Abortion or not?

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by g-m
Wow why do some people care so much about this? And what other people believe and do with their bodies? Who cares if it is life? It's not 'sacred'. It's just a set of possibilities that are unknown. All these SJWs crusading for some kids to grow up disadvantaged and unloved just because they feel they have to take a moral high ground and 'protect human life' as long as it's someone else's problem.

Who cares if it's murder. Some people say meat is murder and it's fucking delicious.

FYI the SJW position is that abortion is totally a womens right and she can do it as she wishes at any time (see radical feminism)
Pro life is the opposite of SJW.

It's one of the things that adds to the self contradiction of what SJW's stand for, makes them that much more entertaining.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by tirebob
Well there are definitely extremes to this question isn't there?

Take it to the one side, I am sure there are people who believe that while baby is inside the belly, it is 100 percent the mothers choices, while the other end of the equation you have traditional Catholics who believe even even the egg and sperm are sacred (cue the Monty Python song from The Meaning of Life) and that even birth control is a sin.

This is exactly why the discussion is unwinnable because there is too much subjectivity because for some a newly conceived fetus is simply a blob of cells no different than a blob of cells for a cat, the only difference being DNA, while for others, mostly the religious followers, believe that the eternal soul is present at the moment of conception.

Again, my perspective is that it is different for everyone and can not be pegged into a single hole, especially if you are deeming termination of pregnancy to be equivalent to murder in the eyes of law and society. For example, as a society in general, and even in the eyes of our law, it isn't considered "murder" if you kill another human in defense of your own life, so if you are standing in front of me holding a gun about to pull the trigger and I find a way to kill you first in defense of my own life, that is not considered murder, but in the next situation the only difference is you standing in front of me has you not holding a gun but I kill you anyways, then that is murder and not simply self preservation.

In a darker way, abortion is similar where for one person, pregnancy is a negative life impacting condition and to them termination is essentially self preservation, but for another pregnancy is a wonderful, positive life changing experience and if you were to walk up and terminate the babies life inside the mother by stabbing her in the stomach or some other violent act, guaranteed that would be considered murder to the mother.

So the question really isn't when do cells become life, but instead when does life become valuable?

I cannot even pretend to have an answer to that to apply to the world...

So we drop the extreme views, on each side, where the egg is a baby and stabbing a newborn baby is up to the mother.

Keep the debate on both sides to the subject of a second trimester fetus, or even a third if it pleases you.
Keep the debate on this specific trimester and let's see who has the better arguement.

For any choicer reading this, reply and comment if theoretically there was a way to remove a second trimester fetus and have a scientific not yet invented machine that could nurse this fetus to full term, would you have any different opinions about a second trimester abortion? Since the mother does in fact own her body and has the right to remove a fetus, if the fetus could live without the mother would you change your position at all? Let's say for the sake of argument that the state would have in place a cost free transfer of your baby to a waiting doner family.
More basic way of asking the question, would the advance of technology every sway your opinion?

[MalibuStacy]

I'm pretty sure (I could be wrong but I doubt it...) that no one on beyond is actually a philosopher. But for arguments sake hers a little philosophy for you though to show how absurd things can be.

...It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

Taken from here

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

I discussed those at length at length with my girlfriend who and realistically this whole comes down to ethics and morals which are separate from laws. Its against the law to speed but whether I consider it ethical is purely up to my morals. Its not illegal to cheat on your husband or wife, but for many it is unethical because of morals.

[MalibuStacy]

Originally posted by Modelexis


So we drop the extreme views, on each side, where the egg is a baby and stabbing a newborn baby is up to the mother.

Keep the debate on both sides to the subject of a second trimester fetus, or even a third if it pleases you.
Keep the debate on this specific trimester and let's see who has the better arguement.

For any choicer reading this, reply and comment if theoretically there was a way to remove a second trimester fetus and have a scientific not yet invented machine that could nurse this fetus to full term, would you have any different opinions about a second trimester abortion? Since the mother does in fact own her body and has the right to remove a fetus, if the fetus could live without the mother would you change your position at all? Let's say for the sake of argument that the state would have in place a cost free transfer of your baby to a waiting doner family.
More basic way of asking the question, would the advance of technology every sway your opinion?

You do realize if we could have said machine , no one would even have pregnancies...

[Sugarphreak]

...

[max_boost]

Lol human life is cheap. May an asteroid come by and take us all out.

[RickDaTuner]

Rephrasing the idea of transfered pregnancies...

How long before society, and technology collectively decide that's it's medically beneficial to have a women's eggs removed and stored at birth? Only to be pulled from storage - fertilized and incubated all out of a woman's body.

What would the argument be then?

I can see it now, natural birth becoming extinct, eggs for sale on kijiji, 70 Year old couples having children.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by MalibuStacy
I'm pretty sure (I could be wrong but I doubt it...) that no one on beyond is actually a philosopher. But for arguments sake hers a little philosophy for you though to show how absurd things can be.

...It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

Taken from here

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

I discussed those at length at length with my girlfriend who and realistically this whole comes down to ethics and morals which are separate from laws. Its against the law to speed but whether I consider it ethical is purely up to my morals. Its not illegal to cheat on your husband or wife, but for many it is unethical because of morals.

Well this rediculous analogy still doesn't answer the question of why do you have to grab the plant, throw it out the door and start stomping it into the pavement and then light it on fire.

Maybe your neighbour loves flowers and would happy to add it to her garden and you've just gone to a completely overkill measure to make sure this plant is erased from the face of the earth.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest the only rational action you can take for an unwanted plant is to remove it and then destroy it.
These are two separate actions and the second doesn't automatically follow the first.

[Amysicle]

.