• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

When does life begin?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Mursilis said:
The problem with "viability" is that it's not now, and will continue not to be, a fixed point in time, as medical science advances. I expect that sometime in the near future, we'll reach the point that a mother won't be needed at all - we'll be able to grow a fetus in a completely artificial womb.
Click to expand...

Nowhere is it written that "viability" must be defined a certain way and never changed. When/if we reach the point you suggest, other definitions on when life begins will become as obvious as viability is now.
 
zsdersw said:
Nowhere is it written that "viability" must be defined a certain way and never changed. When/if we reach the point you suggest, other definitions on when life begins will become as obvious as viability is now.
Click to expand...

Actually an interesting question is raised. Assume artificial wombs are developed that can sustain a zygote from the moment of conception. Further assume that it is possible to suck the zygote out of the woman and place it in an artificial womb using a procedure no more invasive than a traditional abortion.

At this point viability would be from conception and abortions would no longer be necessary. Further banning abortions would no longer be controlling a woman's body.

So the question then becomes would the woman be required to care for the child after its born?

Or would viability be "redefined" so that women could continue to escape the consequences of sex, which is the real reason for abortion being legal.
 
nehalem256 said:
Actually an interesting question is raised. Assume artificial wombs are developed that can sustain a zygote from the moment of conception. Further assume that it is possible to suck the zygote out of the woman and place it in an artificial womb using a procedure no more invasive than a traditional abortion.

At this point viability would be from conception and abortions would no longer be necessary. Further banning abortions would no longer be controlling a woman's body.

So the question then becomes would the woman be required to care for the child after its born?

Or would viability be "redefined" so that women could continue to escape the consequences of sex, which is the real reason for abortion being legal.
Click to expand...

Even in cases of rape and to protect the life of the mother?
 
nehalem256 said:
Oh I am sorry I was talking about the 99% of cases that are not about rape or for medical necessity. Which I assumed was obvious.
Click to expand...

I know, I just wanted you to state your sexism explicitly.

I fully understand you have a real hard-on for irresponsible women... I just want you to express it unequivocally.
 
zsdersw said:
I fully understand you have a real hard-on for irresponsible women... I just want you to express it unequivocally.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like someone is butt-hurt that their hypocritical lying philosophy has just been exposed.

Abortions are not about a "woman's body", but allowing her to do whatever she wants with her life. This is a right that is then denied to men who are expected to support her life choices.

My theoretical situation makes perfectly clear this is what pro-choicers are actually about. And you unwillingness to address my point makes it perfectly clear you know this.
 
nehalem256 said:
Sounds to me like someone is butt-hurt that their hypocritical lying philosophy has just been exposed.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like someone is butt-hurt that their blatant sexism and preoccupation with women has just been exposed.

Abortions are not about a "woman's body", but allowing her to do whatever she wants with her life. This is a right that is then denied to men who are expected to support her life choices.
Click to expand...

I don't think men should be expected to support anyone else's choices.

My theoretical situation makes perfectly clear this is what pro-choicers are actually about. And you unwillingness to address my point makes it perfectly clear you know this.
Click to expand...

... and then you woke up.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
Sounds to me like someone is butt-hurt that their blatant sexism and preoccupation with women has just been exposed.
Click to expand...

What blatant sexism are you talking about? You mean expecting women to be responsible for their choices and take care of themselves?

zsdersw said:
I don't think men should be expected to support anyone else's choices.
Click to expand...

Most of your pro-choice buddies are going to disagree with you on that.
 
nehalem256 said:
What blatant sexism are you talking about? You mean expecting women to be responsible for their choices and take care of themselves?
Click to expand...

Your focus on and exclusive preoccupation with irresponsible women. You don't appear to have any problem at all with irresponsible men... as your lack of posts about them suggests.

Most of your pro-choice buddies are going to disagree with you on that.
Click to expand...

I don't care what they think. But it does show that, once again, you group me with others incorrectly.
 
zsdersw said:
Your focus on and exclusive preoccupation with irresponsible women. You don't appear to have any problem at all with irresponsible men... as your lack of posts about them suggests.
Click to expand...

Because society already does not allow men to be "irresponsible". I focus on the difference in treatment between men and women.

The theoretical situation I presented was an excellent case study in this. As I bet most people would find making the woman take care of an artifical womb child to be absurd. While it is really no different that how men are treated now.

zsdersw said:
I don't care what they think. But it does show that, once again, you group me with others incorrectly.
Click to expand...

I responded to this

zsdersw said:
Nowhere is it written that "viability" must be defined a certain way and never changed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you responded to what I said instead of trying to derail things or deflect to irrelevant corner cases we would not have this problem.
 
Mursilis said:
The problem with "viability" is that it's not now, and will continue not to be, a fixed point in time, as medical science advances. I expect that sometime in the near future, we'll reach the point that a mother won't be needed at all - we'll be able to grow a fetus in a completely artificial womb.
Click to expand...

Or even transplant one to be aborted into this womb.

Hayabusa Rider said:
Life begins at conception. The question is when is that life developed enough to be legally protected.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot more sense.
 
nehalem256 said:
Because society already does not allow men to be "irresponsible". I focus on the difference in treatment between men and women.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Society coddles male irresponsibility all the time.

I responded to this

Perhaps if you responded to what I said instead of trying to derail things or deflect to irrelevant corner cases we would not have this problem.
Click to expand...

No, you responded to me calling you a sexist by assuming I was like the pro-choice people you have a problem with.
 
Ryan said:
The burden of proof is on you - provide verifiable facts from reputable sources.
Click to expand...

No the burden of proof is on those who claim such laws, I can't prove something doesn't exist.

The late DR. Tiller performed many late term abortions for reasons of mental health, such as severe depression, and we know depression can be easily faked.
 
Last edited:
DCal430 said:
No the burden of proof is on those who claim such laws, I can't prove something doesn't exist.

The late DR. Tiller performed many late term abortions for reasons of mental health, such as severe depression, and we know depression can be easily faked.
Click to expand...

Yet you have ZERO proof that any of Dr. Tiller's patients faked their mental illness.

Wow.


You keep saying that Depression can be easily faked, but you have no proof that suggests your opinion is true. That's why you are being asked for sources.
 
SheHateMe said:
Yet you have ZERO proof that any of Dr. Tiller's patients faked their mental illness.
Click to expand...

Probably because it would violate medical privacy laws to do so.

SheHateMe said:
You keep saying that Depression can be easily faked, but you have no proof that suggests your opinion is true. That's why you are being asked for sources.
Click to expand...

Woman: I feel depressed

Tiller: Ok, lets get you an abortion

Does it really sound difficult to you?
 
nehalem256 said:
You mean by throwing them in jail? ^_^
Click to expand...

No, by giving them all sorts of handouts, agreeing with all kinds of excuses, rewarding their behavior with all kinds of bailouts.

Because you deflected from the question posed exactly like they would have.
Click to expand...

Sure, make whatever excuses for your stupidity (in lumping me with others incorrectly) that you want... lots of other men do it.
 
SheHateMe said:
Yet you have ZERO proof that any of Dr. Tiller's patients faked their mental illness.

Wow.


You keep saying that Depression can be easily faked, but you have no proof that suggests your opinion is true. That's why you are being asked for sources.
Click to expand...

Of course I don't know for certain it miss factual, it just my opinion that it is easily faked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top