I do, but I don't agree that a clump of cells a human life makes. Neither their potential to be (as the link I provided earlier about human cells that exist outside of a human being)
Sure, but again the question comes down to where you draw that line. Abortion is a very simple topic if you're happy just dissecting where someone else has drawn the line, but suddenly gets much more complicated when you try to find that place yourself. Unless you're a utilitarian and only have interest in outcomes.
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I do, but I don't agree that a clump of cells a human life makes. Neither their potential to be (as the link I provided earlier about human cells that exist outside of a human being)
Sure, but again the question comes down to where you draw that line. Abortion is a very simple topic if you're happy just dissecting where someone else has drawn the line, but suddenly gets much more complicated when you try to find that place yourself. Unless you're a utilitarian and only have interest in outcomes.
What about Unitarians, where do they fall in this?
I do, but I don't agree that a clump of cells a human life makes. Neither their potential to be (as the link I provided earlier about human cells that exist outside of a human being)
Sure, but again the question comes down to where you draw that line. Abortion is a very simple topic if you're happy just dissecting where someone else has drawn the line, but suddenly gets much more complicated when you try to find that place yourself. Unless you're a utilitarian and only have interest in outcomes.
What about Unitarians, where do they fall in this?
Those are two very different things, but the official Unitarian position is pro-choice.
Again, because presumably you view human life in a somewhat different light from other life. Which you apparently don't, but then your disagreement with pro-lifers isn't their conclusions, it's the very premise of preserving human life.
Well, there's the part where what constitutes "life" and what is required to "preserve" it vary dramatically. Equating a fertilized egg with a fetus with a 20 year old man with a deranged criminal is pretty silly. Ditto, equating inaction with extensive medical treatment with sacrificing dozens of other people.
So maybe it's more the case that "preserving human life" is so vague a premise as to be entirely useless. It's roughly equivalent to "don't make other people sad" as a useful philosophy.
Meh. You can make it useless by trying to nail its feet to the floor, but you don't have to.
Again, focussing solely on conception as the transition point between 'just cells' and 'person' is no more useful than focussing solely on birth. No standard is unassailable, and so you have to try to view them concurrently and try to choose the best one. I think a reasonable person has to keep these things in mind, and not view those that disagrees with them too simply.
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I do, but I don't agree that a clump of cells a human life makes. Neither their potential to be (as the link I provided earlier about human cells that exist outside of a human being)
Sure, but again the question comes down to where you draw that line. Abortion is a very simple topic if you're happy just dissecting where someone else has drawn the line, but suddenly gets much more complicated when you try to find that place yourself. Unless you're a utilitarian and only have interest in outcomes.
What about Unitarians, where do they fall in this?
Those are two very different things, but the official Unitarian position is pro-choice.
I was mostly being a random smartass, but interesting to know, so thanks. :-)
Why are single cells or cell colonies outside of a human body less of a human being than a blastocyst of human cells? Differentiation? Potential? We could argue that cell colonies from the aforementioned cell line are human. Human beings? I don't know, what constitutes a being. Your guidelines and rules for this are ambiguous and ought not to be the basis for laws or what's right.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I think of a fetus like a cake. Both require a certain amount of varied ingredients to have the (generally expected results). So you have to ask yourself, at what point does the flour, water, eggs and so on go from being 'stuff' to being a cake? Obviously after it's being cooked and you're eating it, it's a cake. Is it a cake when the ingredients are all together but not yet baked? Do they have to be baked a certain amount of time before they're 'cake enough'? If you accidentally spill some floor on the eggs because the bag broke should you just say fuck it and try to make a cake?
These are important distinctions. Important, delicious distinctions.
Why are single cells or cell colonies outside of a human body less of a human being than a blastocyst of human cells? Differentiation? Potential? We could argue that cell colonies from the aforementioned cell line are human. Human beings? I don't know, what constitutes a being. Your guidelines and rules for this are ambiguous and ought not to be the basis for laws or what's right.
Do you really not grasp the difference between a part of a human being and something that can become a human being? Because I don't feel it's a particularly difficult thing to discern. One can one day be another idiot doing 90 in a 65 in their Ford F450. The other cannot.
But it doesn't matter, because you're clearly trolling at this point more than anything else. If you want to have a nice, friendly debate over what constitutes human life and the rights n' wrongs of abortion, that's cool. However, at this point it's not so much of a debate as it is pants-on-head HURHURHURLULZ thinly veiled as an arguement.
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Like I said, use my cake idea.
Certain ingredients can, in theory, become something (cake or babby) but depending on whether or not they've been joined (and 'baked' for awhile) may temper someone's idea on how much a 'clump of cells' is a human or not.
I, personally, put it like this:
Sperm: Millions of them. Not even close to a person.
Egg: Much more limited and more valuable, but still not a person.
Zygote: Getting there, but not just yet.
Fetus: Could be! Depends on how many months it's been cookin'.
Born child: Yes! Unless they're poor and you belong to the GOP.
Certain ingredients can, in theory, become something (cake or babby) but depending on whether or not they've been joined (and 'baked' for awhile) may temper someone's idea on how much a 'clump of cells' is a human or not.
I, personally, put it like this:
Sperm: Millions of them. Not even close to a person.
Egg: Much more limited and more valuable, but still not a person.
Zygote: Getting there, but not just yet.
Fetus: Could be! Depends on how many months it's been cookin'.
Born child: Yes! Unless they're poor and you belong to the GOP.
I don't care whether or not a baby is alive. I think that's rather trivial to the issue. I'm going to assume that the baby is alive and it's murder, I'm still fine with it happening and believe it should continue to happen.
Every single person that exists consumes some of earths resources. This planet can support a limited number of people. Many of the resources we currently consume, particularly food resources, are depletable. They don't necessarily have to be, but they are because of the manner in which we consume these resources (slash and burn farming, and overfishing are two examples of this). What is the result of depleting these resources, a slow and painful starvation for millions of people. What noble purpose is served by adding to this body count?
It takes a lot of work and resources to turn a child into an adult that is a functioning member of society. The child's mother is already at least a marginally functional member of society, therefore her life is currently more valuable. I think an argument can be made that the value of her life is more than that of the child inside of her. If it is not the case that she is a functioning member of society, and instead is dysfunctional, than why should we encourage her to have a kid that she is likely to raise improperly?
Kids who ware unwanted are less likely to become productive members of society, and our society does not seem to have an interest in properly raising the kids of everyone who decides to have them (if anyone would like to counter this by presenting statistics about how much more successful foster children, and adopted children are I'd love to see some of that). Knowing these things, it only makes sense to me that we should encourage abortion so that unwanted kids do not become a burden on our society and on our planet.
It seems to me a very cruel thing to encourage woman to have and raise children that they cannot support, or do not want.
Why are single cells or cell colonies outside of a human body less of a human being than a blastocyst of human cells? Differentiation? Potential? We could argue that cell colonies from the aforementioned cell line are human. Human beings? I don't know, what constitutes a being. Your guidelines and rules for this are ambiguous and ought not to be the basis for laws or what's right.
Do you really not grasp the difference between a part of a human being and something that can become a human being? Because I don't feel it's a particularly difficult thing to discern. One can one day be another idiot doing 90 in a 65 in their Ford F450. The other cannot.
But it doesn't matter, because you're clearly trolling at this point more than anything else. If you want to have a nice, friendly debate over what constitutes human life and the rights n' wrongs of abortion, that's cool. However, at this point it's not so much of a debate as it is pants-on-head HURHURHURLULZ thinly veiled as an arguement.
It's really not. You cannot conceptualize, or rather, you cannot elucidate what a human is. What is this potential? What if I could grow a human in a test tube outside of a female body? I could use multiple somatic cells in your body to create life, what is the differentiation of potential here?
Stop using trolling, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Is it cognition, is it awareness, is it sapience, is it being birthed from a vagina, is it being fertilized from an egg and sperm, maybe somewhere in between? Each of these happens at different times in development, and a baby is indistinguishable from a culture of bacteria with a 25 year old doing 90 in a 65 zone.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
Why are single cells or cell colonies outside of a human body less of a human being than a blastocyst of human cells? Differentiation? Potential? We could argue that cell colonies from the aforementioned cell line are human. Human beings? I don't know, what constitutes a being. Your guidelines and rules for this are ambiguous and ought not to be the basis for laws or what's right.
Do you really not grasp the difference between a part of a human being and something that can become a human being? Because I don't feel it's a particularly difficult thing to discern. One can one day be another idiot doing 90 in a 65 in their Ford F450. The other cannot.
But it doesn't matter, because you're clearly trolling at this point more than anything else. If you want to have a nice, friendly debate over what constitutes human life and the rights n' wrongs of abortion, that's cool. However, at this point it's not so much of a debate as it is pants-on-head HURHURHURLULZ thinly veiled as an arguement.
It's really not. You cannot conceptualize, or rather, you cannot elucidate what a human is. What is this potential? What if I could grow a human in a test tube outside of a female body? I could use multiple somatic cells in your body to create life, what is the differentiation of potential here?
Stop using trolling, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Is it cognition, is it awareness, is it sapience, is it being birthed from a vagina, is it being fertilized from an egg and sperm, maybe somewhere in between? Each of these happens at different times in development, and a baby is indistinguishable from a culture of bacteria with a 25 year old doing 90 in a 65 zone.
*head-desk*
Yeah, if you grow a baby in a test tube, it's just as human as one in a womb. That's not the debate, so don't invent it being so to suite your position. A baby grown in a test tube, however, it's not synonymous with a random collection of human cells that can survive on their own, but under no circumstances could ever gestate and grow into an adult human being.
And I know exactly what trolling means, and more likely than not what you're doing. Honestly, it's either that or you're actually so intellectually inept you cannot discern the difference between a fetus and a piece of skin. That's like not being able to tell the difference between a mineral in a rock and the rock itself, or hydrogen and the water it's a part of.
So, my conclusion: either you're trolling or you're brain is missing something. Either you want to get a rise out of someone for kicks on the internwebz, or you seriously cannot comprehend the difference between a blastocyst and some cancerous cells removed from a woman in the 50s.
I don't care whether or not a baby is alive. I think that's rather trivial to the issue. I'm going to assume that the baby is alive and it's murder, I'm still fine with it happening and believe it should continue to happen.
Every single person that exists consumes some of earths resources. This planet can support a limited number of people. Many of the resources we currently consume, particularly food resources, are depletable. They don't necessarily have to be, but they are because of the manner in which we consume these resources (slash and burn farming, and overfishing are two examples of this). What is the result of depleting these resources, a slow and painful starvation for millions of people. What noble purpose is served by adding to this body count?
It takes a lot of work and resources to turn a child into an adult that is a functioning member of society. The child's mother is already at least a marginally functional member of society, therefore her life is currently more valuable. I think an argument can be made that the value of her life is more than that of the child inside of her. If it is not the case that she is a functioning member of society, and instead is dysfunctional, than why should we encourage her to have a kid that she is likely to raise improperly?
Kids who ware unwanted are less likely to become productive members of society, and our society does not seem to have an interest in properly raising the kids of everyone who decides to have them (if anyone would like to counter this by presenting statistics about how much more successful foster children, and adopted children are I'd love to see some of that). Knowing these things, it only makes sense to me that we should encourage abortion so that unwanted kids do not become a burden on our society and on our planet.
It seems to me a very cruel thing to encourage woman to have and raise children that they cannot support, or do not want.
Population control is an extremely poor justification for abortion, as abortions impact is exponentially smaller than improved education, healthcare, and economic opportunity for the third world.
Why are single cells or cell colonies outside of a human body less of a human being than a blastocyst of human cells? Differentiation? Potential? We could argue that cell colonies from the aforementioned cell line are human. Human beings? I don't know, what constitutes a being. Your guidelines and rules for this are ambiguous and ought not to be the basis for laws or what's right.
Do you really not grasp the difference between a part of a human being and something that can become a human being? Because I don't feel it's a particularly difficult thing to discern. One can one day be another idiot doing 90 in a 65 in their Ford F450. The other cannot.
But it doesn't matter, because you're clearly trolling at this point more than anything else. If you want to have a nice, friendly debate over what constitutes human life and the rights n' wrongs of abortion, that's cool. However, at this point it's not so much of a debate as it is pants-on-head HURHURHURLULZ thinly veiled as an arguement.
It's really not. You cannot conceptualize, or rather, you cannot elucidate what a human is. What is this potential? What if I could grow a human in a test tube outside of a female body? I could use multiple somatic cells in your body to create life, what is the differentiation of potential here?
Stop using trolling, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Is it cognition, is it awareness, is it sapience, is it being birthed from a vagina, is it being fertilized from an egg and sperm, maybe somewhere in between? Each of these happens at different times in development, and a baby is indistinguishable from a culture of bacteria with a 25 year old doing 90 in a 65 zone.
Yeah, the fact that I can't give a hard and fast delineation between an armchair, a love seat, and a couch doesn't make these terms useless.
You must delineate personhood at some point, or there is no difference between masturbation and murder, one way or the other. Pointing out that this is a difficult thing to do makes it no less necessary.
MentalExercise on
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I don't care whether or not a baby is alive. I think that's rather trivial to the issue. I'm going to assume that the baby is alive and it's murder, I'm still fine with it happening and believe it should continue to happen.
Every single person that exists consumes some of earths resources. This planet can support a limited number of people. Many of the resources we currently consume, particularly food resources, are depletable. They don't necessarily have to be, but they are because of the manner in which we consume these resources (slash and burn farming, and overfishing are two examples of this). What is the result of depleting these resources, a slow and painful starvation for millions of people. What noble purpose is served by adding to this body count?
It takes a lot of work and resources to turn a child into an adult that is a functioning member of society. The child's mother is already at least a marginally functional member of society, therefore her life is currently more valuable. I think an argument can be made that the value of her life is more than that of the child inside of her. If it is not the case that she is a functioning member of society, and instead is dysfunctional, than why should we encourage her to have a kid that she is likely to raise improperly?
Kids who ware unwanted are less likely to become productive members of society, and our society does not seem to have an interest in properly raising the kids of everyone who decides to have them (if anyone would like to counter this by presenting statistics about how much more successful foster children, and adopted children are I'd love to see some of that). Knowing these things, it only makes sense to me that we should encourage abortion so that unwanted kids do not become a burden on our society and on our planet.
It seems to me a very cruel thing to encourage woman to have and raise children that they cannot support, or do not want.
So by that rationality, why don't we start rounding up everyone not deemed "worthy" enough and start killing them by the millions so they can no longer take away from our planet's resources? Let's say (and just pulling this out my ass) we just round up and gas however millions or billions of people needed to extend our reserves of fossil fuels by another century or two. Should we? They're just more people sucking up resources, and if we're good at it we can identify the ones who aren't contributing anything back. Just more statistics, bro, let's go get em'. Or is the life of a woman-beating idiot who can't do the simplest of jobs worth more than the unborn fetus of otherwise decent, and to boot wealthy, parents?
And your right, right now her life is more valuable, because she's currently contributing. However, if she's actively contributing to society, it probably means she'll raise her kid to do the same. Heck, with a half-decent upbringing the kid is likely to be a better contributor to society than that aforementioned deadbeat from earlier. And by your own viewpoints, we cannot be stuck in a "NOW NOW NOW" mindset in regards to the world.
So let's go with your idea, tweak it for efficiency, and figure out who the absolute most useless billion members of the human race are and just kill the lot of em'. Better for the planet, and we can start making sure only the most well-equipped, indeed superior, members of the human race can be allowed to reproduce. I think we're on to something amazing here.
And, as bowen already kindly pointed out, it's rarely those who would have trouble raising a kid that can even afford to have an abortion. Poor people don't have abortions because it costs too much (though ironically not as much as the kid they have).
Of course all of those problems could be solved with proper sexual education of young people and making contraceptives as easy to obtain as possible. That's a big task though given that the regions of the world with the greatest birth rates are also those that are the least developed and therefore the least likely to have proper education and available contraceptives. The ratio of birth to death is actually starting to damn near even out in most of the developed nations of the world.
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I think of a fetus like a cake. Both require a certain amount of varied ingredients to have the (generally expected results). So you have to ask yourself, at what point does the flour, water, eggs and so on go from being 'stuff' to being a cake? Obviously after it's being cooked and you're eating it, it's a cake. Is it a cake when the ingredients are all together but not yet baked? Do they have to be baked a certain amount of time before they're 'cake enough'? If you accidentally spill some floor on the eggs because the bag broke should you just say fuck it and try to make a cake?
These are important distinctions. Important, delicious distinctions.
Stop using trolling, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Is it cognition, is it awareness, is it sapience, is it being birthed from a vagina, is it being fertilized from an egg and sperm, maybe somewhere in between? Each of these happens at different times in development, and a baby is indistinguishable from a culture of bacteria with a 25 year old doing 90 in a 65 zone.
Lets do a thought experiment!
Put a human baby in one open top box, and a culture of bacteria in another.I'll leave the room. You can move the boxes around as much as you want. Then I'll come back, and guess which one is the baby. We'll repeat this 100,000 times.
Results - It appears(P>1/{2^100,000} )it is possible to distinguish a human baby from a mass of bacteria.
I don't care whether or not a baby is alive. I think that's rather trivial to the issue. I'm going to assume that the baby is alive and it's murder, I'm still fine with it happening and believe it should continue to happen.
Every single person that exists consumes some of earths resources. This planet can support a limited number of people. Many of the resources we currently consume, particularly food resources, are depletable. They don't necessarily have to be, but they are because of the manner in which we consume these resources (slash and burn farming, and overfishing are two examples of this). What is the result of depleting these resources, a slow and painful starvation for millions of people. What noble purpose is served by adding to this body count?
It takes a lot of work and resources to turn a child into an adult that is a functioning member of society. The child's mother is already at least a marginally functional member of society, therefore her life is currently more valuable. I think an argument can be made that the value of her life is more than that of the child inside of her. If it is not the case that she is a functioning member of society, and instead is dysfunctional, than why should we encourage her to have a kid that she is likely to raise improperly?
Kids who ware unwanted are less likely to become productive members of society, and our society does not seem to have an interest in properly raising the kids of everyone who decides to have them (if anyone would like to counter this by presenting statistics about how much more successful foster children, and adopted children are I'd love to see some of that). Knowing these things, it only makes sense to me that we should encourage abortion so that unwanted kids do not become a burden on our society and on our planet.
It seems to me a very cruel thing to encourage woman to have and raise children that they cannot support, or do not want.
So by that rationality, why don't we start rounding up everyone not deemed "worthy" enough and start killing them by the millions so they can no longer take away from our planet's resources?
Society has already made an investment in everyone else, those are sunk costs and your not going to get back what you put in if you kill them. Also what your proposing would cause a wide array of societal problems that abortion wouldn't. Rounding up and killing people is inherently problematic for the simple reason that they would fight back. Encouraging people that don't want to or cannot support children to abort them I believe would offer society better outcomes.
I'm for educating people, but I don't think education is and of itself a solution. You need to approach the problem at all angles, with the goal being a society that produces the most productive/useful people. Although coming up with a definition for productive/useful is inherently problematic, we know that children who have active parents who want them on average do much better than those that do not.
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure the literally pro-murder viewpoint is one that leads you to places you'd want to go, Cantelope.
Right? My plan is waaaaay better. I mean, we don't know which of these babies are going to grow up to be a physicist or rapist quite yet, but we already know who alot of those useless drains on resources are, so let's just start killing them.
And if someone is currently a productive member of society but carries a good chance of passing on genes that will result in special needs cases? We just sterilize them now so that they can be a productive member of society, but won't produce offspring that will actively drain resources needlessly. Only the intelligent and healthy shall reproduce! And as soon as old age starts to slow your productivity, well then it's off to the gas chambers. It'll be just like Logan's Run, and everyone loves that movie.
C'mon people, let's start breeding our race of Übermensch. We're doin' it for Mother Earth, damnit.
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I don't care whether or not a baby is alive. I think that's rather trivial to the issue. I'm going to assume that the baby is alive and it's murder, I'm still fine with it happening and believe it should continue to happen.
Every single person that exists consumes some of earths resources. This planet can support a limited number of people. Many of the resources we currently consume, particularly food resources, are depletable. They don't necessarily have to be, but they are because of the manner in which we consume these resources (slash and burn farming, and overfishing are two examples of this). What is the result of depleting these resources, a slow and painful starvation for millions of people. What noble purpose is served by adding to this body count?
It takes a lot of work and resources to turn a child into an adult that is a functioning member of society. The child's mother is already at least a marginally functional member of society, therefore her life is currently more valuable. I think an argument can be made that the value of her life is more than that of the child inside of her. If it is not the case that she is a functioning member of society, and instead is dysfunctional, than why should we encourage her to have a kid that she is likely to raise improperly?
Kids who ware unwanted are less likely to become productive members of society, and our society does not seem to have an interest in properly raising the kids of everyone who decides to have them (if anyone would like to counter this by presenting statistics about how much more successful foster children, and adopted children are I'd love to see some of that). Knowing these things, it only makes sense to me that we should encourage abortion so that unwanted kids do not become a burden on our society and on our planet.
It seems to me a very cruel thing to encourage woman to have and raise children that they cannot support, or do not want.
So by that rationality, why don't we start rounding up everyone not deemed "worthy" enough and start killing them by the millions so they can no longer take away from our planet's resources?
Society has already made an investment in everyone else, those are sunk costs and your not going to get back what you put in if you kill them. Also what your proposing would cause a wide array of societal problems that abortion wouldn't. Rounding up and killing people is inherently problematic for the simple reason that they would fight back. Encouraging people that don't want to or cannot support children to abort them I believe would offer society better outcomes.
I'm for educating people, but I don't think education is and of itself a solution. You need to approach the problem at all angles, with the goal being a society that produces the most productive/useful people. Although coming up with a definition for productive/useful is inherently problematic, we know that children who have active parents who want them on average do much better than those that do not.
Phhhhw, says you. You're right, we won't get the money they've already cost us back, but if you kill them they won't be a further drain, and the money they would've sucked up from welfare or in prison will instead go to help educate the next, brighter generation.
And if they resist, which they almost certainly will... well? The military still has more and bigger guns. It could cause problems now which will pale in comparison to the benefits it will bring in the future, which again is what we're discussing. We suffer a few decades of unrest now to purge undesirable traits from the human race potentially forever. Not to mention it very well may be easier for some to prove they're worthy of their continued existence rather than face extermination.
Your strategy is to encourage the wanton slaughter of fetuses without regard. It's inelegant and clumsy, and you cannot know what you're potentially destroying. Not to mention, it's a lot slower. The fossil fuel reserves of this planet will probably be exhausted with a century, if we're going to cut down on the amount of humans draining the planet's resources it should be done in a handful of decades, not the course of several generations... not to mention encouraging abortion won't make as much of a dent overall.
But with my plan (I call it Operation: Wolfkrieg), we rid the human race of its most inferior aspects. We shrink the population, thus at least buying time to help deal with the planet's resource crisis, and those who remain are better suited to advancing civilization. If your goal is simply a utilitarian one, then why stop at fetuses? How about we utilize the death penalty more as a means to get rid of repeat offenders and those in prison for life? All they are is a drain, and their continued existence is a drain. What are the odds an unborn fetus is or isn't going to ultimately contribute more to society than a man who is going to spend his last 63 years in prison, being fed and housed with resources that could go elsewhere?
That is not even close to a legitimate solution, though. Again, at least not in the US. Access to "just freeze some eggs/sperm" doesn't exist. Vasectomies are probably more affordable, but probably still beyond the means of teenagers/twenty year olds.
I find it hard to believe that there are people going around having sex and this conversation happens:
"Should I get a condom?"
"No need, I'll just go get a suck and chuck in a few months."
"Sweet."
The conversation actually goes vaguely like;
"Wanna have sex?"
"Ok"
*Later*
"Oh shit, pregnant. Better go get a suck and chuck"
Your couple are monsters, mine are just idiots (by willful ignorance or lack of education).
I'm not saying this happens alot (it doesn't thank god), but I don't EVER want to see this as being acceptable, normal behaviour. Simply being behind abortion so unflinchingly, without raising concerns when necessary could very well lead to that happening.
Why? Saying it does not make it so. In my honest opinion, women should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies without zealots trying to punish them for having sex. Have you ever raised a kid? Do you have any clue what an "inconvenience" it is to have to go through a 9 month pregnancy and then deliver a child, with a risk of dying? I'll tell you: saying "inconvenience" to describe it is so disingenious as to be outright untrue. How about next time you make a bad decision we give you mono for 9 months? That's about the same level of "inconvenience". Get your morals the hell out of anyone else's life.
The reason I am being so harsh is because people like you who argue for abortion with a "but..." are incredibly dangerous to the Choice movement. You are saying that there is something morally wrong with abortion, which there isn't, and you are blaming women for getting pregnant, AKA slut shaming, which you should be ashamed of. That's the bullshit the anti-women movement (I won't dignify it with the term pro-life) spouts, and clearly they have managed to convince you. Get that shit out of your head.
Abortion is not de-facto morally wrong and I never said it was. I gave specific examples wherein abortion is the right choice. Thanks for labelling me so horribly...
Slut-shaming, really? I never singled out women individually. Men who refuse to wear condoms because it 'feels wrong' or whatever are the absolute pinnacle to stupid and are the single most common cause of pregnancy among those most likely to seek abortions.
I'll say this one more time: I don't want to tell anyone what to do with their bodies. I want people to be educated to make better choices before abortion ever becomes a consideration.
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
For the record, I do not support genocide or eugenics... but if "population control" is your argument for something that even you admit may be murder, then why stop with fetuses? If you're utilitarian, then why not go the whole nine yards. Eventually, the troubles and chaos it would bring would subside and afterwards you'd have a significantly smaller population draining from the planet.
I'm not trying to create a master race here, I'm just saying if you don't want a child you shouldn't have one and the government should help facilitate. I'm also arguing that it is better for society if we do. You can call it whatever you want, even murder.
The alternative is to force woman to have kids they don't want or can't support. As a result they are likely to feel resentment towards them and treat them poorly. They are less likely to be successful, and more likely to be a burden on society. I don't see how forcing woman to have unwanted children helps anyone at all. If there are genuine societal benefits of this then make that argument without using outliers.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
That is not even close to a legitimate solution, though. Again, at least not in the US. Access to "just freeze some eggs/sperm" doesn't exist. Vasectomies are probably more affordable, but probably still beyond the means of teenagers/twenty year olds.
I find it hard to believe that there are people going around having sex and this conversation happens:
"Should I get a condom?"
"No need, I'll just go get a suck and chuck in a few months."
"Sweet."
The conversation actually goes vaguely like;
"Wanna have sex?"
"Ok"
*Later*
"Oh shit, pregnant. Better go get a suck and chuck"
Your couple are monsters, mine are just idiots (by willful ignorance or lack of education).
I'm not saying this happens alot (it doesn't thank god), but I don't EVER want to see this as being acceptable, normal behaviour. Simply being behind abortion so unflinchingly, without raising concerns when necessary could very well lead to that happening.
Except when you say "people use abortion as contraception" you're implying the first conversation. Which was the insulting part.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find people who think abortion should be treated as blase as you're implying people treat it. The ideal solution is to actually teach people proper sexual education, which is what pretty much all "pro choice" people say.
Very few people treat abortion the way you're assigning, so few I'd wager that going after this point is, for lack of a better word, pointless.
As to your earlier point about "not wanting your tax dollars to pay for these idiots" well, sorry, you don't get to determine how the government spends your money that way. Plenty of people are pacifists, but the military still gets money. Funds are fungible, once you pay taxes, they go everywhere.
The best solution, and frankly the most Republican (get the government out of our lives, ya'll) solution is to teach people how their bodies work and ways you can control reproduction before the sperm ever hits the egg. Also, better access to healthcare. This would solve pretty much the whole problem.
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I'm not trying to create a master race here, I'm just saying if you don't want a child you shouldn't have one and the government should help facilitate. I'm also arguing that it is better for society if we do. You can call it whatever you want, even murder.
The alternative is to force woman to have kids they don't want or can't support. As a result they are likely to feel resentment towards them and treat them poorly. They are less likely to be successful, and more likely to be a burden on society. I don't see how forcing woman to have unwanted children helps anyone at all. If there are genuine societal benefits of this then make that argument without using outliers.
And my point is, if you're cool with murder for the "betterment of the world", then why draw the line at abortion?
Also, I've (several times now...) said the ideal situation is better education and available contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. There's not a single man alive who prefers a condom over ridin' bareback, but I'm sure many would agree it's better than a baby. Shittier guys may not (but that's while they'll be first in line during Operation: Wolfkrieg for Dalek-style extermination).
But the moment you go "I don't care if it's murder," you're opening up a Pandora's box filled with worms. And of course, there's adoption. Best case scenario, person who isn't capable of raising a child gets her kid into the arms of someone who can, and they raise it proper. Worst case scenario, the irresponsible mother kicks it, the dad is too much of a scumbag to raise the kid, and it can get sent to better parents. Heck, maybe we can start an incentive program to get parentless/abandoned children into good homes.
With all of that said, it goes back to the top of this post: education, contraceptives. This entire thread is a damn near irrelevant if we can get men and women to use contraceptives properly and to understand that their actions can carry consequences. If you bang without a condom, you might catch a bad case of baby and ruin your life. So, you know, make sure your captain wears his cap.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The big problem, at least in America, is that the vast majority of the pro life crowd doesn't believe in proper sex ed. Then they scratch their heads when teenagers keep getting pregnant.
Except when you say "people use abortion as contraception" you're implying the first conversation. Which was the insulting part.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find people who think abortion should be treated as blase as you're implying people treat it. The ideal solution is to actually teach people proper sexual education, which is what pretty much all "pro choice" people say.
Very few people treat abortion the way you're assigning, so few I'd wager that going after this point is, for lack of a better word, pointless.
As to your earlier point about "not wanting your tax dollars to pay for these idiots" well, sorry, you don't get to determine how the government spends your money that way. Plenty of people are pacifists, but the military still gets money. Funds are fungible, once you pay taxes, they go everywhere.
The best solution, and frankly the most Republican (get the government out of our lives, ya'll) solution is to teach people how their bodies work and ways you can control reproduction before the sperm ever hits the egg. Also, better access to healthcare. This would solve pretty much the whole problem.
We agree on something! Huuuugs!
I suck at getting my point across in text, dunno why. I can pretty much talk my way through an argument on problem but put me on a forum and whoa no chance!
Sucks about the money but eh, it's small enough where I can ignore it for the most part I guess. Just gotta make edumakation the top priority.
You need to add some qualifiers to that. Were all okay with murder, we just have different circumstances were we say it's okay. Were fine with people murdering in "self defense." Were fine with soldiers murdering other soldiers in war. Were also fine with not only murdering innocent animals but also eating them.
Before someone can articulate in some manner their wants and needs, they aren't a person. The second they can, that's something you shouldn't kill. I feel that, that is a useful metric for determining whether or not someone is worth considering in any meaningful sense.
You need to add some qualifiers to that. Were all okay with murder, we just have different circumstances were we say it's okay. Were fine with people murdering in "self defense." Were fine with soldiers murdering other soldiers in war.
o_O
A soldier will go to prison if they murder an enemy soldier.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You need to add some qualifiers to that. Were all okay with murder, we just have different circumstances were we say it's okay. Were fine with people murdering in "self defense." Were fine with soldiers murdering other soldiers in war. Were also fine with not only murdering innocent animals but also eating them.
Before someone can articulate in some manner their wants and needs, they aren't a person. The second they can, that's something you shouldn't kill. I feel that, that is a useful metric for determining whether or not someone is worth considering in any meaningful sense.
Over generalizing terms in order to make a rhetorical point is rarely a useful tactic. Murder and killing do not have the same definition for good reason.
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
You need to add some qualifiers to that. Were all okay with murder, we just have different circumstances were we say it's okay. Were fine with people murdering in "self defense." Were fine with soldiers murdering other soldiers in war. Were also fine with not only murdering innocent animals but also eating them.
Before someone can articulate in some manner their wants and needs, they aren't a person. The second they can, that's something you shouldn't kill. I feel that, that is a useful metric for determining whether or not someone is worth considering in any meaningful sense.
Aye, as others have pointed out, murder and killing another person are not synonymous nor interchangeable consistently. The word "murder" implies it was an unlawful (and intentional) killing.
So, legally speaking I suppose, abortion isn't technically murder so long as it was legally performed. But morally is a whole different beast.
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
@Comradebot: I am curious to read your response to my comments around 12 hours ago:
It seems that a lot of the discussion that has gone on in the thread has jumped the gun as there's a lot of stuff to be unpacked in your initial posts.
Posts
Sure, but again the question comes down to where you draw that line. Abortion is a very simple topic if you're happy just dissecting where someone else has drawn the line, but suddenly gets much more complicated when you try to find that place yourself. Unless you're a utilitarian and only have interest in outcomes.
--LeVar Burton
What about Unitarians, where do they fall in this?
Those are two very different things, but the official Unitarian position is pro-choice.
Meh. You can make it useless by trying to nail its feet to the floor, but you don't have to.
Again, focussing solely on conception as the transition point between 'just cells' and 'person' is no more useful than focussing solely on birth. No standard is unassailable, and so you have to try to view them concurrently and try to choose the best one. I think a reasonable person has to keep these things in mind, and not view those that disagrees with them too simply.
--LeVar Burton
I was mostly being a random smartass, but interesting to know, so thanks. :-)
These are important distinctions. Important, delicious distinctions.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Do you really not grasp the difference between a part of a human being and something that can become a human being? Because I don't feel it's a particularly difficult thing to discern. One can one day be another idiot doing 90 in a 65 in their Ford F450. The other cannot.
But it doesn't matter, because you're clearly trolling at this point more than anything else. If you want to have a nice, friendly debate over what constitutes human life and the rights n' wrongs of abortion, that's cool. However, at this point it's not so much of a debate as it is pants-on-head HURHURHURLULZ thinly veiled as an arguement.
Yummy, yummy scrambled eggs.
Certain ingredients can, in theory, become something (cake or babby) but depending on whether or not they've been joined (and 'baked' for awhile) may temper someone's idea on how much a 'clump of cells' is a human or not.
I, personally, put it like this:
Sperm: Millions of them. Not even close to a person.
Egg: Much more limited and more valuable, but still not a person.
Zygote: Getting there, but not just yet.
Fetus: Could be! Depends on how many months it's been cookin'.
Born child: Yes! Unless they're poor and you belong to the GOP.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
So... in Mississippi?
Every single person that exists consumes some of earths resources. This planet can support a limited number of people. Many of the resources we currently consume, particularly food resources, are depletable. They don't necessarily have to be, but they are because of the manner in which we consume these resources (slash and burn farming, and overfishing are two examples of this). What is the result of depleting these resources, a slow and painful starvation for millions of people. What noble purpose is served by adding to this body count?
It takes a lot of work and resources to turn a child into an adult that is a functioning member of society. The child's mother is already at least a marginally functional member of society, therefore her life is currently more valuable. I think an argument can be made that the value of her life is more than that of the child inside of her. If it is not the case that she is a functioning member of society, and instead is dysfunctional, than why should we encourage her to have a kid that she is likely to raise improperly?
Kids who ware unwanted are less likely to become productive members of society, and our society does not seem to have an interest in properly raising the kids of everyone who decides to have them (if anyone would like to counter this by presenting statistics about how much more successful foster children, and adopted children are I'd love to see some of that). Knowing these things, it only makes sense to me that we should encourage abortion so that unwanted kids do not become a burden on our society and on our planet.
It seems to me a very cruel thing to encourage woman to have and raise children that they cannot support, or do not want.
It's really not. You cannot conceptualize, or rather, you cannot elucidate what a human is. What is this potential? What if I could grow a human in a test tube outside of a female body? I could use multiple somatic cells in your body to create life, what is the differentiation of potential here?
Stop using trolling, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Is it cognition, is it awareness, is it sapience, is it being birthed from a vagina, is it being fertilized from an egg and sperm, maybe somewhere in between? Each of these happens at different times in development, and a baby is indistinguishable from a culture of bacteria with a 25 year old doing 90 in a 65 zone.
*head-desk*
Yeah, if you grow a baby in a test tube, it's just as human as one in a womb. That's not the debate, so don't invent it being so to suite your position. A baby grown in a test tube, however, it's not synonymous with a random collection of human cells that can survive on their own, but under no circumstances could ever gestate and grow into an adult human being.
And I know exactly what trolling means, and more likely than not what you're doing. Honestly, it's either that or you're actually so intellectually inept you cannot discern the difference between a fetus and a piece of skin. That's like not being able to tell the difference between a mineral in a rock and the rock itself, or hydrogen and the water it's a part of.
So, my conclusion: either you're trolling or you're brain is missing something. Either you want to get a rise out of someone for kicks on the internwebz, or you seriously cannot comprehend the difference between a blastocyst and some cancerous cells removed from a woman in the 50s.
Population control is an extremely poor justification for abortion, as abortions impact is exponentially smaller than improved education, healthcare, and economic opportunity for the third world.
Yeah, the fact that I can't give a hard and fast delineation between an armchair, a love seat, and a couch doesn't make these terms useless.
You must delineate personhood at some point, or there is no difference between masturbation and murder, one way or the other. Pointing out that this is a difficult thing to do makes it no less necessary.
--LeVar Burton
So by that rationality, why don't we start rounding up everyone not deemed "worthy" enough and start killing them by the millions so they can no longer take away from our planet's resources? Let's say (and just pulling this out my ass) we just round up and gas however millions or billions of people needed to extend our reserves of fossil fuels by another century or two. Should we? They're just more people sucking up resources, and if we're good at it we can identify the ones who aren't contributing anything back. Just more statistics, bro, let's go get em'. Or is the life of a woman-beating idiot who can't do the simplest of jobs worth more than the unborn fetus of otherwise decent, and to boot wealthy, parents?
And your right, right now her life is more valuable, because she's currently contributing. However, if she's actively contributing to society, it probably means she'll raise her kid to do the same. Heck, with a half-decent upbringing the kid is likely to be a better contributor to society than that aforementioned deadbeat from earlier. And by your own viewpoints, we cannot be stuck in a "NOW NOW NOW" mindset in regards to the world.
So let's go with your idea, tweak it for efficiency, and figure out who the absolute most useless billion members of the human race are and just kill the lot of em'. Better for the planet, and we can start making sure only the most well-equipped, indeed superior, members of the human race can be allowed to reproduce. I think we're on to something amazing here.
And, as bowen already kindly pointed out, it's rarely those who would have trouble raising a kid that can even afford to have an abortion. Poor people don't have abortions because it costs too much (though ironically not as much as the kid they have).
Of course all of those problems could be solved with proper sexual education of young people and making contraceptives as easy to obtain as possible. That's a big task though given that the regions of the world with the greatest birth rates are also those that are the least developed and therefore the least likely to have proper education and available contraceptives. The ratio of birth to death is actually starting to damn near even out in most of the developed nations of the world.
Well, maybe you should come up with a better argument than "Nuh uh, they're the same because I said so."
You... are a confectionary genius.
--LeVar Burton
Put a human baby in one open top box, and a culture of bacteria in another.I'll leave the room. You can move the boxes around as much as you want. Then I'll come back, and guess which one is the baby. We'll repeat this 100,000 times.
Results - It appears(P>1/{2^100,000} )it is possible to distinguish a human baby from a mass of bacteria.
But the planet.
--LeVar Burton
Society has already made an investment in everyone else, those are sunk costs and your not going to get back what you put in if you kill them. Also what your proposing would cause a wide array of societal problems that abortion wouldn't. Rounding up and killing people is inherently problematic for the simple reason that they would fight back. Encouraging people that don't want to or cannot support children to abort them I believe would offer society better outcomes.
I'm for educating people, but I don't think education is and of itself a solution. You need to approach the problem at all angles, with the goal being a society that produces the most productive/useful people. Although coming up with a definition for productive/useful is inherently problematic, we know that children who have active parents who want them on average do much better than those that do not.
Right? My plan is waaaaay better. I mean, we don't know which of these babies are going to grow up to be a physicist or rapist quite yet, but we already know who alot of those useless drains on resources are, so let's just start killing them.
And if someone is currently a productive member of society but carries a good chance of passing on genes that will result in special needs cases? We just sterilize them now so that they can be a productive member of society, but won't produce offspring that will actively drain resources needlessly. Only the intelligent and healthy shall reproduce! And as soon as old age starts to slow your productivity, well then it's off to the gas chambers. It'll be just like Logan's Run, and everyone loves that movie.
C'mon people, let's start breeding our race of Übermensch. We're doin' it for Mother Earth, damnit.
Phhhhw, says you. You're right, we won't get the money they've already cost us back, but if you kill them they won't be a further drain, and the money they would've sucked up from welfare or in prison will instead go to help educate the next, brighter generation.
And if they resist, which they almost certainly will... well? The military still has more and bigger guns. It could cause problems now which will pale in comparison to the benefits it will bring in the future, which again is what we're discussing. We suffer a few decades of unrest now to purge undesirable traits from the human race potentially forever. Not to mention it very well may be easier for some to prove they're worthy of their continued existence rather than face extermination.
Your strategy is to encourage the wanton slaughter of fetuses without regard. It's inelegant and clumsy, and you cannot know what you're potentially destroying. Not to mention, it's a lot slower. The fossil fuel reserves of this planet will probably be exhausted with a century, if we're going to cut down on the amount of humans draining the planet's resources it should be done in a handful of decades, not the course of several generations... not to mention encouraging abortion won't make as much of a dent overall.
But with my plan (I call it Operation: Wolfkrieg), we rid the human race of its most inferior aspects. We shrink the population, thus at least buying time to help deal with the planet's resource crisis, and those who remain are better suited to advancing civilization. If your goal is simply a utilitarian one, then why stop at fetuses? How about we utilize the death penalty more as a means to get rid of repeat offenders and those in prison for life? All they are is a drain, and their continued existence is a drain. What are the odds an unborn fetus is or isn't going to ultimately contribute more to society than a man who is going to spend his last 63 years in prison, being fed and housed with resources that could go elsewhere?
The conversation actually goes vaguely like;
"Wanna have sex?"
"Ok"
*Later*
"Oh shit, pregnant. Better go get a suck and chuck"
Your couple are monsters, mine are just idiots (by willful ignorance or lack of education).
I'm not saying this happens alot (it doesn't thank god), but I don't EVER want to see this as being acceptable, normal behaviour. Simply being behind abortion so unflinchingly, without raising concerns when necessary could very well lead to that happening.
Abortion is not de-facto morally wrong and I never said it was. I gave specific examples wherein abortion is the right choice. Thanks for labelling me so horribly...
Slut-shaming, really? I never singled out women individually. Men who refuse to wear condoms because it 'feels wrong' or whatever are the absolute pinnacle to stupid and are the single most common cause of pregnancy among those most likely to seek abortions.
I'll say this one more time: I don't want to tell anyone what to do with their bodies. I want people to be educated to make better choices before abortion ever becomes a consideration.
The alternative is to force woman to have kids they don't want or can't support. As a result they are likely to feel resentment towards them and treat them poorly. They are less likely to be successful, and more likely to be a burden on society. I don't see how forcing woman to have unwanted children helps anyone at all. If there are genuine societal benefits of this then make that argument without using outliers.
Except when you say "people use abortion as contraception" you're implying the first conversation. Which was the insulting part.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find people who think abortion should be treated as blase as you're implying people treat it. The ideal solution is to actually teach people proper sexual education, which is what pretty much all "pro choice" people say.
Very few people treat abortion the way you're assigning, so few I'd wager that going after this point is, for lack of a better word, pointless.
As to your earlier point about "not wanting your tax dollars to pay for these idiots" well, sorry, you don't get to determine how the government spends your money that way. Plenty of people are pacifists, but the military still gets money. Funds are fungible, once you pay taxes, they go everywhere.
The best solution, and frankly the most Republican (get the government out of our lives, ya'll) solution is to teach people how their bodies work and ways you can control reproduction before the sperm ever hits the egg. Also, better access to healthcare. This would solve pretty much the whole problem.
And my point is, if you're cool with murder for the "betterment of the world", then why draw the line at abortion?
Also, I've (several times now...) said the ideal situation is better education and available contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. There's not a single man alive who prefers a condom over ridin' bareback, but I'm sure many would agree it's better than a baby. Shittier guys may not (but that's while they'll be first in line during Operation: Wolfkrieg for Dalek-style extermination).
But the moment you go "I don't care if it's murder," you're opening up a Pandora's box filled with worms. And of course, there's adoption. Best case scenario, person who isn't capable of raising a child gets her kid into the arms of someone who can, and they raise it proper. Worst case scenario, the irresponsible mother kicks it, the dad is too much of a scumbag to raise the kid, and it can get sent to better parents. Heck, maybe we can start an incentive program to get parentless/abandoned children into good homes.
With all of that said, it goes back to the top of this post: education, contraceptives. This entire thread is a damn near irrelevant if we can get men and women to use contraceptives properly and to understand that their actions can carry consequences. If you bang without a condom, you might catch a bad case of baby and ruin your life. So, you know, make sure your captain wears his cap.
We agree on something! Huuuugs!
Sucks about the money but eh, it's small enough where I can ignore it for the most part I guess. Just gotta make edumakation the top priority.
Before someone can articulate in some manner their wants and needs, they aren't a person. The second they can, that's something you shouldn't kill. I feel that, that is a useful metric for determining whether or not someone is worth considering in any meaningful sense.
o_O
A soldier will go to prison if they murder an enemy soldier.
Or even philosophically.
Over generalizing terms in order to make a rhetorical point is rarely a useful tactic. Murder and killing do not have the same definition for good reason.
--LeVar Burton
Aye, as others have pointed out, murder and killing another person are not synonymous nor interchangeable consistently. The word "murder" implies it was an unlawful (and intentional) killing.
So, legally speaking I suppose, abortion isn't technically murder so long as it was legally performed. But morally is a whole different beast.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/22885855#Comment_22885855
It seems that a lot of the discussion that has gone on in the thread has jumped the gun as there's a lot of stuff to be unpacked in your initial posts.