Abortion, Again

[MrIndigo]

The "potential life" argument holds no water. A fetus is already alive, else we wouldn't be discussing the action which prematurely terminates it. You're not guaranteed to avoid being struck by lightning as I type this MrIndigo, yet it's still illegal to harm you, even if you're standing outside in a field during the middle of a thunderstorm.

A cancer is alive; in fact, it even has human DNA. It has internal biological processes that is generically referred to as life. But that's not what I was referring to when I said life-in-potentia; that refers to life in the sense of a lifetime of human experience etc. You're deliberately shifting what is referred to by 'life' in the context in which I used it.

The point I was actually making before you so elegantly straw-manned it is that the anti-abortion argument that "It has a potential human life, therefore it is entitled to see that potential fulfilled" falls apart because it can be extended to artificially created zygotes outside of a womb (which the vast majority of anti-abortionists do not consider equal to a baby or an in utero foetus/zygote) or, when dragged to logical extremes, any potential combination of sperm and egg.

Essentially, if you make the argument that a potential human life should be treated the same as the life of a human that has been born, you have to then acknowledge your choice of time-of-fertilisation as the starting point is as arbitrary as the standard first-breath used to define legal personhood at the moment, or actively justify why that's not the case.

 

[popemobile]

I'm too lazy to answer all those questions, so I'll just say that I agree almost completely with DM and disagree almost completely with DK

 

[Nastyjungle]

anybody saying that the fetus which has potential for life has the same human rights (or more, in some arguments) than a fully grown woman who already exists, has life, experiences, and feelings, is a misogynistic person, plain and simple

being pro-life is inherently being anti-women's rights

aka DM is correct and DK is making me sick

 

[Tayla]

How is it being anti-women's rights? I'm sorry, but that's a silly statement.. I am a woman, and aborting a baby for selfish reasons like "oh I don't want one right now" is ridiculous. A fully grown woman has RESPONSIBLITY towards what she creates, there's no getting around that. Whether you believe the fetus is human when it is conceived, or when it exits the birth canal, the baby is still a product of a decision that woman made.

Why, exactly, should this life have to be terminated because of it?


How does "having a right to work" have anything to do with a woman's responsibility? Women DO have control of their destiny. If a male wears a condom, are you serious? One, the moment I became sexually active, I put myself on a contraceptive. Two, a woman who is not on it should not be having sex without a condom PERIOD if they don't want the consequences. A sensible woman will refuse the man intercourse. Here's a clue, if a child is going to "ruin a woman's life", don't put yourself in a position where you could be having one!

 

[cookie]

see deck knight post

abort thread

 

[Temperantia]

Here's a clue, if a child is going to "ruin a woman's life", don't put yourself in a position where you could be having one!

That's all fine and dandy that most people are proactive about unwanted pregnancy. But, should they be forced to have a child if they do become pregnant? At that point, your argument just becomes a vindictive "I told you so." That child is also going to suffer in life if they live unwanted or in squalor. To doom both parent and child for what amounts to a bundle of dependent cells' "rights" seems a bit iffy, in my opinion.

 

[Vineon]

This is why morning after (abortion) pills exist. Women should be able to take control of their own destiny and not be at the mercy of whether their male partner wears a condom or not.

A woman can also impose the condom and is not exactly at the mercy of her male partner wearing one or not.

:[

 

[Nastyjungle]

How is it being anti-women's rights? I'm sorry, but that's a silly statement.. I am a woman, and aborting a baby for selfish reasons like "oh I don't want one right now" is ridiculous. A fully grown woman has RESPONSIBLITY towards what she creates, there's no getting around that. Whether you believe the fetus is human when it is conceived, or when it exits the birth canal, the baby is still a product of a decision that woman made.

Why, exactly, should this life have to be terminated because of it?


How does "having a right to work" have anything to do with a woman's responsibility? Women DO have control of their destiny. If a male wears a condom, are you serious? One, the moment I became sexually active, I put myself on a contraceptive. Two, a woman who is not on it should not be having sex without a condom PERIOD if they don't want the consequences. A sensible woman will refuse the man intercourse. Here's a clue, if a child is going to "ruin a woman's life", don't put yourself in a position where you could be having one!

firstly id like to point out that "i am a woman" literally means nothing for or against your argument, plenty of women are just as misogynistic as men
secondly, i just said why it would be anti-women's rights

anybody saying that the fetus which has potential for life has the same human rights (or more, in some arguments) than a fully grown woman who already exists, has life, experiences, and feelings, is a misogynistic person, plain and simple

thirdly, it all boils down to if a fetus has rights or not. theres just no getting around the fact that this is the center of all impasses vs pro life and choice
you clearly believe that a woman has a responsibility to the fetus, and it is her duty to see it to its birth
i do not feel like she has responsibility to the fetus until it is old enough to live outside of her body

either way, mistakes happen. people are irresponsible. i personally do not feel like punishing people who are irresponsible with having to raise a child is right, for either the parents or the child. actually i find it to be a rather cruel and unusual punishment, to make somebody pay for a mistake with such a life changing thing as a child, when they could abort the fetus before it is a legal human being

and with that note, we are again at the same exact point of "is a fetus a human with rights"

 

[Tayla]

It isn't vindictive, it's taking responsibility for your actions. I wasn't aware anyone thought that a bad thing. Who says the child would be "suffering"? Most mothers WILL become deeply attached to something they nurtured in their bodies and brought into the world. That "bundle of cells" is what becomes a child, since you have trouble grasping that. Abortion is dooming the child anyway, denying it both rights and the chance to be alive.

I'm not sure why you're all "omg Deck Knight's post makes me sick!". He brings up some good points. People know sex is directly related to pregnancy, so if you have one, you should expect some chances of the other happening. No one has answered how a fetus that has every single attribute of a human being is somehow NOT a human being.

EDIT: (right after I hit the button Nasty D:)

That is in no violation of a "woman's rights". A woman has a moral responsibility for herself, towards the children she makes. How is this not violating the rights of her future child, simply because it hasn't developed yet?

Also, saying the woman has no responsibility of what's in her body until it is out, is quite frankly silly.. The baby is infinitely MORE dependant upon the mother in this time, being directly attached to her body in order to grow and be born. So you're saying because the mother has no responsibility, she can just go out and drink herself to total inebriation?

Cruel and unusual punishment.. that's funny, because in my mind, terminating a child's right to live also falls under this category.

But we do keep coming back to that point, and we argue in circles like no tomorrow.. it's why I don't quite like very controversial threads such as these.

 

[danilo]

The abortion dilema is one that will never ever be agreed upon. Each side can throw out all the scientific evidence in the world, but the opposing side will never agree. That's just the way it is(or at least that's what I think). Although I try to stay out of these arguments because whenever I experienced them, they got out of control, I wonder people who are Pro-Life answer the following questions:

Aren't pro-lifers inconsistent when they say that abortion is tantamount to murder, but then shrink from advocating the prosecution and punishment of the millions of women who have gotten abortions?

Well, then, aren't pro-life people inconsistent, and not really pro-life, because although they oppose abortion, they don't oppose capital punishment or the killing of animals?

 

[Nastyjungle]

It isn't vindictive, it's taking responsibility for your actions. I wasn't aware anyone thought that a bad thing. Who says the child would be "suffering"? Most mothers WILL become deeply attached to something they nurtured in their bodies and brought into the world. That "bundle of cells" is what becomes a child, since you have trouble grasping that. Abortion is dooming the child anyway, denying it both rights and the chance to be alive.

I'm not sure why you're all "omg Deck Knight's post makes me sick!". He brings up some good points. People know sex is directly related to pregnancy, so if you have one, you should expect some chances of the other happening. No one has answered how a fetus that has every single attribute of a human being is somehow NOT a human being.

i would just like to highlight, once again, that we are just going to end up in circles

and with that note, we are again at the same exact point of "is a fetus a human with rights"

a fetus is not something with every single attribute of a human being, thats why there is so much controversy over it
you think a fetus has rights
i do not
i do not think aborting a fetus is doing anything to its rights because it has none

i do not have a hard time grasping that a fetus becomes a child
i do not eat an egg and dwell on how i have killed a chicken
i do not pull a sapling out of my flower garden and dwell on how i have killed a tree
in fact, you seem to have a hard time grasping the difference between something that is and something that can be

 

[Temperantia]

No one has answered how a fetus that has every single attribute of a human being is somehow NOT a human being.

Several people have answered that question on the first page.

A) It can not live independent of the mother's body and thus has the same human being status as colon cancer.

B) It is incapable of intelligent thought or learning

C) It is a bundle of cells, to draw the line of what is human that early in the pregnancy is akin to referring to sperm and egg cells as "potentially human."

Pick your poison.

 

[Tayla]

I don't eat an egg and dwell on it, either, because you eat unfertilized eggs, not ones that could become chickens.

I have no such trouble, because what can be, already IS.

But, I think at this point I'm going to say we agree to disagree.


Temperantia, I've already addressed those mostly through my posts but I'll spell it out for you.

1) a cancer is not a fetus. A cancer will not grown arms and legs and pop out nine months later. A fetus IS a human being. A cancer is not.

2) How can you possibly know a fetus is incapable of thought. A fetus has brain activity, it moves in the womb. It exits the womb with instincts of its own, so it obviously learned how to use those instincts.

3) Sperm and egg cells on their own, are not human. When they join together in fertilization and have the power to develop a fetus is it a human.

 

[az]

anybody saying that the fetus which has potential for life has the same human rights (or more, in some arguments) than a fully grown woman who already exists, has life, experiences, and feelings, is a misogynistic person, plain and simple

being pro-life is inherently being anti-women's rights

aka DM is correct and DK is making me sick

a supposed consequence does not necessarily infer a moral position, js!!

but we have had this argument

eta:

Well, then, aren't pro-life people inconsistent, and not really pro-life, because although they oppose abortion, they don't oppose capital punishment or the killing of animals?

where on earth are you getting this? i wouldn't class myslf as "pro-life" with everything that that entails, but i am anti abortion, oppose capital punishment and am not all about killing kitties so that all looks pretty consistent to me

 

[danilo]

Swaggersaurus, although I didn't make the question, I imagine that the person who made the question is targeting a more conservative audience. Generally, conservatives approve of capital punishment.

It's hard to respond to what you said since you're kind of in "limbo" when to abortion.

 

[Brain]

Potential to be something does not equal being that thing. If someone destroyed the block of marble the Venus de Milo was carved in, would they be guilty of a crime against art? Of course not. The sculpture was not done yet.

Similarly, a fetus has the potential to eventually become a human being, but it's not. Being a human is not fucking magic. It takes more than a bunch of chemical reactions. Just like a work of art takes time to emerge from raw materials, it takes time for an embryo to develop to a point where it has interesting enough properties to warrant us granting it rights. It sure as hell doesn't become intelligent, viable and self-aware overnight.

Calling a zygote a human being is a fucking travesty and trivializes life more than anything else could. When something so utterly devoid of substance as a fertilized egg is considered to be a human being, the only possible conclusion is that it means absolutely nothing to be human. If you could muster any substantial definition of "human being", you would have to acknowledge that a zygote isn't one.

 

[az]

sorry, yeah, i didn't realise those were in the link in the op

that said, i don't see how those are such mysterious questions to answer, but maybe i am an outlier because i am not conservative at all in any (other v_v?) way i can think of

it usually surprises people a great deal when we discuss how i feel about abortion, because if you wanted to lump me in extremely broad political categories i am extremely liberal

i'd just like to tack on to this post as a follow-up to my previous one that making this a gender issue potentially just serves to complicate it. you can say that inherently this is a gender issue by it's nature, but this is why nj and i never get anywhere -- for her it's a gender issue, for me it's simply a moral one. gender doesn't come into it

bandying around terms like "misogynist" doesn't help at all either -- if men bore children my answer would be the same because again, this is about what it means to "abort", not how i feel about women or men. alarm bells should be going off in your head if you would turn around and brandish people opposing abortions for men as misandrists; it's the act that dictates my feelings, not the importance of the genders involved

 

[Deck Knight]

anybody saying that the fetus which has potential for life has the same human rights (or more, in some arguments) than a fully grown woman who already exists, has life, experiences, and feelings, is a misogynistic person, plain and simple

being pro-life is inherently being anti-women's rights

aka DM is correct and DK is making me sick

Except there's no such thing as a "potential life" Nastyjungle.

You end up pregnant. You don't get an abortion. What will happen?

All things being equal, you will give birth to a little boy or girl. This is not some academic exercise, it's what happens every second of every day.

To suggest some "right" to abortion is to suggest there is an inherent right to have sex, get pregnant, then have someone place instruments into a vagina to slaughter the life that was made through an act of procreation.

That baby already exists along with it's mother at the time an abortion is sought, otherwise the abortion could not be performed. You cannot engage in a physical action against a nonphysical entity.

Abortion isn't even possible (I'd say "safely," but again, abortion always kills a human life - that is its purpose) without medical devices, so it can't be a right at all. In order to be a rights something needs to be inherent, not dependent on outside factors/tech/etc., and on that basis alone any right to an abortion doesn't exist.

If I'm "making you sick" it's because I don't make excuses for people who willingly value their own convenience (or "life experiences and feelings" if you prefer) over another human being's right to life. Abortion was something the original feminist movement vehemently opposed for the simple reason motherhood is a unique, valuable, and valued part of femininity. The original feminists were no misogynists.

And since it bears mentioning: 50% of aborted fetuses are genetically female. Abortion is misandry incarnate: hatred for mankind. "Misogynistic" is just a label used by people who want to shut down discussion of the actual moral ramifications of legalizing the killing of human beings based on characteristics other than their innate humanity.

I didn't question your morality, I questioned abortion's. Pay the same respect.

Calling a zygote a human being is a fucking travesty and trivializes life more than anything else could. When something so utterly devoid of substance as a fertilized egg is considered to be a human being, the only possible conclusion is that it means absolutely nothing to be human. If you could muster any substantial definition of "human being", you would have to acknowledge that a zygote isn't one.

Pretty sure it has the same number of chromosomes as you Brain.

Sure, it doesn't talk.

But it doesn't talk down to you either.

Just because you got the time to develop your code instead of getting chopped on the development lab's floor doesn't make you a superior product.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I really missed these type of threads

 

[Tayla]

I think they're kinda counter productive, since you're not really convincing anyone of anything, and you just go round in a big loop. :P

 

[danilo]

I think they're kinda counter productive, since you're not really convincing anyone of anything, and you just go round in a big loop. :P

Agreed, I hate these kinds of threads because every side think's they're right no matter what. Then, things get unfriendly and people get unhappy. It'd be interesting to see a God Discussion thread, but I don't have the balls to do that.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'd have no problem with outlawing abortion as long as people who claim to be "pro-life" would also support public health care and education for the children and not sending those children overseas to fight wars. Funny how the pro-life party suddenly shifts views on those things. However, it's cheaper for all of us by keeping it legal even before you get into the mental stress imposed on poor families.

Calling a zygote a human being is a fucking travesty and trivializes life more than anything else could. When something so utterly devoid of substance as a fertilized egg is considered to be a human being, the only possible conclusion is that it means absolutely nothing to be human.

This is exactly right. I laugh when I see people like Deck Knight and Tayla constantly move the goalposts when using the word "life" and then trying to say that it has an inherent value (when they can't even decide what that value is!). "Potential for life" is not the same as "life" just like "potential to explode" is not the same as "exploding".

and re: Why is it only the mother's choice? Because it's in her body, end of story. If you want to talk about things like "why is the father legally required to pay 18+ years of child support for something that he has no choice on?" then it's a different debate...

I didn't question your morality, I questioned abortion's. Pay the same respect.

Bringing morality into the debate is idiotic, since it is by definition subjective, and one person's morality should never be codified into law. Your idea of "the value of life" is completely imaginary.

Just because you got the time to develop your code instead of getting chopped on the development lab's floor doesn't make you a superior product.

Actually I think that is the definition of a superior product.

 

[Nastyjungle]

i'd just like to tack on to this post as a follow-up to my previous one that making this a gender issue potentially just serves to complicate it. you can say that inherently this is a gender issue by it's nature, but this is why nj and i never get anywhere -- for her it's a gender issue, for me it's simply a moral one. gender doesn't come into it

bandying around terms like "misogynist" doesn't help at all either -- if men bore children my answer would be the same because again, this is about what it means to "abort", not how i feel about women or men. alarm bells should be going off in your head if you would turn around and brandish people opposing abortions for men as misandrists; it's the act that dictates my feelings, not the importance of the genders involved

but it is a gender issue because men cannot be pregnant. saying that your position would be the same if men could bear children makes no difference because it can't happen

the fact of the matter is you are determining what a woman's rights are compared to a fetus' rights are, and saying the fetus' supersede hers is misogynistic, whether you mean it that way or not. it is saying a woman's rights are lesser than that of something that is not even a human being yet is very clearly anti-woman's rights.

To suggest some "right" to abortion is to suggest there is an inherent right to have sex, get pregnant, then have someone place instruments into a vagina to slaughter the life that was made through an act of procreation.

though you obviously wrote it in the worst light you possibly could, yes, what you said is basically what i believe

a woman has the right to have sex and abort a fetus if she gets pregnant and doesn't want it.

And since it bears mentioning: 50% of aborted fetuses are genetically female. Abortion is misandry incarnate: hatred for mankind. "Misogynistic" is just a label used by people who want to shut down discussion of the actual moral ramifications of legalizing the killing of human beings based on characteristics other than their innate humanity.

the gender of the fetus has no bearing... i don't even know what you mean to gain by bringing this up because that isn't what im talking about?

you are performing the act of misogyny against the pregnant woman, not the fetus, by saying she does not have the right to control her body


and sorry DK, i literally have not a single ounce of respect for your particular view on this issue, and what you are saying does indeed make me sick

which is because, as what people would label a feminist, i have no respect for that which puts women down

 

[az]

see, i'm not about sending people off to get shot, i'm all about public healthcare and education!!

why am i in such a weird position on this v_v

jrrrrrrrrrr, just one point, and i really don't want to derail this thread (i don't know how much longer we have of "reasonable" discussion anyway) but

Bringing morality into the debate is idiotic, since it is by definition subjective, and one person's morality should never be codified into law.

what else are laws?

in my eyes they are protections put in place based on moral standards (that in turn are the product of protection). now you might not agree that morality is a product of a need to protect, but arguing that laws are not the product of morality is much much harder to swing

eta: nj this is exactly what i'm talking about!!

you have to let the gender tags go because it is patently not true that i am a misogynist

it's like saying that because i dropped a cup and smashed i am vehemently anti-cups

you can't argue beliefs into my head like that, it just doesn't work that way

 

[jrrrrrrr]

what else are laws?

in my eyes they are protections put in place based on moral standards (that in turn are the product of protection). now you might not agree that morality is a product of a need to protect, but arguing that laws are not the product of morality is much much harder to swing

Laws are a codified system among large groups of people that are made in the interest of universal preservation and prosperity. It's a universal agreement based on keeping order. When Deck Knight talks about morality and common sense, he is not talking about making laws to make people's lives better, he is talking about making laws so that everyone does what he thinks is appropriate (even if what he thinks carries no observable or scientific weight). That is the difference.

If "morality" and "common sense" were real, then they would be shared by everyone and not imposed on others to suit one's personal beliefs.