A note on terminology -- we are not discussing sentience. Sentience is the ability to feel. Bugs have this. What we are discussing is sapience. Intelligence, human conscioussness. I know, I know, I'm nitpicking, but accurate terminology never hurt anyone.
I have my definition of sapience. Other people have their own (so let's not derail to discuss the merits of mine, OK?). But I believe you become a person when you achieve sapience. Pro-lifers do not. They believe that a non-sapient, non-thinking, hell, non-feeling (if you go back to the point of conception, or even up to a week or so afterwards) entity, is in fact a person. If that isn't absurd, I don't know what the fuck is.
All a fetus/embryo/blastocyst (I guess if you want to use icky terminology to describe an unborn baby, you could call it a cyst, for at least part of its development. ) is, is the potential for sapience. But, theoretically if you believe all potential for sapience must be tapped, then you need to legislate that all women are constantly pregnant, all the time, from the moment they hit puberty. But that's fucking retarded. And so is the pro-life stance.
Potential is a slippery thing. Best to deal with reality, and those who can participate in it.
...That was an unecessarily long post. What the fuck.
But let's add more! ~ A Refutation ~
The nuclear weapons = babies argument does not fucking hold up. You have to decide to make nuclear weapons. And even if you do decide to have sex (barring rape, of course), deciding to have sex != deciding to have a baby. Far from it. This argument is more like, if shaking hands with someone could accidentally cause my hands to start making nuclear weapons, even if I take precautions against this, then the government doesn't have the right to tell me whether or not I get to finish making these weapons.
But whatever, it's such a far-flung analogy that there's really no point in discussing it ever.
I always have to return to the idea that it doesnt matter what a child is in the womb, its what they will grow into that counts. A pregnancy is an incredible opportunity to create a human life. I dont think we should lose sight of that.
Despite the fact that fewer that 25% of conceptions result in pregnancy, it's still pretty easy for most woman to become pregnant if they want to. Legalized on-demand abortion secures women's rights over their bodies and means that unwanted pregnancies can be terminated so that wanted pregnancies can be pursued later when the conditions are right--such as when the mother/family is in a better economic position to support a child.
I thought a more fundamental point was that he should shut the fuck up because he's a fucking man who will never have to fucking deal with being pregnant, nor with getting another women pregnant because lollercoasters men can just run the fuck away from commitments they don't want which funnily enough some significant fraction of the reason having children tends to be financially unattractive.
Well that ruined it for me. I had a different image.
I seriously thought he was some bitter skank suffering from infertility or something.
I always have to return to the idea that it doesnt matter what a child is in the womb, its what they will grow into that counts. A pregnancy is an incredible opportunity to create a human life. I dont think we should lose sight of that.
Despite the fact that fewer that 25% of conceptions result in pregnancy, it's still pretty easy for most woman to become pregnant if they want to. Legalized on-demand abortion secures women's rights over their bodies and means that unwanted pregnancies can be terminated so that wanted pregnancies can be pursued later when the conditions are right--such as when the mother/family is in a better economic position to support a child.
I thought a more fundamental point was that he should shut the fuck up because he's a fucking man who will never have to fucking deal with being pregnant, nor with getting another women pregnant because lollercoasters men can just run the fuck away from commitments they don't want which funnily enough some significant fraction of the reason having children tends to be financially unattractive.
Rest assured that when my wife is pregnant im gonna be pretty goddamn involved. And my point is that there should be no unwanted pregnancies, people should have the foresight to prepare a proper situation in which to bring a child into the world. And that involves a committed father. Of course, that isnt always the case, but I wonder how many people are even shown this ideal.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
Wow. A fantastic argument that I am shocked I have never heard. Why have I never heard this before?
I always have to return to the idea that it doesnt matter what a child is in the womb, its what they will grow into that counts. A pregnancy is an incredible opportunity to create a human life. I dont think we should lose sight of that.
Despite the fact that fewer that 25% of conceptions result in pregnancy, it's still pretty easy for most woman to become pregnant if they want to. Legalized on-demand abortion secures women's rights over their bodies and means that unwanted pregnancies can be terminated so that wanted pregnancies can be pursued later when the conditions are right--such as when the mother/family is in a better economic position to support a child.
I thought a more fundamental point was that he should shut the fuck up because he's a fucking man who will never have to fucking deal with being pregnant, nor with getting another women pregnant because lollercoasters men can just run the fuck away from commitments they don't want which funnily enough some significant fraction of the reason having children tends to be financially unattractive.
Rest assured that when my wife is pregnant im gonna be pretty goddamn involved. And my point is that there should be no unwanted pregnancies, people should have the foresight to prepare a proper situation in which to bring a child into the world. And that involves a committed father. Of course, that isnt always the case, but I wonder how many people are even shown this ideal.
So once again your anti-abortion position is really just a "punish people whose behavior I disapprove of" position.
Unless you are in fact, shockingly pro-choice and just like telling others how awesome pregnancy is in which case what the fuck no body cares.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
A fetus in you is not a complete stranger. It's a life you created. You are responsible for it. The amount of distance women seem to want to put between their own children and themselves for the arguments of law is astounding.
How many women really have an IQ low enough to be susceptable to a retarded hypothetical like that?
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Once again, going directly to the title of the thread - let's punish the people who do things we don't like!
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
A fetus in you is not a complete stranger. It's a life you created. You are responsible for it. The amount of distance women seem to want to put between their own children and themselves for the arguments of law is astounding.
How many women really have an IQ low enough to be susceptable to a retarded hypothetical like that?
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
A fetus in you is not a complete stranger. It's a life you created. You are responsible for it. The amount of distance women seem to want to put between their own children and themselves for the arguments of law is astounding.
How many women really have an IQ low enough to be susceptable to a retarded hypothetical like that?
1. It takes 2.
2. This seems to - yet again - go to the notion of "punishing the fornicators" rather then any meaningful point about moral responsibilities towards vaguely defined clumps of cells.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Yet they are not. You brought the fetus into existence, you are not the reason it is unable to survive without you. That's like saying that because I saved kidney guy from a burning building ten years ago I'm responsible for him dying now. Uh-uh.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Once again, going directly to the title of the thread - let's punish the people who do things we don't like!
I disagree. A person should be aware of the consequences. I think it is valid to say that the difference (and problem) between the kidney and the abortion is that you are not directly responsible for the situation regarding the kidney.
That being said, I've always been pro-choice. And am, myself, considered a fornicator. I think we could argue that fornicators are being punished, just not by law or a moral overseer.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Once again, going directly to the title of the thread - let's punish the people who do things we don't like!
I disagree. I don't think anyone is saying "I don't like sex" or even just the idea of people having it. But one should be aware of the consequences. I think it is valid to say that the difference (and problem) between the kidney and the abortion is that you are not directly responsible for the situation regarding the kidney.
That being said, I've always been pro-choice.
This is bullshit. If I was using a condom and it broke, maybe I'm just really unlucky. Yet apparently I should take responsibility? Well no, I was using the most effective non-chemical method of BC. What you want is to say "well you shouldn't have been having sex if you didn't want a baby, so haha you're having one now sucker"
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Yet they are not. You brought the fetus into existence, you are not the reason it is unable to survive without you. That's like saying that because I saved kidney guy from a burning building ten years ago I'm responsible for him dying now. Uh-uh.
Really, it's more like you accidentally saved the kidney-guy's life, even though you were trying not to. But despite all that, you still somehow owe him a kidney?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Once again, going directly to the title of the thread - let's punish the people who do things we don't like!
No, it's saying that the analogy was a bad one. It's more likely that people will feel obliged to help if it was their responsibility.
I read a better example once featuring a man who's in hospital to get a minor operation but accidently signs a form volunteering him to be hooked up to an unconcious stranger and share his organs. After 9 months the stranger will recover. When he wakes up and explains, the doctors say that removing the wires will kill the stranger. Hijinx ensue.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
A fetus in you is not a complete stranger. It's a life you created. You are responsible for it. The amount of distance women seem to want to put between their own children and themselves for the arguments of law is astounding.
How many women really have an IQ low enough to be susceptable to a retarded hypothetical like that?
Nice generalisation there. And are you actually saying that a fetus should have more rights than an adult human? The right to someone else's body? The kidney patient could be your son or your daughter or your neighbour or heir to the throne of England, it wouldn't make a difference - you don't have to give them your kidney. Why do you have to give up your body and life to a fetus simply by virtue of the fact that it's made out of you, when you don't have to do the same for the kidney patient? Or, for that matter, the bacteria in your gut?
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Yet they are not. You brought the fetus into existence, you are not the reason it is unable to survive without you. That's like saying that because I saved kidney guy from a burning building ten years ago I'm responsible for him dying now. Uh-uh.
Really, it's more like you accidentally saved the kidney-guy's life, even though you were trying not to. But despite all that, you still somehow owe him a kidney?
Don't be saving people's lives in the first place if you don't want to take responsibility for them?
Funnily enough this is an actual legal principle as I understand it, but not applicable to this specific analogy and it would be retarded to bring it into the wider debate anyway.
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
Once again, going directly to the title of the thread - let's punish the people who do things we don't like!
No, it's saying that the analogy was a bad one. It's more likely that people will feel obliged to help if it was their responsibility.
I read a better example once featuring a man who's in hospital to get a minor operation but accidently signs a form volunteering him to be hooked up to an unconcious stranger and share his organs. After 9 months the stranger will recover. When he wakes up and explains, the doctors say that removing the wires will kill the stranger. Hijinx ensue.
This is still a stupid analogy for all the aforementioned reasons fetus != adult human. Jus' sayin'.
This is still a stupid analogy for all the aforementioned reasons fetus != adult human. Jus' sayin'.
Duh. Fetus > Adult Human. Haven't you been listening? And teenagers? Well they shouldn't have been fucking yet because a magical sky-fairy said so and now them and their baby can go "live" on welfare because it's what they deserve for being such horrible sub-people.
This is still a stupid analogy for all the aforementioned reasons fetus != adult human. Jus' sayin'.
Yeah, I agree. But it's better. And doesn't bring in bullshit "it's got nothing to do with me" overtones.
Looking for the magical point at which a conception becomes a human person is a waste of time, in my opinion. It doesn't exist. Neither does sanctity of life, if it comes to that. For all that people are unique, they're surprisingly all the same. I'm still uncomfortable with creating and disposing of life (or prelife or whatever) casually because it reminds me of this.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
Wow. A fantastic argument that I am shocked I have never heard. Why have I never heard this before?
I posted it last fucking week, and in the three abortion threads before this. I hate you people.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
A fetus in you is not a complete stranger. It's a life you created. You are responsible for it. The amount of distance women seem to want to put between their own children and themselves for the arguments of law is astounding.
How many women really have an IQ low enough to be susceptable to a retarded hypothetical like that?
You're a fucking tool if you think women 'create' children by themselves. In fact, no-one's that stupid, so I know you're deliberately misrepresenting the complex decision-making process surrounding whether to proceed with a pregnancy in order to demonise women. And that doesn't fly with me.
That daily show bit comparing and contrasting speeches on stem cell research and loss of life in Iraq was genius. Comedy Central killed the youtube clips, but it was basically a juxtaposition of "murder is wrong" and euphanisms about "collateral damage".
That daily show bit comparing and contrasting speeches on stem cell research and loss of life in Iraq was genius. Comedy Central killed the youtube clips, but it was basically a juxtaposition of "murder is wrong" and euphanisms about "collateral damage".
Man, that's not even a fair comparisson. You seriously can't compare the importance of killing people with the trivial matter of saving lives. When you're trying to do something important, it's okay to have collateral damage. And people who say stem-cell research doesn't require more abortions are communists.
That daily show bit comparing and contrasting speeches on stem cell research and loss of life in Iraq was genius. Comedy Central killed the youtube clips, but it was basically a juxtaposition of "murder is wrong" and euphanisms about "collateral damage".
Man, that's not even a fair comparisson. You seriously can't compare the importance of killing people with the trivial matter of saving lives. When you're trying to do something important, it's okay to have collateral damage. And people who say stem-cell research doesn't require more abortions are communists.
The analogy the host used was something like "We're under attack by the savage hoardes of Parkinsons!".
I don't really get what you're saying. I thought it was pertinent. It's just saying that life is either sacred or it's not and that it's hypocritical for pro-life people to argue that a fetal life is sacred when they don't believe that all life is sacred. It was also a nice display of politically charged language ("murdering" fetuses and civillian "collateral damage"), which incidently the abortion debate is swimming with.
I wasn't making any comment about stem cell research, Iraq or implying that the two are equivelent.
The clip would make it all better. Too bad it's gone.
(edited wor clarity)
roastghost on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
Wow. A fantastic argument that I am shocked I have never heard. Why have I never heard this before?
I posted it last fucking week, and in the three abortion threads before this. I hate you people.
Abortion threads on the internet are for men and not women silly Cat. Who wants to hear about abortion from the group of people it specifically and directly affects the most?
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
Wow. A fantastic argument that I am shocked I have never heard. Why have I never heard this before?
I posted it last fucking week, and in the three abortion threads before this. I hate you people.
Abortion threads on the internet are for men and not women silly Cat. Who wants to hear about abortion from the group of people it specifically and directly affects the most?
Shit, when I was writing my term paper on abortion, that fucking quote, and arguments for and against it popped up in damn near every place I looked.
An old hypothetical scenario: A person is lying in bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure. Should you, a complete stranger, be legally forced to donate a kidney in order to save that person's life - a painful operation with a lengthy recovery period? Most would agree with me when I say "hell no".
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
Wow. A fantastic argument that I am shocked I have never heard. Why have I never heard this before?
I posted it last fucking week, and in the three abortion threads before this. I hate you people.
Abortion threads on the internet are for men and not women silly Cat. Who wants to hear about abortion from the group of people it specifically and directly affects the most?
Shit, when I was writing my term paper on abortion, that fucking quote, and arguments for and against it popped up in damn near every place I looked.
I think it's pretty safe to say that all the good arguments don't actually get listened to until they're posted 5-6 times.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I always have to return to the idea that it doesnt matter what a child is in the womb, its what they will grow into that counts. A pregnancy is an incredible opportunity to create a human life. I dont think we should lose sight of that.
Good goth, your insipid platitudes are not only not an argument, they're infuriatingly huge non sequiturs.
Plus you ask "Why would a woman not want to have a baby/be pregnant?" because clearly all women are is breeding machines for whom there can be nothing finer than raising children. It's not THEIR place to have hopes, dreams or plans which for their lives which do not involve childcare. I find it hard t think of a more patronising point of view expressed on the board in recent memory, and we've had a veritable clowncar of abortion threads, racist, sexism and religion threads.
I always have to return to the idea that it doesnt matter what a child is in the womb, its what they will grow into that counts. A pregnancy is an incredible opportunity to create a human life. I dont think we should lose sight of that.
Good goth, your insipid platitudes are not only not an argument, they're infuriatingly huge non sequiturs.
Plus you ask "Why would a woman not want to have a baby/be pregnant?" because clearly all women are is breeding machines for whom there can be nothing finer than raising children. It's not THEIR place to have hopes, dreams or plans which for their lives which do not involve childcare. I find it hard t think of a more patronising point of view expressed on the board in recent memory, and we've had a veritable clowncar of abortion threads, racist, sexism and religion threads.
Congratulations! you know large words!
What I'm saying is that family is one of the most important things on this planet. A woman should feel priviledged to be able to bring another person into the world, just as a man should feel priviledged to support a woman and their children. You act like childcare is this terrible curse that should be avoided at all costs. Every parent I've talked to said that they wouldnt trade it for the world.
And I apologize for using so many non sequiturs, I just dont want to run through the same dated arguments page after page. God forbid I express a new opinion.
What I'm saying is that family is one of the most important things on this planet. A woman should feel priviledged to be able to bring another person into the world, just as a man should feel priviledged to support a woman and their children. You act like childcare is this terrible curse that should be avoided at all costs. Every parent I've talked to said that they wouldnt trade it for the world.
So you and your friends like having children? Great for you, but don't try and impose it on everyone else.
I always have to return to the idea that it doesnt matter what a child is in the womb, its what they will grow into that counts. A pregnancy is an incredible opportunity to create a human life. I dont think we should lose sight of that.
Good goth, your insipid platitudes are not only not an argument, they're infuriatingly huge non sequiturs.
Plus you ask "Why would a woman not want to have a baby/be pregnant?" because clearly all women are is breeding machines for whom there can be nothing finer than raising children. It's not THEIR place to have hopes, dreams or plans which for their lives which do not involve childcare. I find it hard t think of a more patronising point of view expressed on the board in recent memory, and we've had a veritable clowncar of abortion threads, racist, sexism and religion threads.
Congratulations! you know large words!
What I'm saying is that family is one of the most important things on this planet. A woman should feel priviledged to be able to bring another person into the world, just as a man should feel priviledged to support a woman and their children. You act like childcare is this terrible curse that should be avoided at all costs. Every parent I've talked to said that they wouldnt trade it for the world.
And I apologize for using so many non sequiturs, I just dont want to run through the same dated arguments page after page. God forbid I express a new opinion.
Yeah. My roomate's mother? Crack addict. Her kids all ended up in foster care, lived shitty lives, and are consequently struggling. Especially the one with physical deformities that couldn't talk. You know, before she died. That's some pretty magical shit, right there!
Parents are not always in a good place to be having children. And acting like they should suddenly get their act together beacuse you've read a lot of Hallmark cards about how kids are so fucking great, doesn't make it happen.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons why people simply cannot deal with a child at this point in their lives. And they want to wait until they're ready to have a kid, rather tahn do it the disservice of bringing it into an unnecessarily harsh world.
Posts
I have my definition of sapience. Other people have their own (so let's not derail to discuss the merits of mine, OK?). But I believe you become a person when you achieve sapience. Pro-lifers do not. They believe that a non-sapient, non-thinking, hell, non-feeling (if you go back to the point of conception, or even up to a week or so afterwards) entity, is in fact a person. If that isn't absurd, I don't know what the fuck is.
All a fetus/embryo/blastocyst (I guess if you want to use icky terminology to describe an unborn baby, you could call it a cyst, for at least part of its development.
Potential is a slippery thing. Best to deal with reality, and those who can participate in it.
...That was an unecessarily long post. What the fuck.
But let's add more! ~ A Refutation ~
The nuclear weapons = babies argument does not fucking hold up. You have to decide to make nuclear weapons. And even if you do decide to have sex (barring rape, of course), deciding to have sex != deciding to have a baby. Far from it. This argument is more like, if shaking hands with someone could accidentally cause my hands to start making nuclear weapons, even if I take precautions against this, then the government doesn't have the right to tell me whether or not I get to finish making these weapons.
But whatever, it's such a far-flung analogy that there's really no point in discussing it ever.
Well that ruined it for me. I had a different image.
I seriously thought he was some bitter skank suffering from infertility or something.
Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?
Rest assured that when my wife is pregnant im gonna be pretty goddamn involved. And my point is that there should be no unwanted pregnancies, people should have the foresight to prepare a proper situation in which to bring a child into the world. And that involves a committed father. Of course, that isnt always the case, but I wonder how many people are even shown this ideal.
Vote Regressive.
Preaching to the choir.
I'm more for the Jonathan Swift alternative to abortion.
So would someone mind telling me why the fuck you should be obligated to be a living life support to a fetus for nine months, followed by what amounts to an eighteen year recovery period of diminished quality of life? You're not expected to place another person's life above your own long term welfare, so why should you be expected to do so for a non-sapient bundle of cells? Even you classify the fetus as a person, for which there is very little justification, why should you be made to make sacrifices for it that you are not forced to make for actual walking talking people?
Wow. A fantastic argument that I am shocked I have never heard. Why have I never heard this before?
Unless you are in fact, shockingly pro-choice and just like telling others how awesome pregnancy is in which case what the fuck no body cares.
If my actions were directly responsible for that person lying in a bed in hospital, dying from kidney failure, then I will feel obligated to do what I could to help out.
A fetus in you is not a complete stranger. It's a life you created. You are responsible for it. The amount of distance women seem to want to put between their own children and themselves for the arguments of law is astounding.
How many women really have an IQ low enough to be susceptable to a retarded hypothetical like that?
I'd say it would take a higher IQ.
1. It takes 2.
2. This seems to - yet again - go to the notion of "punishing the fornicators" rather then any meaningful point about moral responsibilities towards vaguely defined clumps of cells.
Yet they are not. You brought the fetus into existence, you are not the reason it is unable to survive without you. That's like saying that because I saved kidney guy from a burning building ten years ago I'm responsible for him dying now. Uh-uh.
I disagree. A person should be aware of the consequences. I think it is valid to say that the difference (and problem) between the kidney and the abortion is that you are not directly responsible for the situation regarding the kidney.
That being said, I've always been pro-choice. And am, myself, considered a fornicator. I think we could argue that fornicators are being punished, just not by law or a moral overseer.
Really, it's more like you accidentally saved the kidney-guy's life, even though you were trying not to. But despite all that, you still somehow owe him a kidney?
No, it's saying that the analogy was a bad one. It's more likely that people will feel obliged to help if it was their responsibility.
I read a better example once featuring a man who's in hospital to get a minor operation but accidently signs a form volunteering him to be hooked up to an unconcious stranger and share his organs. After 9 months the stranger will recover. When he wakes up and explains, the doctors say that removing the wires will kill the stranger. Hijinx ensue.
Nice generalisation there. And are you actually saying that a fetus should have more rights than an adult human? The right to someone else's body? The kidney patient could be your son or your daughter or your neighbour or heir to the throne of England, it wouldn't make a difference - you don't have to give them your kidney. Why do you have to give up your body and life to a fetus simply by virtue of the fact that it's made out of you, when you don't have to do the same for the kidney patient? Or, for that matter, the bacteria in your gut?
Funnily enough this is an actual legal principle as I understand it, but not applicable to this specific analogy and it would be retarded to bring it into the wider debate anyway.
Duh. Fetus > Adult Human. Haven't you been listening? And teenagers? Well they shouldn't have been fucking yet because a magical sky-fairy said so and now them and their baby can go "live" on welfare because it's what they deserve for being such horrible sub-people.
What's really great is how willing the so-called pro-lifers in this thread are to ignore those life losses.
Yeah, I agree. But it's better. And doesn't bring in bullshit "it's got nothing to do with me" overtones.
Looking for the magical point at which a conception becomes a human person is a waste of time, in my opinion. It doesn't exist. Neither does sanctity of life, if it comes to that. For all that people are unique, they're surprisingly all the same. I'm still uncomfortable with creating and disposing of life (or prelife or whatever) casually because it reminds me of this.
Repeating for kicks: is viability special?
Since when was pro-life ever about minimizing loss of life?
You're a fucking tool if you think women 'create' children by themselves. In fact, no-one's that stupid, so I know you're deliberately misrepresenting the complex decision-making process surrounding whether to proceed with a pregnancy in order to demonise women. And that doesn't fly with me.
Man, that's not even a fair comparisson. You seriously can't compare the importance of killing people with the trivial matter of saving lives. When you're trying to do something important, it's okay to have collateral damage. And people who say stem-cell research doesn't require more abortions are communists.
The analogy the host used was something like "We're under attack by the savage hoardes of Parkinsons!".
I don't really get what you're saying. I thought it was pertinent. It's just saying that life is either sacred or it's not and that it's hypocritical for pro-life people to argue that a fetal life is sacred when they don't believe that all life is sacred. It was also a nice display of politically charged language ("murdering" fetuses and civillian "collateral damage"), which incidently the abortion debate is swimming with.
I wasn't making any comment about stem cell research, Iraq or implying that the two are equivelent.
The clip would make it all better. Too bad it's gone.
(edited wor clarity)
Abortion threads on the internet are for men and not women silly Cat. Who wants to hear about abortion from the group of people it specifically and directly affects the most?
Shit, when I was writing my term paper on abortion, that fucking quote, and arguments for and against it popped up in damn near every place I looked.
I think it's pretty safe to say that all the good arguments don't actually get listened to until they're posted 5-6 times.
Good goth, your insipid platitudes are not only not an argument, they're infuriatingly huge non sequiturs.
Plus you ask "Why would a woman not want to have a baby/be pregnant?" because clearly all women are is breeding machines for whom there can be nothing finer than raising children. It's not THEIR place to have hopes, dreams or plans which for their lives which do not involve childcare. I find it hard t think of a more patronising point of view expressed on the board in recent memory, and we've had a veritable clowncar of abortion threads, racist, sexism and religion threads.
Congratulations! you know large words!
What I'm saying is that family is one of the most important things on this planet. A woman should feel priviledged to be able to bring another person into the world, just as a man should feel priviledged to support a woman and their children. You act like childcare is this terrible curse that should be avoided at all costs. Every parent I've talked to said that they wouldnt trade it for the world.
And I apologize for using so many non sequiturs, I just dont want to run through the same dated arguments page after page. God forbid I express a new opinion.
So you and your friends like having children? Great for you, but don't try and impose it on everyone else.
Yeah. My roomate's mother? Crack addict. Her kids all ended up in foster care, lived shitty lives, and are consequently struggling. Especially the one with physical deformities that couldn't talk. You know, before she died. That's some pretty magical shit, right there!
Parents are not always in a good place to be having children. And acting like they should suddenly get their act together beacuse you've read a lot of Hallmark cards about how kids are so fucking great, doesn't make it happen.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons why people simply cannot deal with a child at this point in their lives. And they want to wait until they're ready to have a kid, rather tahn do it the disservice of bringing it into an unnecessarily harsh world.