As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Assuming abortion is illegal, how much time does she serve?

13468922

Posts

  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Hah hah! Oh, of course we can.

    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.

    so an accident should apply? you're seriously saying that a woman who is 5 months pregnant trips on a toy her 2 year old left on the stairs should be prosecuted for murdering her unborn baby under negligence?

    Xaquin on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Hah hah! Oh, of course we can.

    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.

    So that's a yes? Every miscarriage means an investigation?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    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.

    "Life forms" meaning what? Are we just talking about something that meets the basic requirements of life? Because up until about the third trimester when the brain is mostly formed a fetus is roughly as sentient as a tumor. And nobody has abortions during the third trimester because nobody stays pregnant for six months if they don't plan on having a child. Unless the mother is about to die, at worst they perform a caesarian and your child is born two months premature.

    Wanting to preserve existing life is fine. Wanting to preserve potential life is fucking stupid because every time a woman has her period because she's not preggers or a man ejaculates and doesn't inseminate, the potential for another life is wasted.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    Pro-choicers who assert no moral distinction between a fetus and a tumor annoy me roughly as much as pro-lifers who assert no moral distinction between a zygote and a toddler.

    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.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Botp'd
    moniker wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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.

    moniker on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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, we understand your side. It's just that we see it as a whole, not just the parts you'd like to trot out. For example, if you were really concerned about reducing abortions, you'd be attacking the root cause, which means sexual education that works, and support for contraception. Yet the best you could show us was that one pro-life group had no position on contraception. That's called cognitive dissonance. And the pro-life side is rife with it. Which makes people wonder if there's actually some other agenda.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    What if that other person was a taun taun and you were really cold?

    moniker on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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, we understand your side. It's just that we see it as a whole, not just the parts you'd like to trot out. For example, if you were really concerned about reducing abortions, you'd be attacking the root cause, which means sexual education that works, and support for contraception. Yet the best you could show us was that one pro-life group had no position on contraception. That's called cognitive dissonance. And the pro-life side is rife with it. Which makes people wonder if there's actually some other agenda.
    Are we not going to mention that once born, most right-to-lifers don't particularly care about the kid?

    Fencingsax on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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, we understand your side. It's just that we see it as a whole, not just the parts you'd like to trot out. For example, if you were really concerned about reducing abortions, you'd be attacking the root cause, which means sexual education that works, and support for contraception. Yet the best you could show us was that one pro-life group had no position on contraception. That's called cognitive dissonance. And the pro-life side is rife with it. Which makes people wonder if there's actually some other agenda.

    Surely not.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    Pro-choicers who assert no moral distinction between a fetus and a tumor annoy me roughly as much as pro-lifers who assert no moral distinction between a zygote and a toddler.

    Great. Doesn't really have much to do with what I said, but whatever.

    It's fair to point out, though:

    [Moral status] tumor << zygote << toddler

    Zalbinion on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't say you have to accept it as your belief, just that you have to accept that it's mine. By skipping past the entire foundation of my argument, there's no way a debate can occur. If you disagree that it's a baby, argue your side.

    The difference between your oxygen example and this one is that it's a known fact we need oxygen. It's not a fact that it's not a baby until it's born, that's a belief. Of course, I get shit for my beliefs because they differ from a majority in this forum, but it doesn't change the fact that it's their belief that a fetus is not a person that drives their argument.

    ryuprecht on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    What if that other person was a taun taun and you were really cold?
    And you thought the smelled bad on the outside. Speaking of, our septic pump replacement is almost done.

    Fencingsax on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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, we understand your side. It's just that we see it as a whole, not just the parts you'd like to trot out. For example, if you were really concerned about reducing abortions, you'd be attacking the root cause, which means sexual education that works, and support for contraception. Yet the best you could show us was that one pro-life group had no position on contraception. That's called cognitive dissonance. And the pro-life side is rife with it. Which makes people wonder if there's actually some other agenda.
    Are we not going to mention that once born, most right-to-lifers don't particularly care about the kid?

    I thought that fell under the "cognitive dissonance" part.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    Pro-choicers who assert no moral distinction between a fetus and a tumor annoy me roughly as much as pro-lifers who assert no moral distinction between a zygote and a toddler.

    Great. Doesn't really have much to do with what I said, but whatever.

    It's fair to point out, though:

    [Moral status] tumor << zygote << toddler

    Yes, but this is only because tumors tend to often kill you, wheras zygotes do not. This still doesn't make a zygotes innately worth anything, it just means it's not malevolent.

    My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    In one case you are wandering around with a loaded gun that's ready to go off. You are presenting a clear and present danger to everyone around you.

    In the other case you are pregnant. Pregnancy alone is not presenting a clear and present danger to the baby or anyone else. I think this would only be negligence if the mother were doing something that would result in a clear and present danger such as wearing a blindfold, using drugs, etc.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    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.

    "Right to life" is such a fluffy phrase. Considering that a fetus is little more than potential, and a potential that can end for any of a variety of reasons other than abortion in the first place, there's not necessarily a "right" to be had.

    Other than that, you're using an appeal to emotion. It could be all those things, but it could also be a drain on society, on the economy, on the parents, it could suffer, it could cause suffering, it could do any number of things.

    Fortunately, what matters is what it is. It is, currently, not capable of those things. It is, currently, not aware. It is, currently, at the will of the mother because it is, currently, her life and her body.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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, we understand your side. It's just that we see it as a whole, not just the parts you'd like to trot out. For example, if you were really concerned about reducing abortions, you'd be attacking the root cause, which means sexual education that works, and support for contraception. Yet the best you could show us was that one pro-life group had no position on contraception. That's called cognitive dissonance. And the pro-life side is rife with it. Which makes people wonder if there's actually some other agenda.
    Are we not going to mention that once born, most right-to-lifers don't particularly care about the kid?

    I thought that fell under the "cognitive dissonance" part.
    That was my point.

    Fencingsax on
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    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.

    "Life forms" meaning what? Are we just talking about something that meets the basic requirements of life? Because up until about the third trimester when the brain is mostly formed a fetus is roughly as sentient as a tumor. And nobody has abortions during the third trimester because nobody stays pregnant for six months if they don't plan on having a child. Unless the mother is about to die, at worst they perform a caesarian and your child is born two months premature.

    Wanting to preserve existing life is fine. Wanting to preserve potential life is fucking stupid because every time a woman has her period because she's not preggers or a man ejaculates and doesn't inseminate, the potential for another life is wasted.

    A sperm on its own is not going to become a human and an egg on its own is not going to become human. You know what I mean. If the sperm and egg don't get together, there's no potential for life, there's no human, never was, never will be. I know you are a rational human being and you can put these things together on your own, there is no need for this hyper anal picking of nits.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    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.

    "Right to life" is such a fluffy phrase. Considering that a fetus is little more than potential, and a potential that can end for any of a variety of reasons other than abortion in the first place, there's not necessarily a "right" to be had.

    Other than that, you're using an appeal to emotion. It could be all those things, but it could also be a drain on society, on the economy, on the parents, it could suffer, it could cause suffering, it could do any number of things.

    Fortunately, what matters is what it is. It is, currently, not capable of those things. It is, currently, not aware. It is, currently, at the will of the mother because it is, currently, her life and her body.

    Plenty of people are a drain on society, their parents, the economy etc. Should we go around and kill all these people?

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    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.

    "Right to life" is such a fluffy phrase. Considering that a fetus is little more than potential, and a potential that can end for any of a variety of reasons other than abortion in the first place, there's not necessarily a "right" to be had.

    Other than that, you're using an appeal to emotion. It could be all those things, but it could also be a drain on society, on the economy, on the parents, it could suffer, it could cause suffering, it could do any number of things.

    Fortunately, what matters is what it is. It is, currently, not capable of those things. It is, currently, not aware. It is, currently, at the will of the mother because it is, currently, her life and her body.

    Plenty of people are a drain on society, their parents, the economy etc. Should we go around and kill all these people?

    nah, that should have happened around 2 or 3 months.

    Xaquin on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    In one case you are wandering around with a loaded gun that's ready to go off. You are presenting a clear and present danger to everyone around you.

    In the other case you are pregnant. Pregnancy alone is not presenting a clear and present danger to the baby or anyone else. I think this would only be negligence if the mother were doing something that would result in a clear and present danger such as wearing a blindfold, using drugs, etc.

    O_o

    Tumors are not contagious. The "loaded gun" analogy doesn't really work.

    Let's also consider that bringing a new life into the world when it doesn't have a mother who is capable/willing to care for it is rather unfair. I think it would be better to have fewer new lives who are ensured a healthy, happy life.

    Up until the fetus is sentient, it's a part of the mothers body. If she wants it removed, she has every right to do so. I don't see what's so hard about this.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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.

    I see your point. Allow me to clarify then. #1, as just a fertilized egg, probably wouldn't if it failed to attach for natural reasons. That's the heart of the "when is it a baby" debate.

    ryuprecht on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.

    So a zygote is equivalent to a cyst? What about an embryo? A fetus? A 9-month fetus inside a woman in labor? Are those the equivalent of a cyst, as well?

    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.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    Pro-choicers who assert no moral distinction between a fetus and a tumor annoy me roughly as much as pro-lifers who assert no moral distinction between a zygote and a toddler.

    Yeah, but what can you expect when moral superiority enters a debate. People like Ryuprecht don't want to increase the maternal death rate, but that's going to happen if they have their way. Rather than basing anything on that, we get anthropomorphising tape worms and fetuses that are predestined to cure cancer at 12. Fun times.

    moniker on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    A sperm on its own is not going to become a human and an egg on its own is not going to become human. You know what I mean. If the sperm and egg don't get together, there's no potential for life, there's no human, never was, never will be. I know you are a rational human being and you can put these things together on your own, there is no need for this hyper anal picking of nits.

    And you obviously missed ElJeffe's point earlier: not all fertilized eggs become babies.

    That's not "hyper anal," it's common biological reality of human reproduction.

    Zalbinion on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    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.

    That's a strech. A miscarraige is natural. Sad at times, but natural. Do we do full autopsies and homicide investigation for each death at a nursing home? How about if there's no reason to suspect foul play?

    If the OP is correct, there would have to be limits on that stuff.

    ryuprecht on
  • Spyder3XSpyder3X Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    It doesn't tell us that a woman has a right to control her own organs

    No, science doesn't.

    The law does.

    Go read the Constitution sometime. Particularly the Thirteenth Amendment.

    Except the debate is whether she can control them to the point of killing an unborn baby. From the OP, if an unborn child = born child, this falls apart.

    There are plenty of laws based around making murder okay in certain circumstances.

    Think of the fetus as an enemy combatant first, baby second.



    We as a society recognize that there are times when it is ok to kill someone. We also recognize circumstances when it is not ok to kill a person. Why is it so difficult to bring these standards into a conversation about abortion? If I shoot someone on my property that is threatening someone or trying to steal my stuff and he dies there will be an investigation into the circumstances and the law will be upheld as it should be. If someone is killed in war, again the circumstances constitute if there will be any punishment for the killer. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant and desires an abortion, the child is an unfortunate bystander that suffers consequences. How is this different than if I am pushed down some stairs and on my way down I knock someone else over the railing and they fall to their death. In the falling case, the pusher is held accountable for assault and murder, even though his intent was just to assault me. Perhaps the rapist should be held accountable for rape and murder.

    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    Spyder3X on
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    And this thread is on notice, because I don't see how it could possibly go anywhere besides woman-hating.

    Cat, everything to you is women hate, get back in the kitchen and stop bothering us men. We're trying to have conversations here.

    rayofash on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.

    So a zygote is equivalent to a cyst? What about an embryo? A fetus? A 9-month fetus inside a woman in labor? Are those the equivalent of a cyst, as well?

    Yes. Yes. Maybe. No.

    Zalbinion on
  • WerrickWerrick Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.

    So a zygote is equivalent to a cyst? What about an embryo? A fetus? A 9-month fetus inside a woman in labor? Are those the equivalent of a cyst, as well?

    Yes. Yes. Maybe. No.

    Back to work...

    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
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    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.

    "Right to life" is such a fluffy phrase. Considering that a fetus is little more than potential, and a potential that can end for any of a variety of reasons other than abortion in the first place, there's not necessarily a "right" to be had.

    Other than that, you're using an appeal to emotion. It could be all those things, but it could also be a drain on society, on the economy, on the parents, it could suffer, it could cause suffering, it could do any number of things.

    Fortunately, what matters is what it is. It is, currently, not capable of those things. It is, currently, not aware. It is, currently, at the will of the mother because it is, currently, her life and her body.

    Plenty of people are a drain on society, their parents, the economy etc. Should we go around and kill all these people?

    That bacteria you killed could have been a cure for cancer.



    I just figured if we're throwing around bullshit based on potential that's rare enough as it is, I might as well do the same.
    That's a strech. A miscarraige is natural. Sad at times, but natural. Do we do full autopsies and homicide investigation for each death at a nursing home? How about if there's no reason to suspect foul play?
    Because when a person is completely healthy one day, and suddenly just dead the next day, people get suspicious. That's how a miscarriage works. It's not just 'Ma'am, your baby is dying.'
    It's "It'll be a healthy baby girl!"
    "You miscarried."

    The Muffin Man on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Werrick wrote: »
    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.

    I also happen to have things to do and tend to miss certain posts if they are too much like something I've already addressed. People do that to me all the time.

    Not sure what everyone else is doing, but I'm not dedicating my day to this. It's a distraction during slow spots at work.

    ryuprecht on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.

    So a zygote is equivalent to a cyst? What about an embryo? A fetus? A 9-month fetus inside a woman in labor? Are those the equivalent of a cyst, as well?

    Well, if you want to play the "when does life begin" game, I'd say it's when the brain is developed enough to discern sensation. Which, according to wikipedia, is after roughly 26 weeks, or about the beginning of the third trimester.

    I think we can all agree that being self-aware is one of the defining features of being human, at least mentally.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    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.

    That's a strech. A miscarraige is natural. Sad at times, but natural. Do we do full autopsies and homicide investigation for each death at a nursing home? How about if there's no reason to suspect foul play?

    If the OP is correct, there would have to be limits on that stuff.

    well yes it is natural, but since abortion would (under your government) be murder, I'd assume then that miscarriage would be looked into more closely right?

    Xaquin on
  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Yeah, but what can you expect when moral superiority enters a debate. People like Ryuprecht don't want to increase the maternal death rate, but that's going to happen if they have their way. Rather than basing anything on that, we get anthropomorphising tape worms and fetuses that are predestined to cure cancer at 12. Fun times.

    This is at the crux of where I stand in the abortion debate. Ideally, we wouldn't need non-rape, non-mother's-life-threatened abortions at all because people would be responsible. However, people have proven time and time again we're lucky they manage to put on pants before going to work, let alone maintain control over their sexual activities sufficiently that unplanned pregnancy has a vanishingly small probability of happening. And if we don't have abortion as a crutch for the irresponsible, we'll have a lot of expectant mommies tossing themselves down stairs and the like. It's like Prohibition; even if you think booze is bad, Prohibition was a bad idea because it didn't take into account human nature.

    Dagrabbit on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.
    So a zygote is equivalent to a cyst? What about an embryo? A fetus? A 9-month fetus inside a woman in labor? Are those the equivalent of a cyst, as well?
    Well, if you want to play the "when does life begin" game, I'd say it's when the brain is developed enough to discern sensation. Which, according to wikipedia, is after roughly 26 weeks, or about the beginning of the third trimester.
    Which is, coincidentally, when there is the most restriction on abortion, mostly because doctors and experts told the Supreme Court "here's our best guess."

    Of course, this requires a belief in science.

    Thanatos on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Yeah, but what can you expect when moral superiority enters a debate. People like Ryuprecht don't want to increase the maternal death rate, but that's going to happen if they have their way. Rather than basing anything on that, we get anthropomorphising tape worms and fetuses that are predestined to cure cancer at 12. Fun times.

    This is at the crux of where I stand in the abortion debate. Ideally, we wouldn't need non-rape, non-mother's-life-threatened abortions at all because people would be responsible. However, people have proven time and time again we're lucky they manage to put on pants before going to work, let alone maintain control over their sexual activities sufficiently that unplanned pregnancy has a vanishingly small probability of happening. And if we don't have abortion as a crutch for the irresponsible, we'll have a lot of expectant mommies tossing themselves down stairs and the like. It's like Prohibition; even if you think booze is bad, Prohibition was a bad idea because it didn't take into account human nature.

    The prohibition parallel is one of the best I've ever seen.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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.

    The best you can do is "no position"? Well done.

    No, the best I can do is say "I was talking about groups, but individuals", which I already did. Part of that is because I don't want to waste the time investigating national groups to satisfy something that's an offshoot of my original comment.

    ryuprecht on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? :lol: Oh man, that's precious.

    moniker on
  • Spyder3XSpyder3X Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? :lol: Oh man, that's precious.

    What do you consider it?

    Spyder3X on
This discussion has been closed.