Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to add, I actually like this. I would pay no money even if I was anti-abortion, as I do not know if this is just a sham. Hopefully we'll see some evidence that she's telling the truth. But assuming she is, this is a great way to test what the pro-lifers actually care about - life or control.
I find it hard to see how receiving exactly 1 million dollars has anything to do with the abortion, especially considering that the child will be given for adoption.
Sigvatr wrote: So she's using her unborn child as blackmail material?
Yeah, good thing we do have psychological councelling.
If it is a scam, it is terrible.
I can't know, but I do not think it is. It sounds plausible. If it isn't a scam, then it isn't actually blackmail at all. Abortion is not murder, not after 7 weeks on pregnancy. In the eyes of the law, it's as close to murder as not becoming pregnant at all is.
While staying anonymous keeps her safe from hate campaigns and real life threats, it also means a lot of people who would otherwise have paid won't do so because there is no credibility.
That post doesn't do her well. Not at all. She got unwillingly pregnant (and let's put the rape case aside because I assume that there's special clauses for rape abortions), she doesn't understand for why there's a waiting period and no "drive in" abortions and she then starts that highly questionable "auction", objectifying her unborn child, instrumentalizing it for her purposes.
I don't need CSI to get a basic psychological profile going for her...and it's not pretty.
Ashiraya wrote: Would 'give me one million or I won't get knocked up' be extortion?
Immaterial to the matter at hand. This lady is already "knocked up" to borrow your vernacular and is praying on the beliefs of people to obtain a financial benefit for the child (as pro-lifers will see it) that she claims that she does not wish to have.
I saw the thread title and quite liked the idea of some sort of service or site where pregnant women who were considering bringing the unborn (is that a neutral term or not? I was trying to find one and that was the best I could do) to term but financial difficulties were an obstruction could find people who were willing to put their money where their mouth was on abortion to save more lives together.
Then I read the OP.
It seems to me that those who believe there is no moral dilemma to abortion are having a go at those who do. Sort of a guilty pleasure. It's not terribly endearing.
Would 'give me one million or I won't get knocked up' be extortion?
Laws throughout history have made murder not murder. Just because a subjective legal definition says something don't make it true. As a farmer I'm well aware of the detail of pregnancy and conception. Sanitising murder doesn't make it right just because it doesn't feel like it.
Immaterial to the matter at hand. This lady is already "knocked up" to borrow your vernacular and is praying on the beliefs of people to obtain a financial benefit for the child (as pro-lifers will see it) that she claims that she does not wish to have.
Seems like it's to gauge how much people really care about life. If they do care, then she is willing to stick through the whole pregnancy and give it away for adoption afterwards (and also disproves her concern that pro-lifers want control, not life). If not, she goes for abortion as planned.
What is actually at risk here? What is the worst that could happen? She was going to do the abortion anyway.
As said, she could be a fraud (in which case I will be the first to condemn her) but I do not think she is, and if she is not...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knockagh wrote: Laws throughout history have made murder not murder. Just because a subjective legal definition says something don't make it true. As a farmer I'm well aware of the detail of pregnancy and conception. Sanitising murder doesn't make it right just because it doesn't feel like it.
Would 'give me one million or I won't get knocked up' be extortion?
Laws throughout history have made murder not murder. Just because a subjective legal definition says something don't make it true. As a farmer I'm well aware of the detail of pregnancy and conception. Sanitising murder doesn't make it right just because it doesn't feel like it.
Isn't murder the killing of another human, so at what point when the sperm hits the egg is it considered a human to you?
Sigvatr wrote: Are you arguing that there's no difference between never having been pregnant and having an abortion?
Even letting morals aside, there's lots of difference, even on very basic levels.
No difference that is relevant for this thread.
An extremely relevant actually. It's the "throw away" mentality behind it. That girl in the OP would love to just casually drop by at the doctor the same afternoon and get her uterus all-new and shiny. If you don't see a problem with having such an attitude...well...
Sigvatr wrote: An extremely relevant actually. It's the "throw away" mentality behind it. That girl in the OP would love to just casually drop by at the doctor the same afternoon and get her uterus all-new and shiny. If you don't see a problem with having such an attitude...well...
Quote where in the text she said that abortion wait should be instant.
Sigvatr wrote: An extremely relevant actually. It's the "throw away" mentality behind it. That girl in the OP would love to just casually drop by at the doctor the same afternoon and get her uterus all-new and shiny. If you don't see a problem with having such an attitude...well...
Quote where in the text she said that abortion wait should be instant.
I dare you.
Noticing the lack of familiarity with hyperboles. Dodgy. As stated above: she considers a 3 days wait too long. That's already telling enough. Add in the other stuff...I already stated...and you get the mindset of an irresponsible teenager.
Noticing the lack of familiarity with hyperboles. Dodgy. As stated above: she considers a 3 days wait too long. That's already telling enough. Add in the other stuff...I already stated...and you get the mindset of an irresponsible teenager.
No, I do not think it does at all.
What, to you, is long enough time?
Is not 24 hours enough to really think over it? It would be a third of the time.
Immaterial to the matter at hand. This lady is already "knocked up" to borrow your vernacular and is praying on the beliefs of people to obtain a financial benefit for the child (as pro-lifers will see it) that she claims that she does not wish to have.
Seems like it's to gauge how much people really care about life. If they do care, then she is willing to stick through the whole pregnancy and give it away for adoption afterwards (and also disproves her concern that pro-lifers want control, not life). If not, she goes for abortion as planned.
What is actually at risk here? What is the worst that could happen? She was going to do the abortion anyway.
As said, she could be a fraud (in which case I will be the first to condemn her) but I do not think she is, and if she is not...
That she is using the beliefs of people that she disagrees with to extort money from them under the threat that if they do not pay her the requested sum then she will have the abortion, that it is their fault, and by extension that they are hypocrites. The irony may be lost here, but the person with control is her. If person X is pro-life, but from a low socio-economic class and can only donate a small amount that is largely outside that person's control as X has done everything within their power to act in accordance with their beliefs but if others do not then the net result is the same as if X did not act.
Actually, this more seems like she is giving people a chance to disprove her own opinions rather than to prove them.
After all, as said above, anonymousness means that it's entirely possible people won't pay because they can't know if she's a fraud, so everyone knows that not reaching the goal will prove little. But reaching the goal on the other hand, will prove a lot.
Much as some may disagree. As its legal, and can be done in the open, by a doctor it keeps desperate women out of some back alley clinic that could kill you, main you or do un told damge to the human body.
It in a odd way saves lives and stops criminals gaining a while new income stream
Many simple outpatient procedures are done on the day of the initial consultation, sometimes even during said appointment itself.
Granted many do not have the same potential impacts on your life as aborting or continuing a pregnancy... but given that most of these consultations will happen at an abortion clinic, one would have thought the person would already be pretty sure of their course of action and have already considered the impact, thus being prepared to have the procedure then and there.
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
This lady is one sick puppy. It is a bit of a statement as well. "put your money where your mouth is". All well and good if the child is saved, but then what happens when people start to follow her foot steps? "I need money or the baby dies" funding campaigns will show up and after this likely to fail.
Means nothing to the women (as evident) because she loses nothing either way.
I wonder which state she is in. Texas recently passed a law (that got shut down by the courts) requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and to possess a facility equivalent to hospitals, both of which are extremely difficult, if not downright impossible.
Anyway, I get the message she is trying to send, but I disagree with the method. Certainly there must be adoption agencies or other organization that would help cover the costs of her pregnancy in order to pass the child on to a loving home? I'm not making any argument for or against abortion here, as, since I am neither a woman nor a deity, I do not believe I am qualified to form anything close to an informed opinion on the matter.
Ashiraya wrote: You're giving way too much weight to accusations.
Actually, this more seems like she is giving people a chance to disprove her own opinions rather than to prove them.
After all, as said above, anonymousness means that it's entirely possible people won't pay because they can't know if she's a fraud, so everyone knows that not reaching the goal will prove little. But reaching the goal on the other hand, will prove a lot.
She essentially extorting money from people. I hope you will forgive me if I don't think that such a course of action is constructive.
Reaching the goal will prove that emotional blackmail and (what may be considered) hostage taking works.
If she wants to have an abortion she should go ahead and schedule the procedure. This stunt is just beyond contempt.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
SilverMK2 wrote: Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Except the lady in question knows that for the majority of pro-lifers that life begins as conception. So in their view she is aborting a child.
SilverMK2 wrote: Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Except the lady in question knows that for the majority of pro-lifers that life begins as conception. So in their view she is aborting a child.
And I love harry potter. Unfortunately that does not mean magic is real.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
Here's a better idea. Instead of the abortion extortion route that this lady is going a better solution for all involved is work with an adoption agency, or a charity for infertile couples to help them adopt instead of this nonsense.
Meh, it's a publicity stunt that really just restates something that has been demanded from the pro-birth crowd for a long time: if you truly feel so strongly about being pro-life then put your money where your mouth is and be willing to provide for non-aborted children in the form of social support, state support, community resources, money for health and education, etc etc. Try to show that you actually give a damn about a strangers child once it passes past the labia instead of switching from "we should be able to decide what is best for the unborn child" to "why are you bothering us with your child, you birthed it now to take care of it". I'm pro-choice, but I think as a country we do a pretty shity job encouraging the choice to give birth.
d-usa wrote: Meh, it's a publicity stunt that really just restates something that has been demanded from the pro-birth crowd for a long time: if you truly feel so strongly about being pro-life then put your money where your mouth is and be willing to provide for non-aborted children in the form of social support, state support, community resources, money for health and education, etc etc. Try to show that you actually give a damn about a strangers child once it passes past the labia instead of switching from "we should be able to decide what is best for the unborn child" to "why are you bothering us with your child, you birthed it now to take care of it". I'm pro-choice, but I think as a country we do a pretty shity job encouraging the choice to give birth.
SilverMK2 wrote: And failing to reach it could suggest that people who are "pro life" are... not really?
So "Give me a million dollars or you're all frauds"?
SilverMK2 wrote: I believe that it mentions in the OP that she already has arranged one for the earliest legally permissable.
Then she can stop grandstanding and have the procedure
SilverMK2 wrote: I find it odd that it would be quicker to buy a hand gun than get an abortion...
This seems unrelated to the discussion at hand
SilverMK2 wrote: And I love harry potter. Unfortunately that does not mean magic is real.
Again I would ask how this is relevant to the discussion
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Meh, it's a publicity stunt that really just restates something that has been demanded from the pro-birth crowd for a long time: if you truly feel so strongly about being pro-life then put your money where your mouth is and be willing to provide for non-aborted children in the form of social support, state support, community resources, money for health and education, etc etc.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
We do, but often the same crowd that says "more control about what to do with your unborn child" also says "less taxes, less spending, bootstrap yourself and your child away from my money".
d-usa wrote: We do, but often the same crowd that says "more control about what to do with your unborn child" also says "less taxes, less spending, bootstrap yourself and your child away from my money".
If you want to get into painting with a broad brush does that mean that the other side says "Stay out of my bedroom unless I want tax payer funded birth control"? and also says "more taxes, more spending, more government dependence and here's a ribbon for participating"
Would 'give me one million or I won't get knocked up' be extortion?
Laws throughout history have made murder not murder. Just because a subjective legal definition says something don't make it true. As a farmer I'm well aware of the detail of pregnancy and conception. Sanitising murder doesn't make it right just because it doesn't feel like it.
Isn't murder the killing of another human, so at what point when the sperm hits the egg is it considered a human to you?
If you want to get techy here. It's murder when you kill someone that society doesn't want you to kill. It's legal to have an abortion, so not really murder.
I don't know what the message is meant to be here.
Sienisoturi wrote: Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?
Spoiler:
There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.
Such as?
Edit: and of course it matters. It being illegal means women who have one will go to jail, and the practice will be driven underground with zero regulation.
And it matters when people claim it is murder to try and sway others to their way of looking at the world while trying to hide the fact that most of the time the only argument they have against it is because "god says so".
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
Anyway the argument is very well played out.
It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.
Sienisoturi wrote: Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?
Spoiler:
There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.
Such as?
Edit: and of course it matters. It being illegal means women who have one will go to jail, and the practice will be driven underground with zero regulation.
And it matters when people claim it is murder to try and sway others to their way of looking at the world while trying to hide the fact that most of the time the only argument they have against it is because "god says so".
Ya more and less. It matters because murder is a thing that means things. So it's kind of important if something is murder or not.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
Anyway the argument is very well played out.
It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.
Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.
Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
Anyway the argument is very well played out.
It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.
Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.
Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
Anyway the argument is very well played out.
It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.
Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.
Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.
Her arguments are flawed because they hinge on the fact that the women did not chose to make the baby. Or involve rape. (personally I wouldn't abort a baby from rape if I where a women, since the baby was not at fault, but ultimately this is also a messy area).
The ones that do (I.E aborting a baby to save a mother) are hard to answer no matter what. Who lives? That is something I cannot answer nor wish to have an answer for. I know I would be disappointed if my wife chose to kill our child to save herself and it would likely end the marriage. As sad as it sounds the mother will die of natural causes and the baby lives, or the alternative is my child gets killed while my wife gets to live on. Horrible situation but I think there is no right answer in that one, only the choices of those involved.
In one example she goes back to a lot, the violent man on a death bed, is flawed. The argument should be "if a person was going to die unless you gave a kidney would you do it?" Adding in the violent man is unnecessary and means nothing in the case of an abortion. Now being forced to save this mans life is where the water is muddied, I would like to think any normal person would give a kidney to save someone else. However I also think any normal person can almost always avoid pregnancy so maybe I just have a high opinion of people.
However when it comes to the human mush, I believe abortion to be wrong. We would all rather secure our house with alarms and keys to protect it, because prevention is the best method of safety. People who ignore prevention (in this case pregnancy) should not terminate children. There is nothing that can sway me on that.
Ultimately it depends on if you consider to, as you put it, abort a human, is ok or not. No matter how you put it, the baby had no choice to be there, so why should the baby be punished for the choices of others? We all get upset when people who have no choice are punished for what they have no control over. But we happily punish people who make choices that are wrong. So why is the coin flipped in this situation?
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
Anyway the argument is very well played out.
It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.
Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.
Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.
Her arguments are flawed because they hinge on the fact that the women did not chose to make the baby. Or involve rape. (personally I wouldn't abort a baby from rape if I where a women, since the baby was not at fault, but ultimately this is also a messy area).
The ones that do (I.E aborting a baby to save a mother) are hard to answer no matter what. Who lives? That is something I cannot answer nor wish to have an answer for. I know I would be disappointed if my wife chose to kill our child to save herself and it would likely end the marriage. As sad as it sounds the mother will die of natural causes and the baby lives, or the alternative is my child gets killed while my wife gets to live on. Horrible situation but I think there is no right answer in that one, only the choices of those involved.
In one example she goes back to a lot, the violent man on a death bed, is flawed. The argument should be "if a person was going to die unless you gave a kidney would you do it?" Adding in the violent man is unnecessary and means nothing in the case of an abortion. Now being forced to save this mans life is where the water is muddied, I would like to think any normal person would give a kidney to save someone else. However I also think any normal person can almost always avoid pregnancy so maybe I just have a high opinion of people.
However when it comes to the human mush, I believe abortion to be wrong. We would all rather secure our house with alarms and keys to protect it, because prevention is the best method of safety. People who ignore prevention (in this case pregnancy) should not terminate children. There is nothing that can sway me on that.
Ultimately it depends on if you consider to, as you put it, abort a human, is ok or not. No matter how you put it, the baby had no choice to be there, so why should the baby be punished for the choices of others? We all get upset when people who have no choice are punished for what they have no control over. But we happily punish people who make choices that are wrong. So why is the coin flipped in this situation?
It doesn't really matter much if you consented or not. I mean even if you signed a contract, no court would force you to act as a human dialcis machine. (And you know odds are you didn't sign a contract before sex.)
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
Anyway the argument is very well played out.
It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.
Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.
Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.
Her arguments are flawed because they hinge on the fact that the women did not chose to make the baby. Or involve rape. (personally I wouldn't abort a baby from rape if I where a women, since the baby was not at fault, but ultimately this is also a messy area).
The ones that do (I.E aborting a baby to save a mother) are hard to answer no matter what. Who lives? That is something I cannot answer nor wish to have an answer for. I know I would be disappointed if my wife chose to kill our child to save herself and it would likely end the marriage. As sad as it sounds the mother will die of natural causes and the baby lives, or the alternative is my child gets killed while my wife gets to live on. Horrible situation but I think there is no right answer in that one, only the choices of those involved.
Those of you considering starting a family should have these discussions with your significant other beforehand. My wife and I came down on the side of saving her over the baby- even during childbirth. Callous as it sounds, you can always make more babies. Making that call in the moment would likely destroy a relationship.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...
The emotive argument is just that; emotive.
No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.
It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.
Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.
Anyway the argument is very well played out.
It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.
Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.
Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.
Her arguments are flawed because they hinge on the fact that the women did not chose to make the baby. Or involve rape. (personally I wouldn't abort a baby from rape if I where a women, since the baby was not at fault, but ultimately this is also a messy area).
The ones that do (I.E aborting a baby to save a mother) are hard to answer no matter what. Who lives? That is something I cannot answer nor wish to have an answer for. I know I would be disappointed if my wife chose to kill our child to save herself and it would likely end the marriage. As sad as it sounds the mother will die of natural causes and the baby lives, or the alternative is my child gets killed while my wife gets to live on. Horrible situation but I think there is no right answer in that one, only the choices of those involved.
Those of you considering starting a family should have these discussions with your significant other beforehand. My wife and I came down on the side of saving her over the baby- even during childbirth. Callous as it sounds, you can always make more babies. Making that call in the moment would likely destroy a relationship.
Already made it clear yea. We both agree baby first. If for whatever reason she doesn't want the baby then it will be handed to me and she will leave etc. Like not getting pregnant if you don;t want to, it requires a little planning.
Swastakowey wrote: No matter how you put it, the baby had no choice to be there, so why should the baby be punished for the choices of others?
And this is where your argument fails. The "baby" isn't being punished because the entire concept of punishment requires that the entity being punished have the capacity to understand that a punishment is happening and feel some kind of pain (physical/emotional/whatever). Am I "punishing" a weed that I remove from my garden? Am I "punishing" a cockroach that I kill? If not, why should it be "punishment" when the subject is a blob of cells that probably has less capacity to feel and understand pain than the bug?
It’s a really tacky stunt. Just awful. Everyone involved in conceiving of this really needs to take a look at themselves. I have no idea if there’s actually a real pregnancy at the centre of this but it doesn’t really matter, all that changes is the details of how is horrible, it is horrible either way.
I mean, abortion is a serious and complex issue and decent debate is hard enough at the best of times. When attention whores come in with trash like this it becomes completely impossible.
Swastakowey wrote: Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant?
Because the entire premise of opposition to abortion is "think of the children". You aren't paying for the children to remove responsibility from the biological parents, you're paying for the children for their own sake. You can't say "don't blame the child for the sins of the parents" when you're opposing abortion but then turn around and say "screw the kids, their parents should be taking care of this" when it's time to face the costs of having those children.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I mean, abortion is a serious and complex issue and decent debate is hard enough at the best of times.
I disagree. It's actually a very simple issue, it's just stubbornly opposed by people who should know better. There is no credible evidence at all that a fetus, at least at the point where virtually all voluntary abortions happen (or would happen if not for obstruction by anti-abortion zealots), has any capacity to feel or understand pain. In terms of what makes us "human" it is far down the scale below insects and other things that we kill without the slightest regret. So the issue of what the secular government should do is very simple: legalize all abortion without any limits, up until a point that is safely short of where the fetus begins to develop the ability to feel and understand pain and could credibly be considered a "person" in any sense but the genetic one. If some people wish to impose stricter limits on themselves for whatever reason then that's fine, but the government has no business enforcing those limits on anyone who doesn't want them.
Swastakowey wrote: No matter how you put it, the baby had no choice to be there, so why should the baby be punished for the choices of others?
And this is where your argument fails. The "baby" isn't being punished because the entire concept of punishment requires that the entity being punished have the capacity to understand that a punishment is happening and feel some kind of pain (physical/emotional/whatever). Am I "punishing" a weed that I remove from my garden? Am I "punishing" a cockroach that I kill? If not, why should it be "punishment" when the subject is a blob of cells that probably has less capacity to feel and understand pain than the bug?
Ya it's not a punishment. People aren't getting abortions because the fetus is evil an needs to be stopped or something. It's just a bad situation without many good options.
Sigvatr wrote: An extremely relevant actually. It's the "throw away" mentality behind it. That girl in the OP would love to just casually drop by at the doctor the same afternoon and get her uterus all-new and shiny. If you don't see a problem with having such an attitude...well...
It's called a "morning-after pill", and you don't even have to go to the doctor's for it.
Peregrine wrote: I disagree. It's actually a very simple issue, it's just stubbornly opposed by people who should know better. There is no credible evidence at all that a fetus, at least at the point where virtually all voluntary abortions happen (or would happen if not for obstruction by anti-abortion zealots), has any capacity to feel or understand pain. In terms of what makes us "human" it is far down the scale below insects and other things that we kill without the slightest regret. So the issue of what the secular government should do is very simple: legalize all abortion without any limits, up until a point that is safely short of where the fetus begins to develop the ability to feel and understand pain and could credibly be considered a "person" in any sense but the genetic one. If some people wish to impose stricter limits on themselves for whatever reason then that's fine, but the government has no business enforcing those limits on anyone who doesn't want them.
And of course, people who should know better keep thinking there’s a single, clear point where it goes from being not human to human. There is no such point. At best we can describe a continuum from a single cell to a human, but even that’s kind of an abstraction that relies us to make a lot of assumptions about what is actually important about the human experience. You mention pain for instance, but why would that matter – pigs can feel pain but we kill them just because bacon is tasty. Lots of other people would describe intelligence or personality or emotion or all sorts of other concepts, and the problem with all of them is that they slowly develop over a period of time.
There is no easy answer. Personally I believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester because of my own personal beliefs about what is and isn’t human life, but people who have a genuine belief that it begins at conception need to be respected well.
This doesn’t mean I respect all opinions on abortion, not by a long shot. Way too many opinions on abortion have little if any thought given to what is or isn’t a human life, and is instead all about a moral judgement of the woman. But the presence of terrible arguments doesn’t mean there are legitimate ones as well.
sebster wrote: And of course, people who should know better keep thinking there’s a single, clear point where it goes from being not human to human. There is no such point. At best we can describe a continuum from a single cell to a human, but even that’s kind of an abstraction that relies us to make a lot of assumptions about what is actually important about the human experience.
Yes, of course it's unclear. But the point is that the gray area over what it means to be human and when a fetus gets that status is not relevant to this discussion. Virtually all voluntary abortions happen well before any gray area, and the ones that don't are almost all due to the anti-abortion side preventing someone from getting an abortion earlier. Almost all of the later abortions where the gray area could be relevant happen because something has gone seriously wrong and abortion is an act of mercy and/or necessary to save the mother.
You mention pain for instance, but why would that matter – pigs can feel pain but we kill them just because bacon is tasty.
Sure, we kill pigs, but we also have rules about how we kill pigs that are intended to minimize their suffering. Capacity to feel pain certainly isn't the only thing that defines humanity, but it is a major factor in considering what entities deserve protection.
Lots of other people would describe intelligence or personality or emotion or all sorts of other concepts, and the problem with all of them is that they slowly develop over a period of time.
But, again, none of that slow development is relevant here. You can use those attributes to set the "when does a fetus become a person and deserve protection" point even later in the development process, but none of them will allow you to set it early enough to matter at all for this debate.
people who have a genuine belief that it begins at conception need to be respected well.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, we kill pigs, but we also have rules about how we kill pigs that are intended to minimize their suffering. Capacity to feel pain certainly isn't the only thing that defines humanity, but it is a major factor in considering what entities deserve protection.
It’s a factor, one of dozens, and a pretty weak measure in and of itself – a collection of cells is not meaningfully different to a collection of cells with a pain receptor. And that’s the point, any way of assessing ‘is this a human life’ is inherently weak, and as such people should stop pretending they have the absolute complete answer for when life begins, and that everyone who disagrees must be wrong.
If someone has a genuine belief that life begins with conception, they have a different view to you and me, but that doesn’t make them wrong.
But, again, none of that slow development is relevant here. You can use those attributes to set the "when does a fetus become a person and deserve protection" point even later in the development process, but none of them will allow you to set it early enough to matter at all for this debate.
Only if we assume that is the only way life is defined. And when we realise it’s a subjective and very imperfect measure, we need to show a bit of humility and realise other people have their own worthwhile measures.
sebster wrote: It’s a factor, one of dozens, and a pretty weak measure in and of itself – a collection of cells is not meaningfully different to a collection of cells with a pain receptor. And that’s the point, any way of assessing ‘is this a human life’ is inherently weak, and as such people should stop pretending they have the absolute complete answer for when life begins, and that everyone who disagrees must be wrong.
Again, the point is that it doesn't matter what (reasonable) definition you use for when life begins. Whether it's capacity for suffering, intelligence, etc, it all happens long after the vast majority of abortions.
If someone has a genuine belief that life begins with conception, they have a different view to you and me, but that doesn’t make them wrong.
Sure it does, because they have no evidence for their belief besides "god said so". Let's consider an analogy: there's a glass of water on the table, and it's about half full. We can argue about how close to 50% capacity the glass has to be to count as "half full", we can devise all kinds of measurement systems for figuring out with greater and greater precision exactly what percentage of the glass' capacity is full of water, etc. But if someone comes along and says "the glass is empty" the only response is to laugh at them.
Same thing here. There are valid things to debate about when exactly "personhood" begins and how to define it, but none of those arguments support the idea that it begins at conception. There's no observed evidence, there's no coherent philosophical definition, there is only a stubborn insistence that a particular religious belief must be true. And there's simply no reason to take that kind of unsupported claim seriously.
Peregrine wrote: Sure it does, because they have no evidence for their belief besides "god said so". Let's consider an analogy: there's a glass of water on the table, and it's about half full. We can argue about how close to 50% capacity the glass has to be to count as "half full", we can devise all kinds of measurement systems for figuring out with greater and greater precision exactly what percentage of the glass' capacity is full of water, etc. But if someone comes along and says "the glass is empty" the only response is to laugh at them.
Actually, no. It’s more like if we all decided that as a glass gets filled with water, it becomes important that we must never let it spill.
You say that if the glass reaches 50% filled it must be protected. I think it’s when the glass is 39%. We can and do debate this all the time. Then someone comes along and says they think its when a single drop of water enters the glass. And we turn around and say they’re ridiculous and completely wrong.
sebster wrote: You say that if the glass reaches 50% filled it must be protected. I think it’s when the glass is 39%. We can and do debate this all the time. Then someone comes along and says they think its when a single drop of water enters the glass. And we turn around and say they’re ridiculous and completely wrong.
The point you're missing is that we're not just arguing over abstract percentages. We have a reason for protecting the glass at 50%/39%/etc, we don't just pick some random percentage like we're picking our favorite pizza toppings or sports teams. For example, we can't let it spill because it's sitting on the desk next to my laptop and a spill could damage expensive electronics. So we can argue about whether or not 50% or 39% is enough water for the spill to damage my laptop, and we can't be certain enough about the exact percentage required to cause damage that we can conclusively say that either of us is right. But the guy saying "one drop is enough" is obviously wrong. One drop in the glass probably won't even get my desk wet and is no threat to my laptop. And no amount of screaming "GOD SAID ONE DROP" is going to make their claim any more persuasive. So why should we do anything but laugh at that guy?
Alternatively, consider evolution vs. creationism. There is a lot of ongoing debate about specific details of how various species evolved, how evolution selects genes, etc. And some of those questions don't have clear answers yet. However, none of that means that we should take young-earth creationism seriously.
In the case of abortion there are valid arguments for the fetus becoming a "person" after crossing various thresholds of development and acquiring various qualities that define what it means to be human, but all of them involve things that happen long after the vast majority of abortions. The only arguments that point to it becoming a "person" at conception are unsupported assertions of "GOD SAID SO". The fact that we can have reasonable debate over the exact details does not mean that we have to take every tinfoil hat theory seriously.
Peregrine wrote: Alternatively, consider evolution vs. creationism. There is a lot of ongoing debate about specific details of how various species evolved, how evolution selects genes, etc. And some of those questions don't have clear answers yet. However, none of that means that we should take young-earth creationism seriously.
No, because this isn’t a debate about scientific reality. While we might scientifically study the development of the unborn child, that doesn’t mean the answer to when a human life is formed is a purely scientific question. There are other ways to address that issue that aren’t purely scientific, and while a purely scientific approach is fine, the fact that even the scientific approach can’t produce a clear, objective answer makes it that much harder to state that other approaches are wrong.
There is no easy answer. Personally I believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester because of my own personal beliefs about what is and isn’t human life, but people who have a genuine belief that it begins at conception need to be respected well.
They should be respected in as much as if they believe life starts at conception, then they don't have to get an abortion. People who believe a bundle of cells doesn't constitute life shouldn't not be able to have an abortion just because some other people think life starts a bit earlier. People can enforce whatever limits they want on it for themselves, but they shouldn't be able to apply those limits to everyone. A woman you don't know having an abortion has literally no effect on you whatsoever. There's a reason that side of the argument is called 'pro choice' not 'pro abortion'.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
The term 'removing a tumour'....... The language of the nazis the soviets and most murderous despotic regimes trying to sanitise murder to make the population feel better about themselves throughout the ages.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
The term 'removing a tumour'....... The language of the nazis the soviets and most murderous despotic regimes trying to sanitise murder to make the population feel better about themselves throughout the ages.
There is nothing new under the sky.
Tragic beyond words.
Righttttt except he's talking about removing a cluster of cells from the body which is literally what removing a tumour is, not talking about wiping certain types of people off the planet.
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
The term 'removing a tumour'....... The language of the nazis the soviets and most murderous despotic regimes trying to sanitise murder to make the population feel better about themselves throughout the ages.
There is nothing new under the sky.
Tragic beyond words.
Godwin! Godwin! Godwin!
Except in this case the so called "tumour" is an unfeeling, nonsapient cluster of cells feeding off the mother much like a parasite, instead of a sapient human being capable of feeling pain and having intelligence.
sebster wrote: It’s a really tacky stunt. Just awful. Everyone involved in conceiving of this really needs to take a look at themselves. I have no idea if there’s actually a real pregnancy at the centre of this but it doesn’t really matter, all that changes is the details of how is horrible, it is horrible either way.
I mean, abortion is a serious and complex issue and decent debate is hard enough at the best of times. When attention whores come in with trash like this it becomes completely impossible.
Thank you! I've grown from a teenager that berated a friend for remaining neutral on the debate after he acknowledged that he felt fetuses were human to respecting both pro-choice opinions that disagree a fetus is human and those that agree but feel the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
I cannot understand those people that pretend there is nothing to discuss.
That said if I was confident I could get $1 Mil, I'd do probably be willing to do something pretty crass myself. I guess what I'm saying is that this kind of a dick way to make a statement, but an understandable way of being a dick.
That girl in the OP would love to just casually drop by at the doctor the same afternoon and get her uterus all-new and shiny. If you don't see a problem with having such an attitude...well...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to add, I actually like this. I would pay no money even if I was anti-abortion, as I do not know if this is just a sham. Hopefully we'll see some evidence that she's telling the truth. But assuming she is, this is a great way to test what the pro-lifers actually care about - life or control.
In contrast, I have a list of people I'd nominate for retroactive ones. Anyone want to crowdfund that?
Ashiraya wrote: Would 'give me one million or I won't get knocked up' be extortion?
Immaterial to the matter at hand. This lady is already "knocked up" to borrow your vernacular and is praying on the beliefs of people to obtain a financial benefit for the child (as pro-lifers will see it) that she claims that she does not wish to have.
Surely pro-lifers would be glad to pay to save an abortion.
Otherwise it seems to me they just want to punish women for getting pregnant.
Surely pro-lifers would be glad to pay to save an abortion.
Otherwise it seems to me they just want to punish women for getting pregnant.
Yes, absolutely we would.
Personally, I am spending my money to provide vaccines to the little humans that are already here (India, friends of mine run an orphanage there) and trying to make the world a better place to be born into. I've volunteered at a recovery site for women who have no family to care for them and have recently given birth (raking the yard, hey it needed to be done).
The well is poisoned for discussion if the "do pro-lifers care" standard is an anonymous go-fund-me page that only a.... very trusting person would believe the poster is actually going to deliver on their promise. Furthermore, even if the post is 100% honest the returns of donating to care centers and contraception are going to be a hundred fold higher than giving it all to one person.
Your obvious cheap shot isn't even founded in reality here.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely pro-lifers would be glad to pay to save an abortion.
Otherwise it seems to me they just want to punish women for getting pregnant.
There were other comments that followed this exchange that dealt with this point;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: That she is using the beliefs of people that she disagrees with to extort money from them under the threat that if they do not pay her the requested sum then she will have the abortion, that it is their fault, and by extension that they are hypocrites. The irony may be lost here, but the person with control is her. If person X is pro-life, but from a low socio-economic class and can only donate a small amount that is largely outside that person's control as X has done everything within their power to act in accordance with their beliefs but if others do not then the net result is the same as if X did not act.
If you want to talk about punishment this lady is using the beliefs of others to hand over money or she will punish them by making them accomplices to her decision. In the interests of disclosure I lean a lot more heavily pro-choice and I find this pathetic. This entire stunt is an appeal to emotion fallacy with a false dilemma (give me money or you're a hypocrite) thrown in for good measure.
ImAGeek wrote: They should be respected in as much as if they believe life starts at conception, then they don't have to get an abortion. People who believe a bundle of cells doesn't constitute life shouldn't not be able to have an abortion just because some other people think life starts a bit earlier. People can enforce whatever limits they want on it for themselves, but they shouldn't be able to apply those limits to everyone.
That line of arguing doesn't work because if you believe its a person, then accepting it as a personal choice is kind of ridiculous. Because then you would believe it was murder.
I mean, I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with abortion because I don't believe it is a person, but it really shouldn't be too hard to understand the case for banning it made by people who do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrabb wrote: Thank you! I've grown from a teenager that berated a friend for remaining neutral on the debate after he acknowledged that he felt fetuses were human to respecting both pro-choice opinions that disagree a fetus is human and those that agree but feel the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
I cannot understand those people that pretend there is nothing to discuss.
Absolutely. I used to be strident as a teenager as well, before realising over time it's a really complicated issue and no-one has a good answer. Well, except the people who work to effectively reduce unwanted pregnancies, those people have things figured out.
ImAGeek wrote: They should be respected in as much as if they believe life starts at conception, then they don't have to get an abortion. People who believe a bundle of cells doesn't constitute life shouldn't not be able to have an abortion just because some other people think life starts a bit earlier. People can enforce whatever limits they want on it for themselves, but they shouldn't be able to apply those limits to everyone.
That line of arguing doesn't work because if you believe its a person, then accepting it as a personal choice is kind of ridiculous. Because then you would believe it was murder.
I mean, I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with abortion because I don't believe it is a person, but it really shouldn't be too hard to understand the case for banning it made by people who do.
I don't really care if they think it's a person. It's a personal choice where life starts, just because they've arbitrarily decided that a bundle of cells that can't feel anything is life, doesn't mean they should be able to enforce that on people who don't. I'm not stopping them not getting an abortion, they shouldn't be able to stop women who they don't even know being able to get one.
Personally, I would not pay a dime to stop an abortion.
But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.
In the same way that if a religious dictatorship offered to halt the execution of a condemned "Blasphemer," I would donate everything I possibly could to do so.
So... If Evangelicals really buy into their own bs, they are forced to either pay up, or shut up (or make up an even more insane reason to ignore it).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
This lady is one sick puppy. It is a bit of a statement as well. "put your money where your mouth is". All well and good if the child is saved, but then what happens when people start to follow her foot steps? "I need money or the baby dies" funding campaigns will show up and after this likely to fail.
Means nothing to the women (as evident) because she loses nothing either way.
This is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences" and she is essentially forcing Evangelicals, and others who (delusional) believe that a bundle of cells is a "Human Being," to face up to their beliefs.
That she might lead the way to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands or millions of others to do the EXACT Same Thing is probably the best thing about this.
Those other campaigns may fail.
But that will just highlight the obscene absurdity of the so-called "Pro-Life" crowd to throw untold Millions of Dollars into campaigns to criminalize abortion while allowing what they claim to be "children" to be what they claim to be "murdered" when they have the means to stop such actions.
If a group CANNOT or WILL NOT "Put their money where their mouth is," then it just exposes their beliefs as hypocrisy, and thus not to be taken seriously (which most people don't as it is).
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
That something is "Potentially Human" is irrelevant when giving ethical or moral weight to it in this case.
That is because EVERY CELL in your body right now is potentially a human being[/i}.
We can take ANY cell, and induce pluripotency, turning it into a gamete (Sperm or Egg Cell), and then that in turn will [i]eventually become a human. In fact, you do not even need two people to create a viable embryo, you can create both sperm and egg from the same person's cells.
So, are we to shed tears for every skin cell that dies, simply because it is potentially a human being?
And this does not even begin to address the untold MILLIONS of viable zygotes and embryos yearly that self-abort, yet would have eventually "become a human being."
A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).
This does admit to a continuum that exists in LATE Pregnancy.
HOWEVER. . .
Even in late Pregnancy, Bodily Autonomy Trumps ANY/i] possible rights the fetus might have as a "Child" prior to natural delivery.
No one can be forced to donate bodily build, tissue, or organs, [i]even if they have already begun to do so, and withdrawal will result in the death of the Donee.
This means that a pregnant woman can, at any time, withdraw the donation of her fluids, tissues, and organs from the support of the fetus, even if she has only days until delivery (technically - this is still being legislated, but in other advanced countries they have come down in favor of the Mother's rights over the rights of any fetus).
If it is in the latter weeks of the pregnancy, though, it is usually easier to just deliver the baby, and be done with it, but there do remain rare conditions where it becomes a choice between the mother and the fetus, and the mother needs to win out, because if she dies, so does any possible child.
The so-called "Pro-Life" arguments are NOT based upon either Science or Facts of any kind.
They are nothing more than an emotional appeal based upon a faith-based ideology that has no evidential support for its claims.
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Besides it being a false dilemma, there are a few concerns about the legitimacy of the claim that would prevent someone from giving to this. I wouldn't personally give to this but would definitely do it for a person I actually knew that needed the funds. Hell, I'd even adopt the kid probably.
A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).
So... someone who is born without strong enough lungs to breathe on their own is able to be murdered by their parents? The human brain doesn't arrive at "adulthood" until you're in your 20s.
You're still arguing murder is viable "at a certain point".
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".
A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.
A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.
Personally, I would not pay a dime to stop an abortion.
But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.
In the same way that if a religious dictatorship offered to halt the execution of a condemned "Blasphemer," I would donate everything I possibly could to do so.
So... If Evangelicals really buy into their own bs, they are forced to either pay up, or shut up (or make up an even more insane reason to ignore it).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
This lady is one sick puppy. It is a bit of a statement as well. "put your money where your mouth is". All well and good if the child is saved, but then what happens when people start to follow her foot steps? "I need money or the baby dies" funding campaigns will show up and after this likely to fail.
Means nothing to the women (as evident) because she loses nothing either way.
This is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences" and she is essentially forcing Evangelicals, and others who (delusional) believe that a bundle of cells is a "Human Being," to face up to their beliefs.
That she might lead the way to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands or millions of others to do the EXACT Same Thing is probably the best thing about this.
Those other campaigns may fail.
But that will just highlight the obscene absurdity of the so-called "Pro-Life" crowd to throw untold Millions of Dollars into campaigns to criminalize abortion while allowing what they claim to be "children" to be what they claim to be "murdered" when they have the means to stop such actions.
If a group CANNOT or WILL NOT "Put their money where their mouth is," then it just exposes their beliefs as hypocrisy, and thus not to be taken seriously (which most people don't as it is).
MB
Since you seem so self-righteous and all-knowing, pray tell me, what is the difference between one living clump of cells and the other, that you'd call one a human but not the other?
Swastakowey wrote: I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.
Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).
Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.
Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.
Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.
That something is "Potentially Human" is irrelevant when giving ethical or moral weight to it in this case.
That is because EVERY CELL in your body right now is potentially a human being[/i}.
We can take ANY cell, and induce pluripotency, turning it into a gamete (Sperm or Egg Cell), and then that in turn will [i]eventually become a human. In fact, you do not even need two people to create a viable embryo, you can create both sperm and egg from the same person's cells.
So, are we to shed tears for every skin cell that dies, simply because it is potentially a human being?
No, because a skin cell will never be a human being. Yes, it is possible with science to turn a skin cell into one of the building bricks needed to produce the cells that will grow into a human being, but the skin cell itself will not grow into a human being, neither will a sperm or egg cell. It is the clump of cells that forms after fertilisation of an egg cell with a sperm cell that grows into an adult human and that is thus already human. "Human" is not something that suddenly gets assigned to a living being at a random point, it is there from the beginning, the beginning being a fertilised egg cell.
BeAfraid wrote: A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).
So a human on temporary life support after an accident is no longer human? Nice one there.
BeAfraid wrote: This does admit to a continuum that exists in LATE Pregnancy.
HOWEVER. . .
Even in late Pregnancy, Bodily Autonomy Trumps ANY/i] possible rights the fetus might have as a "Child" prior to natural delivery.
No one can be forced to donate bodily build, tissue, or organs, [i]even if they have already begun to do so, and withdrawal will result in the death of the Donee.
This means that a pregnant woman can, at any time, withdraw the donation of her fluids, tissues, and organs from the support of the fetus, even if she has only days until delivery (technically - this is still being legislated, but in other advanced countries they have come down in favor of the Mother's rights over the rights of any fetus).
That is just a matter of personal opinion.
If it is in the latter weeks of the pregnancy, though, it is usually easier to just deliver the baby, and be done with it, but there do remain rare conditions where it becomes a choice between the mother and the fetus, and the mother needs to win out, because if she dies, so does any possible child.
BeAfraid wrote: The so-called "Pro-Life" arguments are NOT based upon either Science or Facts of any kind.
They are nothing more than an emotional appeal based upon a faith-based ideology that has no evidential support for its claims.
MB
You might as well be talking about your own views here, especially since you present your own personal opinion as fact and seem pretty keen on enforcing this on others. You are doing here what is called "pseudoscience."
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".
A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.
A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.
So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?
This means that a pregnant woman can, at any time, withdraw the donation of her fluids, tissues, and organs from the support of the fetus, even if she has only days until delivery (technically - this is still being legislated, but in other advanced countries they have come down in favor of the Mother's rights over the rights of any fetus).
Thats simply not true. In fact many countries are actually moving the last date back in view of new evidence on the date at which a fetus is viable.
If it is in the latter weeks of the pregnancy, though, it is usually easier to just deliver the baby, and be done with it, but there do remain rare conditions where it becomes a choice between the mother and the fetus, and the mother needs to win out, because if she dies, so does any possible child.
The Pro-Life argument is not about abortion where there is a risk to the mothers life. Almost no one is saying "we must risk mother and child dieing and continue at all costs!"
The so-called "Pro-Life" arguments are NOT based upon either Science or Facts of any kind.
They are nothing more than an emotional appeal based upon a faith-based ideology that has no evidential support for its claims.
That is also not true. They have a different opinion on at what point an egg and sperm becomes a human. For some it is at the point at which fertilization happens. Your view of "It's not until natural childbirth" is far more extreme and based on no science, or legal opinion at all.
So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?
If a parent carrying a baby in a baby carrier slips and falls we don't charge them with involuntary manslaughter? No, so why would that be any diffrent?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".
A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.
A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.
So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?
I would say no. I am not an expert on law in my own country and even less so on yours. However if a siamese twin trips and causes the death of their attached sibling is this manslaughter? When is someone is reliant on you to the point that they are a part of you, is tripping over accidentally killing somone? Because technically they both slipped and one died, because they are one?
I know no reasonable person would charge a pregant women of manslaughter because through unfortunate circumstance her baby died for obvious reasons.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".
A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.
A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.
So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?
I would say no. I am not an expert on law in my own country and even less so on yours. However if a siamese twin trips and causes the death of their attached sibling is this manslaughter? When is someone is reliant on you to the point that they are a part of you, is tripping over accidentally killing somone? Because technically they both slipped and one died, because they are one?
I know no reasonable person would charge a pregant women of manslaughter because through unfortunate circumstance her baby died for obvious reasons.
But if they are one, then why is that person not allowed bodily autonomy?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".
A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.
A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.
So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?
I would say no. I am not an expert on law in my own country and even less so on yours. However if a siamese twin trips and causes the death of their attached sibling is this manslaughter? When is someone is reliant on you to the point that they are a part of you, is tripping over accidentally killing somone? Because technically they both slipped and one died, because they are one?
I know no reasonable person would charge a pregant women of manslaughter because through unfortunate circumstance her baby died for obvious reasons.
But if they are one, then why is that person not allowed bodily autonomy?
They aren't one... Just so happens that one person is 100% reliant on someone else to the point they are apart of them. Still 2 people, just like conjoined twins, they just happen to be 100% reliant on each other to the point they are one person (as in they have to do things together and everything one does directly effects the other etc). If one trips they both trip etc.
Personally, I would not pay a dime to stop an abortion.
But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.
MB
Thats just stupid. It ignores basic economics. People who care are adopting or otherwise providing charity work where it will do better.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Besides it being a false dilemma, there are a few concerns about the legitimacy of the claim that would prevent someone from giving to this. I wouldn't personally give to this but would definitely do it for a person I actually knew that needed the funds. Hell, I'd even adopt the kid probably.
A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).
So... someone who is born without strong enough lungs to breathe on their own is able to be murdered by their parents? The human brain doesn't arrive at "adulthood" until you're in your 20s.
You're still arguing murder is viable "at a certain point".
"Will be" ≠ "Is"
And, no, I am not trying to re-define Murder.
It isn't murder to destroy a lump of cells, regardless of what they MIGHT BE at some point.
Again, REGARDLESS of what you wish to call it is irrelevant.
You want to say it is murder, Fine[i/i] then be ready for the avalanche of redefinitions of other words to follow. But recognize that it does not matter [i]WHAT you call the termination of a pregnancy, the life of the fetus NEVER trumps the life or choices of the mother. [i]EVER![i/]
SlaveToDorkness wrote: It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.
Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".
A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.
A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.
Then every cell in your body is a distinct human that I can sue you for not allowing to come to term.
You would then be dismembered, reduced to individual cells, and those cells induced to form zygotes, and brought to term.
Trying to play the "It is a human" card on a single cell (a gamete at that) leads to no life anywhere, because nothing can ever become multicellular without it being reduced again to a zygote to form the "Humans" each cell represents.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrabb wrote: I think a better question at this point is:
"How much would you pay to stop this thread?"
I am bailing before I get burnt from the Stoopid over more than just my face and hands.
It isn't murder to destroy a lump of cells, regardless of what they MIGHT BE at some point.
What you wish to call it is irrelevant.
Left alone a fetus grows to be a human. Arguing that it won't and "it's just a bunch of cells" is stoopid.
See how crappy an argument that makes? Having a different opinion from someone doesn't make either one of you stupid or irrelevant. It makes you different. Like the difference between a fetus and a lump of cells.
BeAfraid wrote: But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.
Once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
Resolving a hostage situation by giving the hostage taker what they want encourages others to use the same tactic. It's why French citizens are more likely to be killed as hostages even though their country is one of the most willing to pay for their freedom. That's why paying this donkey-cave her ransom is the last thing I'd do if I wanted to save the lives of unborn children.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Do you have a link for this? I don't disbelieve you, I just want to read the reasoning behind this tawdry stunt.
If you go to the blackmail page itself, it says the ransom note was an excerpt from some novel.
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Animals-Novel-Paperback-July/dp/B010TSP3BS It has some glowing reviews..... seven reviews....all one star
"You shouldn't tarnish the pro-choice movement with your nonsense."
"It's rare that I am so irritated by an advertising strategy, but this is beyond the pale. WTF guys, WTF?"
"I agree that the "advertising" of this book by pretending the author was a woman intending to have an abortion was disgusting. "Chad Kultgen has established himself as one of the most honest and candid chroniclers of human relationships working today."
Obviously he's showing us he's not honest by pretending to be a woman having an abortion. Disgusting. Of course, what do we expect in today's world where self promotion is valued above anything like honor or actual honesty?"
"The abortion stunt was sick. I hope it brings you everything you were hoping for. Posting "I have every intention of having an abortion," the woman writes anonymously in an essay posted to the site, "but I'm giving you a chance to stop it." to try and get people to buy this book is morally wrong."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Kultgen "Critics have maintained that his books have a tendency, when utilizing male protagonists, to come across as misogynistic and trite. Kultgen claims to frequently, "get messages from people who didn't enjoy the books. They tend to be a bit irate and usually take the time to tell me that I'm the worst living writer, the world would be a better place without me, I have no understanding of women or all of my books should be burned."[4] The New York Times published a balanced piece on his work in 2011, based on interviews with him, and including people who claimed that his works were based on their personas.[5] Penthouse has called his work, "appalling," while Maxim has labelled it, "pure filth.""
The confusion here on abortion is the difference between legal personhood (sentience/sapience) and the genetic identification of humanity. Just being human doesn't grant you full rights, this is why a mentally challenged person is typically counted as a minor, same with the elderly with power and attorney and what-not (this is also why across much of human civilization, being called "simple", a "moron", an "idiot", etc is such a great insult, as we often judge the worth of man by intelligence). The same with fetuses, only to a more dramatic level as they literally are non-sentient. Their only value comes from potential, and otherwise their lives are without value if cut short before birth. To quote John Marshal-
"I still have the hammer and the anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!"
While this was in regards to his five year old son being taken by King Stephen, it holds relevance to the issue of abortion as new fetuses can be created with little fuss to replace any losses that either happen naturally or unnaturally. And as a fetus for most of its existence is not self aware, no harm can be done as there is no feeling, no hurt to be had on its part as the abortion is executed. It ensures the father and mother can have a child at a later time when they are financially able to support it (and not say, be burdened with an accident or stupidity on their part, broken condom or drunk sex), and it does not lead to a painful and miserable life on the part of the future child being born and put up for adoption and thus shoved into the foster care system (a horrible existence best avoided entirely by cutting the strand of fate prior to birth). Or in the case of diseased persons such as myself burdened with hereditary genetic, yeah you don't want to pass those down on the line, and aborting a baby with such DNA would be a mercy more than anything else.
Although this appears to be a fake, in this scenario it would be far better for the woman to go through with the abortion if she cannot financially support the child, and there is no family willing to raise it. It would be chucked into the foster system, and the word "dysfunctional" does not even begin to describe it. Most likely the kid would have a fairly miserable life and have poor chances for great success. Better a non-sentient fetus is purged than a sentient child goes through a hellish childhood that may produce a broken being.
In short-
-It is illogical to abort when there is either family willing to take the child, you are financially able to support it, or just in general able to give the child a good life without ruining yourself and need not surrender it to the foster system.
-It is logical to abort the fetus if it is diseased and damned to a miserable existence for its days in sentience, there is no family to rear it properly and thus it will be surrendered, or obviously the mother's life is in danger/spawned by rape.
-In times of great distress for the species, ban all abortions if we ever suffer a severe decline in numbers that threatens our survival, and encourage abortions large-scale if the human population expands beyond its limits to help curtail growth.
ImAGeek wrote: I don't really care if they think it's a person. It's a personal choice where life starts, just because they've arbitrarily decided that a bundle of cells that can't feel anything is life, doesn't mean they should be able to enforce that on people who don't. I'm not stopping them not getting an abortion, they shouldn't be able to stop women who they don't even know being able to get one.
Yes, it's a personal choice. But what you're missing is that if you have made a personal choice that it is a life, then abortion is killing a human life. Nowhere on earth considers killing another person a 'personal choice', because holy fething gak of course it isn't.
And so, it really shouldn't be too hard to realise that if a person considers it a human life, then they would want to protect it just as they'd protect any other human life.
Sienisoturi wrote: Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?
Spoiler:
There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.
Such as?
In countries like Russia abortions are so common that the birth rates are suffering because of which limiting their number might be advantageous.
Yet globally the population continues to climb. And I very much doubt that people opposing abortion do so from the fear that the human race will be depopulated if abortion is legal.
Nor is the population of Russia shrinking, it is currently estimated to be growing at +0.2%.
Sienisoturi wrote: Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?
Spoiler:
There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.
Such as?
In countries like Russia abortions are so common that the birth rates are suffering because of which limiting their number might be advantageous.
Yet globally the population continues to climb. And I very much doubt that people opposing abortion do so from the fear that the human race will be depopulated if abortion is legal.
Global overpopulation does not mean that there can't be local underpopulation.
Nor is the population of Russia shrinking, it is currently estimated to be growing at +0.2%.
Global overpopulation does not mean that there can't be local underpopulation.
And yet in the grand scheme of things local fluctuations are not really significant. As can be seen by the stabilisation of thr Russian population and a return to growth.
Yes and action against abortions has been taken.
I am not convinced that is the only reason that the population growth has improved or indeed that much has actually changed on the Russian stance to abortion
The depopulation of Russia was caused by a combination of massive migration out of the country and a significantly higher than normal death rate in adults. Combined with huge ecconomic and social problems, this expressed lower fertility rates (pregnancies rather than live births) too as people simply did not want to have children in such a glum period.
Sienisoturi wrote: In countries like Russia abortions are so common that the birth rates are suffering because of which limiting their number might be advantageous.
It's a really gakky thing to determine personal issues like childbirth based on vague national goals like population.
Sienisoturi wrote: Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?
Spoiler:
There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.
Such as?
In countries like Russia abortions are so common that the birth rates are suffering because of which limiting their number might be advantageous.
Yet globally the population continues to climb. And I very much doubt that people opposing abortion do so from the fear that the human race will be depopulated if abortion is legal.
Global overpopulation does not mean that there can't be local underpopulation.
Nor is the population of Russia shrinking, it is currently estimated to be growing at +0.2%.
Yes and action against abortions has been taken.
Can you explain the current population crisis in Japan and how abortion effects it?
Full Disclosure: i am a screaming left wing liberal on most things, including pro-choice. It's her decision in my eyes, I have zero say, if she keeps the baby or not. By "I", I mean proverbially "anyone but her".
That said, political statement or not, putting up a donation page to save a fetus is fething horrible and callous. You should either have the child because its the right decision, or not have it, because that's the right decision, for the person. It should not come down to an, albeit eloquently worded, "Put your Money where your Mouth is."
Haight wrote: I get her point, but its in horribly bad taste.
Full Disclosure: i am a screaming left wing liberal on most things, including pro-choice. It's her decision in my eyes, I have zero say, if she keeps the baby or not. By "I", I mean proverbially "anyone but her".
That said, political statement or not, putting up a donation page to save a fetus is fething horrible and callous. You should either have the child because its the right decision, or not have it, because that's the right decision, for the person. It should not come down to an, albeit eloquently worded, "Put your Money where your Mouth is."
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Do you have a link for this? I don't disbelieve you, I just want to read the reasoning behind this tawdry stunt.
If you go to the blackmail page itself, it says the ransom note was an excerpt from some novel.
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Animals-Novel-Paperback-July/dp/B010TSP3BS It has some glowing reviews..... seven reviews....all one star
"You shouldn't tarnish the pro-choice movement with your nonsense."
"It's rare that I am so irritated by an advertising strategy, but this is beyond the pale. WTF guys, WTF?"
"I agree that the "advertising" of this book by pretending the author was a woman intending to have an abortion was disgusting. "Chad Kultgen has established himself as one of the most honest and candid chroniclers of human relationships working today."
Obviously he's showing us he's not honest by pretending to be a woman having an abortion. Disgusting. Of course, what do we expect in today's world where self promotion is valued above anything like honor or actual honesty?"
"The abortion stunt was sick. I hope it brings you everything you were hoping for. Posting "I have every intention of having an abortion," the woman writes anonymously in an essay posted to the site, "but I'm giving you a chance to stop it." to try and get people to buy this book is morally wrong."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Kultgen "Critics have maintained that his books have a tendency, when utilizing male protagonists, to come across as misogynistic and trite. Kultgen claims to frequently, "get messages from people who didn't enjoy the books. They tend to be a bit irate and usually take the time to tell me that I'm the worst living writer, the world would be a better place without me, I have no understanding of women or all of my books should be burned."[4] The New York Times published a balanced piece on his work in 2011, based on interviews with him, and including people who claimed that his works were based on their personas.[5] Penthouse has called his work, "appalling," while Maxim has labelled it, "pure filth.""
What was the end result of a marketing campaign for a novel in which a fictional woman was threatening to abort a fictional fetus unless a fictional million dollars was paid into a fictional bank account?
