This kind of logic really confuses me. How can you say it's about as alive as a plant? OK, it's a fetus and yeah, it's not exactly outside living and breathing on it's own, but it's a human baby regardless of that. The fact it relies on it's mothers body for life support - the key word there being life - surely should be enough to convince anyone that it's human.
How the fuck can you pretend a baby fetus is not a person EVER?
- Thread starter (._.)
- Start date
- Status
Insensitive? Selfish? Disgusting?
No, what's insensitive, selfish, and disgusting is demanding that a woman be forced to undergo the temporary and permanent changes of pregnancy, and the pain of childbirth. What's insensitive, selfish, and disgusting is demanding that a woman continue to loan her body's space, blood, nutrients, etc, to another person. (you are arguing under the belief that a fetus is a separate person, right?)
No absolutely not. A woman should have a choice in whether or not she chooses to go through with a pregnancy. I do not believe in abusing that system though and unfortunately I do not see how that could be monitored. If someone is pregnant and they want to terminate a pregnancy, I see that as acceptable, but only to a point. I would not think it appropriate to terminate a pregnancy of 8 months "just because." Now if there are complications for one reason or another and the mother's life can only be saved via abortion at 8 months, then, though it is unfortunate I do believe she should be able to terminate if she so chooses.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Social services are strained as well, so adoption isn't that great and people forget on how many of those months can be uncomfortable and painful for some, and the fact that it's a financial burden, especially for the working poor.
And once again, those on the anti-abortion side ignore all kinds of empirical evidence showing how none of this matters because making it more restrictive just makes it more unsafe as the abortion rate doesn't change but how safe it is does.
And once again, those on the anti-abortion side ignore all kinds of empirical evidence showing how none of this matters because making it more restrictive just makes it more unsafe as the abortion rate doesn't change but how safe it is does.
Devolution
Member
We're so far from that, that it's just wankery.
Most women get an abortion because they do not want to go through a pregnancy, then you have mothers who get them to avoid having another child. Funny how I don't see a lot of pro-life advocates on the Universal Healthcare pulpit since you know better pre-natal care and cost of having a child can basically put you in the poor house.
Spring-Loaded
Member
It wasn't obvious to the guy you quoted. You're gonna get a bunch of people who won't consider this from every perspective so "going through pregnancy" won't cross some peoples' minds.
Once again, I'm on your side here, but IF you join with their assumption of "yes, a fetus is a human being that is afforded all standard rights upon conception", I don't see how it's a matter of semantics. If you and your friend were biologically connected, and you taking a certain pill would kill your friend, is it justifiable to say "well, it's my body so I can do whatever I want"?
The point is that their assumption is faulty in the first place, and that it *is* your body, and that you should have full control over that. But that argument, as you so succinctly put it, will not be effective for the above reason.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Again, It would never ever be moral to force someone to do something with their bodies that they dont want to.
If we could remove the fetus at the same or less risk/cost/etc. as an abortion, we could as a society decide to incubate this fetus into a child and then decide what to do with it.
Again:
Why
Eh, it's murder.
Reading through some of this, makes me wonder that if some of you had a kid that was physically and mentally handicapped and couldn't do anything for themselves, you would think it was ok to just off him or her, because they couldn't take care of themselves.
Also, I've never, not heard anyone that had an abortion say they didn't regret it. Stuff haunts them for the rest of their lives, probably like killing someone would for someone that isn't say, a sociopath.
Reading through some of this, makes me wonder that if some of you had a kid that was physically and mentally handicapped and couldn't do anything for themselves, you would think it was ok to just off him or her, because they couldn't take care of themselves.
Also, I've never, not heard anyone that had an abortion say they didn't regret it. Stuff haunts them for the rest of their lives, probably like killing someone would for someone that isn't say, a sociopath.
Devolution
Member
It's the only argument that's ever been effective. Do you guys even know how abortion rights were granted in the first place?
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
People are welcome to harbor whatever moral feelings they have on the matter (I have no qualms with that), but there should be no laws governing my body in such a way. I personally don't know if I ever could or would have one, but plenty of people do have them for perfectly justifiable reasons (IMO), not just this pro-life belief that they use it willy-nilly. Ultimately, as you say, it is up to each individual woman on what they want to do.
Let's get even more crazy:
What about during birth - should a woman be allowed to cut through a newborn at the moment, where one half is outside and the other one inside? Or maybe even directly kill it no questions asked? The newborn is still connected to her at that time.
Does it end when the umbilical cord is cut? Does it end right when birth starts?
Forced? In most cases, I don't understand how a pregnancy is necessary.
And yeah, if you didn't want to loan your nutrients because you managed to get pregnant, I'd say that's pretty selfish.
And I'm all pro-choice. But I think that the choice of abortion, inherently, isn't worthy of justification. Get rid of the future baby, it's entirely up to you, but don't try to frame it as something empowering or positive. You have to have made some insensitive choices, in most cases, to get to the stage of abortion.
But, as I said, all women should be able to ultimately decide the fate of the baby inside of them.
Yeah I'm sure you know everything about everyone and their abortions.
Remember ladies, it is your legal right to have an abortion, but you are "selfish" and "disgusting" for doing it.
You are welcome,
Guys
Are you serious? Did you actually just compare abortions to a sociopath killing someone?
Rocket Scientist
Member
Indeed, time to just ignore them for the next 50,000 years to make up for it.
I guess I'm more focused on a "what would be the most effective, logical argument in a traditional debate judged solely on sound rationale", than a war of emotions between two sides very passionate about the issue.
boiled goose
good with gravy
If your friend was a:
- underdeveloped fetus without an ability to even express his own thoughts and desires
-could not live without your life support
-maintaining your friend was extremely disruptive to your body
-if you were separated, your friend would die and you would live
Then yes. You can take the pill.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I've typed out different replies to this topic so many times, and they all came off as condescending in my opinion. I'll just say; pro-choice. And I would probably be okay with an abortion if I couldn't provide the best quality of life for the kid.
Every breath we take, every day we remain living, has cost the life of something somewhere else.
boiled goose
good with gravy
You called it a selfish and disgusting decision. Did you not???
And you are not only loaning your nutrients.
Pregnancy and childbirth are extremely risky, invasive, and disruptive.
Potential vs. potential.
Come on. Moral questions are only interesting when you take them to extremes. If your best friend who is fully developed, active, healthy, and about to cure cancer happened to be tied to you in a magical, totally non-intrusive way that affects you in no way whatsoever, could you take the pill?
Well, how inconvenient does that friend have to be to kill them? My grandmother put an incredible strain on my mother for the few years before her death.
Fake edit: I'm now 100% arguing devil's advocate, which I don't like doing, so meh, I'm out = D
But it's not a friend. It's something that was created because 2 people wanted to have "fun" (except of course rape and such, but I think that's a completely different situation).
is this really interesting? "could you kill your hypothetical magical friend to support your pro-choice beliefs?"
ClassyPenguin
Banned
15% or so of fertilized eggs fail to bind to the uterine wall. Oops, you just committed murder.
Joel Was Right
Member
The simple truth is there is no consistent rationale. The pro-choice argument itself isn't even fundamentally about the content of the womb, but rather an affirmation that the womb itself is part of a woman's anatomy and thus an extension of her identity that should not be measured by another.
But, ultimately I find it a disingenuous subject altogether because what shapes opinion isn't the legitimacy of an unborn child altering our lives but rather whether we -- as individuals -- are prepared to give that unborn child such an influence. If you are, you'll be talking about your baby the moment that pregnancy test comes back positive. If not, you'll refer to it as a 'foetus' and terminate it.
Instead of the futile debates of the morality of abortion, I would much rather prefer a greater focus on the real issue at hand; prevention. We need to figure out better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and, equally as important, provide support to these women and their babies in order to be a viable alternative to abortion.
But, ultimately I find it a disingenuous subject altogether because what shapes opinion isn't the legitimacy of an unborn child altering our lives but rather whether we -- as individuals -- are prepared to give that unborn child such an influence. If you are, you'll be talking about your baby the moment that pregnancy test comes back positive. If not, you'll refer to it as a 'foetus' and terminate it.
Instead of the futile debates of the morality of abortion, I would much rather prefer a greater focus on the real issue at hand; prevention. We need to figure out better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and, equally as important, provide support to these women and their babies in order to be a viable alternative to abortion.
I said that it doesn't stop it from being selfish or disgusting. "My body" isn't justification, it's the reason why you are able to abort the baby. "My body" doesn't affect the decision, it just allows you to go through with it.
I'm sure I said that it wasn't selfish, or disgusting, in most cases.
Sex is a biological imperative, as hardwired into us as the need for breathing, rest, and food intake.
You wouldn't survive 700 days without breathing, resting or eating food.
But: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=666677. And that's even masturbation. Noone is biologically forced to have sex with another human in the same way as to breath or eating food.
Bullshit.
Young women make mistakes, get abortions, and go on to lead wonderful lives with children later I life when they have the means to support a child emotionally and financially.
You live in a very small world if you have never heard an example of this.
Ugg. I really wish you could see the horror and suffering you create by making abortion difficult. Spend a week with a social worker from child protective services and you would all change your tune.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Except that those against abortion try to stop that prevention as well. So no safe sex ed, no free or low cost contraception or birth control. Not surprising the states with the most teen pregnancies and STD's are in Red states.
CDC pdf
boiled goose
good with gravy
It is funny who the friend question is a little bit more complex than the abortion one.
It makes abortion sound like a non brainer.
I will refuse to answer because I don't know what Magic means. That means there is absolutely no downside to you, so then you are not affected at all.
Stop being rational!
This is a debate with stupid quips from armchair doctors with tired arguments based on feelings and emotions that will end with people just leaving the thread and nothing actually being resolved or changed.
boiled goose
good with gravy
My body IS the justification. Have you not read what myself and others have posted on this thread?
"It doesn't stop it from being selfish and disgusting.
In most cases.
But I didnt say it was disgusting and selfish."
What??
Lol, here it is, the underlying problem people actually have with abortions. People think that pregnancy should be women's punishment for having sex, and abortion is them getting out of it.
A foetus might. A foetus though is only called that after the 11th week or so. Until then it is an embryo. Which fall out of women at a rate that is horrific if you consider them people.
This for me defines that it is ok to do an abortion, since "it" can't live on its own.
It is more like a parasite.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Stop being rational!
This is a debate with stupid quips from armchair doctors with tired arguments based on feelings and emotions that will end with people just leaving the thread and nothing actually being resolved or changed.
Prevention is not always possible.
We need to be clear on all cases.
Of course I am hugely in favor of birth control and sex education, as it is proven to be in the benefit of both societies and individuals. Yet, unwanted pregnancies will still happen.
The abortion argument essentially boils down to, for many people, the right to bodily autonomy of the mother and the right to life of the fetus. Such an extreme situation helps to establish whether someone believes that the right to bodily autonomy is so fundamental that it is morally justifiable for a person to exercise that right in such extreme circumstances. If they say no, we can explore what specific qualities that differ between a fetus and full grown person make exercising bodily autonomy alright in one case and not acceptable in the other. From there it might be possible to codify the moral rules a person has set up for him/herself, which we can then extend to other situations to see, if indeed as the OP posited that person has some "gross ideologies".
ClassyPenguin
Banned
It always boils down to this. It's ridiculous.
Sex has been linked to numerous studies that show a positive relationship to mental health, so I don't get the argument of "you don't need sex to live".
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll