Mothers day and abortion

[Atomic Playboy]

So a 7-month preemie is a full human being but 9-month fetus is just a lump of tissue, how is that logical?

Because one of them is no longer dependent on another person's uterus for survival? Why is it that I can't buy cigarettes at 17 years and 364 days, but the very next day I can? That's how age laws work. And for the purposes of defining personhood, the legal definition is "once they've been born."

 

[Atreus21]

I love how it's always men that have arguments about what women are allowed to do with their bodies. Their arguments are never consistent and they are never logical. But that's probably just a basic human trait.

Women ought not be allowed to kill people without a very good reason. Just like men.

 

[Atreus21]

Thanks for reminding us again that this is about punishing women for having sex.

Aren't you the guy who said you had no trouble permitting abortion after birth?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Preventing or ending?

Both, really.

So saying you oppose killing the innocent is an appeal to emotion?

Is this a trick question? That's obviously an appeal to emotion. "Killing" the "innocent" is loaded language that immediately evokes imagery of unjustifiable murder. It's the same thing as talking about "baby-killing" when referencing a zygote; it's absurd on face value to equate two vastly different stages of the development cycle. Considering basically no one on Earth actually considers fetuses and children to be the same (including you), it's duplicitous to resort to that language when discussing the concept of abortion.

 

[Atreus21]

Both, really.



Is this a trick question? That's obviously an appeal to emotion. "Killing" the "innocent" is loaded language that immediately evokes imagery of unjustifiable murder. It's the same thing as talking about "baby-killing" when referencing a zygote; it's absurd on face value to equate two vastly different stages of the development cycle. Considering basically no one on Earth actually considers fetuses and children to be the same (including you), it's duplicitous to resort to that language when discussing the concept of abortion.

Then let's equate two similar stages of the development cycle. A fetus at 8 months:

and a newborn infant:

You're going to tell me that these are vastly different things?

 

[tynopik]

Because one of them is no longer dependent on another person's uterus for survival?

But it's not. It could be removed from the womb right now and survive.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying there are no women in the pro-life movement?

If you're talking about on anandtech, well yes, the demographic here is male heavy, so it's going to be the case whatever the subject.

So a 7-month preemie is a full human being but 9-month fetus is just a lump of tissue, how is that logical?

Any line you draw between a person and not a person will seem arbitrary at the margins. Sooner or later you just have to make a choice, and we have. When you're born and take your first breath you have all the rights and protections of anyone else. Until that point, you have fewer rights and they diminish progressively as the weeks of gestation decrease.

 

[tynopik]

Considering basically no one on Earth actually considers fetuses and children to be the same (including you)

You are obviously not very well educated on the subject, maybe you should do some further research.

 

[Atreus21]

Any line you draw between a person and not a person will seem arbitrary at the margins. Sooner or later you just have to make a choice, and we have. When you're born and take your first breath you have all the rights and protections of anyone else. Until that point, you have fewer rights and they diminish progressively as the weeks of gestation decrease.

Do you think late-term abortions should be banned?

 

[tynopik]

When you're born and take your first breath you have all the rights and protections of anyone else.

That's a pretty illogical line.

Also that you consider newborns to be on the 'margins' is rather disturbing.

 

[fskimospy]

You are obviously not very well educated on the subject, maybe you should do some further research.

I think quite a few people THINK they view them as the same, but I sincerely doubt many at all actually do.

It's like how I'm sure plenty of people THINK they view an embryo as the same as a person, but on that note I don't imagine even a single person on this planet actually does.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a pretty illogical line.

Why is it illogical? What line should we use instead?

Also that you consider newborns to be on the 'margins' is rather disturbing.

Considering a newborn had just gone from not a person to a person in a legal sense that's pretty much 'on the margin' by definition. Why would that be disturbing?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think late-term abortions should be banned?

I genuinely don't care about abortion at all. If it were 100% up to me people could have recreational abortions. I can see a reasonable argument for being able to restrict it after fetal viability though.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Then let's equate two similar stages of the development cycle. A fetus at 8 months:

and a newborn infant:

You're going to tell me that these are vastly different things?

I'm going to tell you those are legally different things. Are they vastly different? Well, moreso than a 17-year-and-364-day-old and an 18-year-old; only one of the images you posted contains a breathing human. But now you're making this a matter of degree so you can continually move the goalposts; well if abortion isn't OK at 8 months, what about 7 months, or 6 months, or 18 weeks, or 12 weeks, or.... I maintain that it's a decision that needs to be left up to a pregnant woman and her doctor, and it would be the height of arrogance for me, a man, who will never, ever be in that position, to try to legislate it based on my beliefs. That's why I'm pro-choice; it's not my decision to make.

 

[tynopik]

Why is it illogical?

How is using a few inches of position as the difference between whether you can kill someone or not logical?

What line should we use instead?

There is only fully consistent and logical line to use.

Any other line is arbitrary and illogical.

But remember the story of the nobleman who was renting a carriage to take him along fairly treacherous road that had a steep drop-off on one side?

He brought in 4 drivers and asked the first 'How close can you drive to the edge?' The driver responded and said, "I can get within 2 feet of the edge."

The nobleman says "Ok." and then asks the 2nd driver "How close can you drive to the edge?". The 2nd driver responds, "I can get within 1 foot of the edge."

The nobleman nods and then repeats the question to the 3rd driver who immediately boasts. "I can get within 6 inches of the edge!"

Then he finally comes to the last driver who says, "It's not how close to the edge I can get, it's how far I can stay away from it." and the nobleman said "You're the driver I want."

With something as important as a human life, why are we so eager to get right to the edge of what's right? What if we're wrong?

 

[tynopik]

well if abortion isn't OK at 8 months, what about 7 months, or 6 months, or 18 weeks, or 12 weeks, or....

Exactly.

I maintain that it's a decision that needs to be left up to a pregnant woman and her doctor

You're leaving out a rather important party of transaction.

All them damn yankees are pretty arrogant telling those southerns what they can do with their slaves. What someone does with their slave ain't nobody's business but their own.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You're leaving out a rather important party of transaction.

All them damn yankees are pretty arrogant telling those southerns what they can do with their slaves. What someone does with their slave ain't nobody's business but their own.

If only there were some distinction between a fetus and a slave. I can't for the life of me figure out what that might be. It might be something that was tied to the legal definition of personhood. Maybe a word like "born." But nope, drawing a blank. But I'm glad you're finally getting away from the appeals to emotion when comparing pregnancy to actual slavery...

But hey, maybe you're right. We'll leave it up to the woman, her doctor and the fetus. If the fetus has no objections, carry on. What's that? Nothing? Very well.

 

[fskimospy]

How is using a few inches of position as the difference between whether you can kill someone or not logical?

Yes, why is according a person all their rights after birth but not before birth illogical? I'm genuinely interested in your rationale.

There is only fully consistent and logical line to use.

Any other line is arbitrary and illogical.

And what is that logical line?

Also, regardless of what line you set, the statement that any other line would be arbitrary is pretty obviously wrong. Arbitrary means it would be made without reason and on a whim, which is simply not accurate.

But remember the story of the nobleman who was renting a carriage to take him along fairly treacherous road that had a steep drop-off on one side?

He brought in 4 drivers and asked the first 'How close can you drive to the edge?' The driver responded and said, "I can get within 2 feet of the edge."

The nobleman says "Ok." and then asks the 2nd driver "How close can you drive to the edge?". The 2nd driver responds, "I can get within 1 foot of the edge."

The nobleman nods and then repeats the question to the 3rd driver who immediately boasts. "I can get within 6 inches of the edge!"

Then he finally comes to the last driver who says, "It's not how close to the edge I can get, it's how far I can stay away from it." and the nobleman said "You're the driver I want."

With something as important as a human life, why are we so eager to get right to the edge of what's right? What if we're wrong?

We aren't "getting to the edge of what's right". Every policy choice you make incurs costs, so we draw the line where we decide it makes the most sense for society.

Going 'as far away as possible' would mean full rights at conception. Not only does no one on planet earth actually view a fertilized egg as equivalent to a person, it would create legal chaos and laughably nutty outcomes.

 

[tynopik]

Yes, why is according a person all their rights after birth but not before birth illogical? I'm genuinely interested in your rationale.

Because it treats birth as a magical process which transforms someone from a lump of cells to a full human. That is illogical.

Also, regardless of what line you set, the statement that any other line would be arbitrary is pretty obviously wrong. Arbitrary means it would be made without reason and on a whim, which is simply not accurate.

Please do tell, what line separates a human from a non-human? You can say legally it's birth, but that's not a logical answer because there's nothing magical about the birth process that suddenly transforms you.

We aren't "getting to the edge of what's right". Every policy choice you make incurs costs, so we draw the line where we decide it makes the most sense for society.

We keep murderers alive for decades at huge cost to society on the off chance they might be innocent.

How can we not extend the same protection to those we know are innocent?

Going 'as far away as possible' would mean full rights at conception.

I knew you could figure it out.

it would create legal chaos and laughably nutty outcomes.

Legal chaos how? And when it comes to choosing between life and legal chaos, I think it's clear which is more important.

 

[fskimospy]

Because it treats birth as a magical process which transforms someone from a lump of cells to a full human. That is illogical.

No it doesn't. We have to choose a time where someone gets all the rights of a member of society, and we have chosen that time to be when they exist entirely separately of any other person. That's perfectly logical.

Don't confuse things you don't like with things that are illogical.

Please do tell, what line separates a human from a non-human? You can say legally it's birth, but that's not a logical answer because there's nothing magical about the birth process that suddenly transforms you.

Already covered above. It's perfectly logical.

We keep murderers alive for decades at huge cost to society on the off chance they might be innocent.

How can we not extend the same protection to those we know are innocent?

That's really not the reason we keep murderers alive for decades, but regardless murderers are full people with all the rights of a citizen and fetuses and embryos are not.

I knew you could figure it out.

Now THIS is an illogical position to hold. Not only that, but I'm sure even you don't actually hold it. I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread and I've said it before: you are in a fertility clinic that's on fire and you have to choose between saving a one day old baby or a tray with 1,000 embryos on it. You can't save both. If the baby and the embryos are both fully people your choice is clear, save the tray. No same person would actually do that, however, because we don't actually view them as the same.

Of all the arguments for when human life begins, saying it begins at conception is basically the least defensible.

Legal chaos how? And when it comes to choosing between life and legal chaos, I think it's clear which is more important.

It would make in vitro clinics scenes of mass murder, it would make it murder for a woman to terminate a life threatening pregnancy, etc, etc.

Simply put, when we contrast the rights of full people and the unborn, people win every time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Because it treats birth as a magical process which transforms someone from a lump of cells to a full human. That is illogical.

Please do tell, what line separates a human from a non-human? You can say legally it's birth, but that's not a logical answer because there's nothing magical about the birth process that suddenly transforms you.

Of course there is. Before birth, a fetus gets everything, food, water, air and blood cycled through the umbilical cord attached to the placenta. After birth, the baby breathes on its own, requires food and water taken orally, and passes waste through its intestines and bladder. There are temporary shunts in a fetal heart that permanently close at birth when blood is no longer being cycled through the umbilical cord. So, yes, there are some pretty significant changes that happen when "everything happens through this tube in your belly button" becomes "you're on your own."

We keep murderers alive for decades at huge cost to society on the off chance they might be innocent.

How can we not extend the same protection to those we know are innocent?

Innocence is not a concept that applies to fetuses any more than it applies to cancer cells. This is just an emotional appeal. How can you hurt it; it's innocent! No it isn't. Nor is it guilty. It isn't anything. It's a cluster of cells that if left on their own may develop into a human being. Innocence is a legal concept and a fetus has no legal status of personhood, so it's meaningless to imbue it with such.

Legal chaos how? And when it comes to choosing between life and legal chaos, I think it's clear which is more important.

Well, what do we do if a woman miscarries, for example? Because right now, it's merely a personal tragedy; if life begins at conception, that's involuntary homicide. How about the census? How about taxation? Could a man force a woman to change her diet based on his beliefs about how it affected his child? Could a woman sue her fetus for assault after it kicked her in the spine at 2 AM? At some point, you have to measure the rights of the mother against those of the fetus, and historically, we've come down on the side of the mother every single time; why is that wrong?

 

[tynopik]

we have chosen that time to be when they exist entirely separately of any other person. That's perfectly logical.

Hardly. They could be safely separated right then. There is no justification for killing someone inside then removing instead of simply removing alive.

Where someone derives their nutrients is not grounds to kill them.

you are in a fertility clinic that's on fire and you have to choose between saving a one day old baby or a tray with 1,000 embryos on it. You can't save both.

Ah yes, good old trolleyology

Fortunately in the real world such situations don't occur.

Of all the arguments for when human life begins, saying it begins at conception is basically the least defensible.

An odd thing to say considering that even you recognized it as a line.

it would make it murder for a woman to terminate a life threatening pregnancy

no it wouldn't

Simply put, when we contrast the rights of full people and the unborn, people win every time.

Kind of like when we contrast the rights of full people and sub-human negroes, people win every time, amirite?

 

[tynopik]

So, yes, there are some pretty significant changes that happen when "everything happens through this tube in your belly button" becomes "you're on your own."

So someone who is fed through IV is not a human anymore?

Innocence is not a concept that applies to fetuses any more than it applies to cancer cells.

Again, explain the difference between an 8-month preemie and an 9-month fetus and get back to me.

Innocence is a legal concept and a fetus has no legal status of personhood, so it's meaningless to imbue it with such.

Just like slaves weren't people.

if life begins at conception, that's involuntary homicide.

no

How about the census? How about taxation?

no different than now

Could a man force a woman to change her diet based on his beliefs about how it affected his child?

If he could prove that it was being harmful, but that's a pretty high standard

Could a woman sue her fetus for assault after it kicked her in the spine at 2 AM?

Can a woman sue her infant for kicking her?

At some point, you have to measure the rights of the mother against those of the fetus

Yes

historically, we've come down on the side of the mother every single time; why is that wrong?

Historically we've come down on the side of the slaveholder every single time, why is that wrong?

We used to believe slaves were sub-human. We were wrong. Many still believe fetuses are sub-human. Eventually 'everyone' will realize they were wrong too.

 

[fskimospy]

Saying "that wouldn't happen" is just an attempt to dodge the absurdity of your position.

The point of a thought experiment is to examine your own position. So, what would you do? If life begins at conception the choice is obvious, no?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And I repeat myself, thusly, and like so...

No person, born or "unborn," enjoys the unqualified rights to occupy the body of another person against that person's will, nor to forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from that person's bloodstream, nor to forcibly inject that person with hormones and waste. All persons are protected by their rights to individual sovereignty to be free from such unwelcome intrusions. And waiver of those rights must be explicit.

Anti-choice zealots are ignorant trogolodytes.