Page 17 of 19 [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,573
Location: The Oort Cloud

27 Jan 2018, 1:27 pm

Mikah wrote:
MissChess wrote:
To clarify, then, would you state that any living being constructed on the blueprint of human DNA is a human being? (I'm dismissing the concept of genetic hybrids, while the science may or may not be there at this time I'm referring to purely human DNA and not some hypothetical humanzee, or what have you.)


I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. Are we talking science fiction?

XFilesGeek wrote:
I'm never going to accept that a fetus has more rights than I do. If I'm pregnant, and I go for a run, trip and fall on my face, thus, precipitating a miscarriage, should I be charged with homicide? After all, if you cause the death of another person, even unintentionally, you can be held legally liable.


I'm not sure how a fetus would have more rights than you, even if I were emperor of the world. You would have the same right not to be killed arbitrarily. I also don't think you could be charged with homicide for that, unless negligence or intent could be proved.


A fetus would have the right to use my biological systems to its own advantage. Born people don't have that right. And "negligence" can be a broad category, especially for a lawyer.


_________________
"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)


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

27 Jan 2018, 2:02 pm

A female carrying a fetus is a mature adult human by biological standards, a fetus is not since it requires an incubator to survive (could be a womb or an actual incubator). In my opinion, until the fetus can survive on it's own it's not granted any human rights because it's not actually human at that point, it's merely a *possible* human in the future. Therefore I defer all judgments to the actual living human, whether it be a pregnant mother or the doctor overseeing the incubator.



ZZZTired
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 476
Location: Awake from a good night's rest

27 Jan 2018, 2:02 pm

I'm against abortion.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 32
Posts: 1,396
Location: England

27 Jan 2018, 3:03 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
A fetus would have the right to use my biological systems to its own advantage. Born people don't have that right.


I'm not sure they don't, though it would have to be very bizarre set of circumstances for a "born" human to be in the same situation. You never did reply to my organ donation parallels a few pages ago. Is it right to take back an organ you've already donated (whether you chose to donate in the first place or not)?

XFilesGeek wrote:
And "negligence" can be a broad category, especially for a lawyer.


Yeah don't get me started on lawyers, but practicalities of the law should not allow its principles or spirit to be discarded.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,503
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Jan 2018, 3:12 pm

The Musings Of The Lost wrote:
LittleCoyoteKat wrote:
The Musings Of The Lost wrote:
Its killing something before it has a chance to live. Thats not something I agree with.


So is menstruation and masturbation, if you're going to classify it that way.
If decent quality of life is not possible, then lack of that life is the most humane possible solution.

But I also think it's no one else's f*****g business what difficult decisions others have to make because of their shitty circumstances. I'm personally more appalled at the eugenic mindset of many groups, including Autism Speaks, than I am about a blueprint for a human being (because it's not alive, life requires brain activity, and abortions occur before brain activity) being removed from the just as valuable woman.

Thats a fallacy ignoring a fundamental difference between sperm, eggs, zygotes, and fetuses.
http://abort73.com/abortion/are_sperm_a ... lls_alive/
And if you are in situations where you cannot support a child, give the child to adoption or don't get pregnant in the first place. Everyone using birth control, condoms and such is aware they are fallible. They are not perfect. Ergo, if you simply cannot afford to be pregnant, don't f*****g have sex


That's a matter of opinion. The birth control pill hasn't left my wife down after we had our daughter.
People have children all the time, whether they can afford them or not. I'm sure just about everyone on this forum are the descendants of people who couldn't afford to have kids, but did. That's going to go on, and on, and on for as long as there are humans.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Stardust Parade
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 306
Location: USA

27 Jan 2018, 3:22 pm

I'm prochoice. I don't care what other people do with their bodies, and I don't want other people telling me what I can and can't do with mine.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,499
Location: Adelaide, Australia

27 Jan 2018, 3:56 pm

Stardust Parade wrote:
I'm prochoice. I don't care what other people do with their bodies, and I don't want other people telling me what I can and can't do with mine.

There's the problem. People who find abortion distasteful aren't being forced to abort against their will, the problem is these people want to force their tastes onto everyone.

If these people dislike abortion, they don't have to get one. Yet they think they have the right to make that choice for you as well as for themselves.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 32
Posts: 1,396
Location: England

27 Jan 2018, 4:11 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Stardust Parade wrote:
I'm prochoice. I don't care what other people do with their bodies, and I don't want other people telling me what I can and can't do with mine.

There's the problem. People who find abortion distasteful aren't being forced to abort against their will, the problem is these people want to force their tastes onto everyone.

If these people dislike abortion, they don't have to get one. Yet they think they have the right to make that choice for you as well as for themselves.


This thinking never disappears does it? Do they teach it in schools now?

People who find drink driving distasteful aren't being forced to drink drive against their will, the problem is these people want to force their tastes onto everyone.

If these people dislike drink driving, they don't have to do it. Yet they think they have the right to make that choice for you as well as for themselves.


Those anti-drink driving bigots, when will their tyranny end?


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,499
Location: Adelaide, Australia

27 Jan 2018, 4:28 pm

Mikah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Stardust Parade wrote:
I'm prochoice. I don't care what other people do with their bodies, and I don't want other people telling me what I can and can't do with mine.

There's the problem. People who find abortion distasteful aren't being forced to abort against their will, the problem is these people want to force their tastes onto everyone.

If these people dislike abortion, they don't have to get one. Yet they think they have the right to make that choice for you as well as for themselves.


This thinking never disappears does it? Do they teach it in schools now?

People who find drink driving distasteful aren't being forced to drink drive against their will, the problem is these people want to force their tastes onto everyone.

If these people dislike drink driving, they don't have to do it. Yet they think they have the right to make that choice for you as well as for themselves.


Those anti-drink driving bigots, when will their tyranny end?


The difference is drink driving kills people. Abortion doesn't kill anyone.

In your next post you will unsuccessfully argue that a fetus is a person.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

27 Jan 2018, 4:29 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
The decision to have sex is not the decision to have a baby.


It isn't. It is, however, the decision to engage in an activity which carries known consequences, one of which is becoming pregnant.

Quote:
I'm never going to accept that a fetus has more rights than I do.


I don't believe that's representative of anyone's position. In fact, I would wager most people here who are arguing in favour of greater fetal rights would accept abortion or enforced removal on the grounds of maternal endangerment - just as they would likely agree with any reasonable force element in an instance of self-defence.

Quote:
If I'm pregnant, and I go for a run, trip and fall on my face, thus, precipitating a miscarriage, should I be charged with homicide? After all, if you cause the death of another person, even unintentionally, you can be held legally liable.


If you're not pregnant and you trip, fall on another person and accidentally crush their windpipe, should you be charged with homicide? It falls under accidental killing or homicide by misadventure:

"A death caused by a lawful act done under the reasonable belief that no harm was likely to result."

Quote:
I dread to think of what the world would look like for women if we started considering fetuses as fully legal human beings.


It would look pretty similar to how it does presently in the UK (where a medical professional can refuse to carry out an abortion or refer someone to a clinic on moral grounds and the signatures of three doctors are required), only the criterion for an abortion would be more restrictive so we'd definitely lose the two underlined clauses, and the fourth may require a higher standard or degree of threat:

- That the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks (current age of viability)
- The continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, more so than a termination
- There is a substantial risk that if the child is born they would suffer mental or physical abnormalities
- That the abortion is necessary to prevent permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 32
Posts: 1,396
Location: England

27 Jan 2018, 4:41 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
The difference is drink driving kills people. Abortion doesn't kill anyone.

In your next post you will unsuccessfully argue that a fetus is a person.


If you're interested in my position, you are free to read my posts. I don't argue fetuses are persons, I argue they are human beings. Even if you believe abortion is not killing, it doesn't make the "don't like abortion, don't get one" dismissal any less stupid - something that was covered earlier in this thread, with other examples.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

27 Jan 2018, 4:51 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Mikah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Stardust Parade wrote:
I'm prochoice. I don't care what other people do with their bodies, and I don't want other people telling me what I can and can't do with mine.

There's the problem. People who find abortion distasteful aren't being forced to abort against their will, the problem is these people want to force their tastes onto everyone.

If these people dislike abortion, they don't have to get one. Yet they think they have the right to make that choice for you as well as for themselves.


This thinking never disappears does it? Do they teach it in schools now?

People who find drink driving distasteful aren't being forced to drink drive against their will, the problem is these people want to force their tastes onto everyone.

If these people dislike drink driving, they don't have to do it. Yet they think they have the right to make that choice for you as well as for themselves.


Those anti-drink driving bigots, when will their tyranny end?


The difference is drink driving kills people. Abortion doesn't kill anyone.

In your next post you will unsuccessfully argue that a fetus is a person.


People is not necessarily analogous to "person" in the legal sense.

Human, however, is directly applicable to any being that can be considered part of the genus "Homo".

Your argument is also the same as that used to justify the killing of slaves "They're not people, they're my property". Laws are subject to change, and those regarding abortion have done so multiple times in response to medical advances, activism and lobbying.

In addition, you're arguing against the specific example Mikah used, rather than the principle he was demonstrating, focusing solely on the death of a "person" aspect. Apply it to every single existing law which governs behaviour - the wearing of seat belts, legally required insurance, etc. Law consists of both principles and rules, the latter being subject to change in response to the needs and demands of society.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 32
Posts: 1,396
Location: England

27 Jan 2018, 5:14 pm

adifferentname wrote:
In addition, you're arguing against the specific example Mikah used, rather than the principle he was demonstrating, focusing solely on the death of a "person" aspect. Apply it to every single existing law which governs behaviour - the wearing of seat belts, legally required insurance, etc. Law consists of both principles and rules, the latter being subject to change in response to the needs and demands of society.


Well said, though it may be effort wasted. When I tried to explain this to another poster earlier in the thread, his response was to post a personal attack, then delete it a minute later.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,573
Location: The Oort Cloud

27 Jan 2018, 6:55 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
A fetus would have the right to use my biological systems to its own advantage. Born people don't have that right.


I'm not sure they don't, though it would have to be very bizarre set of circumstances for a "born" human to be in the same situation. You never did reply to my organ donation parallels a few pages ago. Is it right to take back an organ you've already donated (whether you chose to donate in the first place or not)?



As I've already stated, the decision to have sex is not the decision to have a baby.

People shouldn't be compelled to donate organs in the fist place. They especially shouldn't be compelled to donate their body to a "person" who doesn't even have a functioning brain.


_________________
"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)


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,573
Location: The Oort Cloud

27 Jan 2018, 7:00 pm

adifferentname wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
The decision to have sex is not the decision to have a baby.


It isn't. It is, however, the decision to engage in an activity which carries known consequences, one of which is becoming pregnant.

Quote:
I'm never going to accept that a fetus has more rights than I do.


I don't believe that's representative of anyone's position. In fact, I would wager most people here who are arguing in favour of greater fetal rights would accept abortion or enforced removal on the grounds of maternal endangerment - just as they would likely agree with any reasonable force element in an instance of self-defence.

Quote:
If I'm pregnant, and I go for a run, trip and fall on my face, thus, precipitating a miscarriage, should I be charged with homicide? After all, if you cause the death of another person, even unintentionally, you can be held legally liable.


If you're not pregnant and you trip, fall on another person and accidentally crush their windpipe, should you be charged with homicide? It falls under accidental killing or homicide by misadventure:

"A death caused by a lawful act done under the reasonable belief that no harm was likely to result."

Quote:
I dread to think of what the world would look like for women if we started considering fetuses as fully legal human beings.


It would look pretty similar to how it does presently in the UK (where a medical professional can refuse to carry out an abortion or refer someone to a clinic on moral grounds and the signatures of three doctors are required), only the criterion for an abortion would be more restrictive so we'd definitely lose the two underlined clauses, and the fourth may require a higher standard or degree of threat:

- That the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks (current age of viability)
- The continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, more so than a termination
- There is a substantial risk that if the child is born they would suffer mental or physical abnormalities
- That the abortion is necessary to prevent permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman


The decision to have sex is not the same as a decision to have a baby.

And if we accept that a fetus is a full, legal human being, than we must be prepared to treat it as such. If a person dies under mysterious circumstances, an investigation by law enforcement ensues. Should women be subject to such investigation if they have a miscarriage?


_________________
"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)


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 32
Posts: 1,396
Location: England

27 Jan 2018, 7:09 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
As I've already stated, the decision to have sex is not the decision to have a baby.

People shouldn't be compelled to donate organs in the fist place. They especially shouldn't be compelled to donate their body to a "person" who doesn't even have a functioning brain.


I never said people should be compelled to donate organs, my question asks what is right once the donation has already been made. Again, you avoid my question. It's ok though. It's the most difficult thing in the world to change your mind.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.