The ABORTION thread.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why do people who normally couldn't give a fuck about other people suddenly care when it's an unwanted unintelligent growth

Because caring about one is caring about the structure of society. Caring about the other is not.

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why do people who normally couldn't give a fuck about other people suddenly care when it's an unwanted unintelligent growth

exactly, when it comes to a choice that has a massive impact on the person's life making the choice, and practically zero impact on the person opposing it....

and then when they cant afford to take care of the kid, those same people are like "nope, socialism, you did it, it's your problem"


Oh, and then they blame their abortion beleifs on the most famous socialist that ever existed.

[duaner]

This is a human rights issue, is it not? Is anyone here not in favour of human rights?

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a human rights issue, is it not? Is anyone here not in favour of human rights?

You'll have to clarify what position you think does the most to protect human rights. The posters above can't agree on that point.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a human rights issue, is it not? Is anyone here not in favour of human rights?

Exactly, the right to choose for yourself is an integral right and should be inalienable to every person of fully developed faculties. Nice to see you on the side of common sense.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh, and then they blame their abortion beleifs on the most famous socialist that ever existed.

I don't think I've ever heard Karl Marx mentioned in this endless circle jerk.

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You'll have to clarify what position you think does the most to protect human rights. The posters above can't agree on that point.

It should be first defined as to who a human is, that is, what makes a human a human.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Exactly, the right to choose for yourself is an integral right and should be inalienable to every person of fully developed faculties. Nice to see you on the side of common sense.

What do you mean by "every person of fully developed faculties"? Do those with down syndrome have fully developed faculties? What about toddlers? Since the human brain isn't really fully developed until age 25, what about an 18-year-old? Should those with less than fully developed faculties be able to make any choices at all for themselves?

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It should be first defined as to who a human is, that is, what makes a human a human.





What do you mean by "every person of fully developed faculties"? Do those with down syndrome have fully developed faculties? What about toddlers? Since the human brain isn't really fully developed until age 25, what about an 18-year-old? Should those with less than fully developed faculties be able to make any choices at all for themselves?

You realize we all knew you were going down this predictable path based on religious zealotism and I just felt like goading you on to safe us all from the "clever" setup, right? We all know your position and it's a fine one for you to have, until it's forced on someone else. And now you'll say the murder crazed mother is forcing her beliefs on a person and taking away their rights, then you'll try to manipulate logic to support your position and decry everyone else's and blah blah blah. The endless debate continues.

That's enough for me, I've found the brief entertainment I had sought. You may now continue to beat the dead horse with whomever wants to keep going. It's your right after all.

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You realize we all knew you were going down this predictable path based on religious zealotism

What path, anti-abortion? You do realize there are atheist organizations that are against abortion based on logic, reason, and science, correct? Show me one thing I stated or asked that is religious.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

and I just felt like goading you on to safe us all from the "clever" setup, right? We all know your position and it's a fine one for you to have, until it's forced on someone else. And now you'll say the murder crazed mother is forcing her beliefs on a person and taking away their rights, then you'll try to manipulate logic to support your position and decry everyone else's and blah blah blah. The endless debate continues.

Is all that just an excuse to not answer any questions I asked? There is one and only one question that needs to be answered to settle the entire debate: What are the unborn?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's enough for me, I've found the brief entertainment I had sought. You may now continue to beat the dead horse with whomever wants to keep going. It's your right after all.

Just as it is yours to ignore logic, reason, and science as it applies to this issue.

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is one and only one question that needs to be answered to settle the entire debate: What are the unborn?

It depends how far along the pregnancy is.

[Sugarphreak]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now we are getting somewhere. But you're demonstrably incorrect in your claim:

A person only has a right over their own body to the degree that their actions don't infringe on the rights of another person to not be harmed. This is why the viability argument is useful in abortion discussions, and why most reasonable people place the limits of their moral acceptance of abortion at or around viability. At what point does a mother's rights cease to supersede the rights of the fetus? Reasonable people disagree on this topic, which is why it is so interesting.

I see peoples right over their body as being absolute

The government can't force me to give life saving bone marrow or a liver to a person who needs a transplant

so... by the same token, a woman can't be expected to sacrifice her body to give life saving support to a fetus



If I try to imagine a scenario where my refusal results in another persons death... maybe if my arm was crushed beneath a car that was perched on the edge of a bridge. If I remove my arm, the car falls and people inside perish. I am still entitled to remove my arm, its mine, and you can't have it

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If I try to imagine a scenario where my refusal results in another persons death...

like covid? haha not wearing a mask or getting a vaxx was gonna kill grandma bro

[prodigydud]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If I try to imagine a scenario where my refusal results in another persons death... maybe if my arm was crushed beneath a car that was perched on the edge of a bridge. If I remove my arm, the car falls and people inside perish. I am still entitled to remove my arm, its mine, and you can't have it

Would it change anything if in this example it was your arm that resulted in the car being perched on the edge of a bridge in the first place?

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It depends how far along the pregnancy is.

Really? So, male and female human DNA mix, creating a new, unique human DNA. Around the end of the third week, the embryo has its own blood, the type of which can be different than the mother's. If all things go as they should, a zygote, which apparently isn't human, eventually becomes fully formed human having the same DNA. At which subjective point does the fetus suddenly go from non-human to human?

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Really? So, male and female human DNA mix, creating a new, unique human DNA. Around the end of the third week, the embryo has its own blood, the type of which can be different than the mother's. If all things go as they should, a zygote, which apparently isn't human, eventually becomes fully formed human having the same DNA. At which subjective point does the fetus suddenly go from non-human to human?

As the courts seem to have decided, when the fetus is viable outside the womb.

It's just a bowl of batter until it's been in the oven long enough, then it becomes cake.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I see peoples right over their body as being absolute

The government can't force me to give life saving bone marrow or a liver to a person who needs a transplant

so... by the same token, a woman can't be expected to sacrifice her body to give life saving support to a fetus



If I try to imagine a scenario where my refusal results in another persons death... maybe if my arm was crushed beneath a car that was perched on the edge of a bridge. If I remove my arm, the car falls and people inside perish. I am still entitled to remove my arm, its mine, and you can't have it

And yet a woman who abandons a baby is guilty of homicide. Do you feel that it is a "woman's right" to allow an infant to die through inaction?

[Sugarphreak]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would it change anything if in this example it was your arm that resulted in the car being perched on the edge of a bridge in the first place?

From my point of view, rights over body are absolute. So whatever lead to that situation is irrelevant

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And yet a woman who abandons a baby is guilty of homicide. Do you feel that it is a "woman's right" to allow an infant to die through inaction?

That falls under not providing the necessities of life as a parent.

However if you have to sacrifice your body to provide necessities of life, then: rights over your own body > providing the necessities

same as if you had to provide daily blood infusions to your newborn baby to keep it alive and you just decided not to. The baby might need it, but rights over your own body govern over that need.

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As the courts seem to have decided, when the fetus is viable outside the womb.

How do they define viability?

Do the courts decide when life begins? Shouldn't that be science? Should we be letting courts decide who is and isn't human? Shouldn't that be science and philosophy and reason? It was, after all, once legal to own and kill slaves, to treat them as property, and to kill Jews in Germany. It doesn't seem to me that simply trusting court decisions isn't always a good way to go.

There is one idea that runs through abortion, the Atlantic Slave Trade, the Holocaust, modern day human trafficking, and many other times in history where one people group was targeted by one or more other groups: define a specific group of humans as less than human ("savages," "not viable," etc.) so that you can justify all manner of harmful actions towards that group. If they're (supposedly) less than human, then they don't have to be treated as human.

Three problems with the viability argument are 1) that viability is an entirely arbitrary concept, 2) viability keeps getting earlier and earlier (with little or no change in laws; surprise!), and 3) depending on how one defines viability, it could mean that we could kill all sorts of people.

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From my point of view, rights over body are absolute. So whatever lead to that situation is irrelevant

This is fallaciously begging the question as to what the unborn are.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That falls under not providing the necessities of life as a parent.

However if you have to sacrifice your body to provide necessities of life, then: rights over your own body > providing the necessities

same as if you had to provide daily blood infusions to your newborn baby to keep it alive and you just decided not to. The baby might need it, but rights over your own body govern over that need.

When is it ever the case that a pregnant woman is sacrificing her body to provide necessities of life?

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When is it ever the case that a pregnant woman is sacrificing her body to provide necessities of life?

the several cases right now in the US that the mother's life is at risk if the child is carried to term and they wont let her reduce/mitigate her risk at the expense of the unborn.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From my point of view, rights over body are absolute. So whatever lead to that situation is irrelevant



That falls under not providing the necessities of life as a parent.

However if you have to sacrifice your body to provide necessities of life, then: rights over your own body > providing the necessities

same as if you had to provide daily blood infusions to your newborn baby to keep it alive and you just decided not to. The baby might need it, but rights over your own body govern over that need.

A viable fetus, by definition, does not "require" the mother, and yet it is destroyed as part of an abortion process. In other words, it is not the separation with the mother that is the issue, but rather the destruction of the fetus that is the issue. Your argument is invalid.