Support NeoGAF

[Wazzy]

I always find it weird how many pro-lifers are so adamant about abortions being murder and that the parent should let the child live even if they're unable to care for it, were raped, is told the baby has a high risk of birth defects or has a chance of dying(including the mother) and yet the moment the baby is born you don't see any of these people jumping to adopt and support these children.

There wouldn't really even be a debate more likely than not.

Pretty much.

 

[Zoc]

These sorts of comments always show just how lacking in perspective some people are.

What "sort" of comment? What side do you think that comment represents?

Lacking perspective is thinking that there is one simple moral yardstick to rely on to decide what is best in all cases. There isn't.

One group of people, like the OP, use the yardstick "life is life," which to the absurd proposition that a sperm and egg are not alive, but are instantly alive when they combine.

Another group of people, like the poster I was responding to, use the yardstick "a woman has control over her own body," which leads to the absurd proposition that a fetus could be aborted seconds before delivery. Furthermore, that particular poster apparently has the completely crazy and dangerous idea that no one is entitled to their own life, and that anybody and everybody not beneficial to society should be murdered. If I'm getting him wrong on that, he's free to respond.

 

[boiled goose]

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?

Yes lets assume we can do that with non invasive procedure and that way not violate the rights of the host and be able to bring the fertilized egg to term. WHY would we even want to????

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Irrelevant. You're still purposefully taking an action which results in the death of an individual with the right to life.

If the fetus being brought to term could endanger the mother's life or, upon birth, be impossible for the the mother to take care of, how do you decide the fetus' potential life had priority?

What makes this potential life inherently more important than any problems it may bring about?

 

[Timedog]

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?

Yes. Or rather, collect it as it is flushed out. At some point in the future it will probably be very possibly to save a human life in this way. As well as grow it into a viable baby.

 

[Chance Hale]

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.

But what if Hitler had been aborted. You could be saving the world from a monster!

 

[DanteFox]

I think you missed a post directed at you, and I'm interested in your response:

It's a BS argument that has no relevance when an individuals right to life is potentially being infringed upon. Nothing against women in particular no matter what anyone might try to imply. They just happen to be the one's who carry the baby. If men could get pregnant my argument would remain the same.

Yes. Or rather, collect it as it is flushed out. At some point in the future it will probably be very possibly to save a human life in this way. As well as grow it into a viable baby.

That sounds like a good alternative to abortion. Instead of killing the baby they could simply have it extracted and nurtured. As for the surveillance, it would make sense for the parents to opt in to such a program. I don't think people have the right to not die, I think they have the right to not be murdered.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

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?

In the future when we have artificial wombs that can raise a fetus of arbitrary development into maturity, should abortions be illegal?

 

[Devolution]

It's a BS argument that has no relevance when an individuals right to life is potentially being infringed upon. Nothing against women in particular no matter what anyone might try to imply. They just happen to be the one's who carry the baby. If men could get pregnant my argument would remain the same.

How is it a bullshit argument? Do women retain rights to their body? Yes or no?

In the future when we have artificial wombs that can raise a fetus of arbitrary development into maturity, should abortions be illegal?

Unless you have ways to support all of those embryos normally rejected good luck with that future.

 

[Timedog]

In the future when we have artificial wombs that can raise a fetus of arbitrary development into maturity, should abortions be illegal?

It depends on what is best for society in this future.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

DanteFox thought Joel from The Last of Us was right.

 

[Christine]

How people talk like what's being stopped in there can't be considered a person, yet when it's planned it's already named and has a crib waiting to be set up.

Simple. A planned, wanted child-to-be actually is more of a person than an aborted fetus. A person is not merely an ego that lives in the head of one human. Persons exist in the spaces that others build for us within their lives and minds, built upwards from our names. It is sad that many human organisms never approach or attain personhood, but it's not nearly the same level of injury as when a person is lost to us.

 

[boiled goose]

What "sort" of comment? What side do you think that comment represents?

Lacking perspective is thinking that there is one simple moral yardstick to rely on to decide what is best in all cases. There isn't.

One group of people, like the OP, use the yardstick "life is life," which to the absurd proposition that a sperm and egg are not alive, but are instantly alive when they combine.

Another group of people, like the poster I was responding to, use the yardstick "a woman has control over her own body," which leads to the absurd proposition that a fetus could be aborted seconds before delivery. Furthermore, that particular poster apparently has the completely crazy and dangerous idea that no one is entitled to their own life, and that anybody and everybody not beneficial to society should be murdered. If I'm getting him wrong on that, he's free to respond.

No. No. No. You totally missed the point. You blatantly murdering someone is a clear violation of their rights. Your rights end when another's begin, simple as that. And before you use this as a case against abortion it actually works the opposite way. You cannot force someone to use their body to save someone else.

 

[Horse Detective]

DanteFox thought Joel from The Last of Us was right.

now hold on just a damn second

 

[Ultryx]

I am pro-choice, up to a point. For a time, the developing cell are nothing more than an aggregate of cells and if they are discarded I think nothing of it. When you begin to see brain activity and the fetus has developed with working a working nervous system communicating with it, then I do not believe abortion is acceptable. That is unless, it is to save the mother's life.

 

[H.Protagonist]

It's a BS argument that has no relevance when an individuals right to life is potentially being infringed upon. Nothing against women in particular no matter what anyone might try to imply. They just happen to be the one's who carry the baby. If men could get pregnant my argument would remain the same.

As a woman, I don't find it to be BS at all. My body, my decision.

 

[Devolution]

As a woman, I don't find it to be BS at all. My body, my decision.

A right to one's own body is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have. And yet we're still in stuck on this debate.

 

[boiled goose]

I am pro-choice, up to a point. For a time, the developing cell are nothing more than an aggregate of cells and if they are discarded I think nothing of it. When you begin to see brain activity and the fetus has developed with working a working nervous system communicating with it, then I do not believe abortion is acceptable. That is unless, it is to save the mother's life.

So forcing someone to do something with their bodies is ok when it can save another?
Can we take your kidney? Many folks on dialysis would love it.

 

[Wazzy]

DanteFox thought Joel from The Last of Us was right.

First, right about what? Second, what does that have to do with his point? I'm not seeing the relation to abortion unless you're trying to show the irony in him supporting pro-lifers.

 

[EVOL 100%]

I'm more perplexed by the people who fail to understand that abortion is a desperate, last-resort solution for desperate people.

 

[Ultryx]

So forcing someone to do something with their bodies is ok when it can save another?
Can we take your kidney? Many folks on dialysis would love it.

I never said I'm pro-forcing a woman into an abortion in order to save her life. That is her decision.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Evol: You mean people DON'T use it as a primary form of birth control? :O

 

[mullet2000]

DanteFox thought Joel from The Last of Us was right.

Not sure what the point you're trying to make is but...

Spoiler

Joel was right.

 

[Feep]

A right to one's own body is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have. And yet we're still in stuck on this debate.

I think Necromanti really said it best at the top of this page; his arguments are logical and sound. The traditional "right to one's own body" isn't an argument that can be effectively used on a pro-lifer, because as they see it, the fetus inside a womb is a human being with all fundamental rights granted, and therefore that fetus is not part of "your body". You have to attack the argument from a different angle.

 

[Jackson]

A right to one's own body is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have. And yet we're still in stuck on this debate.

Do you believe a woman has the right to abort at 9 months?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I judge life same as death, is there brain activity? If not, flush it no problem.

 

[Gregorn]

This thread will go on for pages and not a single person will be convinced of the other side. The people that think it's wrong probably grew up with religion and you're not going to change their mind, just let them live in their little world.

 

[Wazzy]

Not sure what the point you're trying to make is but...

Spoiler

Joel was right.

I'm just going to assume he's saying it's ironic for someone so pro-life to support someone like Joel's decisions.

 

[boiled goose]

Do you believe a woman has the right to abort at 9 months?

fetus is viable outside the womb? take it out. We can decide as a society if we want to take care of it or not.

I never said I'm pro-forcing a woman into an abortion in order to save her life. That is her decision.

That is not what I meant. You are pro forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and go through labor correct?

 

[mullet2000]

I'm just going to assume he's saying it's ironic for someone so pro-life to support someone like Joel's decisions.

Ahhhh I getcha.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I'm more perplexed by the people who fail to understand that abortion is a desperate, last-resort solution for desperate people.

I feel the same way. The focus of this discussion shouldn't be on whether the fetus is a person. That's open to interpretation.

Not sure what the point you're trying to make is but...

Spoiler

Joel was right.

Spoiler

Believing that surviving is inherently/totally more important than anything else, no matter the actual benefit that would come from a life (or "life," depending on how you view fetuses).

 

[Jackson]

fetus is viable outside the womb? take it out. We can decide as a society if we want to take care of it or not.

So no abortions beyond viability? So that means all abortions must be illegal beyond 20 weeks?

 

[Devolution]

I think Necromanti really said it best at the top of this page; his arguments are logical and sound. The traditional "right to one's own body" isn't an argument that can be effectively used on a pro-lifer, because as they see it, the fetus inside a womb is a human being with all fundamental rights granted, and therefore that fetus is not part of "your body". You have to attack the argument from a different angle.

Nope. Any other argument is just semantic life jargon. Either women have rights to their body or they don't.

Do you believe a woman has the right to abort at 9 months?

Honestly yes but I would not do it. The current method is a woman has a specific timeline in which to get one then she no longer retains ownership of her body. The state does. It gives exceptions for complicated pregnancies and deformities. This is second class citizenship.

 

[BigDug13]

I think Necromanti really said it best at the top of this page; his arguments are logical and sound. The traditional "right to one's own body" isn't an argument that can be effectively used on a pro-lifer, because as they see it, the fetus inside a womb is a human being with all fundamental rights granted, and therefore that fetus is not part of "your body". You have to attack the argument from a different angle.

My main issue is that many pro lifers are on the side of the aisle that wants food stamps and welfare stripped away. As if our stance is "you must have your child and we will spend taxpayer money to stop you" and at the same time our stance is "but the government is not going to help you raise it because that would require tax money.

And some of them are also on the side of "yay, keep those drone strikes going and kill those terrorists" which sounds not so much like "life is precious".

I just see lots of selective morality from quite a few pro lifers even in my family.

 

[GaimeGuy]

This thread will go on for pages and not a single person will be convinced of the other side. The people that think it's wrong probably grew up with religion and you're not going to change their mind, just let them live in their little world.

I have no problem with them being against abortion and not being willing to partake on one.

The problem stems from them wanting to prevent everyone else from having the freedom to choose.

 

[gohepcat]

There is no argument here.

Forcing a women to carry a fetus is barbaric and the parts of the world that do this suffer tremendously. You condem your people to massive poverty and suffering. It is immoral and wrong.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and readily available in any civilized society.

 

[boiled goose]

So no abortions beyond viability? So that means all abortions must be illegal at 20 weeks?

Like I said, IF it can be taken out while retaining viability (and no additional risk or damage to the host of course), we could consider this option.
Do we want to take care of these fetuses? I sure dont.

Why should we??

 

[DanteFox]

Do you believe a woman has the right to abort at 9 months?

Of course she does. Until someone passes through the magical rights-investing birth canal, all is permitted. A simple change of location is what grants rights, can't you see?

 

[H.Protagonist]

Do we want to take care of these fetuses? I sure dont.

Life is precious... until it costs you money.

 

[mullet2000]

Do you believe a woman has the right to abort at 9 months?

This is where things get messy for me.

In the first trimester? Woman should have complete and utter control over her body. Abort, don't abort, her decision. Completely.

Once we start getting past that I really don't know where I sit anymore. Certainly once we hit third trimester we basically are actually dealing with a person on virtually the same level as a newborn baby in my opinion.

 

[Jackson]

Do we want to take care of these fetuses? I sure dont.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure no one will ask you specifically to take care of them. lol

Adoption is an option though.

 

[Alienous]

As a woman, I don't find it to be BS at all. My body, my decision.

"It takes two, baby"

But no, you're right, it is the decision of women. But that doesn't stop it from being a insensitive, selfish, disgusting decision. Not to say that it is in most cases.

The "my body" argument is fair, but that doesn't make any abortion decision more justifiable, in my opinion. A pregnant woman isn't ever the only variable, and arguably not even the most important one (which I'd say is the fetus/non-person).

To me, the "my body" argument just means that the ultimate decision lies with you.

 

[Devolution]

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure no one will ask you specifically to take care of them. lol

Adoption is an option though.

Adoption is an option.

It's like you don't get why a lot of women have the abortion in the first place.

 

[boiled goose]

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure no one will ask you specifically to take care of them. lol

Adoption is an option though.

Again, remember the argument is that we cannot force someone to do something with their bodies that they don't want to. We agreed here, and moved on to the case where the fetus can be removed with no added consequences to the host. OK. from there:

-I would be taking care of it, if the government is involved
-Adoption??? After bringing it to term, you know how many kids are in orphanages and foster homes? Supply of children greatly exceeds demand.
-Why??

 

[Spring-Loaded]

It's like you don't get why a lot of women have the abortion in the first place.

Say why.

 

[Devolution]

Say why.

Avoiding a pregnancy obviously.

 

[Wazzy]

Do you believe a woman has the right to abort at 9 months?

Why not? Sure, I could personally never do it and I'm not comfortable with it if the reason isn't great but I have no say over what another woman does with her body, only mine.

I don't see how banning abortions that late helps anyone, especially if it involves complications.

 

[boiled goose]

Avoiding a pregnancy obviously.

Or not wanting the child.

I think Jackson meant in the case where the woman could avoid the pregnancy.With some future incubator tech.

 

[Jackson]

Adoption is an option.

It's like you don't get why a lot of women have the abortion in the first place.

Define "a lot", please share studies. I'm legitimately interested to understand what percentage of women have abortions to not go through the actual pregnancy. Maybe it is a lot? I don't know.

Also that comment was specifically referring to boiled goose asking about allowing beyond 20 week abortions and "who would take care of them?" So, the answer is... if 20+ week abortions were illegal, then adoption would be an option.

 

[CrankyKong]

You're not a person 'til you're in my phonebook