So now that we're debating morality, the fact that I define a 6 week old fetus as a baby has to be accepted by whoever debates me.
Okay, sure. Mind explaining why that definition has to be forced on a pregnant woman, who is not you, by the full force of the government?
Simple. If you accept that I believe it to be a baby, how hard is it to understand that I feel the same even if it's not my baby that's aborted? I have a child, and I still feel sick when other people hurt theirs, even if I'm great to my son. That's why, because it's hard for me to accept someone killing a baby.
That doesn't justify governmental intervention at all, it simply explains why you would not want to have your wife/girlfriend/mistress/fuckbuddy to choose to get an abortion. I'll ask again, why should the state impose your minority belief upon a pregnant woman by removing her ability to choose whether to abort or to carry a fetus to term rather than aborting it?
You believe it to be a baby. Why? Well, we don't know. You just justify it by saying "I believe it to be a baby, end of discussion." Your entire argument then stems from this belief.
So, in other words, we're supposed to change standing law, and probably make people criminals, all because of your unsubstantiated belief.
Fuck. You. And fuck the high horse you rode in on. When you can defend your keystone point with something more than "well, that's what I believe", then maybe I'll listen.
I stated my case.
But you'd rather take an opportunity for pot shots at me. You have a pretty well established pattern of doing this, to the point where you seem to like to name drop in the [chat] threads about how you dislike me or how unfun it is to argue against me and "(ho ho ho) look how dumb he is because he disagrees with me".
So now you jump in here, start throwing shit around like a zoo monkey and feel vindicated by limeing a profane statement. Good job, I'm sure you feel better now.
You don't ever get it. (I hate saying that.)
You have not stated a case. All you have stated is an unsubstantiated belief, and a series of actions that you want taken based on said unsubstantiated belief. This is not enough.
After a certain point, it ceases being productive in reiterating what has been said over and over, and that you ignore. At that point, it becomes fun to see how many different ways we can call you an idiot. By the way - you're pretty much a laughingstock. I think the whole "Che/Ryuprecht Thunderdrome" thread in [chat] a while back illustrated that point pretty thoroughly.
So now that we're debating morality, the fact that I define a 6 week old fetus as a baby has to be accepted by whoever debates me.
Okay, sure. Mind explaining why that definition has to be forced on a pregnant woman, who is not you, by the full force of the government?
Simple. If you accept that I believe it to be a baby, how hard is it to understand that I feel the same even if it's not my baby that's aborted? I have a child, and I still feel sick when other people hurt theirs, even if I'm great to my son. That's why, because it's hard for me to accept someone killing a baby.
oh come on. If everyone accepted your beliefs then we wouldn't have this debate. If you're going to debate in an arguement, you really need to do more then just spout off beliefs. I can tell people that I don't believe humans need oxygen to live. Just because I believe something doesn't make me right or give me the authority to force everyone else to go along with me.
So now that we're debating morality, the fact that I define a 6 week old fetus as a baby has to be accepted by whoever debates me.
Okay, sure. Mind explaining why that definition has to be forced on a pregnant woman, who is not you, by the full force of the government?
Simple. If you accept that I believe it to be a baby, how hard is it to understand that I feel the same even if it's not my baby that's aborted? I have a child, and I still feel sick when other people hurt theirs, even if I'm great to my son. That's why, because it's hard for me to accept someone killing a baby.
I understand that, ryuprecht, but it's still frustrating to not hear anything from you about the woman involved. I have female friends and family, and what you're basically saying is that if any one of them becomes pregnant, she is immediately less important--less human--than the ball of cells growing in her uterus.
Why all the concern for the human life which might be, one day, but none for the human life which is here already?
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I think that a person who sees a fetus as equivalent to a child or any other living being would want to keep that child/person alive as much as any other being. Correct me if I'm wrong but by your logic since others have free will why should we keep people from murdering each other? [/slipperslope].
My point is, can you see how from their point of view an abortion is just as wrong as murder?
I know a ton of people, like me, who strongly disagree with abortions, but would still not want them to be illegal because whatever a woman chooses to do with her body is her own business. Honestly, why is this simply not the answer? Women do not have abortions for the sheer joy of it, it's a messy, traumatizing event. I don't agree with it, but guess what? I'm not their boss, I'm not their God, I don't get a say. It's that simple. If I'm worried that someone I know will one day do it, then it's my job, as a parent/friend/brother, etc to help that person if they're struggling with it.
I wouldn't want them to be illegal because illegal abortions kill women.
This is the shit ryuprecht does in every debate he ever gets into where he gets backed into a corner by the facts. Goes all "well this is what I believe" and then turtles right up, throwing out the occasional "omg YOU"RE CALLING NAMES!" while he hides in his shell of belief.
No, this is the shit that happens when a debate goes crazy with emotions and people stop trying to reason a position and revert to tossing out crap. There are plenty of people who respond and participate without reverting to name calling.
In this case, you cannot have an abortion debate without stating your belief in when life begins. You can toss facts about this or that about, but this debate has an inherent belief system in it. Pro-choice positions believe the fetus is not a baby. There is no way to prove that that I know of, because there's no set definition.
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I think that a person who sees a fetus as equivalent to a child or any other living being would want to keep that child/person alive as much as any other being. Correct me if I'm wrong but by your logic since others have free will why should we keep people from murdering each other? [/slipperslope].
My point is, can you see how from their point of view an abortion is just as wrong as murder?
Of course we can. That doesn't make it defensible.
This is the shit ryuprecht does in every debate he ever gets into where he gets backed into a corner by the facts. Goes all "well this is what I believe" and then turtles right up, throwing out the occasional "omg YOU"RE CALLING NAMES!" while he hides in his shell of belief.
No, this is the shit that happens when a debate goes crazy with emotions and people stop trying to reason a position and revert to tossing out crap. There are plenty of people who respond and participate without reverting to name calling.
In this case, you cannot have an abortion debate without stating your belief in when life begins. You can toss facts about this or that about, but this debate has an inherent belief system in it. Pro-choice positions believe the fetus is not a baby. There is no way to prove that that I know of, because there's no set definition.
There's no fucking debate with you. You just claim that what you believe should be the inherent belief system of the American government, and throw that in the face of anything offered to the contrary because you're a dense fuckwit.
I know a ton of people, like me, who strongly disagree with abortions, but would still not want them to be illegal because whatever a woman chooses to do with her body is her own business. Honestly, why is this simply not the answer? Women do not have abortions for the sheer joy of it, it's a messy, traumatizing event. I don't agree with it, but guess what? I'm not their boss, I'm not their God, I don't get a say. It's that simple. If I'm worried that someone I know will one day do it, then it's my job, as a parent/friend/brother, etc to help that person if they're struggling with it.
I wouldn't want them to be illegal because illegal abortions kill women.
3. Legal framework of abortion
The incidence of unsafe abortion is affected by legal provisions governing access to safe abortion,
as well as the availability and quality of legal abortion services. Restrictive legislation is associated
with a high incidence of unsafe abortion. The outcome of complications of unsafe abortion will
depend not only on the availability and quality of post-abortion services, but also on women’s
willingness to turn to hospitals in the event of complications, and the readiness of medical staff
to extend services. It is thus the number of maternal deaths, not abortions, that is the most visible
consequence of legal codes.13 In the case of Romania, for example, the number of abortion-related
deaths increased sharply after November 1966, when the government tightened a previously liberal
abortion law (Figure 2). The figure rose from 20 to 100 000 live births in 1965 to almost 100 in
1974 and 150 in 1983.14 Abortions were legalized again in December 1989 and, by the end of
1990, maternal deaths caused by abortion dropped to around 60 to 100 000 live births.
Here's a fun one. Let's say that a pregnant woman trips while walking down the stairs and experiences a miscarriage. She should be charged with some sort of negligent homicide, right? Regardless of the age of the fetus, or even if she knew she was pregnant.
After all, from your perspective this is no different than tripping while holding a gun and accidentally shooting someone— even if you didn't realize they were there.
So would this also make the different fertility clinics illegal as well unless they make sure that every single embryo is brought to term?
Maybe thats the solution, change abortion into some sort of adoption scheme where women give up unborn babies that some government lab has to pay for to keep them alive until they can stick them into the adoption / foster care system.
I dont know why people are so eager to protect a parasite that lives inside another human being for 9 months, and then make that same person legally responsible for that same parasite for 18 years after their body has ejected it.
I actually love babies and children and am actively seeking a woman willing to let me inject her with my parasite.
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I think that a person who sees a fetus as equivalent to a child or any other living being would want to keep that child/person alive as much as any other being. Correct me if I'm wrong but by your logic since others have free will why should we keep people from murdering each other? [/slipperslope].
My point is, can you see how from their point of view an abortion is just as wrong as murder?
I absolutely see why logically one who correlates murder with abortion would want both offenses treated equally.
But come on.
Consider the personal ramifications of living in a country where first degree murder was not a prosecutable offense.
Consider now the personal ramifications of living in a world where abortion is legal, AKA, now.
There is a deep gorge of disparity between the impact of abortions taking place freely, and fucking murders. I'm sure someone is going to jump in and turn this argument into a purely semantic one, but in no way does murder occurring freely impact society nearly as dramatically as abortion.
I dont know why people are so eager to protect a parasite that lives inside another human being for 9 months, and then make that same person legally responsible for that same parasite for 18 years after their body has ejected it.
I don't know if #1 has happened to me (probably has), and #3 definitely hasn't, but based on my experience with #2, there's a good chance.
I'm surprised, then, that you don't live in the constant anguish of having lost a child. Since it's pretty much a certainty that it's happened, and all. I mean, you'll never get to play football with that zygote, never be able to walk hand-in-flipper as you guide it on its first day to school.
I strongly, strongly expect that you, and pretty much 99.99% of the human population would, on finding out that a pair of cells had unceremoniously flushed itself from your wife, respond with, at the most, a "Hey, bummer."
In anyone for whom this holds true, he clearly doesn't believe in the moral equivalence between a fertilized egg and kid running about. If he did, he'd be pretty much paralyzed by the knowledge that it happens all the time. I mean, if I found out that I'd had three or four kids, and they had all died, I'd be pretty messed up by it. You must just be a particularly hard and stoic individual.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This is the shit ryuprecht does in every debate he ever gets into where he gets backed into a corner by the facts. Goes all "well this is what I believe" and then turtles right up, throwing out the occasional "omg YOU"RE CALLING NAMES!" while he hides in his shell of belief.
He also seems to completely ignore certain questions that would call into doubt the rational basis from which he formulates his opinion.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
-Robert E. Howard Tower of the Elephant
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
So now that we're debating morality, the fact that I define a 6 week old fetus as a baby has to be accepted by whoever debates me.
Okay, sure. Mind explaining why that definition has to be forced on a pregnant woman, who is not you, by the full force of the government?
Simple. If you accept that I believe it to be a baby, how hard is it to understand that I feel the same even if it's not my baby that's aborted? I have a child, and I still feel sick when other people hurt theirs, even if I'm great to my son. That's why, because it's hard for me to accept someone killing a baby.
Yes, but you acknowledge that it's entirely subjective, and has no real basis on law.
Correct. The OP was kind of a "what if?" in that regard.
So if the baby miscarries would there be an autopsy and criminal investigation? Would you, ryuprecht, submit a mother (who has just lost her baby to shitty luck) to a homicide investigation?
If we're (o.k. only ryuprecht is) making the death of an unborn baby murder one, then I'd assume there will be some kind of investigation to actualy prove it.
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
Consider the personal ramifications of living in a country where first degree murder was not a prosecutable offense.
Consider now the personal ramifications of living in a world where abortion is legal, AKA, now.
There is a deep gorge of disparity between the impact of abortions taking place freely, and fucking murders. I'm sure someone is going to jump in and turn this argument into a purely semantic one, but in no way does murder occurring freely impact society nearly as dramatically as abortion.
Some people don't base their morality on what's convenient.
Crazy, I know.
Seriously, though, are you implying that if it were possible to craft a society in which legalized murder allowed us to still function, you'd be in favor of it? C'mon, that's stupid.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
Have you ever used an antibiotic?
You murderer.
Oh look at the smart pants on Wonder_Hippie. You know what I meant.
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
But we play God all the damn time. As I'm typing this there are hundreds of doctors and paramedics and firemen, &c. spiting God's grand plans. I really don't see how human intervention in this area, like any other, is an inherent bad. If you want to argue against it with the practical or morality angle, fine, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.
If we're (o.k. only ryuprecht is) making the death of an unborn baby murder one, then I'd assume there will be some kind of investigation to actualy prove it.
I doubt there would be that sort of mechanism in place.
No, we'd just attach a terrible social stigma to miscarriage, such that anyone who suffered one would be glanced at from afar and referred to as "That Woman Who Claims To Have Miscarried".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
But we play God all the damn time. As I'm typing this there are hundreds of doctors and paramedics and firemen, &c. spiting God's grand plans. I really don't see how human intervention in this area, like any other, is an inherent bad. If you want to argue against it with the practical or morality angle, fine, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
An egg, even a fertilized one, isn't a chicken.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
I wasn't specifically thinking of formal groups, but the National Right to Life Committee takes no position on contraception.
Why not?
Oh, Mr. Elkamil, could I take a stab? Could it, just could it be because they don't want to offend the very large number of pro-lifers out there who are, let's just say, not fond of contraceptions?
Could be. Or maybe ryup has a plausible explanation.
If you believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child or any other preservable life at X number of weeks, then you go right ahead and choose not to abort it. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, good, rock on. Continue not having abortions.
But in what way does the rest of the world having free will to do as it pleases on this matter reduce your own quality of life? Ryu, when you wake up and go to work, do you receive a sharp pain in your left ball due to the outrage of a woman's ability to abort a fetus?
I guess I'm just curious why this is the sort of matter that actually requires some sort of unanimous verdict for everyone. Aside from, you know, ceding more ground to fundamentalists.
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
But we play God all the damn time. As I'm typing this there are hundreds of doctors and paramedics and firemen, &c. spiting God's grand plans. I really don't see how human intervention in this area, like any other, is an inherent bad. If you want to argue against it with the practical or morality angle, fine, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.
Saving life = good
Ending life = bad
You're operating on the assumption that we all agree on the idea that any fertilized egg, even if it's only two cells is "life". If that's the case then Wonder_Hippy's comment to you wasn't out of line. If that's not the case then you have to acknowledge that it's not "life" and then ask yourself at what point it becomes so.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
So now that we're debating morality, the fact that I define a 6 week old fetus as a baby has to be accepted by whoever debates me.
Okay, sure. Mind explaining why that definition has to be forced on a pregnant woman, who is not you, by the full force of the government?
Simple. If you accept that I believe it to be a baby, how hard is it to understand that I feel the same even if it's not my baby that's aborted? I have a child, and I still feel sick when other people hurt theirs, even if I'm great to my son. That's why, because it's hard for me to accept someone killing a baby.
That doesn't justify governmental intervention at all, it simply explains why you would not want to have your wife/girlfriend/mistress/fuckbuddy to choose to get an abortion. I'll ask again, why should the state impose your minority belief upon a pregnant woman by removing her ability to choose whether to abort or to carry a fetus to term rather than aborting it?
Because it doesn't have to be my child, or the child of someone I know for me to have concern. The number of women who have abortions willy-nilly is likely so ridiculously small that I accept we are almost exclusively talking about hard choices made by a pregnant woman, who may have found herself in a poor position in life and struggles with the decision and aftermath. I'm not unfeeling by any stretch of the imagination. I know 2 women who have had them, and they both had huge emotional upheaval because of it.
But for me to say "it's not my child, or a child of someone I know, therefore I don't care" is a disingenuous position to take, selfish beyond belief. Again, that presupposes that I believe it to be a child (which I do). I understand the pro-choice position, which is predicated on a different foundational belief of babyhood vs fetushood, but it seems few pro-choicers are interested in understanding the pro-life side, choosing instead to throw out accusations of authoritarianism, or relying on rape/incest test cases (which represent less than 1% of the cases).
ryuprecht on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Oh look at the smart pants on Wonder_Hippie. You know what I meant.
Yeah, I did. I thusly pointed out the flaw in that reasoning.
No. You made an anal little nitpick and then felt super clever about it.
Do you want me to change what I said? Okay fine.
I believe all life forms deserve a fair chance at life without us playing god by ending it prematurely for our own convenience except in the cases at which a pre-existing significant life is at stake (example: an abortion must be done or the mother will die, some guy needs an antibiotic or he will die, etc.).
If you wish to nitpick further, go right on ahead, but there is nothing unreasonable about what I am trying to communicate here, despite whatever flaws you may find with my choice of words.
But for me to say "it's not my child, or a child of someone I know, therefore I don't care" is a disingenuous position to take, selfish beyond belief. Again, that presupposes that I believe it to be a child (which I do). I understand the pro-choice position, which is predicated on a different foundational belief of babyhood vs fetushood, but it seems few pro-choicers are interested in understanding the pro-life side, choosing instead to throw out accusations of authoritarianism, or relying on rape/incest test cases (which represent less than 1% of the cases).
we also use the "no ones damn business but the woman" cases which represent 99.999999999999999999999999% of the cases.
Seriously, though, are you implying that if it were possible to craft a society in which legalized murder allowed us to still function, you'd be in favor of it? C'mon, that's stupid.
In the hypothetical world where murder could be legal, and society could function comfortably, I would be happy, because I would have herds of unicorns to delight in.
In the real world, we see that we can accommodate the morality of a good percentage of people by giving them the freedom to have an abortion if so desired. Doing so doesn't infringe upon the happiness or right to live of other human being living independently of a placenta, particularly those who don't like abortion. They can go right on not having them and not liking them.
But honestly, I strain to think of how best to demonstrate the moral difference between murdering a walking, talking human being who actively effects the world around him, to aborting the fetus of a human being, if said person doesn't already see it.
So now that we're debating morality, the fact that I define a 6 week old fetus as a baby has to be accepted by whoever debates me.
Okay, sure. Mind explaining why that definition has to be forced on a pregnant woman, who is not you, by the full force of the government?
Simple. If you accept that I believe it to be a baby, how hard is it to understand that I feel the same even if it's not my baby that's aborted? I have a child, and I still feel sick when other people hurt theirs, even if I'm great to my son. That's why, because it's hard for me to accept someone killing a baby.
I understand that, ryuprecht, but it's still frustrating to not hear anything from you about the woman involved. I have female friends and family, and what you're basically saying is that if any one of them becomes pregnant, she is immediately less important--less human--than the ball of cells growing in her uterus.
Why all the concern for the human life which might be, one day, but none for the human life which is here already?
Good question, which is why I stated I would support cases of abortion to save the mother's life. The question becomes, is the mother's <insert non-life-threating issue here> more important than the life of her unborn child? In most cases, it fails:
convenience
finance
stress on body
post-partum issues
etc
etc
Some of these are very serious indeed. And I won't discount what the woman goes through to carry, birth and raise the child (if she chooses to raise it). I can't think of a scenario where the baby's life is more important than the mother's, or where the mother should choose to allow herself to die in order for the baby to be born.
Abortion is a very very complicated issue, and nobody here has written a multi-page dissertation on the entire issue, which is why most of what I've said has not been in discussion of the woman's health, or cases of rape, or whether there's a distinction between health and convenience reasons.
ryuprecht on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
I believe a human fetus is a life that should be protected because it is going to become a human.
A bacteria is not going to grow up to become a doctor or world renowned physicist. A bacteria will never even be aware of it's own existence.
Things are a little different for that fetus. It deserves far more consideration, and I believe a right to life.
Because it doesn't have to be my child, or the child of someone I know for me to have concern. The number of women who have abortions willy-nilly is likely so ridiculously small that I accept we are almost exclusively talking about hard choices made by a pregnant woman, who may have found herself in a poor position in life and struggles with the decision and aftermath. I'm not unfeeling by any stretch of the imagination. I know 2 women who have had them, and they both had huge emotional upheaval because of it.
But for me to say "it's not my child, or a child of someone I know, therefore I don't care" is a disingenuous position to take, selfish beyond belief. Again, that presupposes that I believe it to be a child (which I do). I understand the pro-choice position, which is predicated on a different foundational belief of babyhood vs fetushood, but it seems few pro-choicers are interested in understanding the pro-life side, choosing instead to throw out accusations of authoritarianism, or relying on rape/incest test cases (which represent less than 1% of the cases).
Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.
I don't rely on rape/incest cases to prove my point: women own their bodies and the contents thereof. That means they, and they alone, should have final say over who gets to use their reproductive organs.
Because it doesn't have to be my child, or the child of someone I know for me to have concern. The number of women who have abortions willy-nilly is likely so ridiculously small that I accept we are almost exclusively talking about hard choices made by a pregnant woman, who may have found herself in a poor position in life and struggles with the decision and aftermath. I'm not unfeeling by any stretch of the imagination. I know 2 women who have had them, and they both had huge emotional upheaval because of it.
But for me to say "it's not my child, or a child of someone I know, therefore I don't care" is a disingenuous position to take, selfish beyond belief. Again, that presupposes that I believe it to be a child (which I do). I understand the pro-choice position, which is predicated on a different foundational belief of babyhood vs fetushood, but it seems few pro-choicers are interested in understanding the pro-life side, choosing instead to throw out accusations of authoritarianism, or relying on rape/incest test cases (which represent less than 1% of the cases).
It's also a disingenuous mischaracterization of anyone's stance on this issue, most likely ever. The pro-choice position is not founded on a different belief of what is and is not a child. It is founded on the respect of a woman's ability to come to terms with what a pregnancy and potential child means to her, both now and in the future, and make a decision about where she wants to go from there. It is predicated on individual freedom of choice.
It also has the practical matter of removing unsafe, unsterile conditions for the women who choose to get an abortion and thusly saves millions of lives every year which would have otherwise been another statistic in a maternal death rate that is artificially heightened solely thanks to legislation.
Here's a fun one. Let's say that a pregnant woman trips while walking down the stairs and experiences a miscarriage. She should be charged with some sort of negligent homicide, right? Regardless of the age of the fetus, or even if she knew she was pregnant.
After all, from your perspective this is no different than tripping while holding a gun and accidentally shooting someone— even if you didn't realize they were there.
I still want an answer to this.
If I remember right, there's a legal standard for reasonable person expectations of negligence. That should probably apply here.
Posts
That doesn't justify governmental intervention at all, it simply explains why you would not want to have your wife/girlfriend/mistress/fuckbuddy to choose to get an abortion. I'll ask again, why should the state impose your minority belief upon a pregnant woman by removing her ability to choose whether to abort or to carry a fetus to term rather than aborting it?
You don't ever get it. (I hate saying that.)
You have not stated a case. All you have stated is an unsubstantiated belief, and a series of actions that you want taken based on said unsubstantiated belief. This is not enough.
After a certain point, it ceases being productive in reiterating what has been said over and over, and that you ignore. At that point, it becomes fun to see how many different ways we can call you an idiot. By the way - you're pretty much a laughingstock. I think the whole "Che/Ryuprecht Thunderdrome" thread in [chat] a while back illustrated that point pretty thoroughly.
oh come on. If everyone accepted your beliefs then we wouldn't have this debate. If you're going to debate in an arguement, you really need to do more then just spout off beliefs. I can tell people that I don't believe humans need oxygen to live. Just because I believe something doesn't make me right or give me the authority to force everyone else to go along with me.
I understand that, ryuprecht, but it's still frustrating to not hear anything from you about the woman involved. I have female friends and family, and what you're basically saying is that if any one of them becomes pregnant, she is immediately less important--less human--than the ball of cells growing in her uterus.
Why all the concern for the human life which might be, one day, but none for the human life which is here already?
I think that a person who sees a fetus as equivalent to a child or any other living being would want to keep that child/person alive as much as any other being. Correct me if I'm wrong but by your logic since others have free will why should we keep people from murdering each other? [/slipperslope].
My point is, can you see how from their point of view an abortion is just as wrong as murder?
I wouldn't want them to be illegal because illegal abortions kill women.
No, this is the shit that happens when a debate goes crazy with emotions and people stop trying to reason a position and revert to tossing out crap. There are plenty of people who respond and participate without reverting to name calling.
In this case, you cannot have an abortion debate without stating your belief in when life begins. You can toss facts about this or that about, but this debate has an inherent belief system in it. Pro-choice positions believe the fetus is not a baby. There is no way to prove that that I know of, because there's no set definition.
Of course we can. That doesn't make it defensible.
There's no fucking debate with you. You just claim that what you believe should be the inherent belief system of the American government, and throw that in the face of anything offered to the contrary because you're a dense fuckwit.
And how.
I still want an answer to this.
Maybe thats the solution, change abortion into some sort of adoption scheme where women give up unborn babies that some government lab has to pay for to keep them alive until they can stick them into the adoption / foster care system.
I dont know why people are so eager to protect a parasite that lives inside another human being for 9 months, and then make that same person legally responsible for that same parasite for 18 years after their body has ejected it.
MWO: Adamski
I absolutely see why logically one who correlates murder with abortion would want both offenses treated equally.
But come on.
Consider the personal ramifications of living in a country where first degree murder was not a prosecutable offense.
Consider now the personal ramifications of living in a world where abortion is legal, AKA, now.
There is a deep gorge of disparity between the impact of abortions taking place freely, and fucking murders. I'm sure someone is going to jump in and turn this argument into a purely semantic one, but in no way does murder occurring freely impact society nearly as dramatically as abortion.
Same as always.
Religion.
I'm surprised, then, that you don't live in the constant anguish of having lost a child. Since it's pretty much a certainty that it's happened, and all. I mean, you'll never get to play football with that zygote, never be able to walk hand-in-flipper as you guide it on its first day to school.
I strongly, strongly expect that you, and pretty much 99.99% of the human population would, on finding out that a pair of cells had unceremoniously flushed itself from your wife, respond with, at the most, a "Hey, bummer."
In anyone for whom this holds true, he clearly doesn't believe in the moral equivalence between a fertilized egg and kid running about. If he did, he'd be pretty much paralyzed by the knowledge that it happens all the time. I mean, if I found out that I'd had three or four kids, and they had all died, I'd be pretty messed up by it. You must just be a particularly hard and stoic individual.
He also seems to completely ignore certain questions that would call into doubt the rational basis from which he formulates his opinion.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
I personally think every life form has a right to life, they should each get a chance without us playing God. That's why it troubles me that people have abortions and I wish they wouldn't.
As for the "a fetus isn't a baby/human/whatever" well that's bullshit of the highest degree. It's a human fetus, it isn't going to turn into a chicken or something. Even then it should still get a fair shake.
Correct. The OP was kind of a "what if?" in that regard.
If we're (o.k. only ryuprecht is) making the death of an unborn baby murder one, then I'd assume there will be some kind of investigation to actualy prove it.
Have you ever used an antibiotic?
You murderer.
Some people don't base their morality on what's convenient.
Crazy, I know.
Seriously, though, are you implying that if it were possible to craft a society in which legalized murder allowed us to still function, you'd be in favor of it? C'mon, that's stupid.
Oh look at the smart pants on Wonder_Hippie. You know what I meant.
But we play God all the damn time. As I'm typing this there are hundreds of doctors and paramedics and firemen, &c. spiting God's grand plans. I really don't see how human intervention in this area, like any other, is an inherent bad. If you want to argue against it with the practical or morality angle, fine, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.
Yeah, I did. I thusly pointed out the flaw in that reasoning.
I doubt there would be that sort of mechanism in place.
No, we'd just attach a terrible social stigma to miscarriage, such that anyone who suffered one would be glanced at from afar and referred to as "That Woman Who Claims To Have Miscarried".
Saving life = good
Ending life = bad
An egg, even a fertilized one, isn't a chicken.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Oh, Mr. Elkamil, could I take a stab? Could it, just could it be because they don't want to offend the very large number of pro-lifers out there who are, let's just say, not fond of contraceptions?
Could be. Or maybe ryup has a plausible explanation.
The best you can do is "no position"? Well done.
You're operating on the assumption that we all agree on the idea that any fertilized egg, even if it's only two cells is "life". If that's the case then Wonder_Hippy's comment to you wasn't out of line. If that's not the case then you have to acknowledge that it's not "life" and then ask yourself at what point it becomes so.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Because it doesn't have to be my child, or the child of someone I know for me to have concern. The number of women who have abortions willy-nilly is likely so ridiculously small that I accept we are almost exclusively talking about hard choices made by a pregnant woman, who may have found herself in a poor position in life and struggles with the decision and aftermath. I'm not unfeeling by any stretch of the imagination. I know 2 women who have had them, and they both had huge emotional upheaval because of it.
But for me to say "it's not my child, or a child of someone I know, therefore I don't care" is a disingenuous position to take, selfish beyond belief. Again, that presupposes that I believe it to be a child (which I do). I understand the pro-choice position, which is predicated on a different foundational belief of babyhood vs fetushood, but it seems few pro-choicers are interested in understanding the pro-life side, choosing instead to throw out accusations of authoritarianism, or relying on rape/incest test cases (which represent less than 1% of the cases).
No. You made an anal little nitpick and then felt super clever about it.
Do you want me to change what I said? Okay fine.
I believe all life forms deserve a fair chance at life without us playing god by ending it prematurely for our own convenience except in the cases at which a pre-existing significant life is at stake (example: an abortion must be done or the mother will die, some guy needs an antibiotic or he will die, etc.).
If you wish to nitpick further, go right on ahead, but there is nothing unreasonable about what I am trying to communicate here, despite whatever flaws you may find with my choice of words.
Even when saving the life of an infant kills the mother?
Even when ending the life of an infant who will die eventually anyway will spare it pain and suffering?
It should go without saying that the world isn't black and white.
we also use the "no ones damn business but the woman" cases which represent 99.999999999999999999999999% of the cases.
In the hypothetical world where murder could be legal, and society could function comfortably, I would be happy, because I would have herds of unicorns to delight in.
In the real world, we see that we can accommodate the morality of a good percentage of people by giving them the freedom to have an abortion if so desired. Doing so doesn't infringe upon the happiness or right to live of other human being living independently of a placenta, particularly those who don't like abortion. They can go right on not having them and not liking them.
But honestly, I strain to think of how best to demonstrate the moral difference between murdering a walking, talking human being who actively effects the world around him, to aborting the fetus of a human being, if said person doesn't already see it.
Good question, which is why I stated I would support cases of abortion to save the mother's life. The question becomes, is the mother's <insert non-life-threating issue here> more important than the life of her unborn child? In most cases, it fails:
convenience
finance
stress on body
post-partum issues
etc
etc
Some of these are very serious indeed. And I won't discount what the woman goes through to carry, birth and raise the child (if she chooses to raise it). I can't think of a scenario where the baby's life is more important than the mother's, or where the mother should choose to allow herself to die in order for the baby to be born.
Abortion is a very very complicated issue, and nobody here has written a multi-page dissertation on the entire issue, which is why most of what I've said has not been in discussion of the woman's health, or cases of rape, or whether there's a distinction between health and convenience reasons.
A bacteria is not going to grow up to become a doctor or world renowned physicist. A bacteria will never even be aware of it's own existence.
Things are a little different for that fetus. It deserves far more consideration, and I believe a right to life.
Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.
I don't rely on rape/incest cases to prove my point: women own their bodies and the contents thereof. That means they, and they alone, should have final say over who gets to use their reproductive organs.
It's also a disingenuous mischaracterization of anyone's stance on this issue, most likely ever. The pro-choice position is not founded on a different belief of what is and is not a child. It is founded on the respect of a woman's ability to come to terms with what a pregnancy and potential child means to her, both now and in the future, and make a decision about where she wants to go from there. It is predicated on individual freedom of choice.
It also has the practical matter of removing unsafe, unsterile conditions for the women who choose to get an abortion and thusly saves millions of lives every year which would have otherwise been another statistic in a maternal death rate that is artificially heightened solely thanks to legislation.
If I remember right, there's a legal standard for reasonable person expectations of negligence. That should probably apply here.
Good for fetuses. I, too, have a right to life, but I don't have a right to hijack someone else's body to gain shelter or food.