There are ~75 million miscarriages each year. You going to cry over those?
How the fuck can you pretend a baby fetus is not a person EVER?
- Thread starter (._.)
- Start date
- Status
There are ~75 million miscarriages each year. You going to cry over those?
boiled goose
good with gravy
yes. after the baby is born, we cannot force the mother to take care of it.
Princess Carl
Member
Give me a fucking break.
boiled goose
good with gravy
If it is a dependent, the host can chose what it wants to do with its own body. Whenever.
I have yet to hear a rational argument about why we should be saving or caring about all these potential humans?
Right up until a minute before the baby would have been born?
So many extreme positions on both sides of this issue even just in this thread.
DanteFox
Member
Cmon bro.
That's like me saying it's ok to kill adults because there are millions of accidental or health-related deaths each year.
Devolution
Member
Can I get a read on when the OP thinks it's a person?
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
So it's not really that I don't acknowledge them as people, it's just that I just don't care that they are people.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The 18 months is post delivery and post partum in the link i refered to ...
Why should "we" care about or save you? If I want to put my hands around your neck and squeeze, why can't I? Don't I have control over my own body?
ComputerMKII
Banned
Whether a fetus is a person or not is an irrelevant hypothesis in my opinion. Fetuses cannot claim ownership of their host body, by virtue of the first occupier rule (an unclaimed piece of land becomes property of the first person to get there and claim it). Therefore, while it may or may not be criminal to physically destroy fetuses, it is acceptable to evict them from the mother's womb (just as you would kick out an intruder from your house). Since fetuses live off another person's body, that effectively makes them parasites and they may not survive being evicted but that would not be murder, only an unfortunate consequence.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Like I said, from a moral standpoint, it doesn't even matter if they are people.
The correct moral choice that is consistent with our society is that you cannot force anyone to do something with their bodies to save another fetus/human.
Exactly.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
Yeah.
I value my life at this point, but if I was going to be a financial burden to my parents I wouldn't have wanted them to feel obligated to keep me.
Photolysis
Banned
DanteFox
Member
The distinction is meaningless if the result is the same. You're still killing an individual with a sentient future.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Not giving someone the material means to live is not killing them. You're not entitled to food, air, medication or a uterus.
Devolution
Member
How do you know it even has a sentient future? Eggs fail to implant and women miscarry all of the fucking time. The minute she takes it upon herself to do it though, lol so wrong.
Society sticks its nose into murder, illness, and abortion at the individual level, but it lets people be when it comes to miscarriages. Do you see the difference?
Of course, republicans are going around in some communities trying to turn every fucking miscarriage into a potential homicide investigation.
boiled goose
good with gravy
An 'individual' (if we go that far) is dying, because we cannot save it if we remove it from its host.
Yup. Absolutely absurd.
I think the abortion debate would look a lot different.
We slaughter children in drone strikes all the time. We like to say "life is precious", but as a nation, we certainly don't live it outside of specific causes like this one.
Not saying either way if a fetus is a "person" or not. But we certainly don't have a problem killing innocents. So if it's ok that we murder thousands of people around the world, why is it not ok when a mother decides what's best for her family and situation?
Selective morality.
Not saying either way if a fetus is a "person" or not. But we certainly don't have a problem killing innocents. So if it's ok that we murder thousands of people around the world, why is it not ok when a mother decides what's best for her family and situation?
Selective morality.
Devolution
Member
Make women lie on beds for the duration of their pregnancy. Still miscarry. Obviously something is afoot here. How does biology work.
DanteFox
Member
Actively taking away someone's material means to live is though.
Funny thing, I had just yesterday the biggest argument with my friends about this, my position was summarized in this:
And thats all really, is the woman's body and she should be the only one deciding, of course unwanted teenage pregnancy was the biggest issue for me, forcing abortion by their parents is just horrible, but forcing having the baby is just as horrible, or giving it in adoption by force,however letting an immature teen decide seems just as awful, is a terrible situation, and the efforts should be put in preventing it from happening rather than just dealing with it, unwanted pregnancies should just not happen, ever.
This is so painfully reductionist I really don't think I should bother, and repeating myself, if you are not a woman you really don't have much say in this.
And thats all really, is the woman's body and she should be the only one deciding, of course unwanted teenage pregnancy was the biggest issue for me, forcing abortion by their parents is just horrible, but forcing having the baby is just as horrible, or giving it in adoption by force,however letting an immature teen decide seems just as awful, is a terrible situation, and the efforts should be put in preventing it from happening rather than just dealing with it, unwanted pregnancies should just not happen, ever.
This is so painfully reductionist I really don't think I should bother, and repeating myself, if you are not a woman you really don't have much say in this.
mullet2000
Member
There wouldn't really even be a debate more likely than not.
There's an obvious difference between the material world doing its thing, an accident happening and direct human intervention in every situation. Abortion is no different. That's a tired argument.
Devolution
Member
Let's just cut to the chase here: you don't think women deserve bodily autonomy.
Except Republicans wanted to conflate the two for their own goals. They want their cake and to eat it too.
ComputerMKII
Banned
You can't 'take away' something they do not own in the first place.
boiled goose
good with gravy
When the material is another human. I am ok with it.
Can we steal your kidney to save another? You won't die.
Humans are not part of the material world? The fact that we can intervene is awesome. Again, we should we care in the first place???
Maninthemirror
Banned
I think abortions are fine if the mothers health during and before birth is at risk, if the infant shows signs of severe mental retardation which will hamper life or have health issues identified which will hinder life and shorten life span considerably. Apart from that I think basing it off economics is personally absurd and selfish as you dont know that in the future you will be viable to care for them in future as society is evolved to naturally take care of kids of economically tough families
Also people's attitudes regarding welfare and homelessness.
In the womb=we must do everything possible to save the fetus
Out The womb= fuck you, got mine
Devolution
Member
Plenty of women who are already mothers opt for abortion.
DanteFox
Member
Irrelevant. You're still purposefully taking an action which results in the death of an individual with the right to life.
Not equivalent.
ComputerMKII
Banned
You have a right to life only in the sense that you have a right of not being killed. That does not equal an obligation from another person to lend you their womb.
Devolution
Member
I guess Dante has me on ignore. He believes women shouldn't retain bodily autonomy. Might as well relegate us to second class citizens.
boiled goose
good with gravy
No basing it off economics. Main argument is the rights of the host. you cannot force someone to carry a pregnancy or give birth when they dont want to. Am I selfish for not donating one of my kidneys? absurd.
instead of just asserting it, how about you explain.
Also, you just used 'right to life' without justifying it for fetuses.
In the future, when we have to technology to easily constantly monitor a woman's body, and tell whether or not an egg has been fertilized, and we have to capability to nurture that egg into viability--do you think we should do this?
I mean, when something unexpected happens and a plane's engine fails, it's an "accident". When you know how to check for and fix the problem beforehand but choose not to, it's negligence.
Alcotholic
Banned
It shouldn't really be a debate in the first place. It's not illegal to have an abortion anyway. People are entitled to their own body. Reproductive rights need to be in play here.
There should never be a situation like this. Ever.
There should never be a situation like this. Ever.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
Life is precious until an unwanted child is forced out of a vagina, put into care and, perhaps, given welfare... Then life isn't precious.
Perhaps it's a whole other topic, but does anyone else find it ironic that the stereotypical pro-life supporter also loathes welfare?
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
Well it's definitely up for debate apparently.
DanteFox
Member
I'm not sure what you mean by nurture that egg to viability. Do you mean to extract the egg from the woman's body and nurture it artificially?
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
Sure, it's not a person. It's likely to become one if you don't kill it.
That's perhaps my main gripe with abortion arguments. You have the absolute right to choose, but you have to understand that abortion is killing. The "but ... but the heartbeat" nonsense is silly. If you have a fetus, the conditions for creating a baby have been met. Assuming the mother remains healthy, a birth should occur. If you stop that, you are essentially killing the unborn baby. It's really that simple.
I don't subscribe to the "it's not really a child until X months" philosophy. You shouldn't have to feel better, or feel justified, in aborting a baby. You have the right to do it, but it shouldn't come with a sugar cube. You are taking a future life, those are the stakes of your decision.
That's perhaps my main gripe with abortion arguments. You have the absolute right to choose, but you have to understand that abortion is killing. The "but ... but the heartbeat" nonsense is silly. If you have a fetus, the conditions for creating a baby have been met. Assuming the mother remains healthy, a birth should occur. If you stop that, you are essentially killing the unborn baby. It's really that simple.
I don't subscribe to the "it's not really a child until X months" philosophy. You shouldn't have to feel better, or feel justified, in aborting a baby. You have the right to do it, but it shouldn't come with a sugar cube. You are taking a future life, those are the stakes of your decision.
Necromanti
Member
Because something being "alive" or "human" isn't a valuable enough qualifier in and of itself to determine the viability of something's existence. Around 3/4 zygotes do not implant successfully as it is. When abortion is performed early, the number of human cells lost are less than skin cells shed, or could be comparable to the cells the die when one gets a small cut. Those cells never stopped being human. We don't allow cancers to grow indefinitely if we can treat it. But we define what a "person" constitutes.
A lot of intelligent animals are consumed daily, worldwide. Animals that have at that point, more sentience, capacity for pain and emotions, and a desire to live compared to a developing fetus. Animals that can form complex social groups, communicate with each other, feel love for one another, and can care and perform acts of altruism for each other (and for other creatures outside its own species).
The distinction we make is subjective. We define the viability of life. I believe that all life should be respected, even bacteria. (And bacteria can form some really neat networks that mirror eukaryotic cells, almost like a neural network.) Judging a cluster of cells for their mere potential would be no more sane than condemning someone to prison for having a genetic propensity for violence or crime. Where do we draw the boundary, then, between the zygote and the more developed fetus in terms of a miscarriage? If the mother perhaps did something against her doctor's advice, did she commit manslaughter?
I have yet to see a compelling, rational, logical, and empirical argument that doesn't devolve into a religious one.
A lot of intelligent animals are consumed daily, worldwide. Animals that have at that point, more sentience, capacity for pain and emotions, and a desire to live compared to a developing fetus. Animals that can form complex social groups, communicate with each other, feel love for one another, and can care and perform acts of altruism for each other (and for other creatures outside its own species).
The distinction we make is subjective. We define the viability of life. I believe that all life should be respected, even bacteria. (And bacteria can form some really neat networks that mirror eukaryotic cells, almost like a neural network.) Judging a cluster of cells for their mere potential would be no more sane than condemning someone to prison for having a genetic propensity for violence or crime. Where do we draw the boundary, then, between the zygote and the more developed fetus in terms of a miscarriage? If the mother perhaps did something against her doctor's advice, did she commit manslaughter?
I have yet to see a compelling, rational, logical, and empirical argument that doesn't devolve into a religious one.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I was waiting for that one. One of my billion unused sperm cells would have been the next Einstein too. He would have liked to live.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll