Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Arizona] says, you're pregnant for up to two weeks before you're pregnant.

145791016

Comments

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Xeddicus wrote: »
    There's a bit of difference between those 2 groups (unborn people vs terrorists/felons/etc). A vast difference, really. So vast it's a nonsense comparison.

    And what of the civilian casualties, which often include children & infants?

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    You start off saying "these idiots" and "my taxes" which are both silly statements to make. I can't speak for the UK's education system, but many people in the US don't have access to the education or health services which you seem to be taken for granted. I imagine the situation is similar in Britain.

    The menstrual cycle isn't the same for every woman, so saying "stupid woman, you didn't know you're pregnant after only three months geeeeeeze" is just horrifically incorrect.

    You're trivializing what is a magnificently complicated decision for women.

    But my overall point still stands. In my honest opinion, it is ridiculous to abort a fetus simply because it would inconvinience you.

    Why? Saying it does not make it so. In my honest opinion, women should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies without zealots trying to punish them for having sex. Have you ever raised a kid? Do you have any clue what an "inconvenience" it is to have to go through a 9 month pregnancy and then deliver a child, with a risk of dying? I'll tell you: saying "inconvenience" to describe it is so disingenious as to be outright untrue. How about next time you make a bad decision we give you mono for 9 months? That's about the same level of "inconvenience". Get your morals the hell out of anyone else's life.

    The reason I am being so harsh is because people like you who argue for abortion with a "but..." are incredibly dangerous to the Choice movement. You are saying that there is something morally wrong with abortion, which there isn't, and you are blaming women for getting pregnant, AKA slut shaming, which you should be ashamed of. That's the bullshit the anti-women movement (I won't dignify it with the term pro-life) spouts, and clearly they have managed to convince you. Get that shit out of your head.

    Post edited by psyck0 on
    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • XeddicusXeddicus Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    Xeddicus wrote: »
    There's a bit of difference between those 2 groups (unborn people vs terrorists/felons/etc). A vast difference, really. So vast it's a nonsense comparison.

    And what of the civilian casualties, which often include children & infants?

    What about them? That's not equivalent to abortion in any way even if being pro life meant you approved of that. Which is highly disputable.

    Post edited by Xeddicus on
    "For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I'm an atheist who wishes we lived in a world where abortions weren't a necessary evil.

    But they are.

    Pretty much this. Abortion should always be available to a woman, but we should make every effort to make sure a woman never has to make that choice. I think that's what pisses me off about most pro-lifers the most is that they are anti-abortion, but also work their hardest to prevent women from having the resources to not get in that situation.

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I should also add that first trimester medical abortions, as well as dilation & vaccuum (which has replaced dilation and curretage in the sensible parts of the first world) are virtually risk free, and so in terms of the health of the mother there is really no reason not to use them as contraception. There absolutely no evidence of any risk of breast cancer, psychiatric illness or any other of the bullshit that the anti-women movement spouts. It's probably more expensive to get an abortion every time a women gets pregnant than to use birth control, but I don't think it's any more hazardous to her health. Oral contraception very occasionally causes strokes, pulmonary emboli, and some other nasty stuff.

    Post edited by psyck0 on
    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Xeddicus wrote: »
    There's a bit of difference between those 2 groups (unborn people vs terrorists/felons/etc). A vast difference, really. So vast it's a nonsense comparison.

    Not in as much as they're both alive. Which, really, that's what Pro-Lifers are in favor of, right? Life?

    Unless I'm mistaken and they're actually just a bunch of xenophobic white people who fetishize white fertility like whiteness is somehow going out of style.

    Post edited by Hacksaw on
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Xeddicus wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Xeddicus wrote: »
    There's a bit of difference between those 2 groups (unborn people vs terrorists/felons/etc). A vast difference, really. So vast it's a nonsense comparison.

    And what of the civilian casualties, which often include children & infants?

    What about them? That's not equivalent to abortion in any way even if being pro life meant you approved of that. Which is highly disputable.

    How is this hard to understand? He said many pro lifers are fine supporting the wars and you said "unborn people vs terrorists/felons". Implying that the majority, or even a statistically significant portion of the people killed in the war on terror are terrorists and not civilians. I understand you didn't actually mean to imply that, but it's easy to see where that comes from.

    If pro lifers really cared about stopping abortion they would be aggressively supporting contraception, but it's not about abortion its about slut shaming.

    Post edited by override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    The thing that bothers me most about many of the anti-abortion crowd is they're all for protecting what they define as a life up until the point when birth happens, at which point they want nothing to do with the child until they turn 18, at which point they're just the man they need to risk their life in the military.

    With apologies to George Carlin for poorly paraphrasing his work.

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I know plenty of atheists who have mixed feelings about abortion, including many philosophers. For a while it was even taken as a standard example an issue where reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

    I think this is bonkers, but it's less because I'm atheist than it is because I reject certain sorts of metaphysical theories of personhood. People who think both that people are identical to certain animals and that there exist well-defined starting and ending conditions for animals are more likely to think that fetal life has moral relevance. On the other hand, people like me, who primarily identify people with streams of conscious experience, are unlikely to think that fetal life means anything at all.

    This is gold/truth.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest...

    I really don't understand why we're concerned that it's cutting off a potential human life - the very word 'potential' means that it is not a human life.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • THESPOOKYTHESPOOKY scary potassium Registered User regular
    This is like Schrodinger's fetus.



    snrrrrkkkkkk


    Those are my thoughts on this post as well as on the bill in the OP.

    hxv751v.png
  • DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest...

    I really don't understand why we're concerned that it's cutting off a potential human life - the very word 'potential' means that it is not a human life.

    During the period when many women get abortions (the oh shit I'm pregnant abort abort! around seven weeks or so) the thing isn't technically a fetus yet (still a zygote) and has a tail. Going on appearance alone, it's more like cutting off a potential salamander.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, I feel I should warn you: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest...

    I really don't understand why we're concerned that it's cutting off a potential human life - the very word 'potential' means that it is not a human life.

    During the period when many women get abortions (the oh shit I'm pregnant abort abort! around seven weeks or so) the thing isn't technically a fetus yet (still a zygote) and has a tail. Going on appearance alone, it's more like cutting off a potential salamander.

    Chestburster?

    PSN: Donnicton - Wii/3DS FC: 1633-4230-5354 - Steam: Donnicton
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest...

    I really don't understand why we're concerned that it's cutting off a potential human life - the very word 'potential' means that it is not a human life.

    Here here.

    Thought experiment: suppose I had a special ray gun, such that when I fired it at blocks of inanimate matter it rearranged them into adult human bodies. If this were so, then all inanimate blocks of matter would have the potential to be human and to have human lives. If I had such a gun, would I be obligated to use it? If such a gun existed, would it be wrong to destroy a block of inanimate matter? If, in general, we ought to realize human potential--to make sure that everything which can become human does--then the answer to both should be yes. That seems wrong, however. So perhaps there is no such general obligation to realize human potential, and as such there is no obligation to make sure that fertilized eggs make it all the way either.

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    You start off saying "these idiots" and "my taxes" which are both silly statements to make. I can't speak for the UK's education system, but many people in the US don't have access to the education or health services which you seem to be taken for granted. I imagine the situation is similar in Britain.

    The menstrual cycle isn't the same for every woman, so saying "stupid woman, you didn't know you're pregnant after only three months geeeeeeze" is just horrifically incorrect.

    You're trivializing what is a magnificently complicated decision for women.

    But my overall point still stands. In my honest opinion, it is ridiculous to abort a fetus simply because it would inconvinience you.

    Why? Saying it does not make it so. In my honest opinion, women should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies without zealots trying to punish them for having sex. Have you ever raised a kid? Do you have any clue what an "inconvenience" it is to have to go through a 9 month pregnancy and then deliver a child, with a risk of dying? I'll tell you: saying "inconvenience" to describe it is so disingenious as to be outright untrue. How about next time you make a bad decision we give you mono for 9 months? That's about the same level of "inconvenience". Get your morals the hell out of anyone else's life.

    The reason I am being so harsh is because people like you who argue for abortion with a "but..." are incredibly dangerous to the Choice movement. You are saying that there is something morally wrong with abortion, which there isn't, and you are blaming women for getting pregnant, AKA slut shaming, which you should be ashamed of. That's the bullshit the anti-women movement (I won't dignify it with the term pro-life) spouts, and clearly they have managed to convince you. Get that shit out of your head.

    What strikes me as damaging to the pro-choice movement is this overblown trite rhetoric.

    Do you honestly not understand that pro-life people fundamentally believe that a fetus has some value as a human life? The 'keep your morals out of everyone else's life' therefore does not dismiss their central issue. Because they don't believe that you are making choices just for yourself, you are killing another human being, or at least another possible human life depending on what idea precisely they're subscribing to I suppose. In answer you might bring up the violinist argument, but this isn't nearly the magic bullet it's sometimes suggested to be, and still leaves abortion in the status of being an unideal outcome - just morally defensible as the best worst option.

    You bring up the idea that the pro-life movement is 'anti-woman', how do you think this plays with all the liberal, secular, or otherwise well informed women who none the less take a pro-life position? Is it not both tremendously condescending, and likely to lead to them dismissing what you have to say. After all, the most base requirement for debate is accepting that other people believe what they profess to, and honestly, I find it hard to believe that anything but a minuscule minority of pro-life supporters are doing it for some malicious moustache twirling reason to show women their place. The outcome may be such, but it's not the intention.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    I hate it when people say, "Don't use my taxes to pay for your abortion!"

    Oh sure, fine. Then we just use your taxes to pay for the child birth, welfare, and education of the child. Cause you know, all those are usually paid by tax payers and cost in the millions for one child.

    Personally, when I think of abortion, my thoughts naturally come to my daughter that I have and the daughter I will have in July (wife is pregnant with our second kid, yay! Seriously!). And I could never imagine myself not wanting them.

    But I'm also pretty real on that not everyone is financially or emotionally ready for kids. I would prefer it if everyone had access to the proper sexual education and birth control as well as the morning after pill and use abortion as a last resort, but it's not a perfect world and every unwanted child just leads to more issues.

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    Anyone with any understanding of human biology should know that a fetus is about as far from human life as a cat or a goat.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I used to be a pro-life atheist. And then I took biology.

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    So you're suggesting what defines someone as human is their sapience, not genetics I take it?

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    A cell or a blastocyst is essentially, genetically, human, but no different than you ripping off a chunk of your skin and tossing it on the ground. It has natural potential to become an independent sapient life form, but nature could just outright fuck it 10 minutes before coming out of the womb if it wanted to.

    Edit: my spelling is terrible

    Post edited by bowen on
  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    A cell or a blastocyst is essentially, genetically, human, but no different than you ripping off a chunk of your skin and tossing it on the ground. It has natural potential to become an independent sapient life form, but nature could just outright fuck it 10 minutes before coming out of the womb if it wanted to.

    Edit: my spelling is terrible

    Yes, but it has the potential to be something more. That giant scab on your arm you got because "You can totally grind like Tony Hawk" can never and will be nothing more than it is now. Those collections of cells or blastocyst may get totally fucked at random... or it could one day be the guy who cures HIV. You don't know and you cannot know, so there is a world of difference between a piece of skin that can only ever be a piece of skin and a collection of cells that could one day be a fully-functioning, intelligent sapient life.

    My personal thoughts are this: abortion is OK if the child was conceived by rape, or stands an almost certain chance of having some horrifying disease or defect that would prevent it from having a life free from permanent suffering or incapability... and I suppose if the child's birth would insure the death of the mother, then she should have that choice. However, I cannot see the logic behind "I don't want to have a kid for the sake of not having a kid, so I'm gonna have an abortion." That's selfish, and there's other solutions. If you don't want the kid, you can give it up for adoption. There's many, many loving would-be parents out there who cannot have kids of their own who will give the child a great life and loads of love in the event you're incapable or unwilling to provide that child with those things.


    And for the record, I took biology too... had the best grade in the class to boot, which was really annoying when my lab partners would constantly put it on me to figure everything out, further complicated by one female partner never actually helping and instead just writing in her notes nonstop, and the other showing off her, ahem, "interestingly placed" elephant tattoo. At least the ex-Army guy helped out.

    Still, when it came to identifying the organs in a snake, it was on me.... and I rocked when it came to snakes. It was the grasshopper that gave me issues.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Abortion is okay because we shouldn't really be having women carry to term what is essentially a parasite. Accidents happen even with the best of safeties. Unless you're okay with reforming social safety nets as a whole anyways. Plus there's the whole economics of the situation, this becomes greater than "this is life, we should protect it" to "I can't even afford to feed myself so the baby may be functionally retarded because of improper nutrition."

    Your cells could potentially become "life" itself too.

    Post edited by bowen on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest...

    I really don't understand why we're concerned that it's cutting off a potential human life - the very word 'potential' means that it is not a human life.

    Here here.

    Thought experiment: suppose I had a special ray gun, such that when I fired it at blocks of inanimate matter it rearranged them into adult human bodies. If this were so, then all inanimate blocks of matter would have the potential to be human and to have human lives. If I had such a gun, would I be obligated to use it? If such a gun existed, would it be wrong to destroy a block of inanimate matter? If, in general, we ought to realize human potential--to make sure that everything which can become human does--then the answer to both should be yes. That seems wrong, however. So perhaps there is no such general obligation to realize human potential, and as such there is no obligation to make sure that fertilized eggs make it all the way either.

    The counter argument I've usually heard, and indeed the argument used by the aforementioned Robert M. Price (no great authority, just topical) is effectively "unmolested the foetus will become a human life, a block of matter/sperm cell/ovum will not" and use imagery to the effect of "the fuse is already lit."

    To which my only response is "So?". The relevance, I do not see it.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Leitner wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    You start off saying "these idiots" and "my taxes" which are both silly statements to make. I can't speak for the UK's education system, but many people in the US don't have access to the education or health services which you seem to be taken for granted. I imagine the situation is similar in Britain.

    The menstrual cycle isn't the same for every woman, so saying "stupid woman, you didn't know you're pregnant after only three months geeeeeeze" is just horrifically incorrect.

    You're trivializing what is a magnificently complicated decision for women.

    But my overall point still stands. In my honest opinion, it is ridiculous to abort a fetus simply because it would inconvinience you.

    Why? Saying it does not make it so. In my honest opinion, women should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies without zealots trying to punish them for having sex. Have you ever raised a kid? Do you have any clue what an "inconvenience" it is to have to go through a 9 month pregnancy and then deliver a child, with a risk of dying? I'll tell you: saying "inconvenience" to describe it is so disingenious as to be outright untrue. How about next time you make a bad decision we give you mono for 9 months? That's about the same level of "inconvenience". Get your morals the hell out of anyone else's life.

    The reason I am being so harsh is because people like you who argue for abortion with a "but..." are incredibly dangerous to the Choice movement. You are saying that there is something morally wrong with abortion, which there isn't, and you are blaming women for getting pregnant, AKA slut shaming, which you should be ashamed of. That's the bullshit the anti-women movement (I won't dignify it with the term pro-life) spouts, and clearly they have managed to convince you. Get that shit out of your head.

    What strikes me as damaging to the pro-choice movement is this overblown trite rhetoric.

    Do you honestly not understand that pro-life people fundamentally believe that a fetus has some value as a human life? The 'keep your morals out of everyone else's life' therefore does not dismiss their central issue. Because they don't believe that you are making choices just for yourself, you are killing another human being, or at least another possible human life depending on what idea precisely they're subscribing to I suppose. In answer you might bring up the violinist argument, but this isn't nearly the magic bullet it's sometimes suggested to be, and still leaves abortion in the status of being an unideal outcome - just morally defensible as the best worst option.

    You bring up the idea that the pro-life movement is 'anti-woman', how do you think this plays with all the liberal, secular, or otherwise well informed women who none the less take a pro-life position? Is it not both tremendously condescending, and likely to lead to them dismissing what you have to say. After all, the most base requirement for debate is accepting that other people believe what they profess to, and honestly, I find it hard to believe that anything but a minuscule minority of pro-life supporters are doing it for some malicious moustache twirling reason to show women their place. The outcome may be such, but it's not the intention.

    You show me a pro-life group that isn't against contraception, sex education, or planned parenthood (who prevent more abortions than they give) and I'll show you a pro-lifer who isn't anti women. Unfortunately for your position, "the pro life movement" doesn't fit into that category, and yes it's completely possible for a woman to be anti women. I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

    prolifebeliefchart.gif

    I had to dust that off

    Post edited by override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    It's fine to be anti-abortion, but pro-choice. In fact, it's objectively the best way to be. No one thinks (or should think) abortions are awesome. Just, unfortunately, necessary at times.

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Abortion is okay because we shouldn't really be having women carry to term what is essentially a parasite. Accidents happen even with the best of safeties. Unless you're okay with reforming social safety nets as a whole anyways. Plus there's the whole economics of the situation, this becomes greater than "this is life, we should protect it" to "I can't even afford to feed myself so the baby may be functionally retarded because of improper nutrition."

    Your cells could potentially become "life" itself too.

    And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them. Yes, complications CAN arise, but modern medicine has already cut the odds of maternal death in the good ol' USA and is significantly lower in many other developed countries to incredibly low levels. You literally have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than from giving birth. Maybe the child grows up to be a welfare abuser, maybe it grows up to be a doctor. But if you kill it before it's born, you'll never know.

    Point is, abortion for the sake of "Well, what if 1 in 10000...." is crappy, and I find "well, it hasn't been born yet" an incredibly callous mindset. And again, selfish. Knowingly denying a life because there's a 1:10000 chance of losing yours at worst is irrational. You might as well not drive your father to the hospital if he's having a heart attack because you might die on the freeway.

    Here's a thought: maybe instead of condoning abortions for everyone who wants them, regardless of their reasoning, we reinforce the usage of birth control and make the morning after pill readily available in the event a condom breaks or afterwards the young lady realizes "holy crap, I took antibiotics yesterday!".

    A serious and/or immediate threat to the life of the potential child and it's mother? Yay for abortions. There's no reason to think either will face anything worse than a normal pregnancy? Nay.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I guess the fuse being they are an entity distinct from you and deserve as much chance at life as you do. I see where this could be a thing, but ultimately I'm uncomfortable making someone essentially a vessel for the birthing of this new life. If incubation chambers become a thing, and fully supported by government funds, feel free to transplant and let it mellow.

    Post edited by bowen on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    Well the anti-abortion atheist group is all for all of those things.

    I'm not sure whether I think they remain anti-women or not.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Comradebot, you missed the part where I said, even with the best of precautions accidents happen. They have no potential until they are born. Because they are symbiotically linked to the mother. Their potential for growth without that relationship is nill. They cannot cure AIDS because it is tantamount to saying that you or I will cure it too. We are talking permutations of chance.

    Edit: and the morning after pill is essentially a form of abortion. Where do we draw the line and why? How do we do this lawfully and not morally/religiously so that it's fair and just to everyone.

    I don't stick you with 20 years of debt just because you got the short end of the stick and you vehemently tried everything in your power to not get it.

    Post edited by bowen on
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Also I wouldn't at all mind a financial 'penalty' or increased cost or just not allowing insurance (if it even covers it) for abortions based on being too lazy to use birth control.

    Of course, the inherent problem with this is it would be next to impossible to prove and in states that only have abstinence only education (and by virtue a ton of needless, avoidable pregnancies) I feel bad punishing someone cause their parents/state government are fucktards.

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    It's fine to be anti-abortion, but pro-choice. In fact, it's objectively the best way to be. No one thinks (or should think) abortions are awesome. Just, unfortunately, necessary at times.

    I think that's a good mindset, actually. People should have the option, I just happen to think it's wrong and selfish to do it for self-serving reasons.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    And I agree. Of course, a lot of people who don't use BC and get pregnant is (as I said just now in the post above yours) is because their state flat out refuses to teach them it's an option. It's been proven time and time again that 'no sex is the only answer' constantly leads to the opposite intended effect they're going for.

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Comradebot, you missed the part where I said, even with the best of precautions accidents happen. They have no potential until they are born. Because they are symbiotically linked to the mother. Their potential for growth without that relationship is nill. They cannot cure AIDS because it is tantamount to saying that you or I will cure it too. We are talking permutations of chance.

    Edit: and the morning after pill is essentially a form of abortion. Where do we draw the line and why? How do we do this lawfully and not morally/religiously so that it's fair and just to everyone.

    I don't stick you with 20 years of debt just because you got the short end of the stick and you vehemently tried everything in your power to not get it.

    I didn't miss that: it still has the potential to become a fully functioning human being, the fact it is currently reliant on the mother for survival is completely irrelevant, and I obvious saw your point about complications because that's what the MMR is (Maternal Mortality Ratio). That's your chances of dying due to complications from pregnancy/childbirth, which is like 12.something out of 100000 in the USA right now, which is actually worse than many other countries. You even called it a "parasite" earlier, which implies that at the moment it exists it is it's own separate entity, only reliant on another for survival. Thus the potential for anything a human has potential for then exists.

    And as for the morning after pill, the argument swings both ways. The primary mechanism of most ECPs is the prevent fertilization, not to kill/remove an already fertilized embryo, though they do typically have the effect of also preventing a newly fertilized egg from attaching in the uterus. I draw the line there, because the intent is to prevent fertilization, not the abortion of an already forming embryo.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    Comradebot wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Abortion is okay because we shouldn't really be having women carry to term what is essentially a parasite. Accidents happen even with the best of safeties. Unless you're okay with reforming social safety nets as a whole anyways. Plus there's the whole economics of the situation, this becomes greater than "this is life, we should protect it" to "I can't even afford to feed myself so the baby may be functionally retarded because of improper nutrition."

    Your cells could potentially become "life" itself too.

    And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them. Yes, complications CAN arise, but modern medicine has already cut the odds of maternal death in the good ol' USA and is significantly lower in many other developed countries to incredibly low levels. You literally have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than from giving birth. Maybe the child grows up to be a welfare abuser, maybe it grows up to be a doctor. But if you kill it before it's born, you'll never know.

    Point is, abortion for the sake of "Well, what if 1 in 10000...." is crappy, and I find "well, it hasn't been born yet" an incredibly callous mindset. And again, selfish. Knowingly denying a life because there's a 1:10000 chance of losing yours at worst is irrational. You might as well not drive your father to the hospital if he's having a heart attack because you might die on the freeway.

    Here's a thought: maybe instead of condoning abortions for everyone who wants them, regardless of their reasoning, we reinforce the usage of birth control and make the morning after pill readily available in the event a condom breaks or afterwards the young lady realizes "holy crap, I took antibiotics yesterday!".

    A serious and/or immediate threat to the life of the potential child and it's mother? Yay for abortions. There's no reason to think either will face anything worse than a normal pregnancy? Nay.

    You've said a lot, and a lot of different issues come up so rather than go point by point in a post, I'd like to discuss the specific parts one by one until they are resolved. With this in mind, the bolded part of your post above (reproduced below for clarity)

    "And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them."

    There are two initial points which stand out to me from first principles: your use of the word "selfish" and "small-minded".

    I don't understand how either applies. "Selfish" denotes that the agent in question is ignoring the interests of others in what we consider a socially unacceptable fashion. Whose interests are being ignored in the case of abortion? Likewise, "small-minded" usually refers to an inability to accept a fact or principle due to ideology, (willful) ignorance or mental defect*. What does the actor refuse to understand in this case?

    * Alternatively, you might mean prone to judgement, petty or otherwise mean. But I don't see how that applies any better.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    They probably are low and most of the time based more on (forced) lack of education then "I no like condom."

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Because comradebot thinks poor people are using an expensive procedure as a form of birth control. I rather suspect he's taking talking points from a GOP memo or something. I would wager a guess that the people who use abortion for birth control are low. I have no numbers to back that up, but I would wager a lifetime supply of condoms would be cheaper than a single abortion.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    And yeah I used parasite. I mean you made shitty decisions eating that semi-raw pork but whoops tapeworms. You shouldn't be allowed to purge a parasite you semi-knowingly contributed to bearing.

    I am partially in jest there.

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Abortion is okay because we shouldn't really be having women carry to term what is essentially a parasite. Accidents happen even with the best of safeties. Unless you're okay with reforming social safety nets as a whole anyways. Plus there's the whole economics of the situation, this becomes greater than "this is life, we should protect it" to "I can't even afford to feed myself so the baby may be functionally retarded because of improper nutrition."

    Your cells could potentially become "life" itself too.

    And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them. Yes, complications CAN arise, but modern medicine has already cut the odds of maternal death in the good ol' USA and is significantly lower in many other developed countries to incredibly low levels. You literally have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than from giving birth. Maybe the child grows up to be a welfare abuser, maybe it grows up to be a doctor. But if you kill it before it's born, you'll never know.

    Point is, abortion for the sake of "Well, what if 1 in 10000...." is crappy, and I find "well, it hasn't been born yet" an incredibly callous mindset. And again, selfish. Knowingly denying a life because there's a 1:10000 chance of losing yours at worst is irrational. You might as well not drive your father to the hospital if he's having a heart attack because you might die on the freeway.

    Here's a thought: maybe instead of condoning abortions for everyone who wants them, regardless of their reasoning, we reinforce the usage of birth control and make the morning after pill readily available in the event a condom breaks or afterwards the young lady realizes "holy crap, I took antibiotics yesterday!".

    A serious and/or immediate threat to the life of the potential child and it's mother? Yay for abortions. There's no reason to think either will face anything worse than a normal pregnancy? Nay.

    You've said a lot, and a lot of different issues come up so rather than go point by point in a post, I'd like to discuss the specific parts one by one until they are resolved. With this in mind, the bolded part of your post above (reproduced below for clarity)

    "And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them."

    There are two initial points which stand out to me from first principles: your use of the word "selfish" and "small-minded".

    I don't understand how either applies. "Selfish" denotes that the agent in question is ignoring the interests of others in what we consider a socially unacceptable fashion. Whose interests are being ignored in the case of abortion? Likewise, "small-minded" usually refers to an inability to accept a fact or principle due to ideology, (willful) ignorance or mental defect*. What does the actor refuse to understand in this case?

    * Alternatively, you might mean prone to judgement, petty or otherwise mean. But I don't see how that applies any better.

    ...

    Seriously?

    Selfish, because they are putting their own interests ahead of that of another human being. A person who would deny life to another primarily so they can avoid an inconvenience in their's is selfish. It's just too big of a "what if" for me to claim it's for the greater good if their only rational is they don't want to be pregnant or have a baby simply for the sake of not being pregnant and having a baby.

    It's small-minded because a theoretical person in this theoretical situation isn't looking at the big picture. Even if you do not believe the embryo is truly a human being yet with the potential to be a functioning, productive members of society then it doesn't change the fact that the embryo has the potential to becoming a true human being which has the potential to become a functioning, productive member of society. You're, at best, trading one life for another.

    And on a personal note, please don't quote definitions to me: it's incredibly condescending.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest...

    I really don't understand why we're concerned that it's cutting off a potential human life - the very word 'potential' means that it is not a human life.

    Here here.

    Thought experiment: suppose I had a special ray gun, such that when I fired it at blocks of inanimate matter it rearranged them into adult human bodies. If this were so, then all inanimate blocks of matter would have the potential to be human and to have human lives. If I had such a gun, would I be obligated to use it? If such a gun existed, would it be wrong to destroy a block of inanimate matter? If, in general, we ought to realize human potential--to make sure that everything which can become human does--then the answer to both should be yes. That seems wrong, however. So perhaps there is no such general obligation to realize human potential, and as such there is no obligation to make sure that fertilized eggs make it all the way either.

    The counter argument I've usually heard, and indeed the argument used by the aforementioned Robert M. Price (no great authority, just topical) is effectively "unmolested the foetus will become a human life, a block of matter/sperm cell/ovum will not" and use imagery to the effect of "the fuse is already lit."

    To which my only response is "So?". The relevance, I do not see it.

    The argument also presupposes a robust understanding of (and confidence in the moral significance of) what counts as 'molested' versus 'unmolested' development. After all, a fetus needs a womb to develop into a person. How different is that from a sperm, which needs a womb and an egg? Why is it molestation to deprive the fetus of the womb, but not molestation to deprive the sperm of the womb and egg? I am of the persuasion that these questions lack good answers.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    You misunderstand comradebot. Child birthing isn't an inconvenience so much as child rearing is. That's 20 years of potential misery and debt.

145791016
Sign In or Register to comment.