Doctors who do abortions

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
A fetus is not a person, but it IS a human. What crime has the unborn committed to warrant being killed?

I wholeheartedly disagree that it is a human, but it is human. Prior to viability, a fetus cannot live without its host and is thus not independent.

And if it IS a human, what has the mother done to warrant the government mandating she donate the use of her organs to another human? Does this requirement also extend if the child requires a heart/lung transplant after birth?

The unborn has done nothing wrong, but no one has any right to the usage of another's organs.

You are correct, it is not murder. Of coure, it is also not murder to execute a criminal, therefor it is easy to determine that murder and execution is not the same thing. Your issue is that you mix up terms. You use execution and murder as if they are synonyms when they are not. Some executions are murder, some are not. You also use hyperbole incorrectly, which causes you to be even more confused.

Fine, I'll revise and say it also can't be an execution if the fetus is not a person. It doesn't change my premise.
 

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,331
17
76
You really got a hangup about underage women and their sex lives, weird.

Not so much their sex lives mate, its the tax payer who have then to support them and their sprogs for life!
In NZ, we have certain people that make this their careers!

And what about those that are raped, should they be made to endure the pregnancy?, even if they adopt the baby, they still go through 9 mths of shit, then birth, then post natal!

IMO, there is no baby until it is born....period, only a parasite.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I wholeheartedly disagree that it is a human, but it is human. Prior to viability, a fetus cannot live without its host and is thus not independent.

You actually believe your verbal gymnastics here? The fetus is the entirety of the human...it is not part of a human, it is the entire human. You claim this means it is not a human...but that would also then mean YOU are not a human - since you are the entirety of the human called acuarial.


The unborn has done nothing wrong, but no one has any right to the usage of another's organs.

Says the man who already used another's organs and feels no shame in having done so. Have you even once apologized to your mom for using her organs?


Fine, I'll revise and say it also can't be an execution if the fetus is not a person. It doesn't change my premise.

You would be wrong. What would YOU call someone who says it is ok to kill a human simply because that human is alive? I call someone who says this a monster and evil, whether it be members of AQ saying it or workers at the abortion clinic.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Ah. This is actually why I'm in favor of abortions for any reason. IMO consent to have sex does not equal consent to have a child. Women should have the right to have (and enjoy) sex without the obligation of carrying a baby to term.

Out of curiosity, does this belief also carry forward to men? Does a man's consent to sex mean consent to have a child? Should men have the right to have (and enjoy) sex without the obligation of paying for a child for 18 years?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Out of curiosity, does this belief also carry forward to men? Does a man's consent to sex mean consent to have a child? Should men have the right to have (and enjoy) sex without the obligation of paying for a child for 18 years?

In my opinion, men should have the right to enjoy sex without the obligation of paying for a child for 18 years.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
In my opinion, men should have the right to enjoy sex without the obligation of paying for a child for 18 years.


You are a rare person here. You are someone who fairly applies their position to everyone. Huzzah to you.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
You actually believe your verbal gymnastics here? The fetus is the entirety of the human...it is not part of a human, it is the entire human. You claim this means it is not a human...but that would also then mean YOU are not a human - since you are the entirety of the human called acuarial.

How can you accuse me of mental gymnastics and then try to assert the bolded? I never one claimed that "It is the entire human, and this means it is not a human". That's not even mental gymnastics, that's just a plain lie. My claim is that a fetus is not a human because it cannot survive without its host. I can certainly survive without any host.

Says the man who already used another's organs and feels no shame in having done so. Have you even once apologized to your mom for using her organs?

Why would I apologize to my mother for a choice that she made? I have thanked her for being my mother though.

You would be wrong. What would YOU call someone who says it is ok to kill a human simply because that human is alive? I call someone who says this a monster and evil, whether it be members of AQ saying it or workers at the abortion clinic.

No one has ever claimed it is ok to kill a human simply because that human is alive, and you know it. Quote a single post that uses "because a human is alive" as a reason to kill someone. I said it is not even "A" human. If someone needed an organ donation, and you were a match and decided not to donate that organ and the person died, what would you call yourself? How about if you pulled the plug on a relative? Are you now a 'monster and evil'? Note that I don't even think that abortion is okay, but rather that it is not okay to make it illegal.

Nearly even response you give starts with building a straw man because you can't attack the merits of any argument. You managed to do it twice with this post.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
How can you accuse me of mental gymnastics and then try to assert the bolded? I never one claimed that "It is the entire human, and this means it is not a human". That's not even mental gymnastics, that's just a plain lie. My claim is that a fetus is not a human because it cannot survive without its host. I can certainly survive without any host.

Ah, so then anyone who cannot feed himself is not a human either. That is pretty horrible. I hope you never gain political power, else the helpless could be in danger from you.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Ah, so then anyone who cannot feed himself is not a human either. That is pretty horrible. I hope you never gain political power, else the helpless could be in danger from you.

Not true at all. A baby who cannot feed themselves needs help, but is not dependent on a host body. But good job at once again managing to not respond to any of my actual points.
 

rayfieldclement

Senior member
Apr 12, 2012
514
0
0
40-50 million women get abortions(WHO). Why do they have to be done by doctors who MAY have a oath that is counter to abortions. If it is in their oath they should leave it to someone else to do them. If you want to have sex use birth control or get a vasectomy and hysterrectomy etc..
 
Last edited:

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
40-50 million women get abortions. Why do they have to be done by doctors who MAY have a oath that is counter to abortions. If it is in their oath they should leave it to someone else to do them. If you want to have sex use birth control or get a vasectomy and hysterrectomy etc..

Well, who else is going to do it? You need someone with medical training, and the pretty much rules out anyone but doctors. Birth Control isn't 100% and the *tomy's usually are permanent.
 

rayfieldclement

Senior member
Apr 12, 2012
514
0
0
Well, who else is going to do it? You need someone with medical training, and the pretty much rules out anyone but doctors. Birth Control isn't 100% and the *tomy's usually are permanent.


If you cannot trust Birth Control don't have sex. If you don't want the "tomys" dont have sex. How are we supposed to cut down on AIDS and other STD/VDs? Let pro-abortion groups open a medical school to TRAIN people. We shouldn't fund pro-abortion or anti-abortion groups.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Not true at all. A baby who cannot feed themselves needs help, but is not dependent on a host body. But good job at once again managing to not respond to any of my actual points.

The baby, or invalid adult, is certainly 100% reliant on a host who must use their own body to ensure the baby or invalid adult is fed. Does the food walk itself into the baby's mouth? Does the baby open the jar, snag a spoon, and feed itself? The baby not just needs help, it is 100% reliant on another creature for its survival. It is a completely parasitic relationship where the parasite (baby or invalid adult) takes the resources of and contributes nothing to the host (other human).

I am simply showing that your point - the fetus cannot survive on its own, being fully dependant on some other creature for its survival, and therefor is not a human - works just as well for a lot of humans who are already outside the womb.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
The baby, or invalid adult, is certainly 100% reliant on a host who must use their own body to ensure the baby or invalid adult is fed. Does the food walk itself into the baby's mouth? Does the baby open the jar, snag a spoon, and feed itself? The baby not just needs help, it is 100% reliant on another creature for its survival. It is a completely parasitic relationship where the parasite (baby or invalid adult) takes the resources of and contributes nothing to the host (other human).

I am simply showing that your point - the fetus cannot survive on its own, being fully dependant on some other creature for its survival, and therefor is not a human - works just as well for a lot of humans who are already outside the womb.

That is not true. While they may be dependent on others to survive, there is no specific host that they are tied to. For example, who is the host that my 1 year old child requires to survive?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
That is not true. While they may be dependent on others to survive, there is no specific host that they are tied to. For example, who is the host that my 1 year old child requires to survive?

Ah, so explaination is now that the fetus is not a human because it gets its food from one specific host while a baby gets it food from any host who happens to hold a spoon.

Your explaination is very odd. I suppose it allows you to justify killing the fetus if you say it is not a human because it uses only one host instead of potentially many hosts for its survival...
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Ah, so explaination is now that the fetus is not a human because it gets its food from one specific host while a baby gets it food from any host who happens to hold a spoon.

Your explaination is very odd. I suppose it allows you to justify killing the fetus if you say it is not a human because it uses only one host instead of potentially many hosts for its survival...

Not just food but everything, and this is not a deviation from what I was saying previously. It cannot survive without the mother's blood, her oxygen, her functioning organs. If the mother dies, the baby dies in all circumstances. That's a pretty significant distinction from a baby that can literally be raised by anyone.

In no other circumstance do we legally require a living person to provide another human the usage of their organs, even if it greatly increases their chances of survival.

I have never advocated for killing a fetus. I have advocated that we can't force a woman to use her organs for the benefit of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive without them does not mean she killed it. I have also never tried to justify the actual act of abortion, simply the necessary legality of it, so stop trying to attribute that opinion to me.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
In no other circumstance do we legally require a living person to provide another human the usage of their organs, even if it greatly increases their chances of survival.

Liberals have no problems forcing men to work (organs included) to pay child support to a woman to support her reproductive choice.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Liberals have no problems forcing men to work (organs included) to pay child support to a woman to support her reproductive choice.

Is a man actually required to work to support a child? Has no baby daddy ever been on welfare?

Trying to equate financial support with the usage of one's organ's is a stretch at best.

Edit: Are you trying to claim only liberals are in favour of child support laws?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Is a man actually required to work to support a child? Has no baby daddy ever been on welfare?

Trying to equate financial support with the usage of one's organ's is a stretch at best.

Yes men are actually required to work to support a child. If they do not they can be thrown in jail.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...m2012-celebrityjustice-idUS213466601020120620

You earn money by working. Working requires the usage of your organs.

Edit: Are you trying to claim only liberals are in favour of child support laws?

No, but conservatives have no problems with forcing women to be responsible as well. It is called equality.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Yes men are actually required to work to support a child. If they do not they can be thrown in jail.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...m2012-celebrityjustice-idUS213466601020120620

You gave a single anecdote, and even in your link it states that if his situation changed he could have gotten the child support adjusted.

You earn money by working. Working requires the usage of your organs.

Not always, you could already be wealthy, you could win the lottery. Equating a financial obligation as as requirement to work is a huge stretch, especially considering most people need to work to stay alive anyways. You still haven't answered me when it comes to men on welfare.

And you can't honestly believe that birthing a child is the same health requirement as working, can you? If the government came by to collect taxes and also wanted a piece of your lung, you'd be okay with that cause it's the same thing as a financial obligation right?

No, but conservatives have no problems with forcing women to be responsible as well. It is called equality.

I have no problem forcing women to be responsible as well. For example, I believe that if a child is raised by the father the woman should pay him child support.

In the name of equality: would you be in favour of making a father legally required to donate any organ to their child if it is needed for survival? How about executing fathers if the mother dies during childbirth?

What have I suggested that creates an inequality between men and women?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
You gave a single anecdote, and even in your link it states that if his situation changed he could have gotten the child support adjusted.

And if you dont pay you go to jail.

Not always, you could already be wealthy, you could win the lottery. Equating a financial obligation as as requirement to work is a huge stretch, especially considering most people need to work to stay alive anyways. You still haven't answered me when it comes to men on welfare.

So basically if you are part of the 1% they you might not have to work. So much for liberals caring about the 99% huh :colbert:

What does men on welfare have to do with men being forced to work to support women's reproductive choices? Squat.


And you can't honestly believe that birthing a child is the same health requirement as working, can you? If the government came by to collect taxes and also wanted a piece of your lung, you'd be okay with that cause it's the same thing as a financial obligation right?

I did not realize that you gave up your organs during pregnancy :rolleyes:

I am not talking health requirements. I am saying if it is wrong for a man to force a woman to do things with her body it is equally wrong for a woman to force a man to do things with his.

I have no problem forcing women to be responsible as well. For example, I believe that if a child is raised by the father the woman should pay him child support.

In the name of equality: would you be in favour of making a father legally required to donate any organ to their child if it is needed for survival? How about executing fathers if the mother dies during childbirth?

Only if we also execute enough women to equalize the life expectancy of men and women :rolleyes:

What have I suggested that creates an inequality between men and women?

You have suggested that women should be able to have sex without having to be forced to become a parent. But that a man should not.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76