• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Couple with three sons abort twin boys conceived with IVF

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Eli said:
All the people saying this is immoral do realize that morals are completely subjective, right?

Who are you to say what someone else can and cannot do? That's just upsetting.

What if I said I don't think people should be able to drink alcohol? You would think I was insane. And that's how I look at you. You shouldn't be able to control what people want to do to themselves, period. Being "free" should include wording to that effect, or else how are you really free? :hmm:
Click to expand...

This argument of morals is a bit silly because there is actually no disagreement.

There is no moral principle barring abortions. Morals aren't that specific. However, there is a rule that says you should not kill people. All normal people follow this moral principle.

So there is no arguing over morals here. We can all agree that killing people is immoral, and that is the only relevant moral principle here.

The only question is whether or not abortion is killing. That is all there is to argue over.
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
LOL, perhaps Nietzche wasn't much of a scientist or he would have known that inherent herd instinct is really empathy and morality is just retarded bullsheit for the retarded people who needs to feel better about themselves.
Click to expand...

I take this to mean that you're some sort of scientist instead of an Internet tough guy, and then would obviously have something to back up your inane "morality is just to keep people down!" comment? Or are you just going to keep ranting needlessly? If you're honestly going to sit there and say that societies are not formed based on a common morality, then you're just wasting time.
 
Eli said:
All the people saying this is immoral do realize that morals are completely subjective, right?

Who are you to say what someone else can and cannot do? That's just upsetting.

What if I said I don't think people should be able to drink alcohol? You would think I was insane. And that's how I look at you. You shouldn't be able to control what people want to do to themselves, period. Being "free" should include wording to that effect, or else how are you really free? :hmm:
Click to expand...

Are you saying there's no difference between alcohol and a fetus that will, under normal circumstances, become a "normal" human being?
 
>18 weeks, physiology responsible for consciousness may have developed = no abortions unless health risk to the mother.

<18 weeks, no possibility for consciousness, abort for whatever the fuck reason you want.
 
The couple sickens me. I'd tell them to adopt if they wanted daughter, but I'm seriously questioning their fitness as parents.
 
surfsatwerk said:
Her body and her money.
Click to expand...
BrokenVisage said:
Your body, your rules. No matter the circumstance.
Click to expand...

Don't be ignorant. There were three bodies involved. I'm a twin. When I was in the womb, MY body was still MY body. If my mother had terminated the pregnancy, she would have destroyed MY body. That's the whole debate, isn't it?

See, there's this saying from our founders: "We hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident...that all mean are CREATED equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. ..."

There is an intentional reason it's worded this way. The oppressive British government had over-stepped some boundaries. The founders wanted to make it clear that governments and courts cannot grant or define basic human rights. It also clarified that government and courts cannot define WHEN we are entitled to those rights. Even if you don't believe in a creator, you should be able to appreciate the intent. If government can't create rights, government cannot take them away.

Conception is the least arbitrary point. Period.
 
Last edited:
Ichinisan said:
I'm a twin. When I was in the womb, MY body was still MY body. If my mother terminated the pregnancy, she would have been destroying MY body. That's the whole debate, isn't it?

See, there's this saying from our founders: "We hold these TRUTHS to be self-efident...that all mean are CREATED equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. ..."

There is an intentional reason for this wording. Because the oppressive British government had over-stepped their boundaries, the founders wanted to make it clear that governments and courts cannot define basic human rights, nor when we are entitled to those rights. Conception is the least arbitrary point. Period.
Click to expand...

I don't think the founders of any country were ever targeting their people at conception.

This thread is full of people parroting crap they heard, but don't understand.

I mean fuck just about anyone born since 1980 I can shut down in even simple high school biology. They somehow picked up things along the way, but they just don't understand it.

Being so few go into biological science now, it's even more laughs at a gathering when something like this is brought up and you can go head to head in realtime.

I am all for allowing terminations of pregnancy during the 1st trimester. If the parent(s) cannot accept the responsibility it's the ethical thing to allow. The kid would grow up suffering and feel unwanted otherwise.

If they could get a sponser and give it up for adoption that would be great...however many that do this get a sample of that golden spoon and then become an albatros on the adopting family.

Better to allow it to terminate.
 
Ichinisan said:
Don't be ignorant. There were three bodies involved. I'm a twin. When I was in the womb, MY body was still MY body. If my mother had terminated the pregnancy, she would have destroyed MY body. That's the whole debate, isn't it?

See, there's this saying from our founders: "We hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident...that all mean are CREATED equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. ..."

There is an intentional reason for this wording. The oppressive British government had over-stepped their boundaries. The founders wanted to make it clear that governments and courts cannot grant or define basic human rights, nor when we are entitled to those rights. If government can't create rights, government cannot take them away.

Conception is the least arbitrary point. Period.
Click to expand...

A clump of cells isn't a person and doesn't have rights, no mater what it might be further down the road.
 
alkemyst said:
Ichinisan said:
surfsatwerk said:
Her body and her money.
Click to expand...
BrokenVisage said:
Your body, your rules. No matter the circumstance.
Click to expand...
Don't be ignorant. There were three bodies involved. I'm a twin. When I was in the womb, MY body was still MY body. If my mother had terminated the pregnancy, she would have destroyed MY body. That's the whole debate, isn't it?

See, there's this saying from our founders: "We hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident...that all mean are CREATED equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. ..."

There is an intentional reason for this wording. The oppressive British government had over-stepped their boundaries. The founders wanted to make it clear that governments and courts cannot grant or define basic human rights, nor when we are entitled to those rights. If government can't create rights, government cannot take them away.

Conception is the least arbitrary point. Period.
Click to expand...

I don't think the founders of any country were ever targeting their people at conception.
Click to expand...

"Targeting their people?" This does not sound like a sober statement.

alkemyst said:
This thread is full of people parroting crap they heard, but don't understand.

I mean fuck just about anyone born since 1980 I can shut down in even simple high school biology. They somehow picked up things along the way, but they just don't understand it.

Being so few go into biological science now, it's even more laughs at a gathering when something like this is brought up and you can go head to head in realtime.

I am all for allowing terminations of pregnancy during the 1st trimester. If the parent(s) cannot accept the responsibility it's the ethical thing to allow. The kid would grow up suffering and feel unwanted otherwise.

If they could get a sponser and give it up for adoption that would be great...however many that do this get a sample of that golden spoon and then become an albatros on the adopting family.

Better to allow it to terminate.
Click to expand...
Did I say something that contradicted basic biology?
 
Last edited:
surfsatwerk said:
A clump of cells isn't a person and doesn't have rights, no mater what it might be further down the road.
Click to expand...

I am a clump of cells and so are you. I understand why there is contention over this: At what point does the clump of cells become a person with rights?

Your "point" is not a point and doesn't help the argument either way. Were you really trying?
 
Ichinisan said:
I'm a twin. When I was in the womb, MY body was still MY body.

Conception is the least arbitrary point. Period.
Click to expand...

At conception, identical twins aren't separate "bodies." It isn't until AFTER conception that the twinning event occurs for identical twins. Conception is probably the MOST flawed defining point, given the example of twins and that a significant number (by some studies greater than 50%) of conceptuses spontaneously abort.

And then what do we do about ectopic pregnancies? Where's the outrage that the gold standard of treatment is abortion? Some estimates that 1-2% of all pregnancies are ectopic, and outside of a few rare cases and the cases where the mother dies before it is treated, the rest end as abortions.
 
abj13 said:
At conception, identical twins aren't separate "bodies." It isn't until AFTER conception that the twinning event occurs for identical twins. Conception is probably the MOST flawed defining point, given the example of twins and that a significant number (by some studies greater than 50&#37😉 of conceptuses spontaneously abort.
Click to expand...

Whoosh. This is exactly why it's the least arbitrary point.

As a twin, I know this well. Before the zygote splits, it could end up as a single person. If it splits, it can become multiple people with the same genes. It doesn't even seem strange to me. Either way...it's not up to the government or courts to define when it becomes a living human and when it has the rights it's entitled to at the point of creation. Otherwise, the gov't could declare that you're not human and you don't have rights until you're 50 or useless...and you could be owned by the military until then.

abj13 said:
And then what do we do about ectopic pregnancies? Where's the outrage that the gold standard of treatment is abortion? Some estimates that 1-2% of all pregnancies are ectopic, and outside of a few rare cases and the cases where the mother dies before it is treated, the rest end as abortions.
Click to expand...

Having to choose which life to save...I see no dilemma. Mother's choice supersedes all in that case.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter which side of the abortion argument you sit on, their actions are still morally abhorrent in my view.
 
Ichinisan said:
Either way...it's not up to the government or courts to define when it becomes a living human and when it has the rights it's entitled to at the point of creation.
Click to expand...
Preposterous. The US Constitution already sets forth the scope of its protections in the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

Otherwise, the gov't could declare that you're not human and you don't have rights until you're 50 or useless...and you could be owned by the military until then.
Click to expand...
"Human" is a biological term. "Person" is a legal term. Persons are the objects of rights and duties under the US Constitution, and persons are born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top