Page 4 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next


Abortion
Should be illegal, except in extreme cases 25%  25%  [ 14 ]
Should be legal during the first trimester only 24%  24%  [ 13 ]
Should be legal beyond the first trimester 47%  47%  [ 26 ]
Undecided 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 55

cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

17 Mar 2011, 8:47 pm

Bethie wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
If men gave birth people would see this issue quite differently. Criminalizing abortion would further decrease the life chances of mainly poor and uneducated women. If you're going to criminalize abortion then you'd have to force fathers to raise offspring against their will further adding misery to the life of the woman and child. It's just a terrible idea that almost no social good can derive from.


Quite true...identical debates were had at the beginning of the 20th century about "prophylactics",
a few decades later, about the birth control pill,
and now, abortion.

Women have always had to fight paternalizing and patriarchal forces tooth and nail for reproductive freedom.
The only difference now is that, since the "rise of secularism" (as discussed in another thread)
opponents of choice can't appeal DIRECTLY to the divine authority of bronze-age fairy tales,
but have to repackage their "arguments" as pseudo-humanist, (as evidenced by their constant appeals to the humanity of the fetus)-
this despite the fact that if their views were legislated into actuality,
it would have an effect that was nothing less than barbaric as far as human rights are concerned.

Likewise, the original "pregnancy and childbirth as punishment for sin, IE sex"
has been even more thinly-veiled into the "responsibility" spiel.


Yes, I agree with you both.

These arguments about abortion seem to attract men so they can spout on about how women don't want to deal with the "inconvenience" of being pregnant and giving birth.

What the hell do they know about it?

Any man who calls pregnancy and child birth (which are risky to the woman's health and can even lead to her death) a mere "inconvenience" loses all credibility - in the eyes of all the women. Those men don't care about women; rather they only seem keen on controlling them. And for what? A child they won't give a crap about once it's born.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

17 Mar 2011, 9:05 pm

91 wrote:
^^^^^

It is interesting how everyone who favors the rights of the born is already born. Many of those same people oppose the death penalty on the grounds that they could be wrongly convicted. The odds of being aborted are much higher though at around one in four.


It's interesting how everyone who uses anti-bacterial soap isn't a bacterium. :lol:

And the equivocation of fetuses with people who have actual LIVES to lose, in more than the biological sense...
that's quite interesting, as well.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

17 Mar 2011, 10:43 pm

This is how I view it...a fetus just happens to be a lifestage of a human being. If killing a baby is just as bad as killing a 40 year old and its just as bad as killing a senior citizen, then killing a fetus is just as wrong. In terms of extreme cases, I go by this rule...the fetus is a human being so the question is what would you do about it?

A woman gets raped and is pregnant. So she now has the "burden" of sustaining a life because of circumstances that happened. You wouldn't kill a person because you unwantingly had the responsibility of keeping them alive.

As for the mother's life at risk, if you kill the fetus, the mother will most likely recover. If you "let it be", you run the risk of both the mother and fetus dying. So yes, it makes sense to kill the fetus, a necessary evil but the better choice.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

17 Mar 2011, 10:55 pm

Bethie wrote:
And the equivocation of fetuses with people who have actual LIVES to lose, in more than the biological sense...
that's quite interesting, as well.


I would argue that the amount of horror the average person feels in responce to a murder is based on two factors:

1. The percentage of the victim's life that goes unlived. People are more horrified when a child is killed than an adult.

2. The inability of the victim to defend itself. People are more horrified when the victim was unarmed and/or at an extreme physical disadvantage.

So I would say that a fetus, who loses 100% of their life (as in the definition you used) and can't even crawl away or cry for help may indeed be more horrific in a sense than killing people "who have actual lives", as you put it.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

17 Mar 2011, 11:13 pm

Tensu wrote:
Bethie wrote:
And the equivocation of fetuses with people who have actual LIVES to lose, in more than the biological sense...
that's quite interesting, as well.


I would argue that the amount of horror the average person feels in responce to a murder is based on two factors:

1. The percentage of the victim's life that goes unlived. People are more horrified when a child is killed than an adult.

2. The inability of the victim to defend itself. People are more horrified when the victim was unarmed and/or at an extreme physical disadvantage.

So I would say that a fetus, who loses 100% of their life (as in the definition you used) and can't even crawl away or cry for help may indeed be more horrific in a sense than killing people "who have actual lives", as you put it.


The disapproval I have for murder is based on someone violating someone else's physical autonomy.
I couldn't care less whether the victim was armed or not. Murder is murder.
As a consequentialist,motives are irrelevant- it is the EFFECTS of a thing that determine it's worth.
Which is why the whole "debate" is beyond my comprehension:
what possible GOOD can be asserted would come from women being forced to continue pregnancy and give birth against their will,
often to the peril of their families and pre-existing children?

A fetus, just like an embryo before it, or a sperm or egg cell before that, isn't comparable to a child or an adult,
in that it's not in actuality physiologically sentient...it might become such someday, should the right conditions occur-
one of those conditions is the consent of the, ya know, PERSON it would be incubating inside.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

17 Mar 2011, 11:18 pm

jc6chan wrote:
This is how I view it...a fetus just happens to be a lifestage of a human being. If killing a baby is just as bad as killing a 40 year old and its just as bad as killing a senior citizen, then killing a fetus is just as wrong. In terms of extreme cases, I go by this rule...the fetus is a human being so the question is what would you do about it?

Neither a baby nor a 40 year old nor a senior citizen are physiologically dependent on the body of another for survival.
jc6chan wrote:
A woman gets raped and is pregnant. So she now has the "burden" of sustaining a life because of circumstances that happened. You wouldn't kill a person because you unwantingly had the responsibility of keeping them alive.

Abortion isn't a right to kill. It's the natural conclusion of pre-existing autonomical rights which, when exercised in this particular case,
result in the death of a fetus.
jc6chan wrote:
As for the mother's life at risk, if you kill the fetus, the mother will most likely recover. If you "let it be", you run the risk of both the mother and fetus dying. So yes, it makes sense to kill the fetus, a necessary evil but the better choice.


It takes a lot more to be a "mother" than the ability to get knocked up.

Also...you DO know that both women and their babies are much healthier and have better chances of survival when it is WOMEN who decide when they will reproduce, as opposed to being forced to by the state?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

17 Mar 2011, 11:46 pm

Abortion is freedom.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

17 Mar 2011, 11:51 pm

@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 1:12 am

91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is relevant in the context in question.

Perhaps it's an issue whereby two stances can both involve impeccable logic,
but those who start with different premises will still end up with different conclusions-
if the fetus being human versus non-human is a part of the working premise resulting in a "pro-life" conclusion,
that's fine,
but to assert that it's relevance is transcendent isn't true.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 18 Mar 2011, 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Mar 2011, 1:14 am

Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is at all relevant in the context in question.


Last I checked women didn't give birth to kangaroos.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

18 Mar 2011, 1:14 am

Tensu wrote:
Bethie wrote:
And the equivocation of fetuses with people who have actual LIVES to lose, in more than the biological sense...
that's quite interesting, as well.


I would argue that the amount of horror the average person feels in responce to a murder is based on two factors:

1. The percentage of the victim's life that goes unlived. People are more horrified when a child is killed than an adult.

2. The inability of the victim to defend itself. People are more horrified when the victim was unarmed and/or at an extreme physical disadvantage.

So I would say that a fetus, who loses 100% of their life (as in the definition you used) and can't even crawl away or cry for help may indeed be more horrific in a sense than killing people "who have actual lives", as you put it.

I judge killing by a different metric: how much pain and fear the victim can feel. I would have very few qualms about pulling the plug on a 20 year old in a persistent vegetative state, even if that body could live for another 60 years with appropriate medical care, because there's not a mind that could feel fear or sense the pain of the dying body after the plug is pulled. Likewise, I have very few qualms about aborting a zef before it has a mind developed enough to feel fear or sense pain, and I favor increasing restrictions as the zef develops.
I would become a pure vegan before I became a pure pro-lifer.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Mar 2011, 1:21 am

@ LKL

Anyone that claims that a child in the womb can't feel pain is a quack.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 1:22 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is at all relevant in the context in question.


Last I checked women didn't give birth to kangaroos.


Well, last I checked....
yeah, I have no clue wtf you're talking about, dude. :lol:

Did you have to butt into someone else's thread on this topic?
Isn't it enough to chant your refuted points ad nauseum for...how many pages is your threat up to, now? :wink:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Mar 2011, 1:24 am

Inuyasha wrote:
@ LKL

Anyone that claims that a child in the womb can't feel pain is a quack.


sorry but that solely depend on when in the pregnancy you ask the question, you need a pretty well developed nerve system to feel pain in any meaningfull sense of the word.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 1:26 am

LKL wrote:
Tensu wrote:
Bethie wrote:
And the equivocation of fetuses with people who have actual LIVES to lose, in more than the biological sense...
that's quite interesting, as well.


I would argue that the amount of horror the average person feels in responce to a murder is based on two factors:

1. The percentage of the victim's life that goes unlived. People are more horrified when a child is killed than an adult.

2. The inability of the victim to defend itself. People are more horrified when the victim was unarmed and/or at an extreme physical disadvantage.

So I would say that a fetus, who loses 100% of their life (as in the definition you used) and can't even crawl away or cry for help may indeed be more horrific in a sense than killing people "who have actual lives", as you put it.

I judge killing by a different metric: how much pain and fear the victim can feel. I would have very few qualms about pulling the plug on a 20 year old in a persistent vegetative state, even if that body could live for another 60 years with appropriate medical care, because there's not a mind that could feel fear or sense the pain of the dying body after the plug is pulled. Likewise, I have very few qualms about aborting a zef before it has a mind developed enough to feel fear or sense pain, and I favor increasing restrictions as the zef develops.
I would become a pure vegan before I became a pure pro-lifer.


What's also interesting is how many anti-choice advocates would be willing to put their views into action.

If faced with handing a woman a pill and her having a heavy period (that's what most abortions are)
and killing a born person, I doubt he'd have any qualms about saving the latter.

:lol:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 2:00 am

Inuyasha wrote:
@ LKL

Anyone that claims that a child in the womb can't feel pain is a quack.


Inuyasha, the great fetal neurologist.


:lol:

Not that fetal pain is objectively relevant to the issue in the first place.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 18 Mar 2011, 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.