Abortion

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you say that abortion should not be allowed then and the woman has to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth?

I'm 50-50 on this. I have a hard time thinking I should get to dictate to a woman who I got pregnant, that she has to allow me to use her body to incubate my baby.

Let me reverse the roles.

If I didn't want the baby and she did, then I should get to opt out of child support because I wanted her to abort. Same should apply to men if they want the baby: the woman should get to opt out of child support if she's willing to carry the baby full term.

I really wish we could remove pregnancy as being a thing. 😐 That would remove tons of legal problems from our system and that would remove tons of leverage that woman have over men and men over women.*

But, yes, part of me says that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to full term (but gets to relinquish her rights and responsibilities if she so chooses) if the man wants it and she doesn't. But I'd never force that on anyone. So I suppose I'm more like 49.99 and 50.01 and my decision is a step function that rounds up to the nearest majority which outputs the answer of "no, don't force women to carry babies to full term, that they don't want."

*It goes both ways. Women are, generally, disadvantaged by getting pregnant in most countries. But in some countries like the US, men are held hostage by woman who don't want to abort.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nibedicus,

Are you completely against abortion, no matter what, or are there situations where you feel it's morally okay?

-If performed in a given time frame? eg First 2 weeks

-Cases of rape and/or incest?

-The mother's life is in serious danger?

-Other(s)?

I am not against abortion per se.. It is a medical procedure and all ppl should have access to it, given reason. I am not against abortion, but I am against the dehumanization of the unborn child.

I want abortion to be percieved as "not ok" simply from a moral position (not legal) and the general direction of society should be to discourage it thru education. The same way we are now educating ppl regarding the ramifications of smoking/alcohol/teen pregnancy and the like thru educational videos or commercials. It is ending of an innocent human life, regardless of how some try and create justifications for it.

Yes, it still has to be a choice. I just want it to be always seen as a heavy choice.

That said, already stated that I've always seen medical reasons (risk to the mother, high chances of short painful life due to borth defects, etc) and instances of rape/incest (tho adoption should still be seen as the better option in these cases) as justifiable reasons. But, no, time should not be a factor, it's a life from the moment of inception no matter how some try to paint it as not.

Pardon late reply. Wife has been sick, then baby, then me. Apparently we have a bug going around and we're just passing it around. Will get to other replies soon.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Gee, I don't know. Maybe a tiny egg isn't a human being. That's to be expected from a insane movement based on the premise that a soul enters a fertilized egg immediately after ejaculation.

We're not talking about sperm or an unferitlized egg.

Human "being" is a philosphical construct (and it's not even completely agreed upon yet what exactly makes a human "being"😉. A fetus is human by DNA and an organism (life) by scientific definition.

Gonna reserve my reply to Pr when I'm no longer under medication cuz it might be a longer reply.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I am not against abortion per se.. It is a medical procedure and all ppl should have access to it, given reason. I am not against abortion, but I am against the dehumanization of the unborn child.

I want abortion to be percieved as "not ok" simply from a moral position (not legal) and the general direction of society should be to discourage it thru education. The same way we are now educating ppl regarding the ramifications of smoking/alcohol/teen pregnancy and the like thru educational videos or commercials. It is ending of an innocent human life, regardless of how some try and create justifications for it.

Yes, it still has to be a choice. I just want it to be always seen as a heavy choice.

That said, already stated that I've always seen medical reasons (risk to the mother, high chances of short painful life due to borth defects, etc) and instances of rape/incest (tho adoption should still be seen as the better option in these cases) as justifiable reasons. But, no, time should not be a factor, it's a life from the moment of inception no matter how some try to paint it as not.

Pardon late reply. Wife has been sick, then baby, then me. Apparently we have a bug going around and we're just passing it around. Will get to other replies soon.

No worries on the late reply, take care of your family first. See, your views are loony, at least to me.

How to do reconcile not being against abortion, with "it's a [human?] life at inception".

How to do reconcile "it's a life" but then that life being lessor because the father is a criminal and the inception was a crime? Surely the "life" shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes of others and effectively given a death sentence. 'Sins of the Father' and that.

The reason I'm perplexed at your views, if I truly believed a fetus at the point of inception was no different than a human being(me, you, even DDM), I'd be against abortion all around barring cases where the fetus put the mother's life at risk, an abortion in that case would be killing in self defense.

Originally posted by Bardock42
About this, what would the option be, if the father wants to raise it and the mother doesn't? Would you say that abortion should not be allowed then and the woman has to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth?

In the end, it should be her decision to keep the child or not, imo.

On the flipside of that, if she wants the baby and he doesn't, I believe he should be allowed to not be hounded for child support for the next eighteen years of his life (within reason).

Originally posted by Robtard
No worries on the late reply, take care of your family first. See, your views are loony, at least to me.

How to do reconcile not being against abortion, with "it's a [human?] life at inception".

How to do reconcile "it's a life" but then that life being lessor because the father is a criminal and the inception was a crime? Surely the "life" shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes of others and effectively given a death sentence. 'Sins of the Father' and that.

The reason I'm perplexed at your views, if I truly believed a fetus at the point of inception was no different than a human being(me, you, even DDM), I'd be against abortion all around barring cases where the fetus put the mother's life at risk, an abortion in that case would be killing in self defense.

Because from my understanding of how society works, we can never function using moral absolutes (ergo. alcoholism is bad but banning it outright has proven to cause more problems that it solves, same with abortion).

Because even I will admit that instances of forced pregnancies due to rape/incest are somewhat special cases that could potentially have long term psychological ramifications to the mother that I cannot dismiss. I think it's wrong, but the mother has the right not to continuously undergo the trauma over a period of 9 months. I have, however, stated that I still think it is wrong (but admit that I say this from a position of ignorance) and adoption should always be the first choice.

And you'd be right. I do see "self-defense" (ie. medical risks) as the only true justifiable reason for an abortion. But that is what I believe and others believe differently. I don't feel like being close-minded is productive and in instances where there is currently no definitive "right" position, one (at best) can simply propose a moral compromise. In short:

"I think what you are doing is wrong, but since we can't seem to see things from each others' perspective, can we at least agree to setting agreeable guidelines/drawing a line we don't cross?"

Edit. Gonna be my last reply for today. Meds kicking in (not sure if I even made sense). Gonna take a nap.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Copied this from the other thread.

How is it wrong, exactly?

Funny how you talk about conditioning. I can't speak for America, but here in Ireland, we grew up being told that abortion was an unholy, horrible act and that it should never be performed under any circumstances. Hell, it's still illegal here, but i'm hoping there's a referendum soon.

I notice you using a lot of words like "killing" and "child" in your post. I have no problem with you using those words, but at the same time, I don't consider a two week old embryo a child. I don't consider the morning after pill or first trimester abortion to be "killing" in the way some people would use it.

That's where a lot of the arguments lie, imo. It's in the terminology and what we perceive as a life.

I, personally, don't consider most abortions to be any kind of murder.

======

If a new thread gets made, I can just paste it there instead.

How is what wrong? At this point I can't remember what you're pertaining to.

Don't see how that helps the abortion dehumanization conditioning argument any, but ok. I understand that there are opposite extremes to every argument and that many countries condition their populace to be accepting of one thing or the other. See, I disagree about banning abortion. It's a medical procedure. It is the reasoning when a person does get the procedure that is important.

Well, they are technically not "children" by definition, they are, however, human life. I don't use the word "fetus" as much because of the dehumanizing element attached to it due to liberal media conditioning. Just as some ppl would find a stigma in the use of the term "illegals", I have a stigma with the word "fetus". It's actually killing by definition. It's the deliberate ending of a life. There is no other way to see this if you go by definition. Some ppl just see fetuses as "not human enough" for us to care about them.

Which is all arbitrary. At some point, black slaves were not seen as human, as with jews or catholics/muslims, etc. I'm pretty sure that at the time, many reasonable ppl thought the logic behind such ideas were pretty reasonable as well. One's gotta always ask the question: what if my logic is wrong? What then am I supporting?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
We're not talking about sperm or an unferitlized egg.

Human "being" is a philosphical construct (and it's not even completely agreed upon yet what exactly makes a human "being"😉. A fetus is human by DNA and an organism (life) by scientific definition.

Okay.
Tell me, what is the difference between a soul and a mind? The words seem to describe the same thing but one is used in a religious setting while the other is used by philosophers and physicians.

Can something without a brain have awareness of being, a soul/mind? I don't see how and when it comes to brain dead people we call them dead. A brain doesn't come into being shortly after ejaculation so there's nobody home in a newly fertilized egg.

Could I be wrong? No. There's no mind/soul in lettuce or boulders and no proof of that is necessary.

Mind/soul. Philosophical/Theological constructs.

Mind/soul is not a determinant factor of what makes you human. If you mean thought or sentience, then, again, who decides that sentience is the one thing required for something to be considered a human being? Brain dead ppl have no chance of developing a brain and no potential of experiencing or demonstrating any further signs or potential for life. A fetus has all this potential, it is alive and it is human.

You see, one's current state does not determine its totality. One has to consider its potential as well. The very thing that makes something alive is all about what its potential is. The potential to grow, the potential to reproduce and the potential to die. Without these potentials, what differentiates life from a machine like a robot or a computer?

A Cabbage is not human life. A boulder is not even alive. Your examples sucks. It's no wonder your logic is so twisted.

To assume that you cannot be wrong in an issue that is still being debated by society shows both an arrogance and deep seeded ignorance rooted in immaturity.

That or you're just trolling.

A fetus has all this potential, it is alive and it is human.

Alive in what sense, retard. If there's no brain or no consciousness, there's nobody home, it can be terminated without remorse.

If a fetus is viable it can survive on it's own, if it's not, a woman can choose what she wants to do it, seeing as it's uses her body's nutrients. It's not up to you or your religion, that's why you lose.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let me reverse the roles.

If I didn't want the baby and she did, then I should get to opt out of child support because I wanted her to abort. Same should apply to men if they want the baby: the woman should get to opt out of child support if she's willing to carry the baby full term.

This is what I feel as well. If the woman can opt out, the man should be able to as well. I've seen it argued that since it is the woman who solely has to carry the child the man shouldn't really factor in. But then for me if they want to go that route then someone could say that since they solely carried the child and chose to have it then they are 100% responsible. Strange how the man doesn't factor in until the time comes to actually pay for the child. For me it is just weird to say to one person "hey, you have no choice in what I do..but if I decide to do a certain thing you also have no choice but to pay child support once the kid is born".

I'm pro choice in every sense of the word. Personally if it were up to me I'd make abortion illegal until similar rights for men are put into place.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Alive in what sense, retard. If there's no brain or no consciousness, there's nobody home, it can be terminated without remorse.

If a fetus is viable it can survive on it's own, if it's not, a woman can choose what she wants to do it, seeing as it's uses her body's nutrients. It's not up to you or your religion, that's why you lose.

Y'know, alive in the scientific sense:

The ability to take in nutrients (metabolism) from its envorment (the parent), the ability to grow and the potential to repoduce, Homeostatis, entropy. Information processes which are encoded withing genetic information (RNA/DNA) Maybe you should do some research on what "life" or "alive" means before spouting insults? It makes you look silly.

And why is "viability" or the ability to survive on one's own the required criteria for something to be given the right to live? Who decided this? A person in a temporary coma cannot live on his/her own, but I'd love for you to justify pulling the plug on them. Hell, newborns can't survive without their mothers, but I'd love for you to try and justify killing them, too.

Please keep the name calling, flaming, trolling, etc out of this thread.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
How is what wrong? At this point I can't remember what you're pertaining to.

I said this:

Originally posted by -Pr-
The difference is that I, personally, don't consider a recently fertilised egg to be a "Human life". I think at some point during the pregnancy there is a point where that changes, and after that point, I don't agree with abortion personally unless it's a rape baby or if the child is somehow disabled in a way that will mean no real quality of life for them.

And when you said it was wrong, I asked how.

Don't see how that helps the abortion dehumanization conditioning argument any, but ok. I understand that there are opposite extremes to every argument and that many countries condition their populace to be accepting of one thing or the other. See, I disagree about banning abortion. It's a medical procedure. It is the reasoning when a person does get the procedure that is important.

Well, they are technically not "children" by definition, they are, however, human life. I don't use the word "fetus" as much because of the dehumanizing element attached to it due to liberal media conditioning. Just as some ppl would find a stigma in the use of the term "illegals", I have a stigma with the word "fetus". It's actually killing by definition. It's the deliberate ending of a life. There is no other way to see this if you go by definition. Some ppl just see fetuses as "not human enough" for us to care about them.

Which is all arbitrary. At some point, black slaves were not seen as human, as with jews or catholics/muslims, etc. I'm pretty sure that at the time, many reasonable ppl thought the logic behind such ideas were pretty reasonable as well. One's gotta always ask the question: what if my logic is wrong? What then am I supporting?

The problem I have is that to me, it isn't a Human life. It is alive, sure, and it technically is Human, but what other parts of the body share the same qualities? I mean sure, you can always say "well, it would grow in to a baby eventually", but that doesn't erase my point, imo. It isn't a baby YET, to me.

I don't find foetus dehumanising personally, but if you do, fair balls.

So does America have a real problem with liberal media conditioning? I mean, I can only comment on what I see online, and there seems to be as much if not more of the Fox News sort of stuff. That said, I don't know what's on your TV every night, as I am admittedly an outside observer.

I'm not sure that last bit is an apt comparison, tbh, but sure, ideas should always be challenged.

Pr sips stem cells through a straw instead of coffee every morning

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Pr sips stem cells through a straw instead of coffee every morning

Ugh, coffee.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I said this:

And when you said it was wrong, I asked how.

The problem I have is that to me, it isn't a Human life. It is alive, sure, and it technically is Human, but what other parts of the body share the same qualities? I mean sure, you can always say "well, it would grow in to a baby eventually", but that doesn't erase my point, imo. It isn't a baby YET, to me.

I don't find foetus dehumanising personally, but if you do, fair balls.

So does America have a real problem with liberal media conditioning? I mean, I can only comment on what I see online, and there seems to be as much if not more of the Fox News sort of stuff. That said, I don't know what's on your TV every night, as I am admittedly an outside observer.

I'm not sure that last bit is an apt comparison, tbh, but sure, ideas should always be challenged.

I don't recall saying it was wrong exactly. Can you post a link of when I said that? I'm not very good with the search function here and doesn't sound like something I would categorically dismiss without an argument.

Well, again, it is actually hard to see last our already existing views of how we see things. I refer again to my "reasonable ppl" sentence last post. I mean, let me ask you this: is a fetus a human being?

America has a problem going extreme left AND extreme right. I disagree with many things from both ends of the spectrum. I pick and choose which parts I agree with and which parts I don't. Funny thing is, there are things I do agree with such as (responsible) stem cell research and gender equality (true equality tho).

Funny thing is, prior to coming to america and studying here (around 20 odd years ago), I didn't even know the 2 party system existed and how the views tend to run opposite of each other. Which seemed kind of silly to me (tho NOW I understand the concept and purpose to it, not that I agree with it tho) at the time.

I think it is. It's an exact comparison. Just that the lives of fetus (because of the fact they have been dehumanized) carries far less moral weight to many ppl. Let me ask you this: what if what you believe in is wrong? What if every aborted fetus within what you currently find acceptable tome for abortion was a human being the same as you or me? How would you feel about abortion then?

Originally posted by -Pr-
The problem I have is that to me, it isn't a Human life. It is alive, sure, and it technically is Human, but what other parts of the body share the same qualities? I mean sure, you can always say "well, it would grow in to a baby eventually", but that doesn't erase my point, imo. It isn't a baby YET, to me.

Rereading My reply, I realized the paragraph where I replied to this statement somehow did not get transferred during my cut/paste and now it is too late to edit. Anyway, will adress it now.

Technically, it is NOT a baby, no. As a baby is defined as a child already born. Let's not mistake it, tho. It is human life. What part? The most important part, the part that every human regardless of age/gender/disability/race has. The very thing that makes a human human vs a simple primate regardless of future advancements. Human DNA/RNA.

Besides, why is sharing of body part similarities is the criteria for determining right to life? Who decided that? That's an arbitrary criteria, there was a time where skin color or race or gender was used for the exact same purpose.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Let me ask you this: what if what you believe in is wrong? What if every aborted fetus within what you currently find acceptable tome for abortion was a human being the same as you or me? How would you feel about abortion then?

Well, if we're wrong then you should blame God for not giving us a proper view of reality. Cauliflowers may have souls and I recall a short story on that subject. However, things without functioning brains have no minds, no awareness and there's nobody home from what I can tell. Fertilized eggs immediately after ejaculation have no brains and it's perfectly acceptable to abort such things before a nervous system develops.

I get my views from logic and observable facts. It's preposterous to think that something without a brain has a mind. On the other hand you get your views from some lying preacher who talks shit about a stupid book of fables that anybody can interpret to mean whatever he or she wants.