Abortion or not?

[Modelexis]

The mother has a right to her body, but a baby is not her body.
If the mother has a baby boy and the doctor identifies the fetus in the womb as such you wouldn't say the mother is both male and female at that point.
Sex is applied to each person, which would seem to make the case that people implicitly accept that fact when they continue to call the mother a 'her' and not a 'he she' when pregnant with a male.

[rage2]

Originally posted by sputnik
Interesting read.

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

I guess not.

Yea, there are tons of stats on this and it's definitely not exaggerated. Back in the day, I knew girls that treated abortions like it was teeth cleaning at the dentist which was pretty crazy to me. In reality though, if they did go through and had the kid(s), those kids would be completely fucked growing up.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by rage2
In reality though, if they did go through and had the kid(s), those kids would be completely fucked growing up.

Military always need people.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/whos-jo...argeted/43418/

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Just think how big the teen based homeless population would be right now without abortion being legal

The more interesting stat is looking at the correlation between legal and easily accessible abortion and the drop in crime.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by kertejud2


The more interesting stat is looking at the correlation between legal and easily accessible abortion and the drop in crime.

You might want to read these first.

http://www.economist.com/node/5246700

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwell...ts_on_fre.html

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Just think how big the teen based homeless population would be right now without abortion being legal

I can tell your in Vancouver right now.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by kertejud2


The more interesting stat is looking at the correlation between legal and easily accessible abortion and the drop in crime.

Originally posted by kertejud2


» Click image for larger version

Well, guess you must feel pretty stupid right now eh? Maybe fact check yourself before you wreck yourself bruh

Originally posted by rage2

In reality though, if they did go through and had the kid(s), those kids would be completely fucked growing up.

There is no way of knowing. Statistically speaking, the probability definitely skews in this direction. But is it right to take away the CHANCE of success/ability just because of odds stacked against your favour?

Some of the most amazing work in the world has been performed by some of the most challenged people. I don't think it is right to take away the right to life on the off-chance that person may be a piece of shit. This is what I find so funny; we judge/jury/execute a fetus based on these implications, but we don't have the death penalty for pieces of shit who have proven they shouldn't be allowed on this planet.

[sexualbanana]

From my limited conversations with pro-lifers...

For the life-starts-at-conception set, their logic is that the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, and at the point, life has begun. Therefore, abortion is murder.

However, 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, and up to 75% of conceptions fail to implant (attach to the uteran wall), especially in the first 4 weeks when the risk is quite high.

Using that logic then, if a miscarriage has occurred, then hasn't the mother then committed negligent homicide (or similar charge)?

[Gestalt]

The pro choicers in this thread are now coming off as dishonest to me.

Ignoring the split between Im not reposnsible for getting pregants, but I am responsible for my body after. To me thats the end of it. You cant have it both ways.

Then the when does life begin. Thats irrelevant. You are pregnant, it will be a baby. Its genetics are set. Its a unique being.

Now we have inflated miscarriage figures, and claims that a miscarriage is a negligent act, eve suggesting its negligent homicide.

When you have to make excuses and stretch the truth to support your belief, its time to realize you are wrong.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Gestalt
Now we have inflated miscarriage figures

We went through 1/2 dozen before we had our kids, talked to others that had miscarriages as well, so based on that I'd say that number isn't far off.

I'm going to guess the numbers come from here:

https://www.verywell.com/making-sens...istics-2371721

[tirebob]

Originally posted by Gestalt
The pro choicers in this thread are now coming off as dishonest to me.

*SNIP*

When you have to make excuses and stretch the truth to support your belief, its time to realize you are wrong.

I think both pro choicers and pro lifers are just as prone to this exact issue unfortunately...

Black side > Grey Area < White side

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
From my limited conversations with pro-lifers...

For the life-starts-at-conception set, their logic is that the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, and at the point, life has begun. Therefore, abortion is murder.

However, 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, and up to 75% of conceptions fail to implant (attach to the uteran wall), especially in the first 4 weeks when the risk is quite high.

Using that logic then, if a miscarriage has occurred, then hasn't the mother then committed negligent homicide (or similar charge)?

Without comment on position, that's a horrible argument to offer as a question. One is resulting from the natural failure of part of a natural process and the other from a deliberate and calculated action.

[Gestalt]

Miscarriage perecnt is 10 to 20% from what I read last night.

Not that it has relevant. Its not negligent or homicide.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by tirebob
Black side &gt; Grey Area &lt; White side

The choicers and lifers can both have a black and white situation they can point to, the difference is that the lifer acknowledges that there is a grey area full of philosophically sound arguments, science etc that is major cause for concern.
The choicer takes all these arguments and science and they put their own preferences above it all, they take their own preferences to trump philosophy and science.

The lifers point to several markers of a unique living human, heart beat, unique DNA, fingerprints, brain activity, blood circulation, blood cell production etc.

To throw all that aside in favor of personal whim and preference seems so anti science, and these are typically the same people who call people out for ignoring the climate model results from climate scientists to suggest global warming is an immediate threat to all humanity.

Would you accept the counter climate change argument that it's my car and my gas and I can burn it as I please because I own my own property and that any carbon tax or restriction on me using my personal property is a threat to my self ownership?

If you accept self ownership you accept property rights, and I have no problem using that position to vaporize your pro choice position as well.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by Modelexis

The choicers and lifers can both have a black and white situation they can point to, the difference is that the lifer acknowledges that there is a grey area full of philosophically sound arguments, science etc that is major cause for concern.
The choicer takes all these arguments and science and they put their own preferences above it all, they take their own preferences to trump philosophy and science.

The lifers point to several markers of a unique living human, heart beat, unique DNA, fingerprints, brain activity, blood circulation, blood cell production etc.

To throw all that aside in favor of personal whim and preference seems so anti science, and these are typically the same people who call people out for ignoring the climate model results from climate scientists to suggest global warming is an immediate threat to all humanity.

Would you accept the counter climate change argument that it's my car and my gas and I can burn it as I please because I own my own property and that any carbon tax or restriction on me using my personal property is a threat to my self ownership?

If you accept self ownership you accept property rights, and I have no problem using that position to vaporize your pro choice position as well.

That's the thing... Your philosophy is just that... It is your, while someone else's philosophy is theirs.

Your problem, as well as many others on both sides of the argument, is that you have decided to conclude your philosophy is hard science. Good luck with that.

[tirebob]

oops... mispost

[Seth1968]

Modelexis:

Let's say that in the future, you found a girl, and managed to not scare her away. You get her pregnant, but the fetus is so damaged that it will have no motor skills and it's brain is mush. BUT, it's still technically alive. Would you want it aborted?

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by tirebob
That's the thing... Your philosophy is just that... It is your, while someone else's philosophy is theirs.

Your problem, as well as many others on both sides of the argument, is that you have decided to conclude your philosophy is hard science. Good luck with that.

It's not my philosophy, it's philosophy.
Just like it's not my science, it's science.

Philosophy is a tool of logic, it's not a preference to impose. You use philosophy to check claims against themselves and against logical axioms etc. Philosophy can be challenged, but only by a more rational, more logical and more consistent philosophy. If you have that, feel free to share, but that wouldn't be two people offering their own opinions.

That's why I'm not claiming a heart beating fetus is a person based on a gut feeling, I'm using logic to show that any other claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Um no... you are expressing a philosophic view based on your on values and morals

There is no universal set of morals/values... in fact it is one thing that is recognized as being unique to each person

To proclaim you are the greatest philosopher of all time and cannot possibly be wrong or misguided is basically a resume of a failed philosopher

there may not be universal morals if you define them as a persons personal rules, but if you define morals as universally preferable behavior yes it is subject to universal standards.

If it's not a universal claim it's not an argument.

I'm not claiming to have the only philosophy in the world, but I haven't heard anyone set out a more logical and more rational set of axioms that defend their position.

The philosophy won't give you a law to follow, it can only judge individual claims, such as, killing a 4 month old fetus is moral or morally neutral.
That doesn't answer every question on the subject, it can only address each situation as it is proposed in each specific case. You will begin to notice a trend but that doesn't mean there are no grey areas you will come to where the philosophy doesn't have the science to back it up.