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.

1568101116

Posts

  • DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    You do realize that even using birth control, pregancy can still happen, right?

    And saying 'oh, they should just give the kid up for adoption' doesn't quite take into account the long, painful, arduous process that pregnancy and giving birth entails. There are premanent physical changes to a womans body that happen even after the child is born, and the nine months leading up to that is a trial of nausia, urine, pain, swelling, and discomfort, topped off with one of the most excrutiatingly traumatic of natual body processes. I see absolutely nothing selfish about a woman deciding she doesn't want to put her body through that. Why should she, for a potential life she doesn't know, doesn't like, didn't ask for, and actively tried to prevent? It is, in my opinion, selfish of anyone not currently posessing that womans uterus to try and decide what she can or can not do with it.

    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.
  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    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.

    Yup, I'm a hardcore GOPer because I disagree that we should let everyone abort whatever. Ya got me.

    /sarcasm (for the record I'm a Libertarian, and if you're going to turn this into a political accusation argument... well, I'm gonna hope you're a better person than to sink to that level).


    And I didn't say at any point that poor people were using abortion as a means of birth control. Ever. If I said that, please show me where so I can get my brain examined, because I clearly have something serious I need to get a doctor to check out.

    Also, if you were to read just a few posts up, you'd see I support more readily available contraceptives and sexual education, and I know you read it because it was the same post where I first mentioned ECPs. I think the whole "abstinence only!" argument is fucktarded, because I know for a fact that it doesn't stop people from gettin' it on, and a lifetime of condoms or even birth control pills are far less expensive than a child.

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    You misunderstand comradebot. Child birthing isn't an inconvenience so much as child rearing is. That's 20 years of potential misery and debt.

    ...

    Goddamnit, you're trolling me now aren't you? :p

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    In fact I have never heard "oh god how am I going to push that out" as opposed to "oh god how am I ever going to afford this..."

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

    ...

    Goddamnit, you're trolling me now aren't you? :p

    I'm not, really. If you think everyone welcomes offspring with open arms and happiness you're wrong. It can be wrought with fear, panic, depression, and a whole host of health issues. It's really not something we should ever be discussing limiting or taking away because bodily autonomy is a thing itself. The tape worm thing was trolling though.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Comradebot wrote: »
    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.

    I did not mean to condescend - I was highlight specifically the nature of my confusion. Unfortunately communication is not an exact science and often over the internet it pays to be specific.

    Once again, there are two, immediate issues I see:

    I don't accept that the mere fact of "putting one's interests ahead of those of another human being" is a priori a selfish thing. Or, alternatively, if we do define selfish merely as "acting in one's own self interest over those of another" then selfishness qua selfishness is not something to be condemned. As such without significantly more argumentative support the charge is uninformative or incorrect (as is so often the basis of my objection to no end of arguments on no end of topics).

    The second issue is that you've a bullet to bite - either the "theoretical/potential person" argument is a bad one, or the first argument becomes exceptionally week (assuming that we stipulate it is a good one arguendo). As I observed on the previous page if the person is only theoretical or potential then by definition we are not talking about a person. If you wish to maintain both then you've a lot of metaphysical heavy lifting to do, and strange metaphysics at that.

    Apothe0sis on
    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    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.

    Women don't really use abortion as birth control, and the potential person argument is crap. That gets into biblical masturbation as a sin territory. I mean you're right on in the "we should reinforce the usage of birth control" part, but I don't understand the "condoning abortion" part.

    Nobody likes abortion, no more than you like getting any medical procedure. We have plenty of evidence that good sex ed and free contraception significantly reduces abortion, so that's all we have to do.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    It's amusing that the US has a disconcertingly high maternal death rate for a first-world country.

    Well, horrifying really, but strange that Comradebot is referring to the US Maternal deathrate as if it were something reassuring or to be proud of.

    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Healthcare is expensive yo. Part of the reason if you want to change all these social policies you need to implement better social safety nets.

    bowen on
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Comradebot wrote: »
    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.
    They can perfectly well adopt many of the other children currently up for adoption. If they can't have kids of their own ... well, beggars shouldn't be choosers.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Who takes care of the kids awaiting adoption, though, one wonders.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    MrMister wrote: »
    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.

    Sure, but on the other end of the scale only a pretty purely utilitarian mindset differentiates between a fully developed baby that has or has not been born.

    Which means if you're not a utilitarian there is some stage between conception and full development to draw the line. And while there might be better moral arguments for one place over another, dismissing the pro-life movement merely on the basis that they draw the line at all seems quite specious.

    Edit:
    bowen wrote: »
    Who takes care of the kids awaiting adoption, though, one wonders.

    In reference to babies that will be adopted immediately? No one. If you're pregnant in a first world country and want to give the baby up, there will be couples waiting in line around the block for the opportunity to take over care immediately, and probably pay your medical bills to boot.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Is that always for certain MrMister?

  • ForarForar #432 Already prepping for Toronto Fan Expo!Registered User 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.

    This is pretty much exactly how I feel on the matter. Abortion should be available to those who want or need it. In an ideal world, needing or wanting one would be reduced by available contraception and sex education minimizing unwanted pregnancies as much as is realistically possible.

    Given how vocally opposed most anti-choicers are to sex education and contraception, that's going to be an uphill battle, but I do hope it comes to pass within my lifetime, at least within North America.

    sigone.png
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Is that always for certain MrMister?

    You meant me I suppose?

    Yes, so far as I know, at this point in time, it is always certain. There is no such thing as a baby orphan in the first world, except for the period of time waiting for the paperwork to clear.

    Without extenuating circumstances of some sort I suspect you would have to go back many decades to find a single case.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Sure, but on the other end of the scale only a pretty purely utilitarian mindset differentiates between a fully developed baby that has or has not been born.

    Which means if you're not a utilitarian there is some stage between conception and full development to draw the line. And while there might be better moral arguments for one place over another, dismissing the pro-life movement merely on the basis that they draw the line at all seems quite specious.

    My problem is not with the very idea of drawing a line, it's with the particular line being drawn. Lines drawn on the basis of potential, especially those that place a heavy emphasis on 'normal' development, strike me as difficult to defend. Everything has the potential to become anything, at least on some views of identity over time, and references to normal development tend to hinge on the act/omission distinction--if the baby is far enough along, it will develop all on its own so long as you don't interfere--which is famously philosophically disputed (why does aborting count as something you actively do, whereas not aborting count as something which you passively allow to happen?)

    As such, I prefer to think of moral worth in terms of the possession of conscious mental qualities. It's true that these also come in (somewhat) continuous degrees, it's true, and so any lines must be to some degree arbitrary. But that wasn't the complaint.
    bowen wrote:
    Is that always for certain MrMister?

    :?:

    Edit: oh, okay.

    MrMister on
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    @MrMister that was aimed at the wrong person sorry.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    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.

    http

    I had to dust that off

    The atheist group we were talking about, like one page ago. I'm sure I could pick out more if I went looking, but even if I couldn't that doesn't say anything about the personal convictions of any number of people who would otherwise be voting liberal because of all their other policies.

    And of course women can be 'anti-women', internalised sexism is a hell of a thing.

    But just because a woman is pro-life doesn't make her anti-women, and the discourse as frequently indulged in both here and elsewhere entirely excludes the possibility of such individuals. It all too often descends into fighting some constructed imaginary republican sitting in their lair, plotting how they can worst effect women this time. It's a problematic exertion of privilege which has the unintentional outcome of silencing the majority of working class christian women who are ardent supporters. Are their voices not valid in the debate? Especially given it's going to effect them the most of anyone.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Sure, but on the other end of the scale only a pretty purely utilitarian mindset differentiates between a fully developed baby that has or has not been born.

    Which means if you're not a utilitarian there is some stage between conception and full development to draw the line. And while there might be better moral arguments for one place over another, dismissing the pro-life movement merely on the basis that they draw the line at all seems quite specious.

    My problem is not with the very idea of drawing a line, it's with the particular line being drawn. Lines drawn on the basis of potential, especially those that place a heavy emphasis on 'normal' development, strike me as difficult to defend. Everything has the potential to become anything, at least on some views of identity over time, and references to normal development tend to hinge on the act/omission distinction--if the baby is far enough along, it will develop all on its own so long as you don't interfere--which is famously philosophically disputed (why does aborting count as something you actively do, whereas not aborting count as something which you passively allow to happen?)

    As such, I prefer to think of moral worth in terms of the possession of conscious mental qualities. It's true that these also come in (somewhat) continuous degrees, it's true, and so any lines must be to some degree arbitrary. But that wasn't the complaint.
    bowen wrote:
    Is that always for certain MrMister?

    :?:

    Edit: oh, okay.

    No, but the complaint was a bit boring :-D

    I'm curious as to the reasoning behind action/inactio::abortion/no abortion being interchangeable.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.

    Because presumably you think you should behave differently towards a human being that relies on you to survive, versus some other type of life.

    Just as I don't have a problem with seeing wolves take down a deer, but would probably try to intervene before they ate a baby.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    You misunderstand comradebot. Child birthing isn't an inconvenience so much as child rearing is. That's 20 years of potential misery and debt.

    Im not sure carrying and then raising a child is an inconvenience. Getting a flat tire is an inconvenience, having a child is a life altering event. That shits difficult even for people who try to have kids.

    camo_sig2.png
  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.

    Well then, maybe dolphins need to step up their game in the space race.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    I'd use the term "anti woman's rights' for pro-lifers since their goal ultimately involves taking away rights from women

    People can be in favor of taking their own rights away

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    I'd use the term "anti woman's rights' for pro-lifers since their goal ultimately involves taking away rights from women

    People can be in favor of taking their own rights away

    For example, I'm in favor of society keeping heroin an illegal substance even though it's my body and I should have access to any recreational drug of my choice.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Comradebot wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.

    Well then, maybe dolphins need to step up their game in the space race.

    Theyve been busy kicking our ass at deep sea exploration. And helping Aquaman fight crime.

    camo_sig2.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.

    Because presumably you think you should behave differently towards a human being that relies on you to survive, versus some other type of life.

    Just as I don't have a problem with seeing wolves take down a deer, but would probably try to intervene before they ate a baby.

    If they were both accidents? Why should I honestly care which form of commensal or parasite is nesting in me, especially if I took precautions to have neither? Shit ain't no demodex.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.

    Because presumably you think you should behave differently towards a human being that relies on you to survive, versus some other type of life.

    Just as I don't have a problem with seeing wolves take down a deer, but would probably try to intervene before they ate a baby.

    If they were both accidents? Why should I honestly care which form of commensal or parasite is nesting in me, especially if I took precautions to have neither? Shit ain't no demodex.

    Again, because presumably you view human life in a somewhat different light from other life. Which you apparently don't, but then your disagreement with pro-lifers isn't their conclusions, it's the very premise of preserving human life.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I do, but I don't agree that a clump of cells a human life makes. Neither their potential to be (as the link I provided earlier about human cells that exist outside of a human being)

    bowen on
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    It'd be pretty cool if we could develop the technology to remove a fetus and put it in someone else or a (more advanced) test-tube like thing. Even better if we could put said tubes 'on ice' without harming the fetus, then popping them out in the future when the world has collapsed. Cause it's gonna happen.

  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    My favorite thing about being pro-life is all of the people who then go on to berate "wellfare queens" who "pop out kids one after another" to take advantage of the social nets. So they want to take down saftey nets as well as limit birth control options/abortion policies.

    I don't understand why the concern for human life starts at conception and ends at birth for these people.

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Oh okay just wondering.

    I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.

    Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.

    Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.

    Because presumably you think you should behave differently towards a human being that relies on you to survive, versus some other type of life.

    Just as I don't have a problem with seeing wolves take down a deer, but would probably try to intervene before they ate a baby.

    If they were both accidents? Why should I honestly care which form of commensal or parasite is nesting in me, especially if I took precautions to have neither? Shit ain't no demodex.

    Again, because presumably you view human life in a somewhat different light from other life. Which you apparently don't, but then your disagreement with pro-lifers isn't their conclusions, it's the very premise of preserving human life.

    Exactly. At the end of the day, the human race exists to continue the existence of the human race. Killing a fetus actively works against our ultimate purpose, or at least our ultimate purpose if you're an absolute atheist (not some crazy agnostic like me) and believe we are just a random assortment of molecules that just happened to come about.

    As for the tapeworm and the fetus... it's not an accurate comparison. Yes, there's similarities, but there's also similarities between Dane Cook and Jon Stewart, but it doesn't mean they're the same. Both actively survive by essentially sucking (yeah, I'm gettin' scientific with it, I know) their nutrients from the host body. The differences: the tapeworm is in its adult stage while in the host body, while the fetus is in its larval stage. The fetus could possibly one day be born, permanently ending its womb residency, and go on to reach its adult human stage. The tapeworm is just a tapeworm, and by the time it's actively jacking food from your innards it's already reached its maximum potential of tapewormness. The tapeworm's goal is to be a parasite, the fetus's goal is to no longer be a parasite.

    We should find a new analogy. Let's compare fetuses to walruses: both of em' are in need of a good clubbin'.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Also let me say this. Anyone who is anti-abortion (in all circumstances) AND anti-welfare (especially those who have some weird hate-on for single mothers) can go suck a dick. Pro-life doesn't end at birth, assholes.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Again, because presumably you view human life in a somewhat different light from other life. Which you apparently don't, but then your disagreement with pro-lifers isn't their conclusions, it's the very premise of preserving human life.

    Well, there's the part where what constitutes "life" and what is required to "preserve" it vary dramatically. Equating a fertilized egg with a fetus with a 20 year old man with a deranged criminal is pretty silly. Ditto, equating inaction with extensive medical treatment with sacrificing dozens of other people.

    So maybe it's more the case that "preserving human life" is so vague a premise as to be entirely useless. It's roughly equivalent to "don't make other people sad" as a useful philosophy.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    My favorite thing about being pro-life is all of the people who then go on to berate "wellfare queens" who "pop out kids one after another" to take advantage of the social nets. So they want to take down saftey nets as well as limit birth control options/abortion policies.

    I don't understand why the concern for human life starts at conception and ends at birth for these people.

    My girlfriend's sister has popped one out after another, and she's too lazy to get on welfare. Doesn't help she's been knocked up by:

    1. Fat, unemployed guy
    2. Deadbeat unemployed guy with literally nine other kids and a tendency to "vanish" the moment the words "child support" are mentioned.
    3. Physically abusive unemployed guy who has been in and out of jail his entire life and is a strike away from I believe 25 years.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Comradebot wrote: »
    We should find a new analogy. Let's compare fetuses to walruses: both of em' are in need of a good clubbin'.

    "Well, a fetus isn't exactly a person ... but you it's human and it's alive so you can't say it's not a person ... hey, let's compromise and say a fetus counts for 3/5 a person!"

    emnmnme on
    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    Also let me say this. Anyone who is anti-abortion (in all circumstances) AND anti-welfare (especially those who have some weird hate-on for single mothers) can go suck a dick. Pro-life doesn't end at birth, assholes.

    1. Rick Santorum?

    2. Agreed. And even I agree there are most certainly circumstances where an abortion is the right call, and the option does need to exist.

    Readily available contraception and sex education, that's the key. If you don't get pregnant, then abortion isn't something that ever has to cross your mind.

    3. And to clarify, I agree, Rick Santorum can go suck the biggest, meatiest dick we can find. Of course, he probably thinks even heterosexual oral sex is vile and disgusting. But it probably just means he has some deeply seeded homosexual tendencies he's denying.

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I do, but I don't agree that a clump of cells a human life makes. Neither their potential to be (as the link I provided earlier about human cells that exist outside of a human being)

    But again, I don't think it's a perfect example. Those human cells exists outside of a human being... but they can never, ever be a human being. It's a fundamental difference, and it's the same as the fetus and the tapeworm. One can be more, the other is all it will ever be.

    And as for surviving outside of another human being... I mean, a baby can't survive without the aid of another human being. They still have that dependency, and naturally relied on their mother still for sustenance. By that rational, infanticide should be kosher because the baby is now just an external parasite instead of an internal one. It's upgraded from tapeworm to tick.

1568101116
Sign In or Register to comment.