Abortion or not?

[Seth1968]

This new thread is due to the so called thread derail of that Trump inauguration thread.

Uh huh. A thread derail is just natural. Not sure why it was a thing in the Trump thread. Oh wait.

Anyway, on the topic of abortion, I'll ask this again, but as usual, I won't expect an answer from the pro life people (whatever the hell they mean by "pro life").

Here we go:


"Killing" isn't by necessity, a bad thing. In the specific regard to abortion, would it be ok for a woman to abort a fetus that has no limbs and no cerebral cortex?

[sputnik]

This is a stupid debate because it fails to recognize that both groups are coming from COMPLETELY different angles.

The pro-choice side sees abortion as a "women's reproductive rights" issue basically stating that women should be able to choose everything that happens within their bodies.

The pro-life side sees abortion as a "unborn child rights" issue with the belief that the child in its unborn state has the right to live. Then we can muddy the waters further by adding in the group that believes that the unborn child is just as much the fathers child as the mothers. So there is a "father's rights" angle too.

Then you also end up with a confused law where if a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer can be charged with double homicide. I guess the fetus WAS a person after all? Who knew?

Add on the compassionate reasons (severely unhealthy fetus, rape victims, potential risks to mother etc) and it gets even worse.

This issue is far from a binary black/white or yes/no issue.

If you want to talk about this issue with anyone you have to be willing to not get defensive or emotional about it because everyone sees it from a VERY different viewpoint.

[max_boost]

Abortion - Yes

I don't even see what the big deal is. :nut: :dunno: :drama:

[NoPulp]

Pro Choice 100%

I wouldn't personally like to go the abortion route, but that doesn't mean I get to make that same decision for other people. They have to live with the consequences, not me.
Government shouldn't make that decision either, however providing education/resources would be good.

[Tenkara Way]

If it involves not having this thread started by Seth1968. I'll be pro-abortion and Seth1968 will not exist.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by sputnik
This is a stupid debate because it fails to recognize that both groups are coming from COMPLETELY different angles.

The pro-choice side sees abortion as a "women's reproductive rights" issue basically stating that women should be able to choose everything that happens within their bodies.

The pro-life side sees abortion as a "unborn child rights" issue with the belief that the child in its unborn state has the right to live. Then we can muddy the waters further by adding in the group that believes that the unborn child is just as much the fathers child as the mothers. So there is a "father's rights" angle too.

Then you also end up with a confused law where if a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer can be charged with double homicide. I guess the fetus WAS a person after all? Who knew?

Add on the compassionate reasons (severely unhealthy fetus, rape victims, potential risks to mother etc) and it gets even worse.

This issue is far from a binary black/white or yes/no issue.

If you want to talk about this issue with anyone you have to be willing to not get defensive or emotional about it because everyone sees it from a VERY different viewpoint.

Rare that I completely agree with Sputnik, but there really isn't much more to say on the topic.

I would suggest that government DOES enforce/legislate certain aspects of morality, and those that suggest otherwise are not being truthful with themselves.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by sputnik
This issue is far from a binary black/white or yes/no issue.

You pretty much summed it up for me.

This is going to be a debate forever, since both sides have supporting reasons for feeling the way that they do, so both sides are correct, given their viewpoints. Those viewpoints are also completely wrong if you own the opposite perspective.

In the end, I have my own thoughts but due to the fact I am open enough to see both sides, I just don't get involved. Far safer that way.

[Gestalt]

Abortions are disgusting, and should definitely be illegal.

I posted the statistics in the other thread. Only 2% are for what the US considers hard cases, meaning rape or health issues.

That means it is being used as birth control in 98% of cases.

50% of abortion are the same offenders having more than one abortion.

How someone can claim they have ultimate say and responsibility for their body, and can then justify abortion is silly.

I don't see what there is to discuss. If you are responsible enough to terminate life, then you should have been responsible enough to use the dozen options to prevent pregnancy.

No abortions, unless in hard cases. or compassionate reasons as sputnik called them above.

[Tenkara Way]

Originally posted by Gestalt
Abortions are disgusting, and should definitely be illegal.

I posted the statistics in the other thread. Only 2% are for what the US considers hard cases, meaning rape or health issues.

That means it is being used as birth control in 98% of cases.

50% of abortion are the same offenders having more than one abortion.

How someone can claim they have ultimate say and responsibility for their body, and can then justify abortion is silly.

I don't see what there is to discuss. If you are responsible enough to terminate life, then you should have been responsible enough to use the dozen options to prevent pregnancy.

No abortions, unless in hard cases. or compassionate reasons as sputnik called them above.


Does your god dictate this stance?

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Tenkara Way



Does your god dictate this stance?

No, I am agnostic. Simple ethics or morality really.

Claim you are responsible for your body, but only after an unwanted pregnancy :rofl:

[Tenkara Way]

Originally posted by Gestalt


No, I am agnostic. Simple morality really.

Claim you are responsible for your body, but only after an unwanted pregnancy :rofl:

Agnostic, so you've not settled on a team as of yet and remain certain there is some hope of a team for your beliefs.

Morality, you'd have your morals as the rule of the land as they are just, true and the only path?

Noticed you tossed "ethics" in there after pressing Save Changes. Interestingly this is the word you forgot in your first draft.

I love how so many hold firm to what they believe as the right way and others are just plain wrong. Must be a gratified day in the house of glass.

[Gestalt]

Whatever you need to call it. Im pointing out the ridiculous excuse that Its my body, my decision is.

Is it a oxymoron, hypocrisy, un ethical. I don't know what you call selective or only when it's convenient claims of responsibility.

[J-hop]

I think gestalt believes a full grown human and a fertilized egg are no different when it comes to aborting/killing so I wouldn't read much into it.

Sputnik hit the nail on the head. I would say for me at least there is the added complexity of what exactly defines consciousness and where we draw that line.

Saying aborting a fertilized egg is murdering a human is the same thing as considering eating lab grown chicken meat to be the same as slaughtering a chicken on a farm

[Gestalt]

It doesn't have to be the same to be wrong.

Its life, on its way to a thinking feeling organism.

And you seem to be equating to no more than trash to be thrown out.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Gestalt
It doesn't have to be the same to be wrong.

Its life, on its way to a thinking feeling organism.

And you seem to be equating to no more than trash to be thrown out.

So do you believe eating lab grown meat is wrong? Why or why not? What aspect does the lab grown meat contain or not contain that would lead you to draw your conclusion.

I'm assuming you're vegan. If not then that is a whole other can of worms. You then have to define why eating a conscious cow is different than "killing" a fertilized egg which objectively speaking has zero consciousness at all.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by sputnik

Add on the compassionate reasons (severely unhealthy fetus, rape victims, potential risks to mother etc) and it gets even worse.


Normally we don't allow babies to be killed, but because the father* committed a crime we've decided to waive this human's right to life. Out of compassion.

Kind of a dubious moral stance isn't it?


*Would we allow a compassion abortion if it were the mother that admitted to raping a man and then becoming pregnant?

[g-m]

And you seem to be equating to no more than trash to be thrown out. [/B]
Yea, that's right. :whocares:

It's easy enough to make a new one. No effort or resources have been expended on it. It has no value

Edit:. It's like having a wart removed. It's an unwanted growth

[Modelexis]

I believe a woman owns her own body, and if there is a child growing in her (let's say just for the sake of argument that I draw the line at a heartbeat) she has the right to evict that unwanted heart beating fetus but she doesn't have the right to end the life.

I look at the situation as two separate actions, the first is eviction and the second is killing.

If we had the technology to remove a heart beating (usually 3 weeks) baby from the womb and have it complete it's growing process outside the mother I would be in favor of the womans right to have the eviction proceedure completed.

Since we don't yet have that technology and the odds are 100% that the eviction will result in death I don't approve of a women electing this procedure.

So you could say I'm pro choice since I'm in favor of womens right to choose eviction or birth, but I'm also pro life in the sense that I don't grant what I consider to be a form of murder as a logical result of a womans choice.

exceptions: rape and some other rare situations.
Obviously I'm not opposed to birth control or even the day after pill.
I would draw the line somewhere around 3 weeks, it's open for debate.

The theory is lifted from Walter Block.

The imperfect analogy I would use is if you own a train and while the train is at a stop near a school with children getting out at the end of the day and you don't take any precautions to make sure a child doesn't board the train and you end up with a child aboard the train.

If the train is still in the station, you can have the child leave and the mistake is rectified, but if you find the child aboard and wait to decide whether to have him/her leave until it's going 100kms/h or you don't find the child until it's going high speeds that is your fault and not the child's fault.
You have the right to remove the child from the train, but not when it's going ultra fast which at the moment it is impossible to do without grave risk to the childs life.

[Gestalt]

So the stance is defined.

It's trash

Or its a human life form.

I don't care, as long as we dont try and claim some silly its my body my choice bs only after conception.

[Tenkara Way]

So Gestalt, where do you stand on capital punishment? Let's probe the depths of your right to life rabbit hole.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Kolbatron]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Pro-Choice

If you don't believe in it, don't do it... That is the great thing about choice.

Other than that, mind your own fucking business and stop trying to force your beliefs on others.

:werd:

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Pro-Choice

If you don't believe in it, don't do it... That is the great thing about choice.

Other than that, mind your own fucking business and stop trying to force your beliefs on others.

Canada punishes people in all sorts of situations for making personal choices that don't affect anyone else around them.
Are you applying this agument across the board or just in this once instance? Seems pretty weak.

How do you decide what personal choices you allow people and what you don't?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[msommers]

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/doctors-without-borders-statement-reinstatement-mexico-city-policy-abortion?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=social

[Tenkara Way]

Originally posted by Modelexis


Canada punishes people in all sorts of situations for making personal choices that don't affect anyone else around them.
Are you applying this agument across the board or just in this once instance? Seems pretty weak.

How do you decide what personal choices you allow people and what you don't?

Three examples?

[Tik-Tok]

I say abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

It's despicable that many women use it as a form of birth control, but it's not the most despicable thing humans do on a daily basis. Life may begin at conception, but I have no problems with denying the rights of a life that hasn't even made it out of the womb yet. We already restrict the full rights of minors as it is, compared to adults, and for good reason.

Until the day comes when a woman can pass her fetus on to a machine to be grown and "born" outside her womb, it's her body.

[blindsight]

.

[R154]

Originally posted by Tenkara Way


Three examples?

Assisted suicide.

Recreational drug use.

Tobacco and alcohol tax.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Tenkara Way
So Gestalt, where do you stand on capital punishment? Let's probe the depths of your right to life rabbit hole.

I absolutely do not support capital punishment if the decision was being made by an irresponsible pregnant woman.

[googe]

I have no idea what would possess someone into thinking this could possibly be a productive thread...

Zero people will reconsider whatever they have already decided after this discussion

[R154]

Who doesn't love a good old dumpster tire fire.

[dirtsniffer]

So if an abortion is murder would having a miscarriage be considered manslaughter? Or more like failing to provide the necessities of life.

[msixty]

I believe I should be able to walk down the street to the abortion clinic, with my above age girlfriend, while carrying my gun and smoking a joint.

[killramos]

Personally I think if a baby is unwanted it's probably better for them and society if they never become conscious.

There are way too many people on this planet, I am game for pretty well any kind of population control at this point.

When I think about it, I judge idiot teenagers / young adults for having their ill thought out lovechild far more than I do people for having an abortion. Having children is near universally a bad situation, at least for a little while.

Basically people on either side will judge you no matter which way you go, you might as be able to make the choice for yourself. You only have one life, fuck letting some crotch spawn ruin that for you because the religious got uppity about conception.

[cancer man]

Originally posted by msixty
I believe I should be able to walk down the street to the abortion clinic, with my above age girlfriend, while carrying my gun and smoking a joint.

I think you can in Colorado.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by kertejud2
Normally we don't allow babies to be killed, but because the father* committed a crime we've decided to waive this human's right to life. Out of compassion.

I wasn't justifying the action or the reasoning, but rather laying out the different arguments that get thrown around from various groups and ideologies.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by killramos
Personally I think if a baby is unwanted it's probably better for them and society if they never become conscious.

There are millions of couples who cannot have children that would love to be able to adopt a healthy baby.

[NoPulp]

Originally posted by sputnik


There are millions of couples who cannot have children that would love to be able to adopt a healthy baby.

And isn't there a large supply of adoptable babies? I thought the supply was there, but the process and cost is the issue.

[austic]

I don't understand how a man can made a decision about something that happens in a womans body.
:dunno:

[killramos]

Originally posted by killramos
There are way too many people on this planet, I am game for pretty well any kind of population control at this point.
Originally posted by sputnik

There are millions of couples who cannot have children that would love to be able to adopt a healthy baby.
See Above.

Can't have a kid but want one, that's just a shit hand dealt in life. You'll get over it, and the planet thanks you.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by austic
I don't understand how a man can made a decision about something that happens in a womans body.
:dunno:

Agree, only people who contributed the baby batter and the womb have a say.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by austic
I don't understand how a man can made a decision about something that happens in a womans body.
:dunno:

I don't understand how because of someone's gender, they get a pass on murder :dunno:

This also presuposes that a woman "owns" the baby. I would strongly argue this is not the case.

QUOTE]Originally posted by killramos
Personally I think if a baby is unwanted it's probably better for them and society if they never become conscious.
. [/QUOTE]

If the argument is based on consciousness, it is quite clear that happens before a baby is popped out.

I respect the "conception is consciousness" crowd's opinion, but I certainly don't endorse it. I also don't endorse "kill away unless it gets popped out" because by that idea, we really shoulf be able to just kill babies up to the age of 1. There is no difference.

Oh, well, except for the fact that for some reason in western society, babies have less rights than other people it seems (look at murders of kids under the age of 2, sentencing is much different and much less severe because reasons).

[killramos]

Yea I'm not actually wading into that debate and more making a far more practical comment about forcing a kid to experience a shitty life with deadbeat parents who never wanted them.

It's not an argument, its pure and simple my opinion on the matter. Debating abortion is stupid.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by killramos
.

It's not an argument, its pure and simple my opinion on the matter. Debating abortion is stupid.

The reason I don't mind the debate is it truly highlights how grotesque the liberal mindset combined with moral relativism is. It's a dangerous game to play.

I also think its ludicrous that we can't have a rational discussion on defining APPROXIMATELY where consciousness begins. Certainly, its not at conception, and it is before a baby is born.

I think the debate would largely go away if this was actually done, except for the religious but their views are their views. Women's rights arguments are for the lazy and to stifle debate "you mysoginistic asshole!"

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by austic
I don't understand how a man can made a decision about something that happens in a womans body.

This is the important bit, there are two parts to an abortion, removing the fetus and killing the fetus. If there was a technology to keep the fetus growing without the mother, most people would have no problem with a mother removing the fetus. The problem people have is with the death of a fetus for non medical reasons.
So when you focus on the 'my body my decision' point, which is perfectly valid, you aren't addressing the real issue. The issue isn't the woman making decisions about her body, it's the woman making decisions about another beating heart that can theoretically live without being attached to her body.

In a similar way, if a private utility company supplies power to a life support unit in a hospital, and there are a bunch of women on life support. It's true that the utility company has property right to the power they generate and they can shut off power if they wish, but if they shut off power knowing it will end the life of another person most reasonable people would have an issue with this, legally.

and would you then say, who has the right to tell the utility company how to run their business?

Since we have power backup unit technology this isn't really an issue today and if the utility cut power to the hospital people wouldn't be instantly killed.
So it's just a matter of time until we have a 'battery backup' type of technology for a fetus, and if you think about the issue in that context you can see what people are really concerned about.
hint: it's not about what a women can or cannot do with her body.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by NoPulp
And isn't there a large supply of adoptable babies? I thought the supply was there, but the process and cost is the issue.

No there isn't.

It took friends of mine over 10 years to adopt a child. They were in the running 4 times prior but at the last week/day the mother changed her mind and kept the child.

The over abundance of kids in foster situations comes mainly from from the fact that white people are not allowed to adopt aboriginal kids and there aren't enough aboriginal people adopting those kids. The other kids in foster care have parents, but they are unable or unwilling to care for them due to a whole host of other social issues.

The number of healthy adoptable babies born is actually quite low.

[sputnik]

If we are going wax hypothetical in this thread... we should consider the following logic as well.

Should it be legal for a man to disown or have no responsibility placed on him for a child he did not want to begin with? If abortion is a deemed a "woman's right" to choose what she does with her body, can a man abandoning his biological child declare that it is his right to determine who he chooses to be a parent to?

I know given the Beyond demographic that the opinion will be biased. However it is something to think about.

[Sentry]

Originally posted by sputnik
white people are not allowed to adopt aboriginal kids
In Alberta or Canada-wide? Probably some feel-good shit about "preserving their heritage" but in reality it seems awfully unfair to the kid and couples who want to adopt.

Also it must be relatively recent, because I personally know a guy who was adopted by a white couple (25ish years ago). His mom is super white so unless his dad is like 1/4 metis or something I dunno.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by sputnik

Should it be legal for a man to disown or have no responsibility placed on him for a child he did not want to begin with? If abortion is a deemed a "woman's right" to choose what she does with her body, can a man abandoning his biological child declare that it is his right to determine who he chooses to be a parent to?


I think each case should be taken to court, and if there's enough proof that the man had no intention to create life, AND the woman did (ie she tricked him), then it should be allowed.

If neither party had intentions to have a child, then no, if both parties had intentions, but then the man change his mind, then no.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Sentry

In Alberta or Canada-wide? Probably some feel-good shit about "preserving their heritage" but in reality it seems awfully unfair to the kid and couples who want to adopt.

Also it must be relatively recent, because I personally know a guy who was adopted by a white couple (25ish years ago). His mom is super white so unless his dad is like 1/4 metis or something I dunno.

I'm going to have to look into that specifically. Someone very close to me is Metis and adopted by white parents. So unless there is a distinction between Aboriginal status and Metis in the adoption world, that claim seems awfully suspicious.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by msommers
I'm going to have to look into that specifically. Someone very close to me is Metis and adopted by white parents. So unless there is a distinction between Aboriginal status and Metis in the adoption world, that claim seems awfully suspicious.

The differentiation comes in the cases of babies versus foster kids.

My wife's aunt and uncle adopted an aboriginal foster kid (when she was 7-8ish) but newborns are kept within the community or aborted.

It might not be law per se but the agencies are able to pick who they want as parents.

EDIT

After some reading it looks like it is primarily a Manitoba thing. After the Residential Schools aftermath and the "Sixties Scoop" controversy, Manitoba has established Aboriginal adoptive agencies to find "culturally appropriate/sensitive placements" for aboriginal kids.

[J-hop]

To add some fuel to the fire :rofl: As I posed to Gestalt, those of you against abortion. Are you all vegan? If not, what sorts of mental gymnasitics are you doing to call "killing" a fertilized egg murder and slaughtering a fully conscious functioning cow not?

I have yet to have a good answer to that question from a non-vegan pro-lifer... generally I get "you can't compare an animal to a human" (although unborn or even just a collection of a few human cells). That isn't an intelligent rational argument unforunately given humans are animals as well...

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by J-hop
To add some fuel to the fire :rofl: As I posed to Gestalt, those of you against abortion. Are you all vegan? If not, what sorts of mental gymnasitics are you doing to call "killing" a fertilized egg murder and slaughtering a fully conscious functioning cow not?

I have yet to have a good answer to that question from a non-vegan pro-lifer... generally I get "you can't compare an animal to a human" (although unborn or even just a collection of a few human cells). That isn't an intelligent rational argument unforunately given humans are animals as well...

It's the same reason we don't put members of the animal kingdom in jail for murder or assault, even in the case of chimps.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Modelexis


It's the same reason we don't put members of the animal kingdom in jail for murder or assault, even in the case of chimps.

Don't we destroy animals that kill or even attack humans?

Not really what I was looking for. On a personal basis how do you defend yourself. Not how do you police other beings for their actions. That is the question

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by J-hop
Don't we destroy animals that kill or even attack humans?
In rare cases yes, this is basically to prevent future attacks, it's not to govern a species and it's not applied universally across the animal kingdom or include animal on animal attacks.

If it is done, it's not a moral punishment.
Children will eventually grow to have moral agency and moral responsibility, therefore they're included in human morality and are protected by universal human morality.
While they're too young to be responsible for their own selves or speak up for themselves, the creator is their guardian and is responsible for them. Since we don't give birth to cows and a cow will never have moral agency they are not protected by human moral philosophy.

It's the same reason you can't murder someone in a coma, sure they don't currently have moral agency, but eventually they might, so you need to preserve that right for them.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by J-hop
I have yet to have a good answer to that question from a non-vegan pro-lifer... generally I get "you can't compare an animal to a human" (although unborn or even just a collection of a few human cells). That isn't an intelligent rational argument unforunately given humans are animals as well...

Do you consider animals and humans to be equal?

No.

Of course you don't.

So why base an argument assuming that anyone does?

Humans are animals in a sense. But animals (as we know them) are not humans.

I think even the most hardcore pro-choice advocate would admit that there is a fairly large ethical difference between killing a human compared to killing an animal.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by sputnik


Do you consider animals and humans to be equal?

No.

Of course you don't.

So why base an argument assuming that anyone does?

Humans are animals in a sense. But animals (as we know them) are not humans.

I think even the most hardcore pro-choice advocate would admit that there is a fairly large ethical difference between killing a human compared to killing an animal.

Birds are animals but tigers are not birds. That isn't exactly a logical argument.

But what I'm saying is don't look at the argument at the surface level. Drill down and define why a fertilized egg has more right to life than a fully conscious cow. Figure out for yourself what exactly it is that defines the difference for you. I totally believe that protecting your own species is a natural instinct. But look beyond that, can you really argue that believing that killing a fertilized egg is murder and killing a cow isn't say if you were an objective alien looking at the earth?

A fertilized egg is nothing more than a collection of cells. It doesn't have a brain, it isn't capable of intelligent thought. If we are to say cells are conscious then we have degraded to some Deepak Chopra level non-sense. Even at that level you have to define why a grouping of cow cells is different than a grouping of human cells. Also if you believe that then you should also believe that sperm are conscious and therefore cannot be killed, that is absurd...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by J-hop

conscious

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg

[MalibuStacy]

:facepalm:

considering beyond is like at least 80% male is this really a conversation we have any real stance on ???


second, great job Seth on creating a hornets nest

[sputnik]

Originally posted by J-hop
But what I'm saying is don't look at the argument at the surface level. Drill down and define why a fertilized egg has more right to life than a fully conscious cow. Figure out for yourself what exactly it is that defines the difference for you.

All of humanity will agree with it is better to kill an animal than a human (without getting into who the human is or how special the animal is to another human).

At the same time we would ALL be horrified if people were killing their newborn babies that they didn't want anymore. People would also likely be horrified if we rounded up everyone who was mentally handicapped, blind, deaf, deformed, autistic, allergic to peanuts, impoverished etc. and executed them under the belief that it would be better for them not to have to suffer with such an affliction for a lifetime.

So we are all of the belief that generally speaking human life is sacred while the lives of animals are not.

The difference lies in when is a human actually considered to be a human with a right to live and THIS SINGLE ISSUE is where this ENTIRE debate lies.

Some will believe at conception, some at the time of birth and some at X weeks prior to birth.

To debate anything else is pointless.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


[IMG]http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/]

Haha, I agree with you. I don't think anyone truly knows what that means. I have my definition, and I do not accept people like deepak chopra that think atoms are conscious.

We could take the arguement further back and try to define consciousness. That could be part of the problem. Those using the idea of conscious at conception have a very different definition of conscious than I do. But then they need to define why a human is conscious at conception and a cow isn't. That is essentially the same argument that I'm proposing.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by sputnik


All of humanity will agree with it is better to kill an animal than a human (without getting into who the human is or how special the animal is to another human).

At the same time we would ALL be horrified if people were killing their newborn babies that they didn't want anymore. People would also likely be horrified if we rounded up everyone who was mentally handicapped, blind, deaf, deformed, autistic, allergic to peanuts, impoverished etc. and executed them under the belief that it would be better for them not to have to suffer with such an affliction for a lifetime.

So we are all of the belief that generally speaking human life is sacred while the lives of animals are not.

The difference lies in when is a human actually considered to be a human with a right to live and THIS SINGLE ISSUE is where this ENTIRE debate lies.

Some will believe at conception, some at the time of birth and some at X weeks prior to birth.

To debate anything else is pointless.


Ok but I think you are missing the point, what mental leap is being made that says humans are sacred and animals aren't.

Define why a fertilized cow egg is different than a fertilized human egg without using any reference to humans being sacred (or popular belief).

I think we are all taking a very surface level view of an arguement with very deep complex roots

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by sputnik


Do you consider animals and humans to be equal?

No.

Of course you don't.

So why base an argument assuming that anyone does?

Humans are animals in a sense. But animals (as we know them) are not humans.

I think even the most hardcore pro-choice advocate would admit that there is a fairly large ethical difference between killing a human compared to killing an animal.

He seems irrational. He is making chickens equal to children, and trying to do the same eith his death penalty absurdness equating deathrow murderers convicted by jury, judge law or whatever they are with innocent unborn disposed of at the whim of an irresponsible mother.

[MalibuStacy]

Originally posted by J-hop



Ok but I think you are missing the point, what mental leap is being made that says humans are sacred and animals aren't.

Define why a fertilized cow egg is different than a fertilized human egg without using any reference to humans being sacred (or popular belief).

I think we are all taking a very surface level view of an arguement with very deep complex roots


Careful now...you disagree with some people therefore your view is wrong.

I am clearly joking and I agree that many people drag beliefs in to something which is science when discussing consciousness...

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Gestalt


He seems irrational. He is making chickens equal to children, and trying to do the same eith his death penalty absurdness equating deathrow murderers convicted by jury, judge law or whatever they are with innocent unborn disposed of at the whim of an irresponsible mother.

Actually no, I'm not a vegan, will never be. I agree that killing animals is way different than killing a human. I understand I'm making mental gymnastics and I am fully aware I am not morally sound at all (from a logical perspective).

But very strict prolifers act like logic is completely on their side and thus they can claim the higher moral ground. Which it isn't and I'm just attempting to point that out

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by sputnik
The difference lies in when is a human actually considered to be a human with a right to live and THIS SINGLE ISSUE is where this ENTIRE debate lies.

Some will believe at conception, some at the time of birth and some at X weeks prior to birth.

To debate anything else is pointless.

Let's get philosophical, does anyone have memory when you were in the womb? Or if they do how do we prove it? Is conciseness tied with memory?

Do we consider heart beat as life? Or brain activities?

[Swank]

Originally posted by J-hop
To add some fuel to the fire...Are you all vegan? Don't get me started on the vegan that swatted the mosquito :rofl:

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Let's get philosophical, does anyone have memory when you were in the womb? Or if they do how do we prove it? Is conciseness tied with memory?

Do we consider heart beat as life? Or brain activities?

Technically, one could argue you die every night. There is a lapse in consciousness between when you fall asleep and when you wake up. So we can kill people as long as they are sleeping? Modelexis already covered this however.

Cows, chickens, animals etc have shown zero signs of consciousness on a level humans can detect.

That is my point though. The absurd defacto go to is essentially not conscious until popping out. Which is crazy.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Do we consider heart beat as life? Or brain activities?
I would say heart beat, which is 3-4 weeks but it's up for debate. I don't have any solid facts to base that view on.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Modelexis

I would say heart beat, which is 3-4 weeks but it's up for debate. I don't have any solid facts to base that view on.

A beating heart (or lack thereof) is usually the standard of when someone dies. It doesn't seem unreasonable to apply that when the heart starts beating to being alive. Scientifically there is no question that the unborn is alive from conception. However, a beating heart would seem to be a rather common sense approach.

[tirebob]

I thank Christ, Odin, Spaghetti Monster, Lucky Stars or whatever you want to call it every day that I am not a woman and have to make this choice or live with the decision every day of my life... Unless you have had to choose or have made that choice, not a single one of you will truly get it no matter what your current stance or opinion is.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by tirebob
Unless you have had to choose or have made that choice, not a single one of you will truly get it no matter what your current stance or opinion is.
Not a valid argument, just because we can never fully experience a given situation doesn't mean we cannot apply a moral philosophy standard to it and judge it by this standard.

This also suggests that men are not emotionally affected by an abortion, it also suggests that all women are emotionally affected by an abortion to a high degree. People handle life situations differently, some cold hearted and some deeply, and being incapable of birth doesn't exclude you from these two emotional situations.

I will never know what it's like to live with having murdered someone in cold blood, but that doesn't mean I can't make a valid moral judgement about such action.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by Modelexis

Not a valid argument, just because we can never fully experience a given situation doesn't mean we cannot apply a moral philosophy standard to it and judge it by this standard.

This also suggests that men are not emotionally affected by an abortion, it also suggests that all women are emotionally affected by an abortion to a high degree. People handle life situations differently, some cold hearted and some deeply, and being incapable of birth doesn't exclude you from these two emotional situations.

I will never know what it's like to live with having murdered someone in cold blood, but that doesn't mean I can't make a valid moral judgement about such action. I never made an argument... only an observation

[duaner]

One question and one question alone settles the matter: What is the unborn?

If the unborn is a living human person, then unjustifiably killing the unborn is murder. Period. If the unborn isn't a living human person, then whatever, do what you like.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner
One question and one question alone settles the matter: What is the unborn?

If the unborn is a living human person, then unjustifiably killing the unborn is murder. Period.

So you're saying there exists a justifiable reason to kill a fetus?

I would say this is justified:

"Killing" isn't by necessity, a bad thing. In the specific regard to abortion, would it be ok for a woman to abort a fetus that has no limbs and no cerebral cortex?

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by duaner
One question and one question alone settles the matter: What is the unborn?

If the unborn is a living human person, then unjustifiably killing the unborn is murder. Period. If the unborn isn't a living human person, then whatever, do what you like.
You're playing with words, a massive part of the debate is how do you define life or alive or conscious etc. Just adding in a word 'born' to mean a living being offers nothing for clarity sake it just adds more words for the same problem.

As stated before, a heart beat is one medical measurement to determine a living being from a dead one, so in that context a fetus with a heart beat would in fact be living.

A baby can be born but not alive, it's called a stillbirth, the word born means nothing in the context of this debate.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by HuMz
Scientifically there is no question that the unborn is alive from conception.

Scientifically the debate on how to define life has been an ongoing one for decades, so there is absolutely question about it.

In a persons later years you can question their life based on the scientific definition (an elderly woman in a coma hooked up to life support may have a heartbeat but wouldn't be showing growth, response to stimuli, have the ability to reproduce, or perform basic functions we consider part of 'living.' So scientifically you could say the debate on 'right to die' for such individuals is moot because they're already dead.

Similarly, there is a good stretch of time that a fetus can't independently show many of the checkboxes of 'life' so it is certainly up to question of just how many traits does something need to show be considered 'living' with such a broad and loose definition.

[LadyLuck]

Originally posted by tirebob
I thank Christ, Odin, Spaghetti Monster, Lucky Stars or whatever you want to call it every day that I am not a woman and have to make this choice or live with the decision every day of my life... Unless you have had to choose or have made that choice, not a single one of you will truly get it no matter what your current stance or opinion is.


:clap:

The gals on beyond are just hanging out in the background watching you guys argue about something you will never truly understand or have to experience.

Carry on...

[MalibuStacy]

Originally posted by tirebob
I thank Christ, Odin, Spaghetti Monster, Lucky Stars or whatever you want to call it every day that I am not a woman and have to make this choice or live with the decision every day of my life... Unless you have had to choose or have made that choice, not a single one of you will truly get it no matter what your current stance or opinion is.

:werd:

[J-hop]

Originally posted by LadyLuck



:clap:

The gals on beyond are just hanging out in the background watching you guys argue about something you will never truly understand or have to experience.

Carry on...

In a way I agree but a friend of mine (male) went through a miscarriage and it absolutely devastated him. Sure the bond was probably stronger between his wife and the baby as she carried it and physically went through it, but that doesn't mean he didn't suffer horribly from it.

Same can be said about abortions. unless you're trailer trash the decision should be a horrible one for both involved.

But I do agree that in reality most of the time the male checks out like a piece of shit.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by LadyLuck
The gals on beyond are just hanging out in the background watching you guys argue about something you will never truly understand or have to experience.

Carry on...

That's a very ignorant thing to suggest that men never understand a loss of a baby in the womb of their wife.
You don't know what I or other men have gone through and you don't know what other women have gone through to judge them against each other.

I won't understand the physical pain and some aspects of the emotion but that doesn't mean I don't feel emotion and can't grasp the emotional effects of losing a child.

That's like saying a woman that losese a first trimester will never TRUELY understand a women who loses a child in the second.

What an ignorant statement that adds nothing to the conversation, and just points out that you don't have a husband and have never had a child yourself.
I could put the same bogus statement to you and say since you have never had an abortion or lost a child in the womb you don't know the true moral effects of such things and are not qualified to even enter this thread.

[LadyLuck]

^ Ah yes, typical Modelexis fashion. Such passion, assumption and general know-it-all about every topic out there.

[Modelexis]

Typical LadyLuck, throwing stones from glass houses with no leg to stand on, doubling down when called out on her BS.
Cold, emotionless, void of logic or any debate skills.

[msommers]

To be fair, the majority of women in developed nations will "never truly understand or have to experience" abortion either, exactly the same as every single man on this planet. I would suggest that the commonality breaks when the woman starts to be physically and emotionally impacted by a pregnancy the very first time in her life.

[LadyLuck]

Originally posted by Modelexis


That's a very ignorant thing to suggest that men never understand a loss of a baby in the womb of their wife.
You don't know what I or other men have gone through and you don't know what other women have gone through to judge them against each other.

I won't understand the physical pain and some aspects of the emotion but that doesn't mean I don't feel emotion and can't grasp the emotional effects of losing a child.

That's like saying a woman that losese a first trimester will never TRUELY understand a women who loses a child in the second.

What an ignorant statement that adds nothing to the conversation, and just points out that you don't have a husband and have never had a child yourself.
I could put the same bogus statement to you and say since you have never had an abortion or lost a child in the womb you don't know the true moral effects of such things and are not qualified to even enter this thread.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that men would never understand the loss of a baby, nor would I ever dare to suggest something like that as it is extremely ignorant.

My comment is directed at the fact that you guys are arguing about the legality of it and making this sound like women just go out to get abortions without a single thought or care in the world when there are MANY reasons why abortions may be necessary. God forbid a bunch of women ever tried to dictate what a man should do with his body, men around the world would go nuclear.

The rest of your post I will ignore, you keep throwing the word “ignorant” around but your own post oozes with so much ignorance. Please don’t pretend you know anything about my personal life, just like I won’t pretend to know anything about yours.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by LadyLuck



:clap:

The gals on beyond are just hanging out in the background watching you guys argue about something you will never truly understand or have to experience.

Carry on...

If you say so. :thumbsdow

[ZenOps]

I have no strong feelings either way, but do not disagree or agree with anyones opinions on this subject - Correct answer.

[rage2]

Originally posted by LadyLuck
God forbid a bunch of women ever tried to dictate what a man should do with his body, men around the world would go nuclear.
To be fair, of the US lawmakers in the House of Representatives that are pro life, over half are women. That compares to a 20% women representation in total, so if anything, women wants to dictate what women should do with their bodies more so than men.

Moot point in Canada as it's all legal anyways.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968


So you're saying there exists a justifiable reason to kill a fetus?
In an ectopic pregnancy.


Originally posted by Seth1968

I would say this is justified:

"Killing" isn't by necessity, a bad thing. In the specific regard to abortion, would it be ok for a woman to abort a fetus that has no limbs and no cerebral cortex?
Let's deal with one at a time. Would it be justified to abort a baby that would be born with no limbs? Why or why not?

I say no because having limbs isn't what determines if one is human.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Modelexis

You're playing with words, a massive part of the debate is how do you define life or alive or conscious etc. Just adding in a word 'born' to mean a living being offers nothing for clarity sake it just adds more words for the same problem.
I didn't add the word "born". I don't think you understood what I stated.


Originally posted by Modelexis
As stated before, a heart beat is one medical measurement to determine a living being from a dead one, so in that context a fetus with a heart beat would in fact be living.
Of course. But first question that needs to be asked is: How do we determine what is human in the first place?


Originally posted by Modelexis
A baby can be born but not alive, it's called a stillbirth, the word born means nothing in the context of this debate.
I never said the word "born" means anything.

My question is: What is the unborn? That is the one and only question that needs to be answered in this whole debate.

[duaner]

Originally posted by LadyLuck



:clap:

The gals on beyond are just hanging out in the background watching you guys argue about something you will never truly understand or have to experience.

What are you saying? What, specifically, does having to experience something or truly understand it have to do with debating it?

[duaner]

Originally posted by LadyLuck


arguing about the legality of it and making this sound like women just go out to get abortions without a single thought or care in the world when there are MANY reasons why abortions may be necessary.
As I stated earlier, there is only one question that needs to be asked: What is the unborn?

If the unborn is truly an unborn human person, then abortion is murder. So what possible reason, other than an ectopic pregnancy, would one have to make an abortion necessary? You say there are many. I can think of only one.


Originally posted by LadyLuck

God forbid a bunch of women ever tried to dictate what a man should do with his body, men around the world would go nuclear.
Is this just in relation to this particular discussion which happens to have a lot of men, or do you say this in general, to all pro-lifers, which would include a whole lot of women?

Do you think a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her own body?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by LadyLuck

there are MANY reasons why abortions may be necessary. God forbid a bunch of women ever tried to dictate what a man should do with his body, men around the world would go nuclear.


There really isn't. 98% of abortions are of convienience/not taking responsibilities for ones actions.

As for dictating what men should do with their bodies... Oh I dont know.

1. Absurd alimony payments causing thousands of men to be destitute while supporting woman who have children, all while working insane hours or being called a deadbeat.

2. The draft (which could possibly be changed in 2018, but currently isnt). Men have literally been FORCED against their will to die for their country. Lucky break for the women eh?

Those are two things off the top of my head I can think of that directly impact a mans choices in life and what he does with his body (or worse, his life). So yea, keep crying oh woah is women.

[LadyLuck]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


There really isn't. 98% of abortions are of convienience/not taking responsibilities for ones actions.

As for dictating what men should do with their bodies... Oh I dont know.

1. Absurd alimony payments causing thousands of men to be destitute while supporting woman who have children, all while working insane hours or being called a deadbeat.

2. The draft (which could possibly be changed in 2018, but currently isnt). Men have literally been FORCED against their will to die for their country. Lucky break for the women eh?

Those are two things off the top of my head I can think of that directly impact a mans choices in life and what he does with his body (or worse, his life). So yea, keep crying oh woah is women.

Sure thing, can you also include the stats of where you found that 98% of abortions are for convenience/not taking responsibility, I'm interested.

Many of women have joined the military as well as many of them killed in action, so don't go all macho on me.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


There really isn't. 98% of abortions are of convienience/not taking responsibilities for ones actions.

http://libpublic2.eol.isu.edu/images/citationneeded.jpg



2. The draft (which could possibly be changed in 2018, but currently isnt). Men have literally been FORCED against their will to die for their country. Lucky break for the women eh?


Convention in Canada is to now have a plebiscite regarding conscription after the two times it happened nearly ripped the country apart. The second time saw overwhelming support in English Canada but overwhelming opposition in French Canada. This meant less than 5000 conscripts were sent to Europe in WWII and less than 100 died.

The time before that, women weren't allowed to vote. So who are we really going to blame?


Quite an example you picked there. Two instances in extraordinary circumstances, the most recent of which was approved by plebiscite and occurred over 70 years ago.

[Gestalt]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Gestalt
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Interesting read.

I always assumed that the 98% figure was skewed or exaggerated.

I guess not.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner
Let's deal with one at a time. Would it be justified to abort a baby that would be born with no limbs? Why or why not?


Because its life would probably be absolute misery. Another factor would be care cost, as well as the negative repercussions on any other kids in the family. That is, all the parents time would be consumed by this one child, while the others get basically ignored.

The epitome of selfishness and self righteousness is not aborting when the consequences are detrimental to all involved.

Girl born ‘without brain’ is now 6 years old, but struggling for life (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/girl-born-without-brain-is-now-6-years-old-but-struggling-for-life)