160 replies to this topic

[Raien]

NM87, on Feb 2 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Fizzbit, on Feb 1 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

And if he had, or anyone else, they never would have known the difference

Have you ever seen "A Wonderful Life"? A true testament to how one life can impact another.

Have you ever seen South Park's "A Woodland Critter Christmas"? A true testament to abortion's ability to prevent the birth of the Antichrist.

Now ask yourself this, which do you think is more important? People living to their potential, or preventing the apocalypse? I personally don't want to die in a sea of fire.

Edited by Raien, 02 February 2009 - 04:45 PM.

[Goose]

Lets look at idea of the unborn baby as a parasite. Or rather, lets look at the idea of potential human life. A parasite lives off something else, that requires the energy and life of something else to exist. So, you could call an unborn baby a parasite, because it requires its mother for its very existance.

But lets look at the idea of potential human life. A feutus is the potential for human life, for good or for bad. Though the feutus acts as a parasite, if it comes to term, it will become human. Therefor, I'd like to argue that because the feutus has the potential for human life, it deserves the rights afforded, or not even the rights, but the disctinction between it and an insect.

I bring fourth the question of, because of the potential of the human life, whether it deserves the naming rights of a human.

Often, I"ve seen mothers to be, name their unborn baby and speak about it as if its alive and already born. I now ask, should it not be recognised as a human to be, rather than a parasite. Because often the power of naming things can define how they get treated and regarded.

Because Abortion or not, what a lady is carrying is the essence of human life in her stomach.

[Green Goblin]

Goose, on Feb 2 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

Lets look at idea of the unborn baby as a parasite. Or rather, lets look at the idea of potential human life. A parasite lives off something else, that requires the energy and life of something else to exist. So, you could call an unborn baby a parasite, because it requires its mother for its very existance.

But lets look at the idea of potential human life. A feutus is the potential for human life, for good or for bad. Though the feutus acts as a parasite, if it comes to term, it will become human. Therefor, I'd like to argue that because the feutus has the potential for human life, it deserves the rights afforded, or not even the rights, but the disctinction between it and an insect.

I bring fourth the question of, because of the potential of the human life, whether it deserves the naming rights of a human.

Often, I"ve seen mothers to be, name their unborn baby and speak about it as if its alive and already born. I now ask, should it not be recognised as a human to be, rather than a parasite. Because often the power of naming things can define how they get treated and regarded.

Because Abortion or not, what a lady is carrying is the essence of human life in her stomach.

The women that name their unborn fetuses and talk to them and stuff. Their fetus is no different than one scheduled for abortion. The fact that she talks to it holds no consequence. All that matters is that that mother is CHOOSING to have that baby. It's still a parasite (which, btw, isn't often an insect).

Potential is just that. It doesn't define something. It defines what something CAN be. Not necessarily what it SHOULD be. And the only person who should have to make that choice is the woman who is volunteering to be an incubator for nine months.

[Goose]

Yes, and I believe that women should get the right to choose to have the baby, but all I'm really asking for is that people would refer to the unborn baby as just that, a baby that has yet to come to term. An unborn child.

The term 'parasite' is far too clinical for me. It seems to disregard that a human baby is growing inside the womb.

[Showsni]

Quote

Slippery Slope. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. You aren't following the argument to it's logical conclusion, you're following your position to its preconceived conclusions. Which is not only a slippery slope, but now becomes a straw man.

Here was the argument:

Assume that abortion is morally wrong, but we allow it as otherwise abortions would still occur but in a more dangerous way.
Then, why not legalise, for example, theft? If people calmly handed their money over to licenced thieves, say once a year or whatever, there would be no danger of people being killed in armed robberies and so on, or murdered for their belongings.
You claim that doesn't logically follow? With the assumption that abortions and theft are both wrong, and the facts that legalised versions of both would be safer for all involved, it seems to follow quite naturally to me.
Now, legalising theft is clearly absurd; thus we have a reductio ad absurdum, and the argument for legalising abortions solely for safety reasons falls apart.

[Selena]

First off: I'm pro-choice. I want to make that very clear. When it comes to these sorts of matters, I mind my own business. It's a family decision and they should be able to make that decision in private without any government involvement to ensure that it's 'okay' for them to have the procedure. I also much prefer it to coat hanger operations. Women can have more than one child, but if a street operation goes wrong, that mother will die (and all her potential children go with her).

That said, I do have a serious bone to pick with more zealous pro-choicers.

The fetus is not a parasite. You do not defaecate fetus eggs and they do not infect other people. The fetus behaves like a bloody fetus. They are entirely different things. Please stop dramatizing for effect. Also, stop saying that is less than human just because it happens to be a fetus. Yes, it's similar to any other fetus, but that's because its a vertebrate in development. But it won't magically turn into any other creature while in the womb. It is a human in the earliest stage of existence. Its genetic structure is no different from yours. Don't dismiss it as anything less than human just because its in a very early stage of development. It is not a 'thing.' That's an incredibly cold and disconnected thing to say. If you don't abort it, it will grown into an individual and live life as any other human would (defects or not).

The only thing that really makes abortion halfway acceptable is not the fact that the fetus is a "parasite" (not true) or less than human (also not true). It's the fact that an embryo or fetus can't feel, think or reason in its earliest stages. Which is why I'm against late term abortions - only first term. If you're going to have one, man up and have it early. By the time you're into the third term, the kid is pretty much alive. It's just stuck in a womb.


If you're pro-choice, then why parents have abortions is out of your hands. It could be because of medical reasons, irresponsibility or anything under the sun. That's the downside to being pro-choice. It's not in your control. Because of that, if someone aborts their child because they tested positive for autism or other disorders, it's their business and no one can stop them. It's their private matter. Some would argue that's eugenics. Some might argue that terminating a 'flawed' fetus will be a natural part of most future societies in an effort to weed out various disorders at the starting gate. It's up to the eye of the beholder. But I'd keep it a family matter rather than shove one person's doctrine down everyone else's throat (pro-life).

And above either abortion option, I'd prefer it if people were just well educated and responsible from the start, but that's probably not going to happen.

Quote

Then, why not legalise, for example, theft? If people calmly handed their money over to licenced thieves, say once a year or whatever, there would be no danger of people being killed in armed robberies and so on, or murdered for their belongings.
You claim that doesn't logically follow? With the assumption that abortions and theft are both wrong, and the facts that legalised versions of both would be safer for all involved, it seems to follow quite naturally to me.
Now, legalising theft is clearly absurd; thus we have a reductio ad absurdum, and the argument for legalising abortions solely for safety reasons falls apart.

I argued against this in our last abortion thread, and I still find it crazy.

People are going to fight over 50" plasma flatscreen or a wad of money whether you legalize theft or not. That scenario doesn't factor in humans behaving naturally, just the way you want them to for the sake of making an argument. Legalizing theft, as I said back then, would probably just generate even more violence. Women can have more than one kid. If she decides to go the coat hanger route, then she, her unborn child, and all her potential children perish. They are not the same thing.

Also, before the follow up argument is made, legalizing hard drugs like cocaine would also increase overall violence due to scores of people being hopped up and out of their minds. As opposed to just a few people being hopped up and taken into custody.

[Fin]

All this talk of legalising theft puts me in mind of Discworld. >_>

EDIT: Also, I agree with much of the above post. Using the term "parasite" sickens me... sounds like a cheap semantic ploy. I'm not too happy with people using the word "baby" either, though... just say fetus, damn it.

And yes, ability to suffer should be where the line is drawn.

Edited by Fintin O'Brien, 02 February 2009 - 06:22 PM.

[Showsni]

Quote

I argued against this in our last abortion thread, and I still find it crazy.

That's kind of the point.

[Selena]

I know that's 'kind of' your point, but I don't think it works as effectively as you'd like it to when it gets down to the real world and real world logic. Which I addressed.

[Green Goblin]

Goose, on Feb 2 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

Yes, and I believe that women should get the right to choose to have the baby, but all I'm really asking for is that people would refer to the unborn baby as just that, a baby that has yet to come to term. An unborn child.

The term 'parasite' is far too clinical for me. It seems to disregard that a human baby is growing inside the womb.

Y'know, this afternoon I had a handfull of unborn sunflowers

Call it by what it is, not what it COULD be.

[Fin]

That's why I prefer to just use the word fetus.

[Goose]

In that case. It is a Fetus. An Unborn Child, still forming in the womb.

[Green Goblin]

btw, technically, when they're aborted, they're not yet even fetus. A fetus is only after 8 weeks, which is usually when abortions are no longer allowed. It's an embryo.

Edited by Green Goblin, 02 February 2009 - 07:26 PM.

[Goose]

A human Embryo

[Green Goblin]

Goose, on Feb 2 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

A human Embryo

Just like a human tumor or a human toenail

[Goose]

Does a human toenail turn into a human if left in a womb for 9 months?

[Raien]

Green Goblin, on Feb 3 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

Just like a human tumor or a human toenail

Do you really think most people would generally classify a human embryo in the same catergory as a tumour or toenail? If not, I don't understand the point of your argument.

[Green Goblin]

Goose, on Feb 2 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

Does a human toenail turn into a human if left in a womb for 9 months?

no, but neither does an aborted embryo

Edited by Green Goblin, 02 February 2009 - 07:52 PM.

[Fin]

This is getting ridiculous. >_>

[Green Goblin]

indeed it is. So I shall stop.

[Goose]

Quote

no, but neither does an aborted embryo

But technically an aborted human embryo isn't kept in the womb for 9 months, so that argument leaves you with a big FAIL!


EDIT: And so shall I.

Edited by Goose, 02 February 2009 - 07:59 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Technically, the entire thread is a big fail, because abortion topics are silly, and both sides depend on the (usually misconceived) prejudices of the other.

Instead of arguing about whose position is "right," and whose is "wrong," perhaps discuss a compromise that works in the interests of both parties?

I propose that abortion be legal up to the point where the "embryo" becomes a "fetus," but with strong advisement of giving the "child," up for adoption. It should be strongly advised to continue the pregnancy, but if something should go wrong with the mother's health, then I believe she has the right to decide that she has had enough and needs the "parasite" out.

And for the love of gods that don't exist, get rid of the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice." The term "pro-life," automatically paints the opposition as being "anti-life," or "pro-death," as if the opposition would openly promote systematic abortion to all pregnancies regardless of the state the fetus is in... Which isn't the case. And likewise, the term "pro-choice," paints the opposition as being "anti-Choice," or.... I don't know, something along the lines of "pro-dictatorship." or something like that, when really, they're just religious, not malicious (though the two understandably encroach upon each others definition territories a bit more than you would think...).

Er... yeah.


Compromise, anyone?

[Fin]

Actually, I started referring to myself as Pro-Death a few weeks ago. >_> Came out of a conversation with a friend. We decided the opposite was Pro-Fascism.

*cough*

Anyway, good compromise, good compromise.

[Reflectionist]

Yeah, I was just being antagonistic with the pro-choice stance. :-P

I do that a lot in Goose's threads. If I'm in a thread by Goose, don't take anything I say seriously until about the third or fourth page. It's just fun to watch the anarchy ensue because people think I'm being serious when I'm really just seeing how far I can push a certain position. Positions are fun to manipulate. When I'm being serious, I leave positions behind and argue points in a light of compromise. :-p

[Fizzbit]

See, but there are some problems with that. 8 weeks before it's a fetus?

PSYCHOLOGY/FINANCIAL PROBLEMS

- Unless they are TRYING to conceive, most women don't know they're pregnant until they miss their next period. Which can mean that they're already 2-4 weeks along. Which means that they have 4-6 weeks left to act.
--Most women who have unplanned pregnancies don't automatically go "Gee! I'm pregnant! Time to call up the abortion clinic!" It's something that takes time.
--Not to mention, abortions are damn expensive. They start at $400 and go up the further along the woman is. Most women aren't going to go "Okay, abortion! I got the money right here, let's go!" And not many women make more than $400 in a single paycheck and can just plop down the money and not have to worry about bills. The friend I helped found out she was pregnant at 5 weeks (she was a rape case, btw, don't ask me why she didn't test herself earlier cuz I have no clue). It took five weeks to get the money for the abortion. She was near her second trimester and the embryo had indeed developed into a fetus.

HEALTH PROBLEMS (often develop well after the 8 week mark. These are rare, but the risk for harm/death is very great)

--ECTOPIC PREGNANCY
---This is a big one. Ectopic pregnancies MUST BE ABORTED 100% OF THE TIME. Yes they are rare, but they are seriously life threatening and can NEVER be viable. Most women that have these don't find out they're pregnancies are ectopic until their first ultrasound (around beginning of 2nd trimester is when healthy pregnancies usually have their first) or they start having symptoms. The symptoms of ectopic pregnancies are very similar to the symptoms of miscarriage (heavy cramps, excessive bleeding) and can be very misleading.
Again, the fetus would indeed be a fetus, well past the 8 week mark.

--PLACENTA PREVIA
-- The placenta actually adheres to the uterine wall, causing bright red bloody discharge, and intense cramping. The child must be observed to see if it is in distress. If it is too early, often it may need to be aborted. If it is possible, early delivery is the only way to save it. This can kill the mother.

There are a lot more dangerous scenarios which could call for a fetal abortion, but you get the point. Banning abortions just because the embryo begins to take on human characteristics such as organ development and becomes a fetus is not a viable option.

Edited by Fizzbit, 02 February 2009 - 09:54 PM.

[Selena]

Errrrrm... I think most people would allow exceptions if the mother's life was at risk.

[Goose]

Quote

Yeah, I was just being antagonistic with the pro-choice stance. :-P

I do that a lot in Goose's threads. If I'm in a thread by Goose, don't take anything I say seriously until about the third or fourth page. It's just fun to watch the anarchy ensue because people think I'm being serious when I'm really just seeing how far I can push a certain position. Positions are fun to manipulate. When I'm being serious, I leave positions behind and argue points in a light of compromise. :-p

I feel special. Sometimes I try to lure him in until he bites. Its fun messing with eachother. In the end we might yell at eachother through the PM, but we come to understand the others position, whether we agree with it or not.

[Fizzbit]

Selena, on Feb 2 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

Errrrrm... I think most people would allow exceptions if the mother's life was at risk.

How many radicals from the Midwest have you spoken to? O_o;;

[Selena]

I live in the ultra liberal People's Republic of Washington. Your land is foreign and scary place. o_o

[Goose]

Your entire country is a weird place.