In answer to VC's suggestion, I would be very anti-stigma actually, it's not good precedent for the law to go about enforcing moral choices.
You shut the hell up and answer my fucking question right now. The penalty for saying I said shit I didn't is you have to do both immediately or I win your soul.
I don't think it's appropriate to set precedent placing the decisions surrounding these items firmly and irretrievably in the hands of the individual. It's just too big.
We should outlaw the future. That way, we wouldn't have to outlaw anything else in preparation for it.
Man, I didn't know that there was a deterministic gene marker for "carries the secrets of the cure for cancer."
All those pharma companies taking out grants and hiring PhDs and spending $Zurich to implement huge expensive R&D pipelines are going about it the wrong way. They should just develop an amniotic test for "going to cure cancer."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
He's been posting while jailed for like a month, dude.
Besides, that "baaaabies are the beeeeeesst!" idiot might come back, if we're lucky.
Did you just quote and respond to yourself?
Honestly, though I think the college campus tactic of tossing up pictures of aborted fetus pictures removed the idea that an abortion is a physically and mentally taxing moment in at least one other person's life. It is as though having the abortion is a purely selfish act when, at this point in my life...when I look at the sheer number of people on the planet, it's hard for me not to see having a child as being purely selfish.
My sister recently had her first child and, while I'm proud of her and am happy to help her and her child in any way I can, I still see children as a luxury. I recognize they are not a car or satellite TV...but I do worry that the mystique of the Miracle of Life is around only to keep the species going. We've got enough people and a lot of this "check out my baby pictures" talk comes off like asking for the approval after one's first successful go at the toilet.
This is all sort of rambling but my point is that people seem to neglect the amount of thought and concern that goes into the procedure itself. The idea that abortion is a simple, easy act is repulsive to me. I don't think anyone who is pro-choice feels this way. It just comes off like a quick way to dehumanize people to justify a disagreement.
Maybe I'm too alienated but I have so much trouble even believing when people cry at the abortion protests.
But since we dont cocklock until you get your license, its seems a good thing to keep abortions a huge pain in the ass so it remains the last resort instead of a casual one.
Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up. You mention elsewhere in this very same post that you'd hold the same position on abortion if men also got pregnant, but comments like this expose the double standard of your position.
It is good precedent to ensure that one's citizens are well informed however, and knowing what kinds of situations result in unwanted pregnancies could go a long ways in preventing them. There's a huge difference between saying 'bad girl! no abortion for you!" and simply determining cause and ensuring that people know about what they're doing, and the consequences of their life choices. Once informed, do as one will, but I think the state has an obligation to inform you here.
This already fucking happens. Abortion providers are already required to provide the relevant information. Unless you want them to be legally required to guilt trip and browbeat their patients, which would be really nice, considering how many women and girls who get abortions are already high suicide risks.
Jesus fucking Christ, your contribution to this thread is eight pounds of what the fuck in a four-pound bag. How does your train of thought go from abortion -> stem cells -> Gattaca in the space of half a sentence?
Abortion is part of a key information technology that will shape the face of medicine and biology for the next ten generations. This is where it all starts: eugenics, gene control, gene therapy, fetal tissue harvesting, defect elimination, post conceptional selection, stem cell research - all of these techs and issues (and tons more we haven't even conceived of yet) revolve around this little cluster of cells.
This is what you get when you hang your hat on categorical imperatives. There are no slippery slopes with the Law of Thelema. Shitsville? Who knows?
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
But since we dont cocklock until you get your license, its seems a good thing to keep abortions a huge pain in the ass so it remains the last resort instead of a casual one.
There is no such thing as a 'casual' abortion.
When it's big like that, I read it as "causal".
I guess all that stuff about violating natural law ain't just hyperbolae.
In answer to VC's suggestion, I would be very anti-stigma actually, it's not good precedent for the law to go about enforcing moral choices.
You shut the hell up and answer my fucking question right now. The penalty for saying I said shit I didn't is you have to do both immediately or I win your soul.
VC gets first dibs, I guess.
You said
What kind of regulation do you even want? A recorded rape-conviction as a required permission-slip?
Which seemed to indicate that that I was somehow saying that there would have to be a crime or unpleasent situation involved somehow in order to be considered for the abortion procedure. I didn't say that, nor do I think that would be a good idea.
I think I see the twist, where I incendentally suggested you implied that the law should go about enforcing moral decisions. I'm sorry, bad comma splice on my part. What I was trying to say is that if you were to go about using abortions to only treat sexual assaults or relationship abandonment, or whatever situation a culture decides is 'bad enough' to warrant one, there would be a negative attachment conferred on the process itself, and that this association could/would eventually fall on those receiving the procedure. (stigma)
I just followed this thinking into the next section of the sentance, to suggest that it is a bad idea to use the law to dictate what a moral course of action is or should be, because this creates certain biases and prejudices against those who are affected by its decisions in a law-based society. There is far more than just one reason why the law should not become involved in moral choices of course, but this is certainly one of them.
Again VC, my sincere apologies. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, and did not think I was doing so.
To answer the next question, 'what sort of regulation would I want?' is 'Some Sort'. I'm sure you have seen several threads in H/A where the question is birth control, and the answer is 'I was just thinking about getting some after.". In fact I know you've seen at least one, as you posted in it just before sealing it away in the Idiots Tomb of Obscurity. Whether or not that particular post was a farce as some suspected, that realm of pure ignorant irresponsibility really does exist. I've seen several similar items in my travels. In real life, doctors and teachers are placed in the position of informing people about the facts of life or providing them with information about dangerously inept decision making skills.
Without regulation, the information is left up to doctor preference. Treatment and it's recommendations are currently inconsistant. Social messages about conception and abortion are mixed. An abortion forces most people to interact with an institutional arm of their government, going in with expectations of trust and truthful information. Currently the government is divided even within itself as to what it should suggest or what it can force doctors to do. Legality tends to follow federal consistancy, so without consistancy the struggles to achieve federal legality are stiffled.
This essentially means that there will continue to be human rights disparities and inequalities untouchable by law for as at least as long as there is an 'ad hoc' approach to the process. At a certain level of detail, it doesn't even really matter what that process is as long as it maintains enough consistency to become enforceable on a nationwide scale. This is really the only way to go about ensuring that the basic rights and freedoms of each person affected by the issue - everyone - are clear and thus able to be upheld by the individual with as little localized interference as possible.
Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up.
That's funny, because I missed the part where the man's genetic information gets removed from the uterus in the event she wants to go through it and he doesn't. That's a living piece of my body, and it lives for as long as the fetus does. My body, my choice right? Equality for everyone? As if.
Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up.
That's funny, because I missed the part where the man's genetic information gets removed from the uterus in the event she wants to go through it and he doesn't. That's a living piece of my body, and it lives for as long as the fetus does. My body, my choice right? Equality for everyone? As if.
o_O
How the hell is that a living piece of your body? Do you save all of your poop in jars, too, since that's a "living piece of your body" as well?
Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up.
That's funny, because I missed the part where the man's genetic information gets removed from the uterus in the event she wants to go through it and he doesn't. That's a living piece of my body, and it lives for as long as the fetus does. My body, my choice right? Equality for everyone? As if.
o_O
How the hell is that a living piece of your body? Do you save all of your poop in jars, too, since that's a "living piece of your body" as well?
Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up.
That's funny, because I missed the part where the man's genetic information gets removed from the uterus in the event she wants to go through it and he doesn't. That's a living piece of my body, and it lives for as long as the fetus does. My body, my choice right? Equality for everyone? As if.
o_O
How the hell is that a living piece of your body? Do you save all of your poop in jars, too, since that's a "living piece of your body" as well?
What he's saying is he wants his semen back.
When they invented vacuum aspiration abortion, I don't think they envisioned it for felching.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up.
That's funny, because I missed the part where the man's genetic information gets removed from the uterus in the event she wants to go through it and he doesn't. That's a living piece of my body, and it lives for as long as the fetus does. My body, my choice right? Equality for everyone? As if.
Genetic information is nearly worthless in terms of energy (sperm are produced in the millions) and in terms of overall reproductive risk. Pregnancy in terms of a woman is massively expensive metabolically, potentially life threatening for a wide variety of reasons, dramatically affects their mobility and ability to work AND alters all of their bodies physiology (sometimes permanently).
It has shit all to do with you compared to the woman involved, whom it is directly sustaining its life from. It is a part of her tissues (not yours) and you cannot get closer to something than it being a direct part of your body. Seriously, this argument is so insipid I'm not even sure what compels me to respond to it.
Tell you what, when pregnancy can directly affect your bodies physiology beyond the several minutes you're actually involved (maybe less) this point would have some substance.
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
So libertarians don't believe in the seperation of church and state?
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
What is a "valid" human? You're second setence only refers to proving the fetus human or not, yet I have toe-nail clippings that are human.
You seem to be working on the principal that every life is sacred until it's born. At which point, fuck 'em, they're on their own.
Yay super late to the party!
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
So libertarians don't believe in the seperation of church and state?
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
What is a "valid" human? You're second setence only refers to proving the fetus human or not, yet I have toe-nail clippings that are human.
You seem to be working on the principal that every life is sacred until it's born. At which point, fuck 'em, they're on their own.
Yay super late to the party!
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
....what?
Are you high? It might also fuse, be bad and then self-abort. Or fuse, fail to attach to the uterus and abort. It's about as human as my skin cells are.
One the other side, Jorge Romero, of the National Action Party, said legalizing abortion would encourage irresponsible sex. “What we are legislating now, what we are asked to approve, is to support juvenile imprudence, unexpected pregnancies,” he said. “Understand this, lawmakers, you are legalizing killing.”
I love that quote because it captures the anti-choice logic train completely—we must ban abortion because it allows women to escape their due punishment for treating their pussy like it belongs to them or something, and oh yeah, um, murder and stuff.
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
I think God magically (ok, redundant) ensouls the body just as it takes that first breath. OK, i lied. That's more like what I was taught by the clerics. Categorical imperatives look good on the outside but they are wicked and nasty within. I say the potential mother gets first dibs for purely pragmatic reasons and for similarly pragmatic reasons we don't require some "state of mind" test (I'm talking to you Ms. Casual Abortion). This leads to crazy hypotheticals like: what about some crazy chick who games the system to systematically murder the unborn. I don't care. This is precisely where idealism is a road to hell. There is simply no more pragmatic and rational response to abortion that to let the women having the child make the decision. This of course discounts religious arguments, but those are not debatable.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
So libertarians don't believe in the seperation of church and state?
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
What is a "valid" human? You're second setence only refers to proving the fetus human or not, yet I have toe-nail clippings that are human.
You seem to be working on the principal that every life is sacred until it's born. At which point, fuck 'em, they're on their own.
Yay super late to the party!
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
....what?
Are you high? It might also fuse, be bad and then self-abort. Or fuse, fail to attach to the uterus and abort. It's about as human as my skin cells are.
And you might get hit by a car tomorrow. Does that make it right to kill you now?
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
....what?
Are you high? It might also fuse, be bad and then self-abort. Or fuse, fail to attach to the uterus and abort. It's about as human as my skin cells are.
And you might get hit by a car tomorrow. Does that make it right to kill you now?
So we can agree that we should base decisions on what something is, rather than what it might become given a, ah, given circumstance?
Adrien on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
So libertarians don't believe in the seperation of church and state?
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
What is a "valid" human? You're second setence only refers to proving the fetus human or not, yet I have toe-nail clippings that are human.
You seem to be working on the principal that every life is sacred until it's born. At which point, fuck 'em, they're on their own.
Yay super late to the party!
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
....what?
Are you high? It might also fuse, be bad and then self-abort. Or fuse, fail to attach to the uterus and abort. It's about as human as my skin cells are.
And you might get hit by a car tomorrow. Does that make it right to kill you now?
You realise that this is essentially agreeing with electricitylikesme? You're saying potential doesn't really matter.
ARGH beaten.
Apothe0sis on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
So libertarians don't believe in the seperation of church and state?
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
What is a "valid" human? You're second setence only refers to proving the fetus human or not, yet I have toe-nail clippings that are human.
You seem to be working on the principal that every life is sacred until it's born. At which point, fuck 'em, they're on their own.
Yay super late to the party!
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
....what?
Are you high? It might also fuse, be bad and then self-abort. Or fuse, fail to attach to the uterus and abort. It's about as human as my skin cells are.
And you might get hit by a car tomorrow. Does that make it right to kill you now?
So if a pregnant woman falls down some stairs and miscaries, is she guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
So if a pregnant woman falls down some stairs and miscaries, is she guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
Wouldn't that make the act of walking down stairs while pregnant negligent?
And wouldn't that make the act of walking down stairs while sexually active negligent?
I don't know if you remember/saw this, but a while back some health official in the US released a set of guidelines for females, saying that they should treat themselves as "pre-pregnant" at all times, even when sexually inactive or not intending to bear children ever. This basically meant "Don't drink, don't smoke, constantly police your diet and exercise just in case you get knocked up". Nowhere in the guidelines was there any acknowledgment that these things might be a good idea just because they're good for an adult woman's health, oh no. It was all about the (imaginary) babies. The entire farce was only a few steps above what you just posted, so there are people out there who really think like that; that there's no reason for women to do or not do anything not related to pumping out children.
@ sarcastro: I can see better where you're coming from now, but man you want to be more clear in future, because right up until that post you came across very clearly as a traditional ban-it-and-punish-them-sluts pro-lifer.
Genetic information is nearly worthless in terms of energy (sperm are produced in the millions) and in terms of overall reproductive risk. Pregnancy in terms of a woman is massively expensive metabolically, potentially life threatening for a wide variety of reasons, dramatically affects their mobility and ability to work AND alters all of their bodies physiology (sometimes permanently).
It has shit all to do with you compared to the woman involved, whom it is directly sustaining its life from. It is a part of her tissues (not yours) and you cannot get closer to something than it being a direct part of your body. Seriously, this argument is so insipid I'm not even sure what compels me to respond to it.
Tell you what, when pregnancy can directly affect your bodies physiology beyond the several minutes you're actually involved (maybe less) this point would have some substance.
Posts
gotta live, gotta live, gotta live,
in shit towne
gotta live, gotta live, gotta live
in our town:whistle:
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
You shut the hell up and answer my fucking question right now. The penalty for saying I said shit I didn't is you have to do both immediately or I win your soul.
I was eating :x
We should outlaw the future. That way, we wouldn't have to outlaw anything else in preparation for it.
That's funny. It doesn't show.
Seriously, What the fuck happened?
If so, we all seem to be on the same side of this issue.
Besides, that "baaaabies are the beeeeeesst!" idiot might come back, if we're lucky.
I lay claim to his soul as well.
That made me smile.
Silence baby factory! Stop dilly dallying around and start contemplating the extent of your privilege of your ability to get pregnant.
All those pharma companies taking out grants and hiring PhDs and spending $Zurich to implement huge expensive R&D pipelines are going about it the wrong way. They should just develop an amniotic test for "going to cure cancer."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Let me get back to you on that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Did you just quote and respond to yourself?
Honestly, though I think the college campus tactic of tossing up pictures of aborted fetus pictures removed the idea that an abortion is a physically and mentally taxing moment in at least one other person's life. It is as though having the abortion is a purely selfish act when, at this point in my life...when I look at the sheer number of people on the planet, it's hard for me not to see having a child as being purely selfish.
My sister recently had her first child and, while I'm proud of her and am happy to help her and her child in any way I can, I still see children as a luxury. I recognize they are not a car or satellite TV...but I do worry that the mystique of the Miracle of Life is around only to keep the species going. We've got enough people and a lot of this "check out my baby pictures" talk comes off like asking for the approval after one's first successful go at the toilet.
This is all sort of rambling but my point is that people seem to neglect the amount of thought and concern that goes into the procedure itself. The idea that abortion is a simple, easy act is repulsive to me. I don't think anyone who is pro-choice feels this way. It just comes off like a quick way to dehumanize people to justify a disagreement.
Maybe I'm too alienated but I have so much trouble even believing when people cry at the abortion protests.
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up. You mention elsewhere in this very same post that you'd hold the same position on abortion if men also got pregnant, but comments like this expose the double standard of your position.
This already fucking happens. Abortion providers are already required to provide the relevant information. Unless you want them to be legally required to guilt trip and browbeat their patients, which would be really nice, considering how many women and girls who get abortions are already high suicide risks.
Jesus fucking Christ, your contribution to this thread is eight pounds of what the fuck in a four-pound bag. How does your train of thought go from abortion -> stem cells -> Gattaca in the space of half a sentence?
This is what you get when you hang your hat on categorical imperatives. There are no slippery slopes with the Law of Thelema. Shitsville? Who knows?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
When it's big like that, I read it as "causal".
I guess all that stuff about violating natural law ain't just hyperbolae.
Sorry, my soul is already taken.
VC gets first dibs, I guess.
You said
Which seemed to indicate that that I was somehow saying that there would have to be a crime or unpleasent situation involved somehow in order to be considered for the abortion procedure. I didn't say that, nor do I think that would be a good idea.
I think I see the twist, where I incendentally suggested you implied that the law should go about enforcing moral decisions. I'm sorry, bad comma splice on my part. What I was trying to say is that if you were to go about using abortions to only treat sexual assaults or relationship abandonment, or whatever situation a culture decides is 'bad enough' to warrant one, there would be a negative attachment conferred on the process itself, and that this association could/would eventually fall on those receiving the procedure. (stigma)
I just followed this thinking into the next section of the sentance, to suggest that it is a bad idea to use the law to dictate what a moral course of action is or should be, because this creates certain biases and prejudices against those who are affected by its decisions in a law-based society. There is far more than just one reason why the law should not become involved in moral choices of course, but this is certainly one of them.
Again VC, my sincere apologies. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, and did not think I was doing so.
To answer the next question, 'what sort of regulation would I want?' is 'Some Sort'. I'm sure you have seen several threads in H/A where the question is birth control, and the answer is 'I was just thinking about getting some after.". In fact I know you've seen at least one, as you posted in it just before sealing it away in the Idiots Tomb of Obscurity. Whether or not that particular post was a farce as some suspected, that realm of pure ignorant irresponsibility really does exist. I've seen several similar items in my travels. In real life, doctors and teachers are placed in the position of informing people about the facts of life or providing them with information about dangerously inept decision making skills.
Without regulation, the information is left up to doctor preference. Treatment and it's recommendations are currently inconsistant. Social messages about conception and abortion are mixed. An abortion forces most people to interact with an institutional arm of their government, going in with expectations of trust and truthful information. Currently the government is divided even within itself as to what it should suggest or what it can force doctors to do. Legality tends to follow federal consistancy, so without consistancy the struggles to achieve federal legality are stiffled.
This essentially means that there will continue to be human rights disparities and inequalities untouchable by law for as at least as long as there is an 'ad hoc' approach to the process. At a certain level of detail, it doesn't even really matter what that process is as long as it maintains enough consistency to become enforceable on a nationwide scale. This is really the only way to go about ensuring that the basic rights and freedoms of each person affected by the issue - everyone - are clear and thus able to be upheld by the individual with as little localized interference as possible.
That's funny, because I missed the part where the man's genetic information gets removed from the uterus in the event she wants to go through it and he doesn't. That's a living piece of my body, and it lives for as long as the fetus does. My body, my choice right? Equality for everyone? As if.
How the hell is that a living piece of your body? Do you save all of your poop in jars, too, since that's a "living piece of your body" as well?
When they invented vacuum aspiration abortion, I don't think they envisioned it for felching.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Genetic information is nearly worthless in terms of energy (sperm are produced in the millions) and in terms of overall reproductive risk. Pregnancy in terms of a woman is massively expensive metabolically, potentially life threatening for a wide variety of reasons, dramatically affects their mobility and ability to work AND alters all of their bodies physiology (sometimes permanently).
It has shit all to do with you compared to the woman involved, whom it is directly sustaining its life from. It is a part of her tissues (not yours) and you cannot get closer to something than it being a direct part of your body. Seriously, this argument is so insipid I'm not even sure what compels me to respond to it.
Tell you what, when pregnancy can directly affect your bodies physiology beyond the several minutes you're actually involved (maybe less) this point would have some substance.
Yay super late to the party!
I think that, the second an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm, it is a human life. Before that happens there is no guarantee that particular sperm and that particular egg are going to become a human, they are in no way predestined to do so... but once they join... well... the fertilized egg isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. It's a human.
Are you high? It might also fuse, be bad and then self-abort. Or fuse, fail to attach to the uterus and abort. It's about as human as my skin cells are.
I think God magically (ok, redundant) ensouls the body just as it takes that first breath. OK, i lied. That's more like what I was taught by the clerics. Categorical imperatives look good on the outside but they are wicked and nasty within. I say the potential mother gets first dibs for purely pragmatic reasons and for similarly pragmatic reasons we don't require some "state of mind" test (I'm talking to you Ms. Casual Abortion). This leads to crazy hypotheticals like: what about some crazy chick who games the system to systematically murder the unborn. I don't care. This is precisely where idealism is a road to hell. There is simply no more pragmatic and rational response to abortion that to let the women having the child make the decision. This of course discounts religious arguments, but those are not debatable.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And you might get hit by a car tomorrow. Does that make it right to kill you now?
So we can agree that we should base decisions on what something is, rather than what it might become given a, ah, given circumstance?
You realise that this is essentially agreeing with electricitylikesme? You're saying potential doesn't really matter.
ARGH beaten.
So if a pregnant woman falls down some stairs and miscaries, is she guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
Wouldn't that make the act of walking down stairs while pregnant negligent?
And wouldn't that make the act of walking down stairs while sexually active negligent?
I don't know if you remember/saw this, but a while back some health official in the US released a set of guidelines for females, saying that they should treat themselves as "pre-pregnant" at all times, even when sexually inactive or not intending to bear children ever. This basically meant "Don't drink, don't smoke, constantly police your diet and exercise just in case you get knocked up". Nowhere in the guidelines was there any acknowledgment that these things might be a good idea just because they're good for an adult woman's health, oh no. It was all about the (imaginary) babies. The entire farce was only a few steps above what you just posted, so there are people out there who really think like that; that there's no reason for women to do or not do anything not related to pumping out children.
@ sarcastro: I can see better where you're coming from now, but man you want to be more clear in future, because right up until that post you came across very clearly as a traditional ban-it-and-punish-them-sluts pro-lifer.
I'd get yelled at so much if I posted that.