Mothers day and abortion

[realibrad]

If you're just interested in a separate discussion about the morality of forcing organ donations, you should start a separate thread as it's not germane to this topic.

P&N goes on all sorts of tangents. Like I said, if you dont feel comfortable answering you dont have to.

 

[realibrad]

No, you have the power to save me. Choosing not to save me is the same as killing me.

No, its not. He has no obligation to you. Like he said before, not saving someone is different than killing someone, even when the outcome is the same.

Its the reason why you are not a murderer for not saving the people that die everyday.

 

[dank69]

No, its not. He has no obligation to you. Like he said before, not saving someone is different than killing someone, even when the outcome is the same.

Its the reason why you are not a murderer for not saving the people that die everyday.

Someone should let Atreus know that because in post 148 he equated not saving the embryos with killing them. I still want to see tynopik explicitly say that not saving someone isn't the same thing as killing them.

 

[mindmajick]

I'm concerned that we don't harvest the stem cells from Abortions. Seems immoral to let them go to waste when they could be used for research and saving lives.

 

[realibrad]

Someone should let Atreus know that because in post 148 he equated not saving the embryos with killing them. I still want to see tynopik explicitly say that not saving someone isn't the same thing as killing them.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37401574&postcount=233

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Simply repeating your argument doesn't make it true.

Simply gainsaying the facts doesn't refute them.

We live in a society so all of our rights are limited by the rights of those around us.

I have not said otherwise, and it does not refute anything I've said.

There is a difference between killing someone and not saving them.

No difference that changes anything regarding the legality of abortion. What do you think happens to the fetus when she decides she doesn't want to serve as involuntary life support for it, numbnuts?

You have given no reason other than "because I say so"

If you think this it is because you are too stupid or willfully ignorant to acknowledge the reasons given. Actually, I'm guessing it's both.

Another interesting aspect of self-defense, it cannot be used as a justification when the defendant starts the fight.

What in the holy fuck are you talking about? Do you understand that a zygote must actually subvert the natural immune defenses of a woman to implant itself on her uterine wall? No, of course you don't. You're the worlds biggest idiot.

So right off the bat, the self-defense argument can only be used in cases of rape.

Sexual intercourse is not a negligent act, you dumb fucktard.

 

[OCNewbie]

I don't think this topic is an argument you can "logic" your way to a victory. You either feel a woman should have a choice whether or not she carries a pregnancy to full term, or you don't think she should have a choice.

Why would you want a woman to be forced to have a pregnancy, and thus a child, she doesn't want or doesn't feel she's prepared for though? What if she has a lifestyle that will be harmful to the unborn child (drinks, smokes, drives drunk, does drugs, gets in fights, etc.) and doesn't plan on changing that just because she's pregnant and doesn't want to be? Does society really need MORE unwanted births, and especially ones that have a decent chance of being born a burden upon society?

Maybe it's sad to think that "babies" are being killed, and that's emotionally taxing to consider, but emotions aren't a strong base from which to make decisions on things that have the potential to impact society (in a negative way) so greatly.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think this topic is an argument you can "logic" your way to a victory. You either feel a woman should have a choice whether or not she carries a pregnancy to full term, or you don't think she should have a choice.

Why would you want a woman to be forced to have a pregnancy, and thus a child, she doesn't want or doesn't feel she's prepared for though? What if she has a lifestyle that will be harmful to the unborn child (drinks, smokes, drives drunk, does drugs, gets in fights, etc.)? Does society really need MORE unwanted births, and especially ones that have a decent chance of being born a burden upon society?

It boils down to a few basic things.

Is a fetus life the same as a life that has been born?
If its a scale, then at what point does a life have enough value that a parent cannot end it?
Is the right to protect your life inalienable?

If you are not a spiritual person, then life is a tricky thing to define.

Logic is what has to be used when you take religion out of it.

 

[OCNewbie]

It boils down to a few basic things.

Is a fetus life the same as a life that has been born?

Not in my opinion.

If its a scale, then at what point does a life have enough value that a parent cannot end it?

I suppose when it's completely viable on its own, outside the mother's womb (can breath on its own, and only needs food/water to survive).

Is the right to protect your life inalienable?

Your own life? Certainly.

If you are not a spiritual person, then life is a tricky thing to define.

I'm not a spiritual/religious person.

Logic is what has to be used when you take religion out of it.

That or emotion... I'm just not sure this is an area where a logical argument can be ironclad. It's too opinion-oriented.

 

[michal1980]

Scream rage spittle libruuuls! Libruuls abort babies! Libruuls hate 'Murrica.

What troll farm did you come here from?

 

[Paratus]

Risk is relative. Everything in life has risk. Riding a bike is a risk, riding a bike while being towed down the freeway is a much greater risk.

Even though riding a bike is a risk, you can't get jailed for letting a child do it because it's part of the baseline risk of being a child that we as a society accept.

If everyone has a 2/3 risk of dying at a certain point, and that point is unavoidable, then that's the baseline risk and as long as you aren't doing something to increase that risk, then you're not endangering them.

We don't let parents risk their child's life with a chance of death at 67%. Especially when there is no reason too.

That baseline risk is only for fertilized eggs. Which you've already agreed are not the same as born people.

(If you remember when I compared a person who lacks brain activity or heart beats for that matter with an fertilized embryo you said that's different.....)

So if they are not the same why give them the same rights as a born person. You're whole argument is based on rights being intrinsic because a born person and a fertilized egg are the same. Yet just as Eskimospy said, you don't even believe it.

 

[realibrad]

Not in my opinion.



I suppose when it's completely viable on its own, outside the mother's womb (can breath on its own, and only needs food/water to survive).

A baby needs more than food and water to survive. A big part of a parents role is making sure the baby is safe. Babies are dumb, and will do dumb things. Look at how many children die each year in pools. Its a very ambiguous to say live is viable when it can breath and needs only food and water.

Your own life? Certainly.

How much risk? If a person is pointing a gun at me, its pretty clear. If a person is playing with explosives, that is still pretty clear, but less so. What about when a person is driving 20mph over the 65mph speed limit on the highway? There is a rick involved, but how much is too much?

I'm not a spiritual/religious person.

Ditto. That is what makes "life" so hard to define. A plant is not the same as a baby, but a plant is better able to take care of its self. Inherent seems to be the expected potential, because I value a baby differently than a plant. Again, its very hard to define.

That or emotion... I'm just not sure this is an area where a logical argument can be ironclad. It's too opinion-oriented.

Religion is very imperfect. I know many racist people who have an emotional reaction to the races they do not like. That is not a valid justification to their racism and its not a valid justification for life. So if religion and emotion are not great, logic is the next best option. Still not perfect, because we are not perfect, but better than the previous two in my opinion.

 

[nickqt]

Should a pregnant woman be arrested for attempted murder if she attempts suicide?

 

[davmat787]

Should a pregnant woman be arrested for attempted murder if she attempts suicide?

I don't know, but it isn't uncommon to charge murderers or attempted murderers with 2 counts if the victim is pregnant. More info below.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

 

[nickqt]

I don't know, but it isn't uncommon to charge murderers or attempted murderers with 2 counts if the victim is pregnant. More info below.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Should a pregnant woman be charged with attempted murder if she survives a suicide attempt?

How you answer that question should determine whether you are pro-choice or anti-abortion.

 

[mikeymikec]

Should a pregnant woman be charged with attempted murder if she survives a suicide attempt?

How you answer that question should determine whether you are pro-choice or anti-abortion.

I don't think one's views on mental healthcare and pro-choice/life are necessarily linked; IMO it's quite easy to imagine someone who is pro-life being sympathetic towards someone who has attempted suicide and recognising that they need help, or someone who is pro-choice yet takes a very dim view of those who attempt suicide, or vice versa.

 

[brycejones]

Should a pregnant woman be charged with attempted murder if she survives a suicide attempt?

Great, I can't wait to see some prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves with the fundies and tough on crime try this one.

 

[dank69]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37401574&postcount=233

I guess I missed that post. Then it seems to me that a woman is donating her body to keep the embryo alive, and refusing to allow the embryo to take up residence is not killing it, it's just not saving it.

Anyway, if his official stance is that not saving isn't the same as killing then his answer to the trolley thought exercise should be easy: do nothing no matter how many are on the tracks ahead. Even if it was 100 or 1000 people and only 1 on the side track, doing nothing is the same as not saving them, but actively switching course is actively killing the person on the side track. Not that that has anything to do with the burning hospital thought experiment.

 

[realibrad]

I guess I missed that post. Then it seems to me that a woman is donating her body to keep the embryo alive, and refusing to allow the embryo to take up residence is not killing it, it's just not saving it.

Anyway, if his official stance is that not saving isn't the same as killing then his answer to the trolley thought exercise should be easy: do nothing no matter how many are on the tracks ahead. Even if it was 100 or 1000 people and only 1 on the side track, doing nothing is the same as not saving them, but actively switching course is actively killing the person on the side track. Not that that has anything to do with the burning hospital thought experiment.

Yep, seems that way.

But it seems that he does not want to talk anymore, so we may not want to know. If the mother has an inalienable right to protect her life, then she has the right to have an abortion in the same way you have a right to kill in self defense. I dont see a fetus as an equal life, so its not how I see it, but in his view that should be the answer, and yet it seems it is not.

Too bad, I did want to see his answer.

 

[WHAMPOM]

In the Bible you may put a disobedient child to death and women/children are property, "nuff said about that level of morality.

Where did we(make that "they" I opt out) get the mind set that if a woman agrees to sex for her pleasure, she must then suffer child bearing as a punishment?

And why is it almost always men having this trouble with women controlling their bodies?

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, seems that way.

But it seems that he does not want to talk anymore, so we may not want to know. If the mother has an inalienable right to protect her life, then she has the right to have an abortion in the same way you have a right to kill in self defense. I dont see a fetus as an equal life, so its not how I see it, but in his view that should be the answer, and yet it seems it is not.

Too bad, I did want to see his answer.

I really stand by my idea that nobody actually thinks that an embryo or a fetus has the same rights as a full person. They may THINK they believe that, but when confronted by the necessary implications of that people start jettisoning it and making exceptions almost immediately, because the results would be insane otherwise. It's a handy slogan and an easy way to quickly express a very strong opposition to abortion, but it's not a very logical position on the whole.

I wish people could just say they really strongly oppose abortion as opposed to trying to defend a logically incoherent philosophy about life.

 

[realibrad]

I really stand by my idea that nobody actually thinks that an embryo or a fetus has the same rights as a full person. They may THINK they believe that, but when confronted by the necessary implications of that people start jettisoning it and making exceptions almost immediately, because the results would be insane otherwise. It's a handy slogan and an easy way to quickly express a very strong opposition to abortion, but it's not a very logical position on the whole.

I wish people could just say they really strongly oppose abortion as opposed to trying to defend a logically incoherent philosophy about life.

I think you are right. But if they are going to be against abortion, they should have a reason.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think you are right. But if they are going to be against abortion, they should have a reason.

They don't want to talk about the real reason. To wit, sex is bad, sexually active women are bad, and if they get pregnant it serves them right. Abortion allows women to have sex and "get off scot free" (pun intended). We can't allow that to happen.

 

[realibrad]

They don't want to talk about the real reason. To wit, sex is bad, sexually active women are bad, and if they get pregnant it serves them right. Abortion allows women to have sex and "get off scot free" (pun intended). We can't allow that to happen.

I am sure that is true for many, but I don't think that is true for all. You would not benefit from your view when trying to solve this though. Don't be so quick to dismiss the other side like that, because you will become just like the people you look down upon.

 

[Blackjack200]

I am sure that is true for many, but I don't think that is true for all. You would not benefit from your view when trying to solve this though. Don't be so quick to dismiss the other side like that, because you will become just like the people you look down upon.

There are some who have been manipulated into actually believing that fetuses deserve the dignity and legal protection of people, but the root of the outrage is what Cerpin Taxt said.

You can see it in the objections to birth control, sex ed, STD prevention and treatment, and a whole host of other positions that betray what this is about.