Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Republican Suggests Death Penalty For Abortion

Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

SpiceWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 802

08 Apr 2018, 3:21 am

cyberdad wrote:
Are you comparing scientific racism to dehumanisation of the fetus?


Not especially, I was more comparing the rhetoric, I've read newspaper editorials from that historical time period, and it kind of saddens me to see the same hollow forms of rhetoric recycled.

cyberdad wrote:
I think the issue is pain receptors, a fetus younger than 20 weeks (the current deadline) has a lack of pain receptors so terminating the fetus is not likely to cause pain.


Except for the fact that there are people who are born without any pain receptors due to a genetic injury.

So if you want to argue that pain receptors are what gives human life "moral status" then you have to explain how it's ok to kill a foetus because it can't feel pain, but not ok to kill adult humans with this genetic illness as they can't feel pain either.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

08 Apr 2018, 6:17 am

SpiceWolf wrote:
Except for the fact that there are people who are born without any pain receptors due to a genetic injury.

So if you want to argue that pain receptors are what gives human life "moral status" then you have to explain how it's ok to kill a foetus because it can't feel pain, but not ok to kill adult humans with this genetic illness as they can't feel pain either.

Pain and nerve receptors are required for fight or flight or response to external stimuli (you see this in later stages of development)

The point is a that a fetus < 20 weeks old meets the requirement of not having a consciousness

i.e. lack of pain/nerve receptors + no self-awareness = no sign of life

In other words you have a set of cells forming human body tissue but is not sentient nor has a conciousness



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

08 Apr 2018, 7:24 am

SpiceWolf wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Are you comparing scientific racism to dehumanisation of the fetus?


Not especially, I was more comparing the rhetoric, I've read newspaper editorials from that historical time period, and it kind of saddens me to see the same hollow forms of rhetoric recycled.

cyberdad wrote:
I think the issue is pain receptors, a fetus younger than 20 weeks (the current deadline) has a lack of pain receptors so terminating the fetus is not likely to cause pain.


Except for the fact that there are people who are born without any pain receptors due to a genetic injury.

So if you want to argue that pain receptors are what gives human life "moral status" then you have to explain how it's ok to kill a foetus because it can't feel pain, but not ok to kill adult humans with this genetic illness as they can't feel pain either.


The only way I'll ever get pregnant is if I get raped.

If I get raped and become pregnant, I'm aborting it. I'm a woman and I have a right to not be pregnant.

You can think it's "wrong" all you want, but I never want to be pregnant, and I'm not going to be.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

08 Apr 2018, 8:58 am

cyberdad wrote:
SpiceWolf wrote:
Except for the fact that there are people who are born without any pain receptors due to a genetic injury.

So if you want to argue that pain receptors are what gives human life "moral status" then you have to explain how it's ok to kill a foetus because it can't feel pain, but not ok to kill adult humans with this genetic illness as they can't feel pain either.

Pain and nerve receptors are required for fight or flight or response to external stimuli (you see this in later stages of development)

The point is a that a fetus < 20 weeks old meets the requirement of not having a consciousness

i.e. lack of pain/nerve receptors + no self-awareness = no sign of life

In other words you have a set of cells forming human body tissue but is not sentient nor has a consciousness




cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

08 Apr 2018, 4:51 pm

EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
SpiceWolf wrote:
Except for the fact that there are people who are born without any pain receptors due to a genetic injury.

So if you want to argue that pain receptors are what gives human life "moral status" then you have to explain how it's ok to kill a foetus because it can't feel pain, but not ok to kill adult humans with this genetic illness as they can't feel pain either.

Pain and nerve receptors are required for fight or flight or response to external stimuli (you see this in later stages of development)

The point is a that a fetus < 20 weeks old meets the requirement of not having a consciousness

i.e. lack of pain/nerve receptors + no self-awareness = no sign of life

In other words you have a set of cells forming human body tissue but is not sentient nor has a consciousness




20 weeks is the absolute max, the baby you posted is 22 weeks



SpiceWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 802

09 Apr 2018, 4:04 am

cyberdad wrote:
In other words you have a set of cells forming human body tissue but is not sentient nor has a consciousness


The same argument could be made of a person under general anaesthesia.
They have no pain perception.
They evidence no signs of consciousness, memory, interaction or sentience.

Yet we accord moral status to the life of a person under anaesthesia.

And we are back to the beginning, arguing that the life of a foetus has no moral status because of attributes A and B, while arguing that grown humans with the very same attributes do have moral status.

If those attributes genuinely caused the absence of moral status(i,e, the sanctity of life) then it would also apply to any adults when they also acquired those attributes.

Do you understand what I'm trying to convey?

I've seen this "rationalisation treadmill" play out often in abortion arguments.
In your case, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I'm not sure you've fully thought it through.
Because if you think deeply about questions like this, it can take you to some quite scary places and you quickly become very reluctant to abrogate the sanctity of life.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

09 Apr 2018, 4:09 am

SpiceWolf wrote:
The same argument could be made of a person under general anaesthesia.
They have no pain perception.
They evidence no signs of consciousness, memory, interaction or sentience.


And people in comas.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Apr 2018, 4:22 am

EzraS wrote:
I'm not speaking against abortion here. But aborting a child does mean killing it.


Abortions don't usually occur once it's a child unless its a crazy medical emergency where the mom has to decide in an instant if they should save her or the baby. Some women have chosen to have them save the baby as first priority, some have chosen to save them-self...it really is a personal choice.


_________________
We won't go back.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

09 Apr 2018, 4:34 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I'm not speaking against abortion here. But aborting a child does mean killing it.


Abortions don't usually occur once it's a child unless its a crazy medical emergency where the mom has to decide in an instant if they should save her or the baby. Some women have chosen to have them save the baby as first priority, some have chosen to save them-self...it really is a personal choice.


Call it a child or a fetus or an embryo, it has its own heartbeat, meaning it is alive. And when it is aborted it is killed. That is just a simple fact.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Apr 2018, 4:47 am

EzraS wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I'm not speaking against abortion here. But aborting a child does mean killing it.


Abortions don't usually occur once it's a child unless its a crazy medical emergency where the mom has to decide in an instant if they should save her or the baby. Some women have chosen to have them save the baby as first priority, some have chosen to save them-self...it really is a personal choice.


Call it a child or a fetus or an embryo, it has its own heartbeat, meaning it is alive. And when it is aborted it is killed. That is just a simple fact.


Yes it is killed, I would not deny that...but I don't think its a viable human if its an embryo and biology seems to support that. Abortion is less f****d up than a cat eating baby mice...and I watched that happen, because the cats at my moms house when I was living there found the mice hiding in the garage. And one of the cats ate 3 baby mice....a embryo and early stage fetus is not nearly as 'alive' as those were.

Also that is the thing dead child is different from dead fetus or dead embryo.


_________________
We won't go back.


SpiceWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 802

09 Apr 2018, 5:39 am

EzraS wrote:
And people in comas.


Good example.
The cognitive dissonance is even stronger in the case of comas, as with some comas the patients body may never become conscious again.

By the way, here are some links,

A foetus at 18 weeks of age.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... ml?image=5

and 16 weeks of age.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... ml?image=3

I'm posting these because it occoured to me from some of the posts I saw, that perhaps, some people have never seen photos of foetuses at that age.
Also aside from the argy bargy of debate, I find these photos evoke a feeling in me, if I had to put names on it, serene, peaceful and beautiful.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

09 Apr 2018, 6:18 am

No one should ever be forced to grow another organism inside their body against their will. Honestly, having read abortion debates for years and years, I see a lot of men with pregnancy fetishes who like the idea of forcing women to breed. They cloak it with religious and emotional appeals, but there's an unmistakable undercurrent of control and domination (and even rape) that is undeniable and ever-present in these discussions.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

09 Apr 2018, 7:10 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I'm not speaking against abortion here. But aborting a child does mean killing it.


Abortions don't usually occur once it's a child unless its a crazy medical emergency where the mom has to decide in an instant if they should save her or the baby. Some women have chosen to have them save the baby as first priority, some have chosen to save them-self...it really is a personal choice.


Call it a child or a fetus or an embryo, it has its own heartbeat, meaning it is alive. And when it is aborted it is killed. That is just a simple fact.


Yes it is killed, I would not deny that...but I don't think its a viable human if its an embryo and biology seems to support that. Abortion is less f****d up than a cat eating baby mice...and I watched that happen, because the cats at my moms house when I was living there found the mice hiding in the garage. And one of the cats ate 3 baby mice....a embryo and early stage fetus is not nearly as 'alive' as those were.

Also that is the thing dead child is different from dead fetus or dead embryo.


I've heard of rodents eating their own litter.

When a woman is pregnant, they say she is with child, not with fetus. Also when I was in a room with my mom and uncle while my aunt was getting an ultrasound, the person doing it was saying the baby not the fetus and he was around 20 weeks or less. I could see him moving around a lot.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

09 Apr 2018, 7:18 am

YippySkippy wrote:
No one should ever be forced to grow another organism inside their body against their will. Honestly, having read abortion debates for years and years, I see a lot of men with pregnancy fetishes who like the idea of forcing women to breed. They cloak it with religious and emotional appeals, but there's an unmistakable undercurrent of control and domination (and even rape) that is undeniable and ever-present in these discussions.


Those evil bastards. I hope I don't end up becoming one. I suppose I'm at least borderline evil at this point. Should I try to feel disgusted and ashamed of myself?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

09 Apr 2018, 7:25 am

SpiceWolf wrote:
EzraS wrote:
And people in comas.


Good example.
The cognitive dissonance is even stronger in the case of comas, as with some comas the patients body may never become conscious again.

By the way, here are some links,

A foetus at 18 weeks of age.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... ml?image=5

and 16 weeks of age.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... ml?image=3

I'm posting these because it occoured to me from some of the posts I saw, that perhaps, some people have never seen photos of foetuses at that age.
Also aside from the argy bargy of debate, I find these photos evoke a feeling in me, if I had to put names on it, serene, peaceful and beautiful.


When I was looking for such pictures myself I came across one that showed the mangled remains of one that had been aborted, severed little arm and leg being promanent. But I'm sure not going to post it. I'm leery of the backlash from even mentioning it.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

09 Apr 2018, 8:07 am

EzraS wrote:
SpiceWolf wrote:
The same argument could be made of a person under general anaesthesia.
They have no pain perception.
They evidence no signs of consciousness, memory, interaction or sentience.


And people in comas.


And we pull the plug on people who are in comas with little chance of waking-up, so......


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)