Abortion

Originally posted by inimalist
if you don't see the onus of proving personhood is on you, we have hit the end of any meaningful conversation

just to point out, one of the biggest problems facing animal psychology today is the question of personhood. You, literally, cannot prove a mosquito isn't a person.

Wrong. The burden of proof is completely on you to prove it isn't a person. Like I said before, it isn't,

kill unless you can show it's a kid.

It's,

don't kill it unless we know it isn't a kid.

We know a mosquito isn't a person, but no one has been able to tell me why. Unless we can determine what it means to be a person, how do we know the fetus isn't one?

Not a single person here so far has been able to tell me what a person is. But you are all ready and willing to admit the fetus isn't one.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wrong. The burden of proof is completely on you to prove it isn't a person. Like I said before, it isn't,

kill unless you can show it's a kid.

It's,

don't kill it unless we know it isn't a kid.

We know a mosquito isn't a person, but no one has been able to tell me why. Unless we can determine what it means to be a person, how do we know the fetus isn't one?

Not a single person here so far has been able to tell me what a person is. But you are all ready and willing to admit the fetus isn't one.

Originally posted by inimalist
if you don't see the onus of proving personhood is on you, we have hit the end of any meaningful conversation

just to point out, one of the biggest problems facing animal psychology today is the question of personhood. You, literally, cannot prove a mosquito isn't a person.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Need is too strong a word. There are very few cases in which the option for abortion could be described as a "need".

That's why I said some. And it's not as rare as you may think. Some women just can't carry a child.

Or what if the child is going to have a disease?

Say for example:

Woman get raped by man with AIDs. She becomes pregnant, fetus is HIV positive.

Should she really bring a baby into this world just so it can be deathly ill and spending it's short existence hooked up to medicines.

Oh come now, inimalist. I presented reasons why I rejected the stance that I have the burden of proof. The least you could do is respond to my reasons instead of repeating yourself.

But to help further my point. Here's a hypothetical.

Say there is a new illness going around that makes women uncomfortable for about 9 months. Now, there is a cure, but every time a woman takes it, there is the possibility a child dies somewhere. It isn't know for sure if any kids die, but it is a glaring possibility. Would you think it is right to allow women to take this cure? Or would you say we should find out if kids are dying BEFORE we allow women to use it freely?

Originally posted by Utsukushii
That's why I said some. And it's not as rare as you may think. Some women just can't carry a child.

No. Women actually being in danger from pregnancies are pretty rare. Most just don't WANT to.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
Or what if the child is going to have a disease?

Say for example:

Woman get raped by man with AIDs. She becomes pregnant, fetus is HIV positive.

Should she really bring a baby into this world just so it can be deathly ill and spending it's short existence hooked up to medicines.

Yes. Ask anyone. Most people would prefer to live a hard life than to not live at all. And even if that isn't the case, it is not your place to decide that for the child.

When it comes down to it. None of these points matter. If the fetus isn't a person, then we have no worries about killing it or not. But if it IS a person, then it is protected, REGARDLESS of the discomfort it causes the mother, or the fact that it might live a hard life.

The only question that is important concerning abortion is that status of the fetus. All the rest of this is completely irrelevant.

Abortion will always be an option of the women who are pregnant. If an expecting mother decides to kill her unborn child there is nothing short of imprisoning her that can stop her. Enough Bicardi 151 and a doctor isn't necessary. I think it's absolutely retarded to make it a political issue. A person who thinks that it's a sin shouldn't do it or encourage someone else to do it. If they really want to deter it they should provide alternative options, rather than useless judgments.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Abortion will always be an option of the women who are pregnant. If an expecting mother decides to kill her unborn child there is nothing short of imprisoning her that can stop her. Enough Bicardi 151 and a doctor isn't necessary. I think it's absolutely retarded to make it a political issue. A person who thinks that it's a sin shouldn't do it or encourage someone else to do it. If they really want to deter it they should provide alternative options, rather than useless judgments.

There ARE other options. And if a person see's something they think is wrong, they have a responsibility to try and prevent it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Oh come now, inimalist.

ok, fair enough

I'm just not really up for another circular argument (not with you or anything, just got into a couple this week that got right under my skin)

The reason is, what you are asking for is an impossible standard of evidence, since, even if we had some good understanding of when the right to life should be applied, we would only ever have indirect ways of ascertaining that information from the fetus, much in the same way real animal psychologists can't say for certain if dogs and cats have "personalities", simply because this isn't something you can test just by looking at something.

The benefits of legal abortion (because we will never stop abortion), and the windows that people seem to have agreed on, sure, while partially ambigious, are satisfactory to me. They might not be for you.

I suppose the real argument might be when the state has the right to prohibit things, but from where I sit, the state has to prove harm before it can ban something.

So like, the way I look at drug laws and such. It should be the onus of the state to prove there is a legitimate reason to prohibit the use, not my onus to show use is fine. In abortion, the state HAS said there are limits where the child does clearly have rights.

like, don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion, and if I were of the "life begins at conception" crowd [I'm using short hand, not trying to generalize your beliefs, so no offense if you don't consider yourself a "life at conception" guy], I would agree with you. I just see nothing convincing that current limits actually do end up killing innocent people rather than removing something I would condsider part of the woman's body. This is where I see your onus. You have to prove it is something worth being treated as an individual with certain rights, and not something that falls under the rights of the woman.

EDIT: just to throw it out there, I am an advocate of adoption over abortion, just that there are so many issues with adoption services and our cultural approach to them

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, fair enough

I'm just not really up for another circular argument (not with you or anything, just got into a couple this week that got right under my skin)

The reason is, what you are asking for is an impossible standard of evidence, since, even if we had some good understanding of when the right to life should be applied, we would only ever have indirect ways of ascertaining that information from the fetus, much in the same way real animal psychologists can't say for certain if dogs and cats have "personalities", simply because this isn't something you can test just by looking at something.

The benefits of legal abortion (because we will never stop abortion), and the windows that people seem to have agreed on, sure, while partially ambigious, are satisfactory to me. They might not be for you.

I suppose the real argument might be when the state has the right to prohibit things, but from where I sit, the state has to prove harm before it can ban something.

So like, the way I look at drug laws and such. It should be the onus of the state to prove there is a legitimate reason to prohibit the use, not my onus to show use is fine. In abortion, the state HAS said there are limits where the child does clearly have rights.

like, don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion, and if I were of the "life begins at conception" crowd [I'm using short hand, not trying to generalize your beliefs, so no offense if you don't consider yourself a "life at conception" guy], I would agree with you. I just see nothing convincing that current limits actually do end up killing innocent people rather than removing something I would condsider part of the woman's body. This is where I see your onus. You have to prove it is something worth being treated as an individual with certain rights, and not something that falls under the rights of the woman.

EDIT: just to throw it out there, I am an advocate of adoption over abortion, just that there are so many issues with adoption services and our cultural approach to them

That's the thing. I don't think we can ever really know if the fetus is a person or not. But the fact that we can't know doesn't mean we should still take risks. In the end, I still consider making abortion illegal the safer option. Because we simply can't know.

And I still think the burden of proof is on pro-choice for the hypothetical I gave above. Can you honestly say you would be alright with that "cure" being used in the face of the possibility that children are dying?

That being said. I suppose we've come to the end of this debate.

You said you are satisfied with the risks involved. I'm not. Not much farther we can really go.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Say there is a new illness going around that makes women uncomfortable for about 9 months. Now, there is a cure, but every time a woman takes it, there is the possibility a child dies somewhere. It isn't know for sure if any kids die, but it is a glaring possibility. Would you think it is right to allow women to take this cure? Or would you say we should find out if kids are dying BEFORE we allow women to use it freely?

Proposal: Every time you post on KMC a child, somewhere in the world, dies in agony as a result.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Proposal: Every time you post on KMC a child, somewhere in the world, dies in agony as a result.

Alright... So, in this hypothetical I would say we should probably not post to KMC anymore... I'm not getting your point.

Think he meant just you

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Think he meant just you

Ah... I see. 😖hifty:

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's the thing. I don't think we can ever really know if the fetus is a person or not. But the fact that we can't know doesn't mean we should still take risks. In the end, I still consider making abortion illegal the safer option. Because we simply can't know.

And I still think the burden of proof is on pro-choice for the hypothetical I gave above. Can you honestly say you would be alright with that "cure" being used in the face of the possibility that children are dying?

That being said. I suppose we've come to the end of this debate.

You said you are satisfied with the risks involved. I'm not. Not much farther we can really go.

Originally posted by The MISTER
What we do know is that a fetus is a woman's as no man has the job of carrying one. That being the case the decision of whether to abort a pregnancy or not will forever be that of the woman who is pregnant. What her decision will be will have a lot to do with who SHE is and what's influencing her. I too hope that more women will choose to have their baby, and after having it, love and cherish it. I know some women may believe that their child wouldn't do anything but suffer as they have suffered (for many women suffer greatly). These women will act on what they believe to be true regardless of what other people may believe....since that's a fact it is better if there are doctors available to attend to these women since they WILL do it alone otherwise. Best deterrent for abortion is hope, not laws that drive it into the shadows where it will most definitely continue.

Well that's the question. Is the fetus nothing more than part of the woman or is it it's own person?

Hope is important, but I still think laws are too. If making abortion illegal prevents even one abortion from happening, it would be worth it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Keep it up. 😉

Oh, I will. 😎

Originally posted by TacDavey
No. Women actually being in danger from pregnancies are pretty rare. Most just don't WANT to.

Oh, and it's killing you, right? Women? WOMEN? Deciding left and right if and when they want to have babies. Like they're God or something.

IF a fetus is a person (and person = women, men, children) then you're interested in other people's kids which makes you a creep.

Originally posted by Dulcie
IF a fetus is a person (and person = women, men, children) then you're interested in other people's kids which makes you a creep.

society has a right to be interested in your kids...

for instance, child abuse

Originally posted by inimalist
society has a right to be interested in your kids...

for instance, child abuse

Don't you think this world would be a tad better place if all anti-abortion people were out there fighting for the rights of abused children? And maybe less abuse would occur if only children who are truly wanted came to this world?

... woah, did you just propose abortion as a way to combat child abuse?

EDIT: "sure they are beating their kids, but they never should have been born in the first place"

Originally posted by inimalist
... woah, did you just propose abortion as a way to combat child abuse?

EDIT: "sure they are beating their kids, but they never should have been born in the first place"

That is NOT what I said AT ALL.

I'm only saying it would be rational not to force people who are unfit to be parents into bringing a child to this world.

It would not stop abuse at all but it would decrease it.

i imagine irresponsible people will be irresponsible when deciding to have an abortion or not

i really don't see the connection you are trying to make