For a long time, I was pro life, because I don't believe there is any difference in the moral value of a baby immediately after it is born compared to before. Therefore, unless one believes that infanticide is moral, it would seem that one could not consider the abortion of a fetus immediately before birth as moral. Yes, their is probably a progression of the moral value of the fetus from the time of conception to the time immediately before delivery, but this becomes a fine line to draw.
Then I started to try to determine a moral equivalency to abortion that I could use to compare. I finally came up with what I believe is a pretty reasonable comparison, which actually changed my mind.
Consider a family with a child that needs a kidney in order to survive. Now imagine that the only person with a compatible kidney is the mother. Should it be legal to force the mother to donate the kidney? Thinking about this question, I felt, no, it shouldn't. I think it is morally reprehensible not to donate the kidney, but consider it even more so to force the mother to donate the kidney. Based on this, I also no longer believe that you can force the mother to deliver the child.
This also explains why I think abortions should be limited, however. I think abortions should be limited to the first trimester or 1 month after the mother first determines she is pregnant. Since I view the moral value of the fetus to be constantly increasing, approaching that of a baby over time, I think this decision needs to be made as early as possible. I compare this again to the kidney donation. If the mother signs a consent sheet saying she will donate a kidney, she can't keep changing her mind and switching back and forth. While it is her body, there are others affected by what she does with her body.
As for the generic, "It is her body, she can do what she wants with it" or "You can't tell a woman what to do with her body", these arguments are totally bogus. For example, we tell women everywhere that they can't use their body to beat their children. The real argument is that you can't tell a woman what to do with her body so long as her actions don't infringe on the rights of others. Now I realize a fetus has no well defined legal rights, I do believe the fetus has moral rights that should be considered, even if they currently aren't.
Then I started to try to determine a moral equivalency to abortion that I could use to compare. I finally came up with what I believe is a pretty reasonable comparison, which actually changed my mind.
Consider a family with a child that needs a kidney in order to survive. Now imagine that the only person with a compatible kidney is the mother. Should it be legal to force the mother to donate the kidney? Thinking about this question, I felt, no, it shouldn't. I think it is morally reprehensible not to donate the kidney, but consider it even more so to force the mother to donate the kidney. Based on this, I also no longer believe that you can force the mother to deliver the child.
This also explains why I think abortions should be limited, however. I think abortions should be limited to the first trimester or 1 month after the mother first determines she is pregnant. Since I view the moral value of the fetus to be constantly increasing, approaching that of a baby over time, I think this decision needs to be made as early as possible. I compare this again to the kidney donation. If the mother signs a consent sheet saying she will donate a kidney, she can't keep changing her mind and switching back and forth. While it is her body, there are others affected by what she does with her body.
As for the generic, "It is her body, she can do what she wants with it" or "You can't tell a woman what to do with her body", these arguments are totally bogus. For example, we tell women everywhere that they can't use their body to beat their children. The real argument is that you can't tell a woman what to do with her body so long as her actions don't infringe on the rights of others. Now I realize a fetus has no well defined legal rights, I do believe the fetus has moral rights that should be considered, even if they currently aren't.
That's a reasonable view.
...or we can talk to these women like the adults they are.
You don't want anyone telling you what to do with your body, well, stay off your backs for crying out loud. You are just making life harder on yourself.
If you're gonna be on your back, take the responsible adult approach and use some flippin' birth control. Then you won't ever have to worry about anti-abortion laws affecting you.
..and I am not talking about extreme cases like rape or molestation.
It's really stupid that these "women's rights" women want to be treated like an adults but refuse to act like adults. Instead, all the silly college-age simple-minded sluts want a president who not only accepts such trashy behavior, but makes others pay to mitigate the results of said trashy behavior.
...or better still, live with the consequences that can come from being sexually active, or if you don't want to, stop being sexually active.
My God I thought we were decision making humans....
Last edited:
So to be clear if a woman wants to have an abortion at 8.9 months she should be allowed to then?
The body argument is complete BS. Even most liberals do not believe it. Which is why they are okay with some restrictions based on their own definition of personhood.
Also, the fact that many of them would throw a fit if you suggest a woman's right to do what she wants with her body extends to prostitution.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
Most liberals are for legal prostitution. Its conservatives that have a moral issue with it.
That's a reasonable view.
...or we can talk to these women like the adults they are.
You don't want anyone telling you what to do with your body, well, stay off your backs for crying out loud. You are just making life harder on yourself.
If you're gonna be on your back, take the responsible adult approach and use some flippin' birth control. Then you won't ever have to worry about anti-abortion laws affecting you.
..and I am not talking about extreme cases like rape or molestation.
It's really stupid that these "women's rights" women want to be treated like an adults but refuse to act like adults. Instead, all the silly college-age simple-minded sluts want a president who not only accepts such trashy behavior, but makes others pay to mitigate the results of said trashy behavior.
...or better still, live with the consequences that can come from being sexually active, or if you don't want to, stop being sexually active.
My God I thought we were decision making humans....
Not all adults are responsible. Everyone knows this. Going back to my analogy, assume the child developed the kidney failure as a result of a poor diet provided by the parents. It wasn't intentional, but could have been prevented by a responsible adult. I still don't think it would be moral to force the mother to donate a kidney.
Conservatives give her the same choice as liberals gave the man. Use birth control* or practice abstinence.
But it seems you concede you do not have a problem with controlling a woman's body. As long as its under conditions you approve of.
*actually the woman has more choices considering the most forms of reversible contraception are solely controlled by the woman.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
What does that have to do with anything? There's nothing irresponsible or negligent about having sex.
Do you suffer from the delusion that birth control is without a measurable failure rate?
Why not? Do you think that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape"?
Isn't that so-called "trashy" behavior still within their rights as citizens? What happened to favoring personal liberty?It's really stupid that these "women's rights" women want to be treated like an adults but refuse to act like adults. Instead, all the silly college-age simple-minded sluts want a president who not only accepts such trashy behavior, but makes others pay to mitigate the results of said trashy behavior.
Why should she? She didn't violate any one's rights or behave negligently. Why shouldn't she have the right to seek a medical remedy to an unwelcome intrusion into her body?
Well, there are those of us that think for ourselves, and then you have stupid religious nut jobs that don't really give a shit about the lives of fetuses, but just want to punish women for having sex.
Last edited:
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
You bet your lily white ass if men could get pregnant there would be no abortion debate.
The responsible thing to do is carry the baby to term then ditch it at a government orphanage. We should encourage abstinence only education, tell people that condoms don't work, then push laws to ban abortion when possible. We will then use this exploding orphanage population to breed a special type of soldier. These soldiers will be perfect. They will be completely isolated from the rest of the country, no radios, no TV, no internet. Their brains will be washed and they will believe they are god's chosen warriors to bring justice to the world. They will be told that bisexuality is the ultimate virtue; this will keep morale high when units have oddball numbers of men and women. We will use these super soldiers to invade China in the years 2035
Why do national parks always have signs saying not to feed the animals? Because it makes them dependent. Forcing the mother to feed that fetus at 8.9 months is what causes a society of entitlements and dependency. That fetus should pull itself up by the boot straps and feed itself.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 16,681
- 13,435
- 146
Lets do a little questionnaire and see who's a hypocrite.
1) Do you have kids?
2) Do you believe that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a newly born baby?
3) Do you believe that responsibility lies with the parents for creating the "child"
4) Do you believe that an abortion at 8 months kills a "child
5) Do you believe an abortion at 3 months kills a "child"
6) Is it immoral to put another's life at risk to get what you want?
7) If a gun is pointed at a newborn and the trigger pulled should that be illegal
8) If only 3 of the 6 chambers have rounds and the trigger is pulled should that be illegal?
9) If a woman takes a drug that has 100% chance of aborting a fertilized egg should that be illegal, is immoral?
10) if a women takes drug that has 50% chance of aborting a fertilized egg should that be illegal, is immoral?
Anyone man enough to answer?
1) Do you have kids?
2) Do you believe that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a newly born baby?
3) Do you believe that responsibility lies with the parents for creating the "child"
4) Do you believe that an abortion at 8 months kills a "child
5) Do you believe an abortion at 3 months kills a "child"
6) Is it immoral to put another's life at risk to get what you want?
7) If a gun is pointed at a newborn and the trigger pulled should that be illegal
8) If only 3 of the 6 chambers have rounds and the trigger is pulled should that be illegal?
9) If a woman takes a drug that has 100% chance of aborting a fertilized egg should that be illegal, is immoral?
10) if a women takes drug that has 50% chance of aborting a fertilized egg should that be illegal, is immoral?
Anyone man enough to answer?
Right because society clearly has a problem telling men what to do.
That must be why 90% of prisoners are men.
That must be why men are forced to pay for children women choose to have. Even some cases for children they did not actually father.
That must be why society has had no trouble drafting men and forcing them to fight in wars.
Apparently sending millions of men to charge against machine guns is acceptable, but forcing men to carry a fetus that is a result of their choices is where the line would be drawn.
Do you even think about what you say?
Right because society clearly has a problem telling men what to do.
That must be why 90% of prisoners are men.
That must be why men are forced to pay for children women choose to have. Even some cases for children they did not actually father.
That must be why society has had no trouble drafting men and forcing them to fight in wars.
Apparently sending millions of men to charge against machine guns is acceptable, but forcing men to carry a fetus that is a result of their choices is where the line would be drawn.
Do you even think about what you say?
lol. Keep hating women. It's working really well for you so far. I seriously love how crazies like you are contributing to your own demise.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
Right because society clearly has a problem telling men what to do.
That must be why 90% of prisoners are men.
That must be why men are forced to pay for children women choose to have. Even some cases for children they did not actually father.
That must be why society has had no trouble drafting men and forcing them to fight in wars.
Apparently sending millions of men to charge against machine guns is acceptable, but forcing men to carry a fetus that is a result of their choices is where the line would be drawn.
Do you even think about what you say?
You don't think deeply about ANYTHING. It really comes as no surprise, when one reflects on it, in fact.
I like how this nehelem guy throws out random facts that has nothing to do its the discussion to support his point.
Wine makes up 23% of California's export, and that is why I hate women.
Wine makes up 23% of California's export, and that is why I hate women.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
ME NO LIKE YOUR ANSWER. ME ASK STUPID IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS INSTEAD. HAHA I SHOW YOU!
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Absolutely. No woman would do that unless absolutely necessary. I've been witness to such a situation. It was about 8 months.
Mind your own business is all I have to say. Legislating Abortion is not something that government should be meddling in. It has nothing to do with you or the government.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter