New idea: Schrödinger's abortion!

Page 1 of 2 [ 26 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

25 Oct 2011, 6:06 pm

Since we needed more topics about this, here comes a new idea.

a) "Abortion" is made legal AT ANY STAGE DURING PREGNANCY.

b) "Abortion" is re-defined as follows:

* egg, zygote, embryo or fetus is extracted with care.
* Then it is put into some machine to support its development.

Two possibilities:

a) It becomes a baby! Congratulations, what was aborted was a "viable human being" and we just saved its life. However, since mother aborted him, she loses all her parenthood rights to him and he is now an orphan to crowd the adoption system.
b) It does not become a baby, it dies during the surgery or during the incubation. Conclusion: It was not a viable human being. A non-human died.

_________________
.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 26 Oct 2011, 9:04 am, edited 4 times in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Oct 2011, 6:13 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Since we needed more topics about this, here comes a new idea.

a) "Abortion" is made legal AT ANY STAGE DURING PREGNANCY.

b) "Abortion" is re-defined as follows:

* egg, zygote, embryo or fetus is extracted with care.
* Then it is put into some machine to support its development.

Two possibilities:

a) It becomes a baby! Congratulations, what was aborted was a "viable human being" and we just saved its life. Conservatives' taxes pay welfare (and also the whole procedure). And the woman loses any maternity rights on it.

b) It does not become a baby, it dies during the surgery or during the incubation. Conclusion: It was not a viable human being. Such is life. Conservatives pay the procedure.

In both cases, the woman gets rid of the being that was inside her and it becomes the conservatives' problem. Everybody wins.

discriminatory tax. Illegal. Violate 14 th amendment.

ruveyn

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

25 Oct 2011, 6:15 pm

Change the Amendment then..

Actually , replace conservatives with "pro-life". And make pro-life people able to opt-in to this tax. If you register as a pro-life you have to pay the taxes. If there are not enough taxes to support the system, abortion is redefined as the current thing.

Edit: It is hilarious that amendment exists given that in the US the rich pay less taxes and all that stuff...

_________________
.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Oct 2011, 6:18 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Change the Amendment then..

.

unlikely. The is one of the most important amendments. It requires equal protection of the laws for all.

Easier solution: government gets out of the way of abortion. And no abortions are funded at taxpayer expense. Problem solved

ruveyn

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

26 Oct 2011, 1:13 am

ruveyn wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Change the Amendment then..

.

Sure, poor people have the equal rights to sleep under bridges as do the rich people.

Now when all of the rich are in Gaddafi's situation, there might be a better opportunity of equal interpretation of equality.

Tadzio

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

26 Oct 2011, 1:35 am

does it then follow that while the embryo etc. is inside the machine and not being subject to external observation, that it is at once "a human" and "not a human"?

_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

26 Oct 2011, 5:32 am

peebo wrote:

does it then follow that while the embryo etc. is inside the machine and not being subject to external observation, that it is at once "a human" and "not a human"?

Any human individual, I.e. not a tissue or an organ or a cell, but going through a natural life cycle, is a human individual that deserves as much protection under the law as any other. The only reason one should abort a baby is because the mother will die (e.g. ectopic pregnancy) or because of rape (What sort of terrible psychological effects will being forced to carry a rape baby have on the woman?).

Convenience? No. We can make the mother's life more convenient but we shouldn't do that by ending a Human's life.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

26 Oct 2011, 6:38 am

Gedrene wrote:

peebo wrote:

does it then follow that while the embryo etc. is inside the machine and not being subject to external observation, that it is at once "a human" and "not a human"?

i would say what terrible psychological dammage would women face if they were forced to carry any and all other pregnancies.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

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

Ilka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,365
Location: Panama City, Republic of Panama

26 Oct 2011, 8:26 am

Gedrene wrote:

What sort of terrible psychological effects will being forced to carry a rape baby have on the woman?.

Try being a constant reminder of the most horrible experience in your whole life? And the terrible psycological effects are not only for the woman, but also for the child, that will probaly be misstreated (uncounciously or not) by the mother, and that eventually will find out he is product of a violation (son/daughter or someone capable of doing that to another hman being).

I have a friend you was violated and was convinced to keep the child, and she told me her whole story. Believe me, it aint pretty.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

26 Oct 2011, 8:44 am

Her baby, her problem. NEXT

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

26 Oct 2011, 8:56 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

Her baby, her problem. NEXT

Clearly, it is the pro-lifer's problem once the Schrödinger's abortion happened.

They WANTED it to be their problem, they want decision power over it and if we give them the power to stop killings of fetuses, it should become their problem and their responsibility.

Since taxophobics can't get past the word tax, I removed those bits from the proposal. Enjoy.

peebo wrote:

does it then follow that while the embryo etc. is inside the machine and not being subject to external observation, that it is at once "a human" and "not a human"?

We cannot know for sure if it is a viable human until the whole experiment finishes.

_________________
.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

26 Oct 2011, 9:08 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Her baby, her problem. NEXT

The mother chose to get pregnant, so it isn't anyone elses problem but hers and the fathers. Not that I'm pro-life but it makes no sense to make it their problem when it isn't their actions that caused a woman to get pregnant.

Vexcalibur wrote:

Since taxophobics can't get past the word tax, I removed those bits from the proposal. Enjoy.

Ok, now the whole purpose of this thread is defeated and it's just another abortion thread

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Oct 2011, 9:44 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Her baby, her problem. NEXT

Vexcalibur wrote:

Since taxophobics can't get past the word tax, I removed those bits from the proposal. Enjoy.

Ok, now the whole purpose of this thread is defeated and it's just another abortion thread

You have overlooked the few cases of rape where the woman becomes pregnant. Don't blame the victim.

ruveyn

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

26 Oct 2011, 10:00 am

Oodain wrote:

Gedrene wrote:

peebo wrote:

does it then follow that while the embryo etc. is inside the machine and not being subject to external observation, that it is at once "a human" and "not a human"?

i would say what terrible psychological dammage would women face if they were forced to carry any and all other pregnancies.

What? I don't think many women ever face soul-destroying mental health problems when the only reason they would have an abortion is contraceptive reasons rather than rape or health reasons.

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

26 Oct 2011, 10:02 am

Ilka wrote:

Gedrene wrote:

What sort of terrible psychological effects will being forced to carry a rape baby have on the woman?.

Exactly. I don't like abortion but how much screwing up does the existence of a child born from a rape run counter to all of human psychology. It's almost ought with can.

Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

28 Oct 2011, 10:26 pm

Any thread with the word 'Schrödinger's' in the title is worth clicking on.

I find the double standard in America funny.

If you kill a pregnant woman, you can be tried for murdering two people. Which legally equates the embryo/egg to a person.

However, during an abortion it is not considered murder because it is looked upon as a embryo/egg and not a person.

So the definition of what's in the belly of a pregnant women is defined by who is terminating it. That's a real odd way to define something.

Page 1 of 2 [ 26 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

New idea: Schrödinger's abortion! Post Reply New Topic

New idea: Schrödinger's abortion!