Abortion...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Since you are agnostic, or basically athiest, and likely wouldnt or couldnt bear any guilt or remorse for killing an unborn child, I dont think ANYONE could convince you that it would be better to be pro life.

The only way to convince you that punching your wife/girlfriend in the stomach to kill the fetus is not a good thing, would be the Grandfather of the child, and to simply run you over with a MAC truck, or just blow your brains out. Of course that would be ethically and morally wrong, but since you threw out the religious or moral aspect, Im sure you wouldnt mind. Im sure you would die with confidence that the courts would take care of him for breaking the law.

Best answer however is instead of killing the fetus, just kill yourself and do the rest of the world a favor. IMHO
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The day a Man gets pregnant is the day his opinion on abortion is valid.

I agree to the point where the viability of the fetus is not in question. At that point it becomes society's issue. At that point a human life exists. No?

 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
The day man gets pregnant is the day abortions will be part of health insurance plans and government funding would help make up the shortfalls.
Will we get free PMS medication as well?
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I agree to the point where the viability of the fetus is not in question. At that point it becomes society's issue. At that point a human life exists. No?
It's a philosphical question. Modern Man has decided the taking of life in some circumstances is allowable without penalty. We just did some legal murdering in Iraq, for instance, no questions asked. Thus, it may not be a question of "it's a human life therefore it can't be destroyed." but one of "should we allow killing in this instance?"

Therefore, I feel, even though I can't personally stomach an abortion (oooo, that doesn't sound good does it?), the final decision on the matter should rest with the pregnant mother and not government. I would never encourage anyone to get one if the unborn child is healthy, could never "allow" it in my personal context either since the very thought makes me cringe. :brokenheart:
 

przero

Platinum Member
Dec 30, 2000
2,060
0
0
"The day a Man gets pregnant is the day his opinion on abortion is valid. "

Now does the father have any part in the decision to abort? Is it "his" child too? If the answer is no, then what about child support if the "fetus" "becomes" a child? Is it "his" then?
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's a philosphical question. Modern Man has decided the taking of life in some circumstances is allowable without penalty. We just did some legal murdering in Iraq, for instance, no questions asked. Thus, it may not be a question of "it's a human life therefore it can't be destroyed." but one of "should we allow killing in this instance?"

Therefore, I feel, even though I can't personally stomach an abortion (oooo, that doesn't sound good does it?), the final decision on the matter should rest with the pregnant mother and not government. I would never encourage anyone to get one if the unborn child is healthy, could never "allow" it in my personal context either since the very thought makes me cringe. :brokenheart:

Couldn't be said better.
 

przero

Platinum Member
Dec 30, 2000
2,060
0
0
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's a philosphical question. Modern Man has decided the taking of life in some circumstances is allowable without penalty. We just did some legal murdering in Iraq, for instance, no questions asked. Thus, it may not be a question of "it's a human life therefore it can't be destroyed." but one of "should we allow killing in this instance?"

Therefore, I feel, even though I can't personally stomach an abortion (oooo, that doesn't sound good does it?), the final decision on the matter should rest with the pregnant mother and not government. I would never encourage anyone to get one if the unborn child is healthy, could never "allow" it in my personal context either since the very thought makes me cringe.

Then would you support abortion by paying for someone else's?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Since you are agnostic, or basically athiest, and likely wouldnt or couldnt bear any guilt or remorse for killing an unborn child, I dont think ANYONE could convince you that it would be better to be pro life.

The only way to convince you that punching your wife/girlfriend in the stomach to kill the fetus is not a good thing, would be the Grandfather of the child, and to simply run you over with a MAC truck, or just blow your brains out. Of course that would be ethically and morally wrong, but since you threw out the religious or moral aspect, Im sure you wouldnt mind. Im sure you would die with confidence that the courts would take care of him for breaking the law.

Best answer however is instead of killing the fetus, just kill yourself and do the rest of the world a favor. IMHO


who the hell are you talking to? the thread poster was asking you to convince him to be pro choice. don't u feel like a moron:p

are you saying pro life arguements are purely religious and can have nothing to do with ethics? oh thats a nice strike against your cause.

oh, and godless athiests are monsters that love punching women in the stomachs. thats rich. are you using such a desperate holier then thou attitude to try and counter the countless attrocities against humans commited in the name of religion? just look at the news, i havn't seen a godless athiest or agnostic suicide bombing or terrorist recently.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: konichiwa
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

Can't say I agree with the logic in that argument at all. First of all, the difference between a gnat and a human zygote is that the human zygote will develop into a fully-functional human being in 9 months; a gnat will not. Your comparison to "wasted seed" doesn't hold up for the same reason. Neither sperm nor an unfertilized egg can possibly develop into a human being; a fertilized egg will.

It seems the crux of this issue is which stage of development the fetus can be considered a living human being. A few logical answers to that question would be conception, viability, or birth. My opinion would be conception or shortly thereafter, because BARRING COMPLICATIONS (miscarriage, stillbirth, etc), that is the point at which it becomes inevitable that a human being will be born.

As for the argument that it is the woman's body and she has the right to do what she wants with it, I don't buy that. A fetus is not a body part.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Since you are agnostic, or basically athiest, and likely wouldnt or couldnt bear any guilt or remorse for killing an unborn child, I dont think ANYONE could convince you that it would be better to be pro life.

The only way to convince you that punching your wife/girlfriend in the stomach to kill the fetus is not a good thing, would be the Grandfather of the child, and to simply run you over with a MAC truck, or just blow your brains out. Of course that would be ethically and morally wrong, but since you threw out the religious or moral aspect, Im sure you wouldnt mind. Im sure you would die with confidence that the courts would take care of him for breaking the law.

Best answer however is instead of killing the fetus, just kill yourself and do the rest of the world a favor. IMHO

I take exception at the opinion that because I'm an aethiest I can't tell right from wrong, don't feel or understand guilt or that because I'm "pro-choice" I'm better off dead. If you believe that then you really don't know people at all. Get out more.

Andy
 

wtfiwwm

Member
Apr 23, 2003
125
0
0
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: konichiwa
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

Can't say I agree with the logic in that argument at all. First of all, the difference between a gnat and a human zygote is that the human zygote will develop into a fully-functional human being in 9 months; a gnat will not. Your comparison to "wasted seed" doesn't hold up for the same reason. Neither sperm nor an unfertilized egg can possibly develop into a human being; a fertilized egg will.

It seems the crux of this issue is which stage of development the fetus can be considered a living human being. A few logical answers to that question would be conception, viability, or birth. My opinion would be conception or shortly thereafter, because BARRING COMPLICATIONS (miscarriage, stillbirth, etc), that is the point at which it becomes inevitable that a human being will be born.

As for the argument that it is the woman's body and she has the right to do what she wants with it, I don't buy that. A fetus is not a body part.

A very good point, I agree with you.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The day a Man gets pregnant is the day his opinion on abortion is valid.

So do people who are not parents still get to tell parents they can't beat their kids senseless? After all, if you don't have kiddies of your own, how can you judge when it is or isn't appropriate to give little Johnny a sound thrashing?
rolleye.gif
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Ilmater
IT LOOKS LIKE A GNAT
Still missing the point.
Her point was obvious. Look in a microscope. Both zygotes look the same.

Get a good enough microscope, and the differences should be pretty clear to the trained eye. Besides, isn't it a little bothersome to you to use "looks like" as criteria for what defines what is and is not human? It wasn't that long ago that some people thought other races were not human because they looked a little different.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
hhhhhmmmmm abortion, my only problem with it is....


Men have no choice. Let's assume Moonbeam and his old lady decide to have a baby moon, she gets pregnant soon after. Moonbeam of course is estatic, for he will now have someone who will have to sit and listen to him without end or chance of escape. However, his wife has a change of heart, and decides she doesn't want the child anymore, so she makes an appointment to have an abortion and informs Moonbeam of her decision. Moonbeam, being a great and noble man, expresses his desire to raise the child by himself if neccesary, covering all of Mrs. Moon's medical expenses, she declines hif kind and generous offer and has the abortion.

They are currently chasing down men all over the US for not paying child support, pulling driving privelages and more. Why should they be held accountable for an action they had no control over? Granted, they were willing participants in the act, however their decision to become a parent is not entirely their own. What if Moonbeam did not want that child and his wife decided to have it anyway? He would be forced to pay child support for at least 18 years. Should he be allowed to force her to have an abortion or should there be an option for him to waive any rights? Should he be able to force her to carry his child to term if he is willing to assume all responsibility and cost? Or should she have to pay support inthat case, as he would currently under the law? Either way, his decision is not recognized or respected by the law, the final determination is always given to the woman.

I am definitely pro-choice, pro-choice without gender preference, all prospective parents should have the right to decide if they want to continue a pregnancy and should be guranteed the legal power and protection to have their decisions enforced.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Alistar7
hhhhhmmmmm abortion, my only problem with it is....


Men have no choice. Let's assume Moonbeam and his old lady decide to have a baby moon, she gets pregnant soon after. Moonbeam of course is estatic, for he will now have someone who will have to sit and listen to him without end or chance of escape. However, his wife has a change of heart, and decides she doesn't want the child anymore, so she makes an appointment to have an abortion and informs Moonbeam of her decision. Moonbeam, being a great and noble man, expresses his desire to raise the child by himself if neccesary, covering all of Mrs. Moon's medical expenses, she declines hif kind and generous offer and has the abortion.

They are currently chasing down men all over the US for not paying child support, pulling driving privelages and more. Why should they be held accountable for an action they had no control over? Granted, they were willing participants in the act, however their decision to become a parent is not entirely their own. What if Moonbeam did not want that child and his wife decided to have it anyway? He would be forced to pay child support for at least 18 years. Should he be allowed to force her to have an abortion or should there be an option for him to waive any rights? Should he be able to force her to carry his child to term if he is willing to assume all responsibility and cost? Or should she have to pay support inthat case, as he would currently under the law? Either way, his decision is not recognized or respected by the law, the final determination is always given to the woman.

I am definitely pro-choice, pro-choice without gender preference, all prospective parents should have the right to decide if they want to continue a pregnancy and should be guranteed the legal power and protection to have their decisions enforced.

I see your point. But when a man and woman get it on, both have to accept that consequences, in the form of a baby, may arise. If the woman becomes pregnant I still believe that it is she who should have the final say in whether the child is kept or not (it's her body for starters). The man should realise this before he agrees to sex (that by definition may result in such a pregnancy). If the child is kept then what is best for that child supercedes the wishes of the parents. In this case if the father wants nothing to do with it - tough. The child requires money in order that it has the best chance to grow up "normally". However, I can see that in the minority of cases where the mother has the child - and rejects it so that the father takes over as it's parent, the mother should have to deal with the financial maintenance in the same way the man does.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
so the woman gets to decide after she knows for sure she is pregnant. The man has to live with her decision, even if it is the total opposite of what she has said before or what he wants personally, and he must make this "decision" before he even engages in the act which might produce the child. That hardly sounds like eqaul and fair protection under the law.

So what that it is the woman's body, it is ALSO (;)) the fathers child, maybe the burden of realization should be placed on her before sex, "if i am with this man and get pregnant, I may have to carry a child I do not want." You are saying a man must make that decison right now, "if I have sex with this woman, I may have to support a child I do not want". Pregnancy only lasts 9 months, that's alot less than 18 years. It's not like you can prove childbirth is anything but natural, the female body is designed to accomodate the process, no harm is going to come to the woman.

If they are going to allow abortions, both interested parties should have an equal determination and the right to raise their child by themselves.

This doesn't really add anything, just an interesting side note on how this system is abused in one small area, but the payoff is huge.
When rookies come into the NBA they give them classes on all types of things, one of the things they teach them is to protect themselves against people who would use them for material gain. They advise them if they engage in sexual relations with another woman, to always use a condom (for themselves, not the cigar), and to take the condom with them. Seems pretty strange, but history has shown them that women will lure a player into sleeping with them, demand they wear a condom, and then retrieve the condom and have a willing doctor artificially inseminate them, instant payday.
 

Banana

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2001
3,132
23
81
Originally posted by: Corn
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous.

The ascertation that ridiculous is spelled "rediculous" is ridiculous.

Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat.

People will say the most idiotic things to support any position/opinion they may have. The ascertation that a freshly fertalized human egg bears any relationship to a gnat is ridiculous. How many gnats become fully functioning humans?
I have zero to contribute to this fine discussion except that (1)"ascertation" is not a valid word, and (2)"fertalized" is misspelled.

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
So many people, so much ignorance because they allow their feelings to hide the most simple of concepts from their understanding.

Konichiwa (among others) rationalizes the slaughter of a developing human simply for the sake of its appearance: It looks like a gnat, therefore it is nothing more than a gnat.

The simple truth is that, no, a developing human fetus is not a gnat, it will never be a gnat, and does a fetus really even resemble a gnat? ;)

Throughout history, people have dehumanized those they slaughter to free their conscience of the consequences of their actions: So-called biologists supported the contention that the brain of a black man was smaller than that of the white man, therefore based on the appearance of a smaller brain, a black man wasn't really human. Witches, christians, muslims, pagans, all were burned by their oppressors because they were no longer human, instead controlled by demonic spirits.

Recently a few rabid Bush hating pacifists at this board complained of this truth in the war against Saddam, yet do they now support this tactic when it suits their purposes?

Yes, of course.

Look at what 0roo says:

logic would seem to show that a fetus is NOT a fully developed human being capable of sentient thought and survival in the world.

Well, neither is a newborn child a fully developed human being capable of sentient thought and survival in the world on its own.......yet we don't kill them on a whim (well, unfortunately some people do, but they go to prison).


Maybe a developing human fetus does resemble a gnat, and maybe a newborn human child at the time of birth has a similar mental capacity to that of a dog, but should it be treated as such?

My wife just lost her grandmother this past weekend in our presence. She was 92 years old and had fallen 5 weeks ago and shattered a leg and broke an arm (she didn't take her ostioporosis medication). She was very independent and lived alone, and for that reason, no one was aware that she had fallen until hours had elapsed after her fall. She was comatose when discovered because of the shock. She remained in her catatonic state and after a week past, she finally awoke.

While she was out, she appeared to be a vegetable. Her relatives had resigned themselves that she would never be herself again. While that supposition was somewhat true, she eventually did regain consciousness and had nearly 4 weeks of quality time to spend with her family.

My wife and I visited her regularly this past month, going over photographs in her old albums, learning about the places she had been and the things in life that she had seen. I was quite impressed and had learned more in the past month than I had in the previous 10 years I had known her.

On her last day, when my wife and I arrived, she smiled, waved, and asked about my parents. Two hours later she drew her last breath. She, I, my wife, and the rest of her family were grateful that no one had treated her like a gnat, even though that was how she "appeared" and was told how she would most likely remain.........

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I have zero to contribute to this fine discussion except that (1)"ascertation" is not a valid word, and (2)"fertalized" is misspelled.

OMG!!!!!!!!

I guess now is the point where I'm supposed act shocked that you had noticed and brought it to the attention of the forum and insult you for it. You are a very bad person, shame on you. :p


:D
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
I have never seen a gnat that resembled a 92 year old woman, all the same, I am sorry for your loss.

Either way, men get shafted by abortion laws, we are the financiers of single mothers wishes, unwilling parents or not, the possible consequences of our actions to be decided by others who can opt to have 18 more years of control over our lives while we have no say in the life and death of our own children.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I have never seen a gnat that resembled a 92 year old woman, all the same, I am sorry for your loss.

First, thank you.

There is more to resemblance than just how something looks externally. Of course my wife's grandmother didn't actually resemble the outward appearance of a gnat, just that her (at the time) mental capacity appeared to resemble that of a gnat.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: CornSo many people, so much ignorance because they allow their feelings to hide the most simple of concepts from their understanding.

"Do as I say, not as I do"? Your post is blatant and complete hypocrisy:

"so many people...allow their feelings to hide...concepts from their understanding"

and later...

"Two hours later she drew her last breath. She, I, my wife, and the rest of her family were grateful that no one had treated her like a gnat"

You are a pathetic excuse for a hypocrite.

Konichiwa (among others) rationalizes the slaughter of a developing human simply for the sake of its appearance: It looks like a gnat, therefore it is nothing more than a gnat.

Again, read what I said. I'm not going to go over my argument time and time again when you refuse to provide any form or type of argument, and your posts consist entirely of wordy rhetoric designed to do exactly what you (oh so ironically) censure: bring people who read your posts to allow logic and reason to be clouded by emotion.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
You are a pathetic excuse for a hypocrite.

Sorry, but you'll have to demonstrate my supposed hypocrisy....... Where did I ever say that one couldn't form an opinion based upon any emotional experience one may face? Where? I merely stated that some people here were ignorant of what I had originally stated because their emotions kept them understanding my rather simple point. Nowhere did I state, or even imply, the invalidity of any opinion, either based upon emotion or otherwise. What a pathetic example of strawman argument. You asked for me to clairfy my argument, then when I do so, it's ignored and rebutted with "you're a hypocrite!!!!"

Again, read what I said.

How about I just quote it:

Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat.

Yes yes, a snapshot in time.......it resembles a gnat, therefore it must be a gnat, its only worth is that of a gnat.

Given the same principle, my wife's grandmother was also only a gnat if that snapshot were taken shortly after her fall....

I'm not ignorant of your point, I merely disagree with the principle that something is something else based simply on its resemblance to that something else.

I have demonstrated no hypocrisy (and have stated my "argument" quite plainly). You want hypocrisy? This falls dangerously close to that line, if not outright crossing it:

You amaze me with your consistent ability to make yourself look like an idiot by, as threads expand, making your arguments less and less:

a) relevant and germane to the topic
b) convincing
c) logical
d) lucid

while making them more and more:

a) convoluted
b) reduced to insults
c) laden with terse, defamatory remarks

........your stupidity never fails to astound, and, unfortunately, you're runing this (otherwise clear and civil) thread into a crapslinging contest. Thanks.

Here we have you lamenting about my supposed insult laden post specked with defamatory remarks, then you finish it off with that which you complain about. LOL, sure, I suppose I'm a "pathetic excuse for a hypocrite" while you are a perfect example of one. This is good stuff Koni, entertaining indeed! Carry on.
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,229
2,539
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: Alistar7
hhhhhmmmmm abortion, my only problem with it is....


Men have no choice. Let's assume Moonbeam and his old lady decide to have a baby moon, she gets pregnant soon after. Moonbeam of course is estatic, for he will now have someone who will have to sit and listen to him without end or chance of escape. However, his wife has a change of heart, and decides she doesn't want the child anymore, so she makes an appointment to have an abortion and informs Moonbeam of her decision. Moonbeam, being a great and noble man, expresses his desire to raise the child by himself if neccesary, covering all of Mrs. Moon's medical expenses, she declines hif kind and generous offer and has the abortion.

They are currently chasing down men all over the US for not paying child support, pulling driving privelages and more. Why should they be held accountable for an action they had no control over? Granted, they were willing participants in the act, however their decision to become a parent is not entirely their own. What if Moonbeam did not want that child and his wife decided to have it anyway? He would be forced to pay child support for at least 18 years. Should he be allowed to force her to have an abortion or should there be an option for him to waive any rights? Should he be able to force her to carry his child to term if he is willing to assume all responsibility and cost? Or should she have to pay support inthat case, as he would currently under the law? Either way, his decision is not recognized or respected by the law, the final determination is always given to the woman.

I am definitely pro-choice, pro-choice without gender preference, all prospective parents should have the right to decide if they want to continue a pregnancy and should be guranteed the legal power and protection to have their decisions enforced.

We all get to make choices,unfortunately due to the biology of the thing,the man's choice making ability ends earlier than the woman's.