Abortion Is Wrong (4407 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: -0.99 on 305 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Martyn Steiner (View user info) at 2005-06-27 10:28:13 EDT
What makes a person human?
Maybe it's having all the constituent body parts of a typical human. These parts are all present in the eighth week of pregnancy - well within the legal limit on abortion.
Maybe it's the ability to survive independently of the mother. This has been known to be possible in the 20th week - well within the legal limit.
So, maybe it's the implantation of the developing baby on the embryo wall. Or the differentiation of the cells. Or maybe even the birth. But, none of these points are definite and surely nobody would, for example, abort a baby between it detaching from the placenta and leaving the mother's body - halfway through 'birth'.
The point is that there is only one logical point to call the start of human life - conception. This is the point when the two halves become a whole and when there is an identity capable of developing into an adult human given the right conditions.
If we call conception the start of human life, then it must be argued that the same rights and treatment should apply to the human life from this point onwards. If we are repulsed by the concept of the murder of a 50-year-old, 5-year-old or even 5-day-old then why is it that 5 months before birth it is still considered perfectly reasonable to murder the same human? If you don't kill it, the chances are that the developing child will develop into an adult with the full protection of the law against challenges to its life.
The notion that pregnant women should be allowed to decide what happens to their bodies seems, to me, to be utterly preposterous. The growing child inside a woman is *not* her - just because something is inside you doesn't mean that it *is* you - just like I live in a house, but I am not a house, and a chicken grows inside an egg, but noone is foolish enough to suggest that chicken and egg are one in the same.
And what about the baby's right to decide what happens to *its* body? Sorry, baby - you deserve to die, because mummy has a new job. And God forbid the child's father have any say in the decision - it is only half him, after all. Its funny, the nine months of pregnancy are vitally important when deciding who gets the final say over the life of the baby, but irrelevant when deciding if the baby is alive or not.
So, then - we're left with what I would consider to be the two strongest arguments in favour of abortion. Firstly, the risk that illegalising abortion will force women into disreputable 'back-alley' abortionists. That is true - I can't deny it. But, what I'm making here is a moral argument, not a legal one; I'm saying that the mother shouldn't want to kill her child at all.
And then rape. What do you do when a woman is faced with the possibility of giving birth to a child that will forever remind her of her horrific experience and possibly stigmatise the child for the rest of its life? I don't know - I really don't. Is this the exception? Maybe.
But then, lets think of the child as an adult. Who are they? Newton? Beethoven? Jesus? All three of these could be legally aborted if they were conceived today. Imagine that your lover's mother tells them that they were the product of a rape. Do you want them to have been aborted? Do you want them killed now?
Surely, surely you wouldn't kill your baby?
baby (45 kB) [application/octet-stream]
User Reviews
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2006-11-08 10:30:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
God I wish I hadn't ever written this. Whilst I broadly agree with the majority of what I said, the way I said it was hideous. I shouldn't have put that title, I shouldn't have ended like that. I shouldn't have been so clear-cut about a very 'grey-areas' issue that I'm not even sure about myself anymore.
If you know me and you're reading this, please don't use this as a guide to my character; of all the things I've ever written, this is the one I most wish I hadn't.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-06 04:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-07-06 03:22:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
It actually is rather unambiguous. I didn't just randomly choose to classify it differently at birth; the classification is rooted in the functional change that occurs with birth. Before birth, we have a helpless non-organism that cannot sustain its own life with its underdeveloped organs. After birth, we have a self sufficient organism. That dividing line, between self insufficiency and self sufficiency, is quite distinct and not ambiguous.
---- By ambiguous I meant that it's "dependency" classification makes no difference to its life itself - it makes no change to how the baby/foetus perceives the world, or how much it would "suffer" if it were to be killed. By "suffer" I can't exactly put in to words what I mean, but it's the same reason that you don't want adults to die, regardless of whether it will be a quick, painless death.
The "right to life" is nothing based in law, rather it is an anti-abortion slogan that's been repeated so much and seems to make enough intuitive sense that it is accepted. There's no right to life. There's only a right not to be killed without due process. Try applying that to a parrot or embryo.
---- I'm not saying it is a legal right. Or a moral one for that matter - your wording is much closer to what I mean. That's what this whole debate is about - the right not to be killed, or aborted, without due process. I believe it applies to a parrot in that you shouldn't kill a parrot without good reason, and the same goes for an embryo after it reaches consciousness. Before it has reached that point, mangle it for sport if one so desires.
It isn't just a meaningless technical classification. It is based on a specific physiological change. Fetal lungs don't breathe air, etc. As for the rest, it's again based on the imaginary 'right to life,' so it's basically moot.
---- Fine. Substitute "right not to be killed without due process." And what is so special about breathing air, or any other physiological function for that matter, that would affect your actual life?
---- There's nothing I can really say to your last reply that I haven't said before. The only difference between our opinions is that you seem to respect life based on when it becomes independent, whereas I respect it because it is aware, it experiences, and it suffers. I am interested to know - why do you think it is wrong to kill a 40 year old human being?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-07-06 03:22:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--- As I've explained, I see birth as the most ambiguous point at which you could possibly choose to assign it rights. It experiences no mental change, all that has changed is how you choose to classify it. This seems pretty ambiguous to me.
It actually is rather unambiguous. I didn't just randomly choose to classify it differently at birth; the classification is rooted in the functional change that occurs with birth. Before birth, we have a helpless non-organism that cannot sustain its own life with its underdeveloped organs. After birth, we have a self sufficient organism. That dividing line, between self insufficiency and self sufficiency, is quite distinct and not ambiguous.
---- These thoughts don't even have to be thoughts. As long as there is some form of conscious activity, I consider it to be life, and worth respecting. As for how we monitor them, I'm not going to pretend I have a clue as to what technology currently exists. What I do know is that the average time at which a foetus develops conscious thought is known, it's a fair few months into the pregnancy or something. Go Google it. This is when I believe some sort of restrictions should be placed on the practice of getting an abortion.
---- There are a great many varying degrees of rights. I don't believe a pig should have the right to free speech because it doesn't require or want it, but I believe it has a "right to life", because it is a thinking, conscious, living being. A set list of rights can't be "applied" mathematically.
The "right to life" is nothing based in law, rather it is an anti-abortion slogan that's been repeated so much and seems to make enough intuitive sense that it is accepted. There's no right to life. There's only a right not to be killed without due process. Try applying that to a parrot or embryo.
---- Don't let technical classifications obscure your viewpoint. Scientifically an eight-month foetus may be calssified as part of a woman, I'll take your word for that. When "assigning" rights, as you've put it, the right "to choose" of the woman should not take precedence over the right to life of another conscious entity, regardless of how you choose to classify it. As for the rest of that statement, go back and look at what I've said before. I don't believe rights are "ultimate, if you will. In that case, the mother's right to life does conflict with the baby's and unfortunately, the baby has to die. I believe this is the case in all sorts of other predicaments too, such as income, age, disability, rape, and probably most of the reasons women need to get an abortion. I guess I end up playing the devil's advocate on this issue because I am sick of my side of the issue being portrayed as if we don't place value on life.
It isn't just a meaningless technical classification. It is based on a specific physiological change. Fetal lungs don't breathe air, etc. As for the rest, it's again based on the imaginary 'right to life,' so it's basically moot.
Submitted by jack0173 (user info) at 2005-07-03 14:30:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-07-02 17:01:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
It's none of your business if someone aborts a baby.
Submitted by cwl989 (user info) at 2005-07-02 21:54:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like masturbating on the unholy inverted tracks of the grim and frostbitten necrobobsledders.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-07-02 17:01:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's none of your business if someone aborts a baby.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-07-02 16:49:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Probably a good thing you aren't in charge, huh?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-07-02 16:34:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry Quasiplasmohedron, I must admit to not having read your comment properly the first time. I think that you're probably right to an extent that you shouldn't have sex if there's a risk of a child being produced that wouldn't have a good life. I wouldn't ever have casual sex and I personally think its a loving-relationship only thing, so I'd like to think that if a baby did happen, it would have a reasonably stable environment to live in. I think I'm mature enough to cope with, and love, the baby if it did happen. Is that fair comment?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-07-02 16:21:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, thats not the choice. I think c) abortion is murder. But I can still have sex, I just take the risk that a child will result. You take risks all the time - and so long as you're careful, the risk is not as great as many another.
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2005-07-02 15:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It seems to me that you either believe that
(a)abortion is completely fine, in which case there's no harm in it being used as a primary means of birth control and we don't need to bother with condoms or pills or rubber cement
or
(b)abortion is at least *slightly* wrong - maybe not murder but still something to be avoided and we should all use other forms of birth control and only use abortion as a last resort (or not use abortion at all, depending on your beliefs)
My question is, if you believe (b), doesn't this line of thinking lead to the conclusion that sex, unless it's done explicitly to have a child, is wrong? No matter how many forms of contraception you use, you take the risk of getting pregnant and either having an abortion or raising a child that you didn't really want. Isn't it wrong to do something for pleasure if it could lead to doing something wrong?
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-07-02 00:16:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i was thinking this over for reasons only Buddha knows...
For those of you anti abortion except for int he case of rape...
so why is it okay for women who are raped to kill the unborn? isn't that STILL murder?
and isn't THAT what you are arguing? SO one murder is more okay than another?
I am just trying to see where you draw YOUR lines.
Submitted by alfakyle (user info) at 2005-07-01 13:42:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Martyn_Steiner "And I think, alfakyle, you'll find that a minor does have the right to protection of life just like I'm arguing it should inside the womb"
newborn to 18 (unless emancipated from having parents or legal guardian at earlier age) can not decide their own medical treatment without the permission of the parent/guardian.
a 45 year old in a coma living on machines does not get to decide. and i know, a fetus is different. but hell, it might be stillborn, but the person on life support might get better tomorrow. its kinda the same as pulling the plug. roll them dice.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-07-01 10:17:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"And God forbid the child's father have any say in the decision - it is only half him, after all."
+2 for that.
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-07-01 09:08:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
In answer to your question, I would not want to kill the baby I have in me now, but I don't wish to stop anyone else from being able to make that decision for themselves. each to their own. if abortion were made illegal again it would go back to women having back-street abortions performed with unsterilised equipment by unqualified people. surely this is better all round?
We're not just talking about fuckwits who can't use contraception, we're also talking about the victims of violent attacks and those children who are old enough biologically to have kids, but would not stand it mentally. my little brother's mate started her periods at age 10, but she was by no means ready to have a baby.
you are a tit.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-01 08:49:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Katha Pollitt quote doesn't make any arguments that foetuses don't have rights, it only talks about the negative consequences of foetuses having rights.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-01 08:38:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 17:32:31 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:56:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
----------------------------------------
Frankly, I don't give a toss if it's independent, self-sufficient, or even a being. If it is conscious or self-aware, that is what I respect, not its technical classification. If my pinky developed its own thoughts, I reserve my right to allocate it its appropriate rights.
So, on the vast spectrum of cognitive ability, you have chosen an ambiguous point at which to assign rights?
--- As I've explained, I see birth as the most ambiguous point at which you could possibly choose to assign it rights. It experiences no mental change, all that has changed is how you choose to classify it. This seems pretty ambiguous to me.
What kind of thoughts must these thoughts be? How do you suppose we monitor these thoughts?
---- These thoughts don't even have to be thoughts. As long as there is some form of conscious activity, I consider it to be life, and worth respecting. As for how we monitor them, I'm not going to pretend I have a clue as to what technology currently exists. What I do know is that the average time at which a foetus develops conscious thought is known, it's a fair few months into the pregnancy or something. Go Google it. This is when I believe some sort of restrictions should be placed on the practice of getting an abortion.
If you discard the technical classification of entities, and if you consider cognitive function to be the definitive factor in the assignment of rights, do you believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as born humans? Or dogs? Or birds? They all have varying degrees of cognizance, which degree is the one where you get rights?
---- There are a great many varying degrees of rights. I don't believe a pig should have the right to free speech because it doesn't require or want it, but I believe it has a "right to life", because it is a thinking, conscious, living being. A set list of rights can't be "applied" mathematically.
That viewpoint is based nowhere in fact but rather on personal indiosyncracy. It's a good thing you DON'T have a right to allocate rights, as you incorrectly asserted. That's society's (government's) job, and interestingly no society in all of history has ever granted rights to the unborn.
---- You know I was screwing around with the wording of that example. And saying it has never been does not mean it should never be. That being said, I am "pro-choice" as I've said before.
Now the other issue here is the paradox of assigning two sets of rights over one organism. Please, tell me how you can simultaneously assign rights to both a woman and a part of her. What happens when these rights impinge on each other? Who wins? What happens if a woman needs a certain surgery and must have an abortion or else she will die? I could think of a million scenarios like this. Two sets of rights over one organism is an absolute MESS of an idea. There's no way it could happen, or should happen.
---- Don't let technical classifications obscure your viewpoint. Scientifically an eight-month foetus may be calssified as part of a woman, I'll take your word for that. When "assigning" rights, as you've put it, the right "to choose" of the woman should not take precedence over the right to life of another conscious entity, regardless of how you choose to classify it. As for the rest of that statement, go back and look at what I've said before. I don't believe rights are "ultimate, if you will. In that case, the mother's right to life does conflict with the baby's and unfortunately, the baby has to die. I believe this is the case in all sorts of other predicaments too, such as income, age, disability, rape, and probably most of the reasons women need to get an abortion. I guess I end up playing the devil's advocate on this issue because I am sick of my side of the issue being portrayed as if we don't place value on life.
----- And Williamson, what DMD just said.
Submitted by Natsukau (user info) at 2005-07-01 07:49:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Abortion would have been perfectly fine for your mother.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-01 01:15:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It wasn't a quote. It was a link. And, if you want to debate with me, make an arguement instead of saying 'I can't believe no one has shown this guy how stupid he is!'
Unless pasted means some thing positive. I have no idea what that means.
Submitted by PatheticCapitalistFuck (user info) at 2005-06-30 22:21:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 23:10:52 (#)
Ranking: -1
last guy: hahahahahahaha
guy before that: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11127&news_iv_ctrl=1021
--------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe nobody has pasted this schmuck for quoting something from Ayn Rand's website.
Submitted by SammySam (user info) at 2005-06-30 18:49:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Abortion is quite possibly the best type of birth control around.
Submitted by justagirl27 (user info) at 2005-06-30 17:17:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
kind of lame you have to stick pictures of babies at the end.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-30 06:33:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Shall we just all agree to disagree? I think so.
Submitted by MoneyG (user info) at 2005-06-30 02:24:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's the thing, you see it's really quite simple. Your opinions on this matter don't mean a flying fuck. Neither do mine for that matter. Because it has nothing to do with us, so pull your goddamned nose out of it you fucking crusader.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 17:34:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And williamson, if you agree with him, how can you still be against abortion before cognizance? Embryos don't think, yet you say rights should begin at conception.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 17:32:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:56:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
----------------------------------------
Frankly, I don't give a toss if it's independent, self-sufficient, or even a being. If it is conscious or self-aware, that is what I respect, not its technical classification. If my pinky developed its own thoughts, I reserve my right to allocate it its appropriate rights.
So, on the vast spectrum of cognitive ability, you have chosen an ambiguous point at which to assign rights? What kind of thoughts must these thoughts be? How do you suppose we monitor these thoughts? If you discard the technical classification of entities, and if you consider cognitive function to be the definitive factor in the assignment of rights, do you believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as born humans? Or dogs? Or birds? They all have varying degrees of cognizance, which degree is the one where you get rights? That viewpoint is based nowhere in fact but rather on personal indiosyncracy. It's a good thing you DON'T have a right to allocate rights, as you incorrectly asserted. That's society's (government's) job, and interestingly no society in all of history has ever granted rights to the unborn.
Now the other issue here is the paradox of assigning two sets of rights over one organism. Please, tell me how you can simultaneously assign rights to both a woman and a part of her. What happens when these rights impinge on each other? Who wins? What happens if a woman needs a certain surgery and must have an abortion or else she will die? I could think of a million scenarios like this. Two sets of rights over one organism is an absolute MESS of an idea. There's no way it could happen, or should happen.
"In its various aspects, the doctrine of "fetal rights" attacks virtually all the gains of the women's movement. Forced medical treatment attacks women's increased control over pregnancy and delivery by putting doctors back in the driver's seat, with judges to back them up. Workplace fetal-protection policies contest the entry of women into high-paying, unionized, traditionally male jobs. In the female ghetto, where women can hardly be dispensed with, the growing practice of laying off or shifting pregnant women around transforms women, whose rates of labor-force participation are approaching those of men, into casual laborers with reduced access to benefits, pensions, seniority and promotions. In a particularly vicious twist of the knife, "fetal rights" makes legal abortion -- which makes all the other gains possible -- the trigger for a loss of human rights. Like the divorce courts judges who tell middle-aged housewives to go out and get a job, or who favor the father in a custody dispute because to recognize the primary-caretaker role of the mother would be "sexist," protectors of the fetus enlist the rhetoric of feminism to punish women.
There are lots of things wrong with the concept of fetal rights. It posits a world in which women will be held accountable, on sketchy or no evidence, for birth defects; in which all fertile women will be treated as potentially pregnant all the time; in which courts, employers, social workers and doctors -- not to mention nosy neighbors and vengeful male partners -- will monitor women's behavior. It imposes responsibilities without giving women the wherewithal to fulfill them, and places upon women alone duties that belong to both parents and to the community.
But the worst thing about fetal rights is that it portrays a woman as having only contingent value. Her work, her health, her choices and needs and beliefs, can all be set aside in an instant because, next to child-bearing, they are all perceived as trivial. For the middle class, the idea of fetal rights is mostly symbolic, the gateway to a view of motherhood as self-sacrifice and endless guilty soul-searching. It ties in neatly with the currently fashionable suspicion of working mothers, day care and (now that wives are more likely than husbands to sue for it) divorce. For the poor, for whom it means jail and loss of custody, it becomes a way of saying that women can't even be mothers. They can only be potting soil."
-Katha Pollitt
Submitted by DJ_PuddingTyme (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:49:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for believing that life begins at conception.
Would removing fibroid tumors in a woman's uterus constitute "killing" too? After all they have been know to have hair folices, and calcium formations resembling finger nails and teeth.
Submitted by dirtylarry (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:37:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by iradney (user info) at 2005-06-29 10:53:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
martyn, you make some good points, BUT your comment on if there were troubles in the birth, and the baby would survive and not the mom, you'd choose the baby, made me see red. what about the family of the mother? what about the other children? what if she was a single mother? what happens to the baby then?
as for the question as to whether retards are self aware or not - spend some time with them - you'll see they are. i grew up with a brain-damaged elder sister, and met scores of other "retarded" people who were dumped in a home by their parents. How do i know they're self aware? The way all their eyes and heads turned the door each time someone walked in, hoping against hope their mommies and daddies had finally come to visit.
i'm pro-choice. i don't know if i personally would be able to have an abortion, but i'll burn that bridge when i get to it. but in my personal opinion, if a child is to be born, it should be loved, taken care of and cherished. i see too often in my country what needless breeding does - i see scores and scores of children on the streets, their arms and legs like toothpicks, with the rags of their clothes fluttering around them, as they run from car to car begging for money and food.
that's no life for a child.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 08:34:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What Thorpe said.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:56:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
----------------------------------------
Frankly, I don't give a toss if it's independent, self-sufficient, or even a being. If it is conscious or self-aware, that is what I respect, not its technical classification. If my pinky developed its own thoughts, I reserve my right to allocate it its appropriate rights.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:30:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Define Value. I don't believe that we were "Destined" or "fated" for anything. We as a race are just another creature living off of the Earth. It will be here long after we've wiped ourselves out.
Anyhow, Most "moral" people come from a strong religious background. Strangely, they seem to fear death quite a lot. The claim it is a crime that these fetuses (?) are being aborted, but if they believe in their god so much, why has he/she/it done something about it. Better yet, are these little angels going straight to a wonderful afterlife? Oops - original sin!
I'm not an athiest. I believe in god with a lower case 'g.' I also don't believe it cares one bit what we do. I value human life - but not when looked at in the big picture. We as a society place too much empasis on death and not enough on life. Abortion = death. No, what about the LIVING woman?
I don't know...
Please - comments, questions, opinions
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:01:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
I reckon DMD and I have the same basic train of thought with different outcomes.
We have both come up with an exact point in our beliefs where human rights exist and where they don't. I don't want to speak for DMD here, but I think we both can't accept the "After X amount of weeks it's a person, despite the actual development of the baby in question". We've both found an exact biological point where it begins.
I've chosen conception, he's chosen birth.
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have an absolute right to be here.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:13:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No offence intended but it seems like you place no value on human life.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:09:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay Will, why is that? Seriously - I want your opinion on that...
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:03:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:59:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
"If we are repulsed by the concept of the murder of a 50-year-old, 5-year-old or even 5-day-old then why is it that 5 months before birth it is still considered perfectly reasonable to murder the same human?"
See, the issue is right there. I'm not repulsed by the murder of any one, regardless of age. This concept that, somehow, we have a "Right To Life" is utter nonsense. I support the death penalty, Assisted suicide and Abortion. We have no RIGHT to be here, we just lucked out...
=--=-=-=-=-==-
In the entire debate of abortion this is the arguement I hate the most.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:02:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ugh I hate philosophy (and anthropology and history, but who's counting)
Rights are just a construct of civilized society. There's nothing natural or inherent about them. We have them because over some period of societal evolution, they were deemed a necessary implement for government (or whatever, it doesn't really matter).
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:01:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I reckon DMD and I have the same basic train of thought with different outcomes.
We have both come up with an exact point in our beliefs where human rights exist and where they don't. I don't want to speak for DMD here, but I think we both can't accept the "After X amount of weeks it's a person, despite the actual development of the baby in question". We've both found an exact biological point where it begins.
I've chosen conception, he's chosen birth.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:59:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"If we are repulsed by the concept of the murder of a 50-year-old, 5-year-old or even 5-day-old then why is it that 5 months before birth it is still considered perfectly reasonable to murder the same human?"
See, the issue is right there. I'm not repulsed by the murder of any one, regardless of age. This concept that, somehow, we have a "Right To Life" is utter nonsense. I support the death penalty, Assisted suicide and Abortion. We have no RIGHT to be here, we just lucked out...
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:44:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Abortion Is Horrific. Not Neccessarily Wrong.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
DMD - Why do you believe humans have rights?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:26:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Willy: And we could artificially feed a baby in the womb if we tried, I'm sure.
DMD: This is pretty much irrelevant. The fetal part of the human gestational material depends on the host for much more than simply nutrition. Even if you could artificially feed the fetus (it would have to be quite near birth to have sufficiently developed organs to digest and detoxify the food), it still wouldn't meet the requirements necessary to qualify it as an organism.
Willy: So, the baby feeding off the mother's nutrients in the womb is different to feeding off the nutrients outside the womb? A parasite is still a seperate being.
DMD: Again this is a gross oversimplification of the dependence of the fetus. Nutrition is not the only factor here.
Willy: I can't argue against you on this point. It is a much greater dependency but my question remains; how can one level of dependency void all human rights while another level won't impact at all. In a way, we are all dependent on eachother.
DMD: The level of dependency is not (directly, anyway) what 'voids' all human rights. The zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a part of the mother. As such it has no rights.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-29 03:46:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
snap.
Have I mentioned that I have changed positions?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 03:29:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:58:19 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:34:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
explain premature babies who need to be placed in the neo-natal ICU hooked up to incubators please.
I was referring to normal birth.
And before someone brings it up, premature babies, having undergone birth, have attained the status of "separate organism."
God damn it I wrote this too fast. I meant to say it has attained the status of "person." A premature baby is NOT AN ORGANISM.
The word 'organism' is biologically defined by functions. A human organism is a living member of Homo sapiens sapiens that is capable of sustaining its own life. So no, a premature baby is not technically an organism. Someone on life support is not technically an organism. Someone who respirates using a vent, and then goes off it for 10 minutes, then gets back on is an organism, then not, then is again, in the same way that a patient in the ER can go from 'living organism' to 'dead ass mothafucka' and then be revived to 'living organism' again based on the ability to meet functional definitions.
However this ceases to be the point after birth. If I may quote someone alongside whom I've debated abortion on and off for the last 2 years:
"Membership in the human society is based on a consensus that exists in society that recognizes the arbitrary nature of assigning any point on a continuum as a defining point but nonetheless recognizes that without a successful birth process any potential membership in the human society inherent in the developing fetus by virtue of it's human genome and the fact it is alive, will remain unrealized and for this reason humans have never granted membership in the human society before that successful transition is realized."
Submitted by dethcow (user info) at 2005-06-29 02:57:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The argument you're using is this:
Since X is potentially a Y, then X has the rights of Y.
Surely you can see the flaw in this argument. By this logic, presidential candidates would have the same rights as the president, since they potentially can become president. Hence, your argument fails.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 23:10:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
last guy: hahahahahahaha
guy before that: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11127&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2005-06-28 21:40:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
if abortion is wrong, i dont want to be right.
Submitted by PatheticCapitalistFuck (user info) at 2005-06-28 21:11:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A true right to lifer. I love the argument that just because something is alive, that it somehow has the "right" to continue to live. Pure and utter horseshit, and curiously an almost exclusively American viewpoint.
Morality = religion = brainwashing = mindless robots wanting to force their narrow-mindedness on everyone else.
The only reason why I don't personally insult you is because I respect your right to choose to not allow choice, but I'm glad you don't represent the majority.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:58:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:34:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
explain premature babies who need to be placed in the neo-natal ICU hooked up to incubators please.
I was referring to normal birth.
And before someone brings it up, premature babies, having undergone birth, have attained the status of "separate organism."
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:34:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh, and speaking of Down syndrome and abortions: when preliminary screenings came back to my parents when my mom was pregnant with me, there was an elevated level of some chemical indicitive of possible Down syndrome in me. My parents had serious discussion, and with very heavy hearts decided that if indeed I did have Down syndrome, I would be aborted.
Guess what? I don't hold this against them at all. Rather, I applaud them for the tough decision (and no, it's not because the secondary tests came back negative for Down syndrome; I could just as easily be betrayed and insulted).
Kids with Down syndrome are bullied mercilessly as children, and I know I would not be up to the challenge of growing up with such heavy odds against me. So don't you ever tell someone they can't abort.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:20:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The notion that pregnant women should be allowed to decide what happens to their bodies seems, to me, to be utterly preposterous.
____________________________
After reading this, I checked the end for any semblance of a "just kidding" (I'm not even lying, this sentence is so goddamn retarded I didn't actually believe there could be someone as close-minded as you). Upon finding none, I didn't read the rest, because you and your ideas are both clearly offspring of someone with Down's syndrome.
Fetuses are an extension of the mother until it can survive without it's mother's blood pumping through its umbilical cord; it is no more capable of independent life than a lone eyeball. You don't want abortions? You don't have to get one - how convenient is that, eh? But don't you tell women out there what to do with extensions of their body.
I actually agree with Shlongy, who'd have thought it: shove a fetus up your ass.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 16:12:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2005-06-28 14:27:14 (#)
Ranking: -2
We should have post-natal abortions.
Starting with you.
----
hahahahahahahaha
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-28 14:44:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
durrrrr... sorry for the 0 no comment. I was about to say something, thought better of
it, then I had thought I backed out of the review screen. Guess not.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2005-06-28 14:27:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We should have post-natal abortions.
Starting with you.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-28 12:32:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by Viciousriffs (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:44:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I haven't the patience to read all of those comments, so here's this:
I completely disagree with your argument. You failed to take a number of factors into consideration. An unborn human is a parasite, by definition, so who has the right to tell a woman that she cannot handle that matter? I do not believe that a couple should have to suffer (if it is suffering to them, of course) through the rest of their lifetime by raising a child that they did not want, and for the child's sake just as well, it is better to be "rid of the problem" before it even begins than to force many people through a life of misery in the name of saving lives.
Saving lives is way less important than we realize, also- the human population is blossoming so grossly that nature needs a way to counterbalance our iron-fisted reign of this planet before we use it up completely. If there are people willing to not contribute to this problem, all the better for them and everyone else. My only solace is the knowledge that I will be so cynical by the time overpopulation is achieved that I'll ask if I can be the first one euthanized, and if they can do it on television so I can at least say I had my own TV show before (while?) I died.
OK, all of that said, in the emotional human mind, life is precious. I understand that line of thought, and I understand the morality behind it. Determining if one outweighs their damage to the world they live in with their contributions could become necessary, and euthanasia or some format of segregated living as a result of class, contribution, overall value, etc. could easily become a factor within the next 100 years. It sounds a bit outlandish when today's state of life is considered, but it's not so far fetched as it seems. I don't want to deal with it, just because I'm so laid back- I basically just want to be left alone most of the time in these issues- but I suppose this type of question will be more and more pondered as our detriment to our world increases.
I am giving you the +2, by the way, because despite your very concrete opinion on the issue, you didn't come across as a snotty, know-it-all bitch, and your opinion is well-founded to the point that nobody can call you totally ignorant for having it. If you are this steadfast in your opinion, I doubt that anything we say will affect your viewpoint, but I hope you at least glean a bit of understanding of another perspective after this post is all done and off the list.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:40:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
EVERYONE!!!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/68289
GO THERE AND CLICK REFRESH A BUNCH OF TIMES SO THAT I DONT KILL MYSELF WHEN THIS GETS MORE HITS THAN THAT!!!
DO IT!!!!!!!!!
(note to rad: that is in a code that everyone but you understands. what it says in normal english is 'GO THERE AND CLICK REFRESH A BUNCH OF TIMES SO THAT I WILL KILL MYSELF WHEN THIS GETS MORE HITS THAN THAT!!!')
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:36:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:45:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
If this gets more hits than my homosexuality post, I'm going to cry.
----
When this got more hits than my worst post I cried for hours.
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:15:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think following your line of thought the last 4000 years of human civilisation's advances has been made up of nothing but "romantic ideals", huh?
*****************
Most morality and religious belifs are little more then romantic ideals so yea, like it or not the cornerstone of most modern society really boils down to little more then romantic idealism.
For example in reality we are little more then smart mammels with opposible thumbs who rank very high in the food chain. Idealistically we are born in the image of god or at very least believe ourselves to be spiritually superior to all other life on the planet. Some take this belief to its furthest levels of arrogence by saying that we are this devine form of life as soon as spearm joins egg and that this single cell is human life.
We mock peta for believing animals have this basic right to life as well. Our derision comes from teh fact that a) theyre fucktards and b) we find it objectionae that they would imply that we arent spiritually the masters of the animals just like good old genesis tell us we are.
Practically every aspect of life is glued together by a romantic ideal, An idea that makes us feel warm and good because the cold realities are just not very nice and we dont want to believe them.
At the end of the day never forget the primary rule of modern PC. You have the right to believe anything you want to believe, even if its fucking stupid.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 09:41:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:47:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
CONDOMS PEOPLE!!!!
HOW MANY TIMES!!!!
C...O...N...T...R...A...C...E...P...T...I...O...N!!!!!!!
fuck. twats
=--=-=-=-=-=--=
Doesn't always work Flibbo!!!!
U...N...R...E...L...I...A...B...L...E!!!!!!
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:47:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
CONDOMS PEOPLE!!!!
HOW MANY TIMES!!!!
C...O...N...T...R...A...C...E...P...T...I...O...N!!!!!!!
fuck. twats.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:45:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If this gets more hits than my homosexuality post, I'm going to cry.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:27:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:52:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
The belief in the inherent right to life is little more then romantic idealism. The reality is each and evey living thing from baby turtles making a dash to the sea and hoping to not be eaten by the gulls to weather or not a drunken one night stand, Its just a lot of dumb luck that we are here, typing bollix on teh intarweb.
People die for a million and one godawfully stupid reasons, because a mother doesnt feel that she can cope with bringing a child into the world is one of the better ones.
=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Believing people have the right to live is little more than romantic idealism?
I think following your line of thought the last 4000 years of human civilisation's advances has been made up of nothing but "romantic ideals", huh?
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:52:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The belief in the inherent right to life is little more then romantic idealism. The reality is each and evey living thing from baby turtles making a dash to the sea and hoping to not be eaten by the gulls to weather or not a drunken one night stand, Its just a lot of dumb luck that we are here, typing bollix on teh intarweb.
People die for a million and one godawfully stupid reasons, because a mother doesnt feel that she can cope with bringing a child into the world is one of the better ones.
Submitted by Ducky (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:31:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:15:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If a foetus is a baby then you, sir, are also a baby, and hence a foetus.
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-06-28 05:43:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
This is a prime example of why abortion should be allowed, even after birth.
I bet your mum wished she still had that option.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-28 05:41:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dependence is irrelevant DMD. Why should you care if it's dependent or not? The whole issue only serves to help you classify when you consider them to be technically alive, when at the point you have mentioned there is no change to their consciousness or anything similar.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-06-28 05:08:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Go Loki.
I'm resolving never to get involved in any teenage boys argue about abortion posts.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:41:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:07:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive."
DMD: First of all, that isn't true; babies can survive on formula, and really anything else with similar concentrations of essential nutrients.
Willy: And we could artificially feed a baby in the womb if we tried, I'm sure.
DMD: Second of all, a baby nursing doesn't make it part of the mother any more than eating an apple makes you part of a tree, therefore, being its own self contained organism, the baby retains its rights.
Willy: So, the baby feeding off the mother's nutrients in the womb is different to feeding off the nutrients outside the womb? A parasite is still a seperate being.
DMD: Third of all, that kind of dependence isn't even remotely comparable to the dependence of a fetus upon the woman carrying it. Before birth the fetus is unable to oxygenate blood, properly circulate blood, detoxify blood, digest food, maintain blood pressure, maintain body temperature, etc. etc. After birth it is able to do all these things, and drinking breast milk doesn't change that.
Willy: I can't argue against you on this point. It is a much greater dependency but my question remains; how can one level of dependency void all human rights while another level won't impact at all. In a way, we are all dependent on eachother.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:34:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:07:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive."
First of all, that isn't true; babies can survive on formula, and really anything else with similar concentrations of essential nutrients.
Second of all, a baby nursing doesn't make it part of the mother any more than eating an apple makes you part of a tree, therefore, being its own self contained organism, the baby retains its rights.
Third of all, that kind of dependence isn't even remotely comparable to the dependence of a fetus upon the woman carrying it. Before birth the fetus is unable to oxygenate blood, properly circulate blood, detoxify blood, digest food, maintain blood pressure, maintain body temperature, etc. etc. After birth it is able to do all these things, and drinking breast milk doesn't change that.
---
explain premature babies who need to be placed in the neo-natal ICU hooked up to incubators please.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:20:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Adereterial, I attend a Baptist church. Its pretty crap and I disagree with most things that people say. This is good, because I then think about *why* I disagree. I'm not sucked in by their propaganda.
-------------------
Re-read what you typed in the original post and then reconsider that.
If you really want to provide yourself with an appropriate environment to consider morals and ethics and spirituality you'd make the effort to contact other groups and other Churches.
If you live in rural England as you claim, I guarantee there's a CofE church within spitting distance, and quite possibly a Catholic chapel or church as well, but you apparently persist in going to a Baptist church despite the fact you disagree with most things they say - as you claim.
Go seek out something different, for Christ's sake. You don't need to attend a church to consider ethical questions.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:07:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive."
First of all, that isn't true; babies can survive on formula, and really anything else with similar concentrations of essential nutrients.
Second of all, a baby nursing doesn't make it part of the mother any more than eating an apple makes you part of a tree, therefore, being its own self contained organism, the baby retains its rights.
Third of all, that kind of dependence isn't even remotely comparable to the dependence of a fetus upon the woman carrying it. Before birth the fetus is unable to oxygenate blood, properly circulate blood, detoxify blood, digest food, maintain blood pressure, maintain body temperature, etc. etc. After birth it is able to do all these things, and drinking breast milk doesn't change that.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 02:06:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good debate by the way.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 02:06:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:49:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:57:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, it's attached to it's mother and it's inside a womb but I don't see how that makes it any less of a person than it will be in an hour.
------------
I already demonstrated below that while the fetus is attached to its mother it is a semiallograft which is always PART of the organism to which it is grafted, so it is not a separate organism biologically.
Not only that, but the differences between the fetus before birth and the neonate afterwards are extremely significant. The fetus gets its food and oxygen from the mother, and has its blood detoxified and its homeostasis maintained by the mother. After birth, the baby does it all on its own
=-=-=-=--=-==--=-=-=
Parasites exist throughout the animal kingdom both before and after life.
Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:49:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:57:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, it's attached to it's mother and it's inside a womb but I don't see how that makes it any less of a person than it will be in an hour.
I already demonstrated below that while the fetus is attached to its mother it is a semiallograft which is always PART of the organism to which it is grafted, so it is not a separate organism biologically.
Not only that, but the differences between the fetus before birth and the neonate afterwards are extremely significant. The fetus gets its food and oxygen from the mother, and has its blood detoxified and its homeostasis maintained by the mother. After birth, the baby does it all on its own.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:35:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:32:46 (#)
Ranking: -2
SHUT UP SHUT UP MAKE THE VOICES STOP YOU ARE ALL WRONG
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:35:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:32:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
SHUT UP SHUT UP MAKE THE VOICES STOP YOU ARE ALL WRONG
Submitted by WellFedEthiopian (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:18:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+2 for a decently written post on a touchy subject. -1 because I believe in abortion to a degree.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:57:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:54:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:51:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wow.
---
How is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Well, it's attached to it's mother and it's inside a womb but I don't see how that makes it any less of a person than it will be in an hour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:53:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Freedom ends where it impacts other's freedoms. Not all pro-lifers have the mentality "I don't like it so noone should do it", there are those of us who believe "you are infringing on the child's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of yaddayadda so you cannot do it"."
----
No one literally has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's from the Declaration of Independence, not a lawbook.
-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I'm not attacking it on legal grounds. I'm not even American. I don't give a shit about that declaration. But that phrase is the basis of mainstream libertarian thinking, on which plenty laws are founded both here and in your country, and if libertarianism can be used to support abortion, I was doing my best to show that libertarianism can also be used to oppose abortion.
I'm not a lawyer and if you do try and bring legalities into abortion you'll undoubtedly beat me in an arguement. I'm showing opposition to abortion on philosophical and moral grounds.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:44:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I would like to announce my intention to legally adopt loki as my sister/aunt/some kind of cool relative that teaches me stuff.
That is all.
Submitted by jimthefiend (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:26:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"And then rape. What do you do when a woman is..."
Tell her to stop walking down alleys wearing a mini skirt. She is after all, just asking for it. ;)
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:01:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2EATAFETUS
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:54:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:51:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wow.
How is it?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:53:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Freedom ends where it impacts other's freedoms. Not all pro-lifers have the mentality "I don't like it so noone should do it", there are those of us who believe "you are infringing on the child's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of yaddayadda so you cannot do it"."
No one literally has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's from the Declaration of Independence, not a lawbook.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wow.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:46:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:36:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:03:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact of the matter is that members of the human race are often torn between the primal instincts of wanting to protect each other and do what is best for ourselves. Abortion is one of the most classic instances of this dilemma.
A decision like abortion is just that: a decision. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant because it can be declared either way from a number of different perspectives for a number of different reasons.
One thing can be certain, however. That is that revoking the right to decide is as inhumane as the actual act itself, and should not be condoned. Just because you are supporting the ability to decide does not mean you are supporting the action. The people doing this are, by virtue of the difficulty of the decision, adults. Allow them the ability to exercise the freedom that makes us human; and then let those who commit the act be judged by an authority that has the ability to do so. I am telling you this much, that authority does not exist in any court that humanity can lay claim over. That much is true by seeing how we treat the issue.
--------------------------------
wow. excellent!
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
When you consider the choice to murder another person as a decision I will accept this logic.
Freedom ends where it impacts other's freedoms. Not all pro-lifers have the mentality "I don't like it so noone should do it", there are those of us who believe "you are infringing on the child's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of yaddayadda so you cannot do it".
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:37:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
My position is that the unborn cannot be considered a person because it has not attained physical independence from its mother. When the umbilical cord is cut, the semiallograft that is the fetus is no longer a graft but a separate organism.
-=-==--=-==-=-=
8 months is not a person?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:37:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
My position is that the unborn cannot be considered a person because it has not attained physical independence from its mother. When the umbilical cord is cut, the semiallograft that is the fetus is no longer a graft but a separate organism.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:03:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact of the matter is that members of the human race are often torn between the primal instincts of wanting to protect each other and do what is best for ourselves. Abortion is one of the most classic instances of this dilemma.
A decision like abortion is just that: a decision. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant because it can be declared either way from a number of different perspectives for a number of different reasons.
One thing can be certain, however. That is that revoking the right to decide is as inhumane as the actual act itself, and should not be condoned. Just because you are supporting the ability to decide does not mean you are supporting the action. The people doing this are, by virtue of the difficulty of the decision, adults. Allow them the ability to exercise the freedom that makes us human; and then let those who commit the act be judged by an authority that has the ability to do so. I am telling you this much, that authority does not exist in any court that humanity can lay claim over. That much is true by seeing how we treat the issue.
--------------------------------
wow. excellent!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:17:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:46:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Just because there are less cells and there seems to be less human appearance, an embryo or feotus is no less human."
I've said this about a million times, and no one seems to catch on (I blame the fact that most pro-lifers have dreadfully little knowledge of biology): HUMAN IS NOT THE ISSUE. PERSON IS THE ISSUE.
Every cell in your body is human, why the fuck does it matter that the unborn is human?
The relevant thing here is whether or not the unborn is a person.
It's not.
-=-=-=-=--=
I'd be interested in your definition of person.
I do see your point but I think if you will not consider a human as a person because of it's undevelopment I'd be interested on your opinion on retards.
Submitted by Lucylou (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:14:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
-1 because, quite frankly, it wasn't that original.
BUT Loki's reply was one of the funniest/best I've seen in a while. This post was worth it just for that!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:13:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:44:59 (#)
Ranking: -2
Williamson, you of all people should realise that the "essence of life" or a "soul" or whatever you call it comes into it here.
-=-==--=-=-=
Why argue that? It's spiritual. I can't argue that as any more than unfounded opinion so I'm not going to.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-06-27 21:22:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
1) There are too fucking many people. What's a few less?
2) I think that a woman should be allowed to abort the baby right until it pops out. Why? Well, fuck, it's not like the goddamn thing is reading a book or thinking great thoughts. It's a lump of flesh.
3) The "It might cure cancer" argument is bullshit. Do you really think that a child that was so unwanted that only laws against abortions let it be born is going to be loved and cared for as a child that is planned for and wanted? Sure, the mothers who have children they didn't plan for say that they love them and wouldn't have changed anything, but maybe that's because they realize that they're chained to that child for 18 years.
Just my two cents.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Just because there are less cells and there seems to be less human appearance, an embryo or feotus is no less human."
I've said this about a million times, and no one seems to catch on (I blame the fact that most pro-lifers have dreadfully little knowledge of biology): HUMAN IS NOT THE ISSUE. PERSON IS THE ISSUE.
Every cell in your body is human, why the fuck does it matter that the unborn is human?
The relevant thing here is whether or not the unborn is a person.
It's not.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:44:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Williamson, you of all people should realise that the "essence of life" or a "soul" or whatever you call it comes into it here.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:40:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Stin and Merlina said it best.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:29:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I find the major reason people support abortion and believe that feotuses aren't human is their inability to personify a baby at such a yung age.
If you will, I'd like to propose a hypothetical and ask if anyone would be more likely to oppose abortion if it were so:
Imagine that from the point of conception the shape of the original human cell was shaped like a human. Imagine there was absolutely no difference in the physiological makeup of the embryo, except now all of a sudden it Looked human. No more advanced, but much easier to personify. I know a lot of you who are pro-choice (the ones with brains) will still argue that there is nothing different about the embryo and thus your arguments still stand, but imagine the masses. The unsophisticated thought of public opinion is different however.
I believe you'd find that if embryoes from the point of conception had what appeared to be arms, legs, a torso and a head (even if they truly weren't) the masses would quickly swing pro-life because such a thing is easier to personify with.
We, ourselves are nothing more than trillions of cells packed together to form what appears to others as human beings. Just because there are less cells and there seems to be less human appearance, an embryo or feotus is no less human. This is why I consider abortion to be murder, and since I do not support the "choice to murder" i do not support the "choice to abort".
Yes, it is the imposition of my ethics on others. The ethic of Thou shalt not kill (I'm not religious though I like this saying). We as a society disallow murder of a fellow human. That is my justification against the right to abortion.
A tadpole is still a frog when you think about it.
PS. Am I the only one here to have +2'ed this? God damn I'm a right-wing nutball, hey?
Submitted by AndraSidan (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You had to know this would get flamed when you posted it.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:18:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:29:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thorpe does make an interesting point about what constitutes awareness, but I'm afraid that I think you were right when you said that the baby would eventually gain consciousness, just like a sleeping person. Hadn't thought about that until you said it.
-------------------------------------------------
WHAT?? I said that to pre-emptively rebut you. They have no previous memories or history or self, they're completely different to a sleeping person. Jesus Christ.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:13:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:25:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
ALL OF YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG AND I AM FUCKING CORRECT
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:07:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2, but only because we've all made up our minds. And this sucks. That too.
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 19:05:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
wow...I was gone a couple hrs and there are like double the amount of posts....anyone getting bored yet?
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 19:03:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You go Loki!!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:52:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Did anyone say anything new here or was it the same old bullshit where someone living a sheltered never had anything bad happen to them makes a blanket statement about abortion and then has to back peddle over exceptions?
ie
abortion is murder and wrong 100% of the time
except when the pregnancy is a danger to the woman
or in the case of rape or incest (odd that those are two separate things isn't it)
or if you know ahead of time that there is going to be something seriously wrong with the baby if it goes to full term
or if the man refuses to be involved
or if the woman is poor, black, and/or uneducated
or unable to care for the kid financially, emotionally, or physically
or if it is my kid, niece, other female person whom I care about and I'm worried that she would be throwing her life way by having a baby in the 9th grade
or if it was an accident or something and the kid isn't wanted
but other than that, abortion is wrong and people who do it are bad people going to hell
Was it something like that?
or maybe you got into the whole, it could have been Jesus, Moses, Hitler, Paris Hilton and then how would you feel issue?
Please tell me that someone said that she should have kept her legs closed and this wouldn't have happened? Gosh I'd hate it if no one went there.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:42:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by freshspinach (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:02:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Males will never be forced to make a decision to have an abortion and therefore should not have a voice on the matter. They can have all the opinions they want, but they should never matter. Period. If they desire a society where men decide the rights of women, move your ass to Afghanistan.
----------------------
I've seen views similar to this all through the correspondence to this post and, quite frankly, it disguists me. 50% of any child growing inside a woman "belongs" to the man who impregnated her.
I appreciate that the child grows inside the mother, but I detest the opinion that this, somehow, gives women more claim to their children than men.
This is displayed in the fact that men are much more likely to lose touch with their children after a divorce because they aren't allowed to see them, and that it's only the woman's choice to abort.
If a woman is raped and chooses to have an abortion, of course the bastard who raped her should have no say: I'm not advocating that kind of bullshit. But to say that "a man can never know what it's like" and this type of bullshit, and then go on to say a man "should not have a voice on the matter" strikes me as being as abhorrent as the totalitarian pro-life stance.
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:29:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
quackery
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:25:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ALL OF YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG AND I AM FUCKING CORRECT
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:25:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:13:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
"I didn't put this post up to get hits...
The post got called "abortion is wrong" because I wanted people to read it, and I thought that that was likely to encourage it"
____
heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat-whore!
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:03:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:20:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Death_Metal_Dude, you are great. You're so wonderful and clever I look up to you and your fantastic jargon. Please marry me.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:50:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
"2. All semiallogenic or allogenic relationships of this nature are grafts. "
prove it.
They're only grafts because you chose to call them a graft. The foetus has a different genetic code to the mother which I consider to distinguish it as a seperate organism.
In fairness, not many people know the ins and outs of their subject BEFORE their degree, do they?
Bull fucking shit, it's an accepted tenet of immunology that the fetus is considered a semiallograft, I don't need to prove it
Submitted by Slighty_Obnoxious (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:02:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow! An abortion post on most heated! Who woulda thunk it?
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:00:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:27:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't care if people get 'converted' or not. I just don't want people to think that everyone thinks abortion is OK except crazy evangelical Christians.
--------------
Ok, you've shown to me that retarded non-Christians also think abortion is wrong. Congratulations.
Submitted by TheEvilleprechaun (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:49:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I vote for drawing the line at whenever the blob of cells develops the ability to feel pain, or have thought processes of any kind. I don't know enough biology to know when that is, but it would seem about the time that the central nervous system begins to develop. That ability is the only aspect of humans that is truly distinct from other animals, and would seem then to define at what point a fetus becomes human.
In any case, to say that abortion is universally wrong, as your title implies, is idiotic. It excludes extreme cases of rape or incest, or when there is the threat of serous harm to the mother. Even barring these cases, I don't believe that in the very, VERY first stages of development that abortion is wrong, simply because the cells that exist at that point don't have a capacity for uniquely human functioning, such as thought, which separates human beings, of any age, from other animal life. So even by your own logic, abortion isn't universally wrong. At least you didn't go hyper-religious though. Good job!!
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:42:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:40:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Girlwithaclue...
*sigh*
Why did you make me do this?
http://www.ubersite.com/m/53807
After your "contribution" to this thread, I can't blame the guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By the way.........We are dating again so kiss my ass!!
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:41:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I am just really tired of this subject....
Therefore I don't believe that it should be dignified by a well thought out response!
But that is just my opinion as you are entitled to yours..
That is all....
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:37:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nobody actually gives a shit what I think, do they? I mean, I think something different to you so why would you care what I thought?
Thanks for being so open-minded and not pre-judging.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:34:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yup, its her right to decide, that's correct. I'm just saying what I think the most ethical choice is.
Submitted by HighGeneticist (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:31:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're one dumb son of a bitch. Leave it to a male to say shit like that. Men can go around and fuck anything they want and they don't have to deal with the consequences. If you were a young rape victim that got pregnant by the guy that raped you, you may not want to deal with the repercussions of that rape.
You will never understand because you will never have to deal with something like that. You obviously know absolutely nothing. And you piss me off.
I agree that abortion should not be viewed as some kind of contraceptive, but there number of different situations is vast. Abortion needs to be legal. It should be a woman's right to decide what happens INSIDE her own body, and that child is just as much a part of her as her heart. It was created inside of her, she has to carry it, her nutrients and blood and womb all contribute to that child's growth, therefore, it is her decision what happens to it. I am not saying that I would go out and have one, all I am saying is that it IS a woman's right to decide.
Pro-choice all the way.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:27:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't care if people get 'converted' or not. I just don't want people to think that everyone thinks abortion is OK except crazy evangelical Christians.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:24:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Number of pro-choice people converted by this post: 0
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Miss_tila. The difference is that the tumor wouldn't develop into an adult and shares your genetic code. A baby would and doesn't.
And I think, alfakyle, you'll find that a minor does have the right to protection of life just like I'm arguing it should inside the womb.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:20:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Death_Metal_Dude, you are great. You're so wonderful and clever I look up to you and your fantastic jargon. Please marry me.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:50:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
"2. All semiallogenic or allogenic relationships of this nature are grafts. "
prove it.
They're only grafts because you chose to call them a graft. The foetus has a different genetic code to the mother which I consider to distinguish it as a seperate organism.
In fairness, not many people know the ins and outs of their subject BEFORE their degree, do they?
Submitted by alfakyle (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:04:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
miss_tila - true.
"And what about the baby's right to decide what happens to *its* body?" --> Minor's have no rights to decide things for themselves. If they did, they'd be able to drink, smoke, vote, enter legal contracts, etc.
Submitted by miss_tila (user info)