Brian Griffin
Member
Indeed. As the great Carlin has taught us, we made the whole thing up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_tr_k59O6s
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_tr_k59O6s
What are you even talking about?
Do you know what a benefit is? You are enjoying a benefit of life right now, correct? Just like I, as a person with eyes, can enjoy the benefit of sight. Take my eyes out and now I can't see....and then I would be at a loss. Wouldn't that suck?
Why are you trying to unnecessarily complicate something so simple?
Because she and the father consciously and willingly did something that could result in the formation of a human life.
This sounds like vengeance to me (Code of Hammurabi, eye for an eye, etc) and that's savagery.
Nonetheless, the mother is keeping the baby alive because it's the only way the baby will survive. If they could transport the baby to an artificial uterus that could be born from that (instead of having to give birth to it/kill it), I'd be all for that. In those other examples, a person is only exploring a single option among the MYRIAD that exist. When it comes to pro-life, only 1 option exists.
Brian Griffin
Member
I don't think you understand the organ donation argument. If the ONLY way a child will survive is if they get an organ from their parents, why don't we force the parents to give them that organ to save their life? You are all for forcing mothers to use their uterus so the baby can live so why doesn't the same thing apply to children once they are born?
So, in instances where it is the only option (shortage of donors, rare blood type, immediacy of need, etc), you are all for pushing legislation that legally forces the person who put the other person in the situation of mortal danger to give up internal parts of their body to another human being?
I don't believe it to be nearly as simple as you claim to. Your example is inapplicable to my prior statement because although 'the dead' does not exist, you definitely do and are therefore capable of experiencing the lack or loss of a benefit.
NullPointer
Member
Sorry ;P Just felt you were getting needlessly abstract there.
Just like saying you've never seen an inalienable right in the wild. I would only add that such a statement is as nourishing to the intellect as a photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.
Well, this is depressing.
I disagree; I believe it provides valuable clarity to know that rights must be asserted in order to exist.
It's not as if 'men' in the motto included everybody (including fetuses) to begin with, and we're negotiating for the removal of fetuses from the umbrella.
Originally, 'men' included pretty much only white male adults. We've gradually added other groups to the umbrella. This in itself demonstrates that the rights in question are negotiated rather than inalienable.
There are no inalienable rights; the best you can get are rights that your society will broadly agree upon and support your assertion of.
Devolution
Member
But it's true. A fetus garners more time and energy arguing about its life than people care to think about the quality of life for everyone already in this world and suffering.
speculawyer
Member
But the thing is that fetus really isn't a sentient being. People are being far more cruel in killing cows & pigs with the hamburgers & bacon they eat. Those are beings with some consciousness & memory. An early fetus has no brain, no experience, no memory, no consciousness.
That's why I don't see it as 'killing a baby' at all.
Brian Griffin
Member
I don't either. I was just speculating what an anti-choicers justification would be.
NullPointer
Member
I agree with you and can understand where you're drawing the line, but that can come across as a kind of a Batman defense: I won't kill you, but I don't have to allow you to live.
Unless action is taken to stop the process already in motion, there is every reason to believe that a human life will emerge, although it may not survive. As such I can empathize with both sides of this argument, because as Devo justly decries above, one can respect human life both before and after it is born.
Devolution
Member
Before it's born however you have to make an argument that the person carrying it has no rights. When arguing for the life of a fetus, you deny the rights of the mother.
NullPointer
Member
Without a doubt, and I don't see a just way around it, which is exactly why I fall into the pro-choice camp. In my heart and mind, its the lesser of two evils.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Hilarious!
SquiddyCracker
Banned
It's also worth pointing out that a pro-choice legislation is more of a compromise than a pro-live one, as one in the former is not forced to have abortions whereas one in the latter is forced to go through pregnancies.
*emphasis mine*
Errr, no....I'm not for that.
A woman isn't "giving up" her heart when she's pregnant. Some drunk driver giving up his heart to the dying person he crashed into would KILL him. This isn't analogous.
Trying to apply the rules and complications of pregnancy to the outside world does not work.....at least in this manner. Under ordinary circumstances, a woman having a baby isn't an example of her signing her own death certificate. But that is EXACTLY what is happening in those examples that were provided.
Exactly. YOU know what it's like to be alive, right? I'm not asking a dead person if they would rather be alive. I'm asking a live person if they would rather be dead, knowing all of the things that you would lose.
Every bit of that knowledge comes from stuff I experienced after I was born, so it remains incoherent to presume that a dead fetus would prefer life. Also, I'll be dead eventually--whether or not I'd rather is not relevant, nor is any desire I may have to postpone that end an informative input to the moral questions surrounding abortion.
Timing and circumstance count for a lot.
Let's go back a few steps:
Fetuses don't get to enjoy things like asking why it's wrong to destroy life. Ever. Many things must happen and many other things must not happen before a fetus can potentially become a person capable of asking that question.
One of the things that must happen, is that the owner of the womb gestating the fetus allows the fetus to come to term.
Why is the mother morally obliged to use her uterus to provide the fetus the opportunity to possibly one day become capable of enjoying potential future benefits?
I, uh, feel like this is kind of the point.
How would you know? You don't know what it's like to be dead.
The point is to make a bad analogy? A mother isn't "giving up" or "handing over" her organs (or otherwise killing herself) to help sustain the life of another being.
You asked about destroying "life", not the life of a fetus.
But at any rate, no a fetus can't talk, obviously. But whatever the life of a fetus may entail, it's still a human life and we as civilized individuals should work to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Being unable to talk, walk, blink, etc. should not invalidate that right, either.
Because she is responsible for creating a human life whose only means of survival and growth is her uterus. Had it not been for the actions of the mother and father, she would be obligated to do absolutely nothing.
Babies don't try and spite the mother by growing in her uterus instead of in the sink or something. That's where babies go.
Devolution
Member
So we've sunk so far as "just don't fuck?" Hahaha call me when there is a worthy debate to be had.
not psycho
Member
You haven't ever given birth have you?
Neither have I, but from what I've heard, death is a possibility (and even a small possibility of death is reason enough to give women a veto), but there are also various other physical changes, some permanent.
To the level of giving up a kidney? Well, there are probably some people who would prefer to give up a kidney rather than give birth. Personally, I would prefer not to tie people down and force them to do either.
That's where we're, quite literally, at.
If two people have sex and the woman conceives, she must carry to term. End of discussion. Any other decision is the exact same thing as murder.
Despite the fact the man isn't carrying the child. Despite the fact the man won't fact discrimination due to carrying the child. Despite the physiological toll the man won't get carrying the child. Despite the fact that society will not help out 100% with the child till it's 18 years of age. Despite the fact the man has plenty of was to get out of taking care of the child the woman will never have (like, just don't pick up the phone. done.).
To term or your murderer. No gray. That's, apparently, the opinion male anti-abortionists have.
You can FUCK all you want. Just know that fucking can (and DOES) lead to kids.
Edit: or little fuckers (didn't feel right unless the sentence was vulgar throughout)
Under normal circumstances, the woman is not gonna die. If we're going to make an analogy, we have to treat both sides (edit: sides = THE COMPONENTS OF THE ANALOGY, Devo) with the same respect.
Devolution
Member
She deserves to be punished for her mistakes. And her punishment is a child no one wants. Isn't it an endearing ideology? Kids as punishment. No wonder crime goes down when abortions are available.
What respect? Your side thinks kids are a suitable punishment and women should be forced to undergo a 9 month process of physiological change.
You're completely obtuse to the point that pregnancy can still occur even with birth control being used to prevent it in the first place. Even with being responsible as much as one can be. So your end game is basically "never have sex ever until you're trying for a baby".
And also the fact that you were previously support it in the cases of incest and rape, where the mother didn't have a choice? .. Your idea of these things comes off as stunningly naive. Saying "I'm not going to make a decision" now doesn't really work either, because you're still here.
So what about a kidney? Or any other body part thats removal wouldn't cause instant death?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So never have sex until you're ready for kids?
I agree that giving up an essential organ like the heart isn't a great comparison, but what about bone marrow, or 1 kidney, or a part of a liver? Should we be legislating that mothers and fathers must donate these to their children? After all, it's just an inconvenience in order to preserve the life of the child, they should be forced to do it.
Don't be so naive.
It's not death or birth. The body goes through a whole lot of fucking changes. My mother had to have her stomach sliced open in an emergency situation so they could rip out a ten pound seven ounce baby boy from her uterus that was poisoning her because my blood was mixing with hers. This was after the complication that occurred when I, effectively, ate my twin in utero. Seriously, I ate my twin.
Shit is fucking intense. Heart rate changes, blood volume changes, breast size changes.
Between 500,000 and 800,000 women due in childbirth every year. The point is, you don't know.
And the point of the earlier post is that the argument that pregnancy is not like the outside world is exactly why killing an unborn baby is different from killing an adult.
Would that be considered murder?
More women die from childbirth than from legal abortions.
Actually, technically yes. Cannibalism, too. Not sure if that's an additional charge.
I've seen the ultrasounds of it. One week there's two lumps floating around. Then, the next they couldn't find my twin and it wasn't like it was miscarried. Doctors were kinda worried, but so long as I was healthy they didn't care. Of course, I was also so fucking huge that the pressure of my trying to fit out my mom's vagina caused my scrotum to swell up to the size of a man's fist.
That's the picture my mother used to bring out when I brought girls over. Big balls, little baby penis.
Devolution
Member
Yes or suffer complications/changes as a result. People like MIMIC want to treat it not only as a punishment but ignore the physical and emotional ramifications as well. Post partum depression, scarring, weight gain, urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, painful sex, Postpartum Thyroiditis etc.
But let's just force it on women eh? Fuck.
_/¯Devolution
Member
Also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystocia
1/5 of human births. My mother had this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopelvic_disproportion
and it's likely I will too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystocia
1/5 of human births. My mother had this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopelvic_disproportion
and it's likely I will too.
You said that I am "denying a rapist his pleasure". I don't really care for anything you have to say.
Some things in life are a gamble. It sucks but it's true. Does a condom ever say that it's 100% effective? No. Birth control in general? No. Like I said, it's a gamble. A small-risk gamble, but a gamble, nonetheless.
Like I said, the mother isn't GIVING anything. She's allowing something to grow, not just keeping it alive. Mothers aren't considered "life support" for their babies because the babies aren't dying. Of course without them, they die, but I think that there is a fundamental difference. Being pregnant isn't considered "saving a fetus".
Besides, saying that there's only 1 particular kidney in the world that will save Mr. John Doe is a little far-fetched. With a fetus, there is literally only 1 thing that will prevent it from dying: its mother.
My point was that Timedog & Devo were making it appear as if being pregnant and/or giving birth is the same as snatching out someone's vital organs. It isn't.
NullPointer
Member
If you have respect for the act, and what it means, yes. Sex comes with the risk of conception, always, and regardless of where you fall on this point politically or morally or whether you think its realistic to expect from others - each of us individually knows this, and should take some responsibility for it, male and female alike. We're not burning toast here, or spilling milk - we're creating the very fundamentals of human life.
I'm pro-choice but I honestly can't understand how anyone can take this stuff casually once they've put any thought into it. And yes, I'm not talking about rape or incest here - I'm talking eyes wide open, consensual sex. Either we can accept some adult responsibility for what can happen, or else we should take a cold shower because maybe we're not ready for that much reality.
/rant. apologies.
Devolution
Member
Or people are ready and you just don't like their solution.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
See, I would agree up until the point historically that things like the morning after pill and early abortions become viable and relatively safe. I'm actually fairly sexually conservative personally but once we are capable of removing risk of pregnancy from sex then some people are going to treat it casually, and I think you agree with what I'm about to say, but if they're able to remove pregnancy risk from their sexual activities then they should be allowed to. (unless of course one believes that a small collection of cells constitutes a human being)
The Gaming Gamer
Member
MIMIC, your views are extreme and even unrealistic, but I can understand your reasoning. I wouldn't even be able to argue against them because your views and values are so different than mine.
I guess the point is how come this stance can not just apply to you? You can live your life like this and feel noble for never taking the unnecessary risk, but why does this have to apply to everyone, especially people that do not share your views? There are a lot of different beliefs on what defines life depending on your religion or science based beliefs, why not leave it up to the belief of the individual?
I guess the point is how come this stance can not just apply to you? You can live your life like this and feel noble for never taking the unnecessary risk, but why does this have to apply to everyone, especially people that do not share your views? There are a lot of different beliefs on what defines life depending on your religion or science based beliefs, why not leave it up to the belief of the individual?
ErasureAcer
Banned
The Bible says those other religions/scientists are works of the devil and thus your point is moot. /MIMIC
NullPointer
Member
Maybe. Maybe. I may just be getting old ;P Fair enough.
Once we can manage to tinker with the human condition well enough, all bets are truly off. That'd be a brave new world.
Abortion despite me being pro choice is one of the issues that I can understand and find some value in some of the opposing arguments even though I ultimately disagree which is different with certain arguements in civil rights issues where someone is against people having rights where I see no validity in such arguements.
My view over fetus is kind of mixed, I believe they are a kind of human life that as it develops more it becomes more worthy and it does have value as a a life that will become a human person. But it is not a human person or always as developed as it can be late term so despite being valuable there is a limitation in what kind of rights it should have and how valuable it is, not valueless but not the same as human persons.
And as far as empathy goes, I just can't feel the same kind of empathy to a fetus than to a pregnant mother. The fetus is usually valuable to the mother itself so that still does not make it worthless but both practically the mothers themselves who want abortion will pursue it, and there are also other practical considerations as well. In the conflict of interest I would side with the rights of the mother and control over her own body and her own life because a pregnancy is a commitment for not only birth but also for later most likely although there is the counterarguement of adoption as an option, however the welfare and life quality of the now born child is an issue. I am not of the view of the fetus equal to any random cells though and still consider it valuable.
In conclusion women having the right to choose is both safer and the right choice and it does not necessarily mean they will choose to abort. Pro choice brings better quality of life and freedom and respect of rights for born people.
My view over fetus is kind of mixed, I believe they are a kind of human life that as it develops more it becomes more worthy and it does have value as a a life that will become a human person. But it is not a human person or always as developed as it can be late term so despite being valuable there is a limitation in what kind of rights it should have and how valuable it is, not valueless but not the same as human persons.
And as far as empathy goes, I just can't feel the same kind of empathy to a fetus than to a pregnant mother. The fetus is usually valuable to the mother itself so that still does not make it worthless but both practically the mothers themselves who want abortion will pursue it, and there are also other practical considerations as well. In the conflict of interest I would side with the rights of the mother and control over her own body and her own life because a pregnancy is a commitment for not only birth but also for later most likely although there is the counterarguement of adoption as an option, however the welfare and life quality of the now born child is an issue. I am not of the view of the fetus equal to any random cells though and still consider it valuable.
In conclusion women having the right to choose is both safer and the right choice and it does not necessarily mean they will choose to abort. Pro choice brings better quality of life and freedom and respect of rights for born people.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
You are dodging the central dilemma I was getting at:
You believe that abortion is wrong because it is ending a human life. Why then is it okay to end a human life as long as it was conceived through rape or incest, but not okay to end a human life when its conception was consensual? I understood that one was consensual; I wanted you to explain why the fact that one was non-consensual meant that the life produced had no value - or at least not enough value for it to be worth fighting for.
I also wanted you to explain why in one case you were willing to force her to carry a baby to term for nine months regardless of the fact that she might not want to have the child when it was consensual sex that produced it but not when it was non-consensual sex. You have enough empathy to understand that forcing a woman - against her consent - to carry a fetus she does not want when it is the result of rape is wrong and hurtful. Why does the scope of your empathy not include a woman who had consensual sex and now does not wish to carry a fetus to term? Why do you believe it is okay to force her to do something against her consent? Your answer that 'she and the father had consciously and willingly made a decision to do something that could result in the formation of human life' is a truism, but it is not a justification in and of itself.
Of course she's not signing her own death certificate (minus small percentage of cases), and i never mentioned anything about giving up a heart, so you're attacking a straw man. I *might* make an argument close to that to someone who believes that abortion is wrong in ANY case.
But anyways, you still haven't responded, except to some fallacious idea that organ, tissue, and bodily fluid donors can only give up their heart. What about non-vital organs, tissue, and bodily fluids? Please respond.
Devolution
Member
I just like how it's come down to, women who are sexually active deserve to gestate and bear children against their will. How the holy hell is that acceptable?
- Status