of the "Pro-Life" crowd champion the idea of just giving it up for adoption. This ignores the legal rights the biological father (who could be an abusive ex or even potentially a rapist) has to the child once it's born.

    In the link above, a man (likely) coerced this woman into not having an abortion and is now dragging her through the mud because she wants no part in raising this child. She pays 125% of court-ordered child support, but he wants to force her to interact with a child she, from day one, made clear she had no interest in bringing into this world.

    Abortion access can free women from poverty and abusive relationships. It can keep a rapist from having an eternal legal entanglement with his victim's life.

    But heaven forbid we consider the rights and feelings (like safety in the emotional, physical, and financial sense) of an actual living, breathing woman when there's a potential human on the line.

    I'm still not interested in the senseless argument over the semantics of "life" that IRHP has been engaging in.
  18.  
    I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California, U.S.A
    No, we're not talking about DNA harboring things, that's what you're misunderstanding. We're talking about the reproductive process.

    Claims such as AI's about "personhood." Who is he, or anyone, to state that only certain people can be considered people? Just because someone is in the early stages of their development doesn't mean they're inferior and don't have the same rights as anyone else because by that logic children can't be considered people. Then the argument has to shift to viability, at which point it's basically a pro-choicer saying "it's a crime to not be able to survive on your own, one worthy of death without trial." And you know what, I agree with you, there is no reasonable doubt; the fetus is a person, and there's nothing random about that claim. Even honest pro-choicers acknowledge that life begins as conception, they just devolve into arguments regarding personhood. I had linked to one such article in an earlier post I deleted because there was just no point in arguing with AI, but Ian quoted a portion from it. I didn't cite it for any other reason than to point out a pro-choice position which acknowledges life starts at conception, something any intelligent person needs to acknowledge. Whether you value that life or not is a different subject.

    https://rewire.news/article/2012/11/04/life-begins-at-conception-thats-not-point-0/

    That's a fatal mistake for any pro-choicer, to acknowledge that life does indeed start at conception, then it really does turn into semantical arguments about whether that life should be considered a person, despite the fact that in ~9 months you can hold it for yourself (or in ~24 weeks you can hold its shredded corpse, legs, arms, etc).

    So what if the nervous system isn't finished developing until the third trimester? The brain isn't finished developing until 25 years of age. I don't see the point of worrying about how developed a person is, using that as an argument to be justified in one's position. Also, I don't think the victims would appreciate being chalked up to a margin of error. If we don't know something for an absolute fact and it's as important as this, we should stop until we do. A "margin of error" is unacceptable in this case.

    Appealing to common sense is only a tacked on addition to my already solid arguments. It should suffice on its own but sadly people either are devoid of common sense or their agendas cause them to deny it. Plenty of the time asking for proof is just a way to escape the truth until pinned, like a killer getting away with their crime because of a lack of evidence when everyone knows they did it.

    So then we're back to "well it isn't a person." I forgot, what defines a person, again? And even if we strip this person of their personhood, how is interfering with the development of life, stopping it from doing a job you know it is doing, any better than murder? It's not like a kidney which isn't becoming a person, isn't already in development. You're cock blocking life, you're making an interception. Does that technicality help pro-choicers sleep at night? Sounds like real "mental gymnastics" to me.

    It's fine, no problem.

    There is a nearly universally accepted point, biologically. Life does start at conception, a lot of people just want to argue about personhood. And 23 weeks is just the legally allowed time to kill/destroy, neither side is completely satisfied by it anyway and babies have survived earlier than 23 weeks. It couldn't be a more useless, random number, honestly.

    We pretty much went over this already, I think.

    Well it at the very least should result in pushing back the cutoff. As soon as such an early birth was recorded any reasonable person would immediately change the laws. One of the key arguments pro-choicers cling to is viability, so at least find a time when a person could not possibly be viable under any circumstances to actually prove they give a **** about whether the people they kill are viable or not.

    Ah, clinging to AI's dismissal tactic. That's a good one, better than what you had previously argued yourself at least. I wrote up a bunch of crap replying to AI in my last post but decided it wasn't even worth it, so I'll spare myself the effort this time. Arguing with people who dismiss what you say and are unreasonably stubborn is annoying.
  19.  
    Sim Kid

    Sim Kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    13,115
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The state of Denial
    Just because I myself would not have an abortion in the event I could have children doesn't mean it should not remain an option for people who have say, ectopic pregnancies. That is all I am saying.
  20.  
    My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller

    My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller Supermod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    40,794
    Location:
    I rub my tilde all over your asterisk
    Mate, I'm not saying that we should consider anybody not a person. I'm talking about something that doesn't even have a body yet, that was never self-sustaining yet, that simply cannot live, that threatens the health and welfare of the creator. If people want to go the extra mile and sustain their potential offspring through birth, more power to them. I'm not okay commanding or condemning anyone to do that, it isn't right.

    Beyond that, children are born. They have a nervous system far in advance of the potential life you are talking about. They can breathe oxygen. If a child is capable of living without the mother's body, if our technology can sustain it, yes I believe it should be born and allowed to live.

    My approach would be dismissal if I were simply dismissive. You have a preference, one which seems entirely to hinge on your manner of thinking, and holding the possibility of life as something magical. There's no real argument to be made against that. No rational idea that needs to be made obvious. There are plenty of reasonings that you could accept were you to choose to, but you have always got to have a 'but' and some reason why you have the authority to disagree. And I see that you can, and I also see that your disagreement is not especially important to me. You have not made any points I would accept because you are choosing to define the concept of a 'person' differently, for the sake of trying to point out some kind of technical separation.

    Your preference in this matter is illustrated very clearly by your suggestion that other human elements cannot live on their own. Skin cannot grow without the creator's body, yet it is somehow less important because it lacks eventual independence? Good luck rationalizing that one with your arguments. We all know that conception does not guarantee birth. Are you aware of how much stress pregnancy places on the mother's body? That an especially enthusiastic egg can occasionally burrow entirely through the uterine lining and implant upon some other organ's wall? The growth of a human is not some simple process. Birth itself often may shatter bones or require complicated surgery. Child-rearing is a complicated, difficult process that lasts an entire life and should not be undertaken lightly. Yet you think this is just something that should be a surprise to people. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you would feel like carrying a child you didn't want to term, only to have to provide for that child the rest of their life, and having this sprung on you. The longer a pregnancy is carried, the greater a health risk it can become to the mother.

    Beyond that, there are so many unwanted and unloved children with deadbeat parents, or without parents. Mothers have died from complications of childbirth constantly as far as we've kept record. It's not even something that can be predicted easily, even as we have grown our science. Beyond that, some people I know are simply not mentally capable of caring for themselves fully. They have crippling emotional issues already. If they're having sex in an unstable relationship, you can pretty much guess that they are emotionally flawed and it is somehow sustaining their feelings of worth. Combine an unexpected pregnancy and an uncommitted partner with a mental illness, force that person to carry to birth, and then either watch them fail or take their child away afterwards? No thank you, that sounds about as disgusting as I could imagine.

    If you give any ****s about whether or not abortion is the option that makes the most sense to these people, if you care about people at all, it is your duty to focus on creating a secure social environment and to make sure that people currently are living in a world that cares for them. This isn't some headgame, it's a way out. People like me sure as hell don't want forced pregnancies to be the norm. Saying people shouldn't have sex if they're not committed to be a parent, which someone always has to suggest, is just ridiculous and the sort of thing that suggests they have no comprehension of human nature. Many people don't even understand repercussions or have anything resembling a longview until their 30s, but people on average begin developing sexually around 12 or 13 - well before adulthood and we don't even trust them to feed themselves consistently. Solve the problem by addressing your social outlook and do good for people. You're addressing the symptom, not the problem.



    And really, this whole 'life starts at conception' thing is nonsense. Sperm is living. Eggs are living. The cells that produce them are living. Life began before conception. It's not a matter of what's alive or not. We're not the sperm police, so as it follows the only thing that truly matters is when those lifeforms grow and have developed to such an extent that they can live without being physically a part of someone else's body.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2016

Share This Page