Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
defining a line for the grey area of whether or not it's 'okay' to abort a fetus is impossible. your analogy with (like oh my fucking god really?) suspect voting has a standard agreed on by everyone, and is simply numerical. unless you're only going to consider the number of days a woman is into her pregnancy, you are talking out of your butt.

yes, killing plants/animals/bacteria is perfectly equatable to killing other humans if you only consider their most basic definition as: existence. BUT, considering we are intelligent and have defined societies with varying and universal morals, uhh?? killing another human being is illegal because we have the capacity to empathize and understand the very real pain and consequence of such actions for our fellow species. humans have the free will and inherent want to stay alive. survival. I think the biggest thing wrong with your argument is that you don't recognize that killing/murder is a CHOICE. we do not kill bacteria in our bodies - it is a process. as for plants - they're fucking plants. throw this argument in the face of every vegan if you want, and just tell everyone we're going to hell. but, i don't mean to bring religion into this, when it is clearly irrelevant.
 
Anyone know the Transitive Property?

Abortion=Killing a Fetus
Killing a Fetus (fuck, killing IN GENERAL)=Horrible

THEREFOR

Abortion=Horrible
 
Killing a fetus = withering off your epidermis by rubbing your hands together really fast

Therefore:
Killing a fetus = pretty big deal
 
ToastTyrant13 said:
Anyone know the Transitive Property?

Abortion=Killing a Fetus
Killing a Fetus (fuck, killing IN GENERAL)=Horrible

THEREFOR

Abortion=Horrible
Click to expand...
Can't use that logic when it comes to abortions.. what is horrible is relative to the individual in this case because it is not generally accepted as horrible.. hence why it is a conviction or controversy ;o



-Even though I was almost aborted when my parents found out my mother was pregnant with me (thxs g-ma) and that I woulda had a potential little brother who was aborted when I was like 6 or 7, I am still pro-abortion. Although I am glad in my case that i was given a chance for life, I understand particular situations could not be ideal to give a newborn baby life.

Sum it up short. Having an abortion or not is relative to an individual and a particular situation because you can't define that grey area like LOVES DRAGONS OMG said. We can't predict the future of what this kid could be or is. We can only live in the present that pertains to an individual's or group's situation. Although generally "killing" is bad, there are exceptions where killing could be necessary for a perceived greater good (*COUGH* STEM CELLS).
 
This transitive property thing doesn't hold up

Abortion = murder
Murder = fun

however, abortion is not fun, it's a rather unpleasant experience for a woman to undergo

ergo, transitive property is an invalid argument
 
Even if transitivity did hold up, it's still mistaken.

"Killing a fetus" = bad is a faulty step. Bad compared to what?

We accept situations in which killing somebody is not bad (e.g. self-defense, protection of others, turning off life support, arguably execution) because any intrinsic badness, if any, is offset by the intrinsic goodness, if any, of the outcome achieved.
 
popemobile said:
about as fucked up as you are intelligent

so zero
Click to expand...

Listen, just because I'm irritated by someone for being an immature and disrespectful ass doesn't warrant you the right to think I'm a dumbass. My opinion is that it's fucked up to kill an unborn child, so don't be a fucking arse or ignorant child and mock me for thinking the way I do. You don't know me, and if you're taking abortion or anything like this as a joke, you yourself are obviously a huge dumbass.
 
you literally argued:

this thing = something that's not even true
that thing = my subjective opinion

therefore, it's a fact that this thing = my bullshit logic

many people pointed out your blatant fallacy, and here you are making an even bigger fool of yourself. keep up the good work I guess.
 
Posting IRC conversation per request

<ToastTyrant> You deserve to die
<ToastTyrant> not the baby
<Lou> then kill them; if you feel so strongly about it
<Lou> That's a sore point; wishing death is stronger than most people think it is
<Lou> food for thought
<deadfox081> so it's better for a baby to raised by an unfit 16 year old mother?
<Lou> and honestly, the blame can go back further than that - how many parents raise their kids to be successful parents?
<Lou> to expand on deadfox's statement:
<Lou> would an unfit 16-y-o mother have the means to develop and carry a healthy baby to term?
<deadfox081> I mean unfit in a mothering sense, not a physical one
<Lou> There's no easy answer to either question
<Lou> which is why there's a debate in the first place
<Lou> some arguers don't take the time to consider the full ramifications of each option; and instantly demonize one side or the other
<Ragnarokalex> its one of those things that really doesnt have a definate answer, its much better to just understand that theres an infinite number of points and counterpoints and circumstances to bring up, its better to just let it be.
<Lou> rather than leave it be; it's best to adjudicate each individual case as such - an individual case - rather than to judge all such cases as "good" or "bad"
<Lou> which I think can be agreed on by most sensible people
<SimonSays> Discourage it, but don't completely cut it off as an option.
<Ragnarokalex> well yea, thats more what i was getting at, not debate the concept itself, just deal with the individual situations as they pertain to u
<Lou> precisely
<SimonSays> Seconded.
 
ToastTyrant13 said:
Abortion=Killing a Fetus
Killing a Fetus (fuck, killing IN GENERAL)=Horrible

THEREFOR

Abortion=Horrible
Click to expand...

Look, this is what I said.

Let's take a look at what YOU said, Popemobile.

this thing = something that's not even true
that thing = my subjective opinion

therefore, it's a fact that this thing = my bullshit logic
Click to expand...

When it comes to abortion, you MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, abort the fetus. Sometimes you abort the embryo before it matures, but that's rarely the case. Now, go ahead and tell me that's not true. You're wrong. Don't be ignorant, don't be naive, and don't be foolish.

"Killing a Fetus (or killing at all) = Horrible"

In what horrible standpoint is killing a good thing? This isn't a video game, this isn't War, this isn't Terrorism, this isn't Legal Justification. This is life, and society. A Subjective Opinion would be saying "Well, you can't kill, because then you'd get in trouble." What I said was "Killing in general is horrible." That isn't a subjective opinion, it's a general fact.

Your arguement about "bullshit logic" is ridiculous. Your counter-arguements and faulty logic are all based on bias and ridiculously lazy (as well as extremely flawed) defenses. Before you call me foolish and challenge people's words, think before you let something stupid slip out of your mouth. Thank you.

Also
many people pointed out your blatant fallacy, and here you are making an even bigger fool of yourself. keep up the good work I guess.
Click to expand...

TWO people do not equal MANY. I suppose you aren't the brightest in math, either.
 
Lets get one thing clear, in the first 10 weeks or so we're talking about a fetus, not a fucking human being - it's a little bundle of cells that wouldn't continue development without its mother.

To me, it's a question of time and degrees; early on it should be a few to no questions asked process, but at 30 weeks I'd damn well hope it was a serious medical issue leading to it.
 
if you've ever stepped on an ant you can't condemn someone else for aborting a fetus

i mean if we're going to get all high, mighty and PEDANTIC about killing, why don't you think about it a little more before you post attacking the logic of others.
 
Some more food for thought on sex and pregnancy

Chou Toshio said:
How would you feel about a man being made to pay child welfare checks when he had sex with a woman in her fertile period when she lied that she was on birth control? I've actually heard of this happening a couple times from a friend in Seattle where the laws are particularly slanted (according to my friend...)

Or, even simpler, a woman could always impregnate herself with the contents of a condom after her boyfriend left. There's any number of ways for either side to violate the agreed terms of sex if they want to.
Click to expand...

So building on these above points...

If you force a person to have sex, it's rape right?

It's also said that if any form of coercion is used, or if one party is unaware of sex, or lacks the faculties to consent, it's rape (ie. drugs, alcohol, statuatory, etc. etc.). Keep in mind that consent is key to the sexual act.

So... if say, the couple agrees to use a condom, but the guy secretly takes it off halfway through and ejaculates inside her, this would be breaking the woman's consent, no? She consented to protected sex. She didn't consent to unprotected sex. Question-- do you consider this rape?

If you do, than rape should be established when any of the mutually agreed-upon terms of consent from both parties are broken.

When a party is deceived by the other in doing the act such that it violates the terms of consent, it would then be considered, rape.

Following this line of thought, the examples I quoted above would also logically be considered rape.

Should a woman lie to you about her use of birth control (whether it be diaphram, pills, or any other internal means), or following the sexual act use the contents of a used condom or other material to make the sex "unsafe" (ie. compromise the terms of consent), or heck-- just secretly poke a hole in the condom before hand...

...would these are actions not break the terms under which you consented to sex, and would that not constitute as rape, as surely as if you banged a girl who was too drunk to talk straight? Surely they would-- these actions violate consent, and thus should logically equate to rape.

Personally I think they should.

In which case, the man would be raped-- he would be a rape victim. In which case, should he not have the right to an abortion, or at least the legal right to not acknowledge the child as his own (ie. not take up financial responsibilities?).

When one donates sperm to a sperm bank, one forfeits any legal rights of custody, and also any responsibility for the use of the sperm-- one in fact, no longer has any right to it or its use (or responsibility for its use).

What this means is that genetic relationship =/= legal responsibility. The same can be said about adoption.

Responsibility, established for custody payments, is established because of the consent made to sex that resulted in the birth of the child. If you consented to have sex with a woman, you got no way of getting out of it dude.

But! If you didn't consent, you should logically, not have responsibility. Similarly, if the terms of consent were broken-- that would mean you didn't consent at all, and again, you should be void of responsibility.

Now here's the interesting thing:

How do you know that the terms of sex were protected?

Spork said:
@Chou that latter case would probably be impossible to prove, but yeah paying child welfare after that is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Alternatively though, you can't prove that all terms of sex were properly followed. If you can't prove that the terms were properly obeyed, how can you establish consent? How can you establish responsibility, from a moral/logical standpoint?


...food for thought...



Alternatively, if you don't consider term-violation as a basis of rape-- essentially establishing consent from any consent to any sexual act, than you can hold the couple responsible for the pregnancy and throw my above thoughts out the window. This also would make some sense to me as even safe sex comes with a risk of pregnancy-- heck, fooling around without sex and cumming on the girl's stomach/butt while not paying attention where the stuff goes has a risk of pregnancy. If you think of consent that way than my above thoughts can be ignored. :P
 
ToastTyrant13 said:
When it comes to abortion, you MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, abort the fetus. Sometimes you abort the embryo before it matures, but that's rarely the case. Now, go ahead and tell me that's not true. You're wrong. Don't be ignorant, don't be naive, and don't be foolish.
Click to expand...

How do you make the connection from "aborting" to "killing"? This goes into the "when do you define life" argument that's filled with all this religious bullshit and appeals to emotion and all types of fallacies. You'll have to present a convincing argument about "life" beginning before "birth", and chances are any argument you present will be shot down by something from that video I posted anyway.

"Killing a Fetus (or killing at all) = Horrible"

In what horrible standpoint is killing a good thing? This isn't a video game, this isn't War, this isn't Terrorism, this isn't Legal Justification. This is life, and society. A Subjective Opinion would be saying "Well, you can't kill, because then you'd get in trouble." What I said was "Killing in general is horrible." That isn't a subjective opinion, it's a general fact.
Click to expand...

see previous point. You're not "killing" the fetus, you're "aborting" it. They are not the same.

Your arguement about "bullshit logic" is ridiculous. Your counter-arguements and faulty logic are all based on bias and ridiculously lazy (as well as extremely flawed) defenses. Before you call me foolish and challenge people's words, think before you let something stupid slip out of your mouth. Thank you.
Click to expand...

my "counter-argument" was simply pointing out that your argument is fallacious, which it is and there's absolutely no denying that.

TWO people do not equal MANY. I suppose you aren't the brightest in math, either.
Click to expand...

unbelievable that I have to deal with children like yourself. I try to avoid arguments on this forum because all they do is give me unnecessary stress trying to argue with people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about. Feel special that you're one of the first people I attempted this again with, but only because your argument required so little effort to shoot down in the first place. Unfortunately it led to this, so I guess I'll be going back to what I was doing before.
 
Wo wo.. chill pills, lets have a civilized discussion

ToastTyrant13 said:
Look, this is what I said.
In what horrible standpoint is killing a good thing? This isn't a video game, this isn't War, this isn't Terrorism, this isn't Legal Justification. This is life, and society. A Subjective Opinion would be saying "Well, you can't kill, because then you'd get in trouble." What I said was "Killing in general is horrible." That isn't a subjective opinion, it's a general fact.
Click to expand...
Killing in general is horrible isn't a fact.. its general knowledge where "normal" people agreed upon based on human morals. Are human morals fact? But anyways you said killing in "general". So there are always loopholes.
Examples: 1) stem cells, to "kill" an embryo or to potentially save a well developed human. which is more valuable? 2)invasive species in a region, how should we get rid of it? Maybe we should try to eliminate by killing because if we dont then all hell may break loose.

therefore killing is horrible isn't a fact. Its a belief or conviction. But the belief that aborting a under-developed organism is good or bad is a controversy. Its hard to draw a grey area because you can interpret whether aborting something is good or bad by applying it to human morality which isnt perfect


But just look at yourself man..
ToastTyrant13 said:
<ToastTyrant> You deserve to die
<ToastTyrant> not the baby
Click to expand...
Chill pill please
 
Fishy LOVES DRAGONS OMG said:
defining a line for the grey area of whether or not it's 'okay' to abort a fetus is impossible. your analogy with (like oh my fucking god really?) suspect voting has a standard agreed on by everyone, and is simply numerical. unless you're only going to consider the number of days a woman is into her pregnancy, you are talking out of your butt.

yes, killing plants/animals/bacteria is perfectly equatable to killing other humans if you only consider their most basic definition as: existence. BUT, considering we are intelligent and have defined societies with varying and universal morals, uhh?? killing another human being is illegal because we have the capacity to empathize and understand the very real pain and consequence of such actions for our fellow species. humans have the free will and inherent want to stay alive. survival. I think the biggest thing wrong with your argument is that you don't recognize that killing/murder is a CHOICE. we do not kill bacteria in our bodies - it is a process. as for plants - they're fucking plants. throw this argument in the face of every vegan if you want, and just tell everyone we're going to hell. but, i don't mean to bring religion into this, when it is clearly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Then count the number of days into a pregnancy and draw a line somewhere between "acceptable to abort" and "unacceptable to abort". Simple. It matters less where the line is than that the line is unambiguous, so draw your line down to the nanosecond, and then there's the clear-cut line drawn and done.

I think it's a joke to say other living beings don't have free will or the inherent want to stay alive. You got things like thorns on rose bushes because the rose plant wants to stay alive. And it's not a choice to kill or not to kill. Even if you count killing bacteria in your bodies as a process, you are the one who chose to put those bacteria through that process by eating food. Or you chose to cook the food, which kills the bacteria as well, albeit in a totally different way. Either you choose to kill, or you starve. Since you're still alive, you are evidently a killer. It's for this same reason that I don't believe in vegetarianism for ethical reasons. For other reasons - financial, ecological, etc - maybe. But because of "killing", then no.
 
I am pretty pro-choice, but instead of arguing about biological or religious principles, I'm going to take a different stance. I think the bottom line with abortion rights is that it is at it's heart a religious issue, at least all the compelling arguments against abortion are based on religious teachings as I've heard them.

And that is fine. The protection of one's conscious is a fundamental right. I, despite being a supporter of abortion rights to the point of militancy, support separate health insurance pools for people who find it acceptable for insurance to cover abortion. This division in to 2 pools protects the conscious of people who are pro-life because it allows them to opt out of having their insurance payments be used to cover the costs of someone else's abortion.

There are two things that bother me though:

Foremostly, I can't stand anyone who doesn't support abortion rights for rape survivors, they are misogynists, anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to his or herself.

The second thing that bothers me is when people think that the government should be allowed to legislate against abortions. On an issue such as abortion, (imo) the fact that church and state are separate should prevent the state from making legislation that takes away a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion as it is forcing a religious dogma on them. It's evil. If you don't support abortions no one is forcing you to have one, so legalizing abortion is not forcing a (anti)religious dogma upon you as you don't have to have one. Where as when you illegalize abortion you criminalize someone based on your religious preference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top