Mothers day and abortion

[tynopik]

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

No person enjoys the unqualified right to kill someone unless they believe they or someone else is in grave danger. Pregnancy is many things, but a grave danger it typically is not.

All persons are protected by their rights to individual sovereignty

The most fundamental right to individual sovereignty is the right to live.

So what is your stance on late-term abortions? Is it justifiable to kill them then remove them when they could simply be removed alive?

 

[tynopik]

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.

Since you like thought experiments so much, what if we had artificial wombs that could nurture a fetus all the way from a single-cell to maturity? What if the process of removing the fetus and implanting it in the artificial womb was no more invasive than the typical abortion?

 

[dank69]

Since you like thought experiments so much, what if we had artificial wombs that could nurture a fetus all the way from a single-cell to maturity? What if the process of removing the fetus and implanting it in the artificial womb was no more invasive than the typical abortion?

Fantastic. Now who has to pay to support the fetus?

How about you answer his question now instead of avoiding it?

 

[mindmajick]

Isn't this all just a religious issue?

If it is (seems to be) can't we all agree that there should be a separation of church and state? Our founding fathers agreed (well, most of them)

There should be no law one way or the other. It's a personal decision. It really is. It's not for me to decide what is moral or immoral for another human being. That's on their conscience.

As I've said before- on a personal level I'm not fond of the idea of abortion. But according to the Establishment Clause*and*Free Exercise Clause*of the*First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States we are free to practice or not practice religion in any way Americans see fit.

 

[Paratus]

Since Typonik doesn't like thought experiments here's an example from the real world.

New York Times - Brain Dead Baby Removed from Life Support

So if a baby that's just been born can be removed from life support if there is no brain activity why can't a woman unconditionally remove life support from an unborn fetus that has no brain activity.

If you agree that it's fine for a woman to do this, congratulations you aren't arguing against abortion, your just arguing about timing.

If you disagree, well then you're just trying to punish women.

A few other things:

Life doesn't start at conception. Life started about 4billion years ago. Both the sperm and the egg are alive before they meet and the fertilized egg is still alive after they meet.

I would concede a fertilized egg is a potential human, but just the fact that I exist means there are trillions of potential humans that I could father. A fraction of those have a higher potential because I met my wife and a few were actually realized.

A fertilized egg still only has a 50% chance of being born.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No person enjoys the unqualified right to kill someone unless they believe they or someone else is in grave danger.

A fetus isn't "someone," dummy.

Moreover, the right to terminate a pregnancy is qualified by the violations perpetrated by the fetus. Get a fucking clue.

Pregnancy is many things, but a grave danger it typically is not.

That isn't the necessary burden to meet. Any and all force necessary to stop the violations to the person's bodily integrity are justified. It's a simple case of self defense.

The most fundamental right to individual sovereignty is the right to live.

You obviously didn't understand a word of what I wrote. Is English your second or third language?

So what is your stance on late-term abortions? Is it justifiable to kill them then remove them when they could simply be removed alive?

Restrictions on late term abortions depend on weighing the risks of terminating the pregnancy against the risks of birthing the fetus alive. That judgement should be left in the hands of qualified medical professionals, and subject to review of a suitably accredited medical board.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Just like slaves weren't people.

Slaves were always people, moron. Are you this stupid on purpose?

We used to believe slaves were sub-human.

No, "we" didn't.

Many still believe fetuses are sub-human.

No, they don't.

Eventually 'everyone' will realize they were wrong too.

All reasonable people already realize how wrong you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Since you like thought experiments so much, what if we had artificial wombs that could nurture a fetus all the way from a single-cell to maturity? What if the process of removing the fetus and implanting it in the artificial womb was no more invasive than the typical abortion?

Stop trying to dodge.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Genesis 9:3

"Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

But I'm sure I'm wasting my time as no one here reads the Bible or believes. I'm not an ultra Christian, I'm a spiritual, baptized protestant Lutheran. And by now you should know me a staunch Conservative.

OK. So your opposition to abortion is based on religious faith and you want to force your religion on everyone who doesn't believe in it?

I bet if a baby could talk to his/her mom through the umbilical cord, I'm sure they would say, "mommy, please don't kill me."

That's kind of the point. A fetus is incapable of forming a thought such as, "Mommy, please don't kill me." There is no actual "me" at that stage.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think abortion is just a horrible form of selfishness and greed. It is kind of hateful to bring this up on mothers day.

Are you saying that's wrong to want to enjoy your life and that people should sacrifice their interests because a couple religious wackos say that a God-being "breathes" a "soul" into an embryo?

 

[Exophase]

Or if infants could talk, they'd say, "Mommy please don't kill me." Or if toddlers who are yet to the point of speech could talk...or adults who are brain damaged and unable to speak...

Not really sure you got the point of the analogy. When you're talking about something like a couple week old fetus you're not talking about the kind of living being that feels fear and pain and simply can't express it in speech. When you say "if it could talk" what you're really talking about is giving it all of these attributes of a thinking and feeling living being that it doesn't have. This fetus in question is much, much closer to a vegetable than an infant, toddler, or (most) disabled adults.

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

I don't support late term abortions and neither do a lot of people who support earlier term abortions. 42/50 states have some kind of ban on them. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, probably because women don't much like to spend several weeks deciding on whether or not they want to get an abortion while going through pregnancy. If the limit was set to 20 weeks everywhere just to be safe I don't think an awful lot would be lost (20 weeks is at about where the youngest case of viability was)

Go ahead and make people induce delivery after the viability point, then we can see for ourselves if the fetus could live on its own.

 

[tynopik]

So if a baby that's just been born can be removed from life support if there is no brain activity why can't a woman unconditionally remove life support from an unborn fetus that has no brain activity.

Someone who's brain dead will never recover.

A more apt comparison would be someone in a coma.

Life doesn't start at conception. Life started about 4billion years ago. Both the sperm and the egg are alive before they meet and the fertilized egg is still alive after they meet.

The life of that particular individual starts at conception.

The egg and sperm before conception are just cells of a larger person. If they are destroyed, the individuals live on

I would concede a fertilized egg is a potential human

I would argue it's an actual human

A fertilized egg still only has a 50% chance of being born.

Everyone has a 100% chance of dying. That doesn't gives us the right to kill them.

 

[tynopik]

Moreover, the right to terminate a pregnancy is qualified by the violations perpetrated by the fetus. Get a fucking clue.

Abortion is punishing the fetus for the actions of others.

That isn't the necessary burden to meet. Any and all force necessary to stop the violations to the person's bodily integrity are justified. It's a simple case of self defense.

The law disagrees with you there.

Restrictions on late term abortions depend on weighing the risks of terminating the pregnancy against the risks of birthing the fetus alive. That judgement should be left in the hands of qualified medical professionals, and subject to review of a suitably accredited medical board.

It sounds like you're saying late-term abortions should only be allowed if medically necessary. Ok, so medical science is getting better and better and pushing the limit of viability lower and lower. Should the limit be adjusted as medical science gets better?

 

[tynopik]

Slaves were always people, moron. Are you this stupid on purpose?

No they weren't.

To quote the Dred Scott case

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit

A person has rights you have to respect, Negroes did not have that and therefore were not people.

At least that's how people at the time viewed it . . .

And in the future people will justly condemn our view of fetuses as not people just as we condemn those who viewed blacks as not people.

 

[tynopik]

Isn't this all just a religious issue?

Is being against murder a religious issue?

There are many atheists who are pro-life.

You don't have to be religious to believe that killing people is wrong.

 

[tynopik]

Are you saying that's wrong to want to enjoy your life and that people should sacrifice their interests

Ever hear of child support?

Dads are already forced to sacrifice their interests all the time and they don't have any say in the matter.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone who's brain dead will never recover.

A more apt comparison would be someone in a coma.



The life of that particular individual starts at conception.

The egg and sperm before conception are just cells of a larger person. If they are destroyed, the individuals live on



I would argue it's an actual human




Everyone has a 100% chance of dying. That doesn't gives us the right to kill them.

And I would argue that you don't actually believe it's a human at conception, as evidenced by the thought experiment you refuse to address.

My strong suspicion is that you won't address it because you can't. Either you admit that you would take the baby, thus showing that you do differentiate between an embryo and a person, or you sound like a psycho by saying you value a tray of fertilized eggs over an actual child.

Then again, that's why saying life begins at conception and they have the same rights we do is not a very defensible position to hold.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Abortion is punishing the fetus for the actions of others.

No it isn't. It is the restoration of the status quo ante to undo the unconsensual violation of the bodily integrity of the woman.

The law disagrees with you there.

No, it doesn't. What the fuck would you know about it?

It sounds like you're saying late-term abortions should only be allowed if medically necessary.

Then you dont know how to read.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No they weren't.

Yes, they were.

To quote the Dred Scott case



A person has rights you have to respect, Negroes did not have that and therefore were not people.

All persons have equal rights NOW thanks to the fourteenth amendment. THEN, some persons did not have the rights that other persons enjoyed. Seriously, it's like you're professionally stupid.

At least that's how people at the time viewed it . . .

And in the future people will justly condemn our view of fetuses as not people just as we condemn those who viewed blacks as not people.

Take your catastrophic ignorance and go fuck yourself with it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The life of that particular individual starts at conception.

Moving the goal posts. Typical disingenuous bullshit. Are you also a creationist? This kinda shit is really typical of creationists, too

I would argue it's an actual human

That's as stupid as arguing an acorn is an actual oak tree.

Everyone has a 100% chance of dying. That doesn't gives us the right to kill them.

It does if they try to occupy your body and inject you with foreign hormones, and it's the only way to stop them from doing it, stupid.

It's become clear that either your beliefs are irrational, or at the very least you lack the knowledge and intelligence to rationalize them.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm going to tell you those are legally different things.

So were slaves. I'm asking about a moral difference, not a legal one.

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....

That's exactly the point. The difference between those two children is a question of degree, not of substance.

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.

I respect that position, but can't agree with it. As a man or woman of any race, we ought to be able to criticize what we see as crimes without being lazily dismissed as simply bigoted and arrogant.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I respect that position, but can't agree with it. As a man or woman of any race, we ought to be able to criticize what we see as crimes without being lazily dismissed as simply bigoted and arrogant.

We ought to be able to criticize something, yes. I don't have a problem with someone criticizing abortion, or electing to decide not to get an abortion themselves. What I object to is when you decide that your definition, based off a religious text that is thousands of years old, trumps the definition established by millions of doctors, biologists and scientists, and that no one should be able to make that choice because you personally disagree with it. You want to restrain liberty based on personal belief, and that crosses a line that I'm unwilling to cross. If you want to counsel people to choose adoption over abortion, do it. If you want to weep for the unborn lives they may decide to terminate, do it. If you want to pray for their hellbound soul, do it. But don't think that your righteousness in the eyes of God trumps their right to believe and act differently than you. If you're right, God will judge them anyway, so what are you so worried about?

 

[Atreus21]

And I would argue that you don't actually believe it's a human at conception, as evidenced by the thought experiment you refuse to address.

My strong suspicion is that you won't address it because you can't. Either you admit that you would take the baby, thus showing that you do differentiate between an embryo and a person, or you sound like a psycho by saying you value a tray of fertilized eggs over an actual child.

Then again, that's why saying life begins at conception and they have the same rights we do is not a very defensible position to hold.

I've addressed it on numerous occasions and will do so again here.

The moral answer to the situation is to let the fertilized eggs burn. However, that doesn't mean the fertilized eggs weren't human beings. It means that in a situation demanding someone die, the fertilized eggs are the best candidate because they feel no pain, aren't self-aware, etc. But we only create these distinctions because we are forced to kill someone in your scenario. And that's not analogous to an abortion, where no one has to die.

What would it mean if I decided to save the fertilized embryos and leave the 1 day old baby to die? Would it mean that I didn't really believe the 1 day old baby was a human being? No. It would mean that I came up with some rationale that placed the value of 1000 embryos higher than the baby. Whether you would consider that moral or not is irrelevant: I didn't choose one over the other because I thought one was a human being and the other wasn't.

 

[Atreus21]

We ought to be able to criticize something, yes. I don't have a problem with someone criticizing abortion, or electing to decide not to get an abortion themselves. What I object to is when you decide that your definition, based off a religious text that is thousands of years old, trumps the definition established by millions of doctors, biologists and scientists, and that no one should be able to make that choice because you personally disagree with it.

Being opposed to murder need not be a religious position. As stated earlier there are plenty of atheists who are anti-abortion.

You want to restrain liberty based on personal belief, and that crosses a line that I'm unwilling to cross. If you want to counsel people to choose adoption over abortion, do it. If you want to weep for the unborn lives they may decide to terminate, do it. If you want to pray for their hellbound soul, do it. But don't think that your righteousness in the eyes of God trumps their right to believe and act differently than you. If you're right, God will judge them anyway, so what are you so worried about?

Liberty should be restrained to the extent that its exercise means harming someone else. Criminalizing theft, rape, or murder is a restraint on liberty to steal, rape, or murder.

God will judge in the end, yes. That's no excuse for us not to pursue a just and humane society as far as possible.

 

[JulesMaximus]

To me abortion should be manslaughter. It has been reported that woman who are raped and have an abortion have even more sadness. Why is it that we kill a life to make someone else's more convenient?

I have a serious question for you (and I'll probably regret asking it). Who the hell are you to tell someone else what is best for them? What about babies with severe birth defects? We should force people to care for children they don't want? Because that's working out so well for so many people who decide to have children despite them having little or no ability to care for them.