Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.

BINGO!

Then why are they harvesting organs? I mean, if it's just a blob of cells.....

 cincydooley wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.

BINGO!

Then why are they harvesting organs? I mean, if it's just a blob of cells.....

Yeah, "organs" is actually a misleading term that was used from the start; of course a fetus in the first trimester has nothing approximating a working lung, but it has the equivalent proliferating stem cells that might be useful in scientific research. While I'm on the fence on the whole thing, I think it is only appropriate to use the terminology of "donating tissue" instead of "harvesting organs", because it's simply more close to what is happening.

Certainly this isn't a anti-choice/pro-choice thread in disguise. This isn't a discussion that has been had many times before, and is new and interesting.

That video is a great piece of propoganda!

My hat is off to that group for its creation. In the propoganda war, this is really well played.

However, I'm not sure who it is supposed to convince.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

You gave away your right to not have your womb occupied when you didn't use a condom or any of the other numerous and cheap/free methods of preventing conception.

You do know that life is a bit more complicated than that right? Contraception does fail for many reasons. Unwanted pregnancies do not always result from refusal to use contraception.

Well thats a risk then isn't it?

Maybe you should consider all the implications, like a rational person. Sure, a condom can fail. but the likelihood is incredibly small.

Regardless, you just made a new human life. You can't just walk away from that responsibility. Even if it was rape or abuse. The baby didn't cause that, that shouldn't eliminate its right to live.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 statu wrote:

Right I've sat here and read this tripe you keep on spewing about not using contraceptives and then being forced to have a child. Have you even considered that maybe it isn't as black and white as she just didn't use any? What if she was raped? What if she was abused and talked into performing acts she didn't want to? What if she had passed out at a party and got passed around the guys there? In the last she wouldn't necessarily know till it was too late. In the abuse example she'd probably have been cut off as soon as the guy found out she was pregnant and as such was of little use to him. Should she still be forced to carry the child, go through all the pain and suffering involved, just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling that you saved a child?

Again, you seem to ignore that the baby is a person too. Just like you and me. That situation is really sucky all around. No need to make it even worse by committing murder.

Thats why I think Rape should be a more heavily punished crime. In the situation you describe, that should warrant minimum life in prison without parole. Aggravated rape should be eligible for the death penalty.

But one bad act doesn't excuse another. Its still a human being and it wasn't guilty of the crime.

So you really are in favour of having raped women carry out the child of their rapist? I respect that if that's your opinion, but you surely see that this situation can be an absolute nightmare for the mother, yes? Something that even counseling and psychotherapeutic help might not help with.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 statu wrote:

Right I've sat here and read this tripe you keep on spewing about not using contraceptives and then being forced to have a child. Have you even considered that maybe it isn't as black and white as she just didn't use any? What if she was raped? What if she was abused and talked into performing acts she didn't want to? What if she had passed out at a party and got passed around the guys there? In the last she wouldn't necessarily know till it was too late. In the abuse example she'd probably have been cut off as soon as the guy found out she was pregnant and as such was of little use to him. Should she still be forced to carry the child, go through all the pain and suffering involved, just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling that you saved a child?

Again, you seem to ignore that the baby is a person too. Just like you and me. That situation is really sucky all around. No need to make it even worse by committing murder.

Thats why I think Rape should be a more heavily punished crime. In the situation you describe, that should warrant minimum life in prison without parole. Aggravated rape should be eligible for the death penalty.

But one bad act doesn't excuse another. Its still a human being and it wasn't guilty of the crime.

So you would punish this hypothetical rape victim, for being raped, by essentially physically and mentally torturing her? You're going to put her through incredible pain, force her to be reminded every day of what happened, at the time she's trying to forget, and leave her scarred for life? And for what? A chance a not yet human can live? If I gave you a dog you didn't want, you'd refuse. If I dumped it on you, and ran off, you'd give it to dogs trust or some equivalent. If I gave a you a dog, forced you to raise it for nine months, then gak out a watermelon before you could give it away, you'd find a way out of it. A foetus is not yet a baby, early enough, as far as the ECHR sees it, it isn't granted any human rights. Until it is born and at the very least viable, it's essentially a tumour

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:
A woman has full rights to remove a parasite in her body for any reason she chooses.

More dehumanization I see.

Is a 6 month old baby a parasite too? its going to be leaching off your checkbook for the better part of 2 decades. Should you be allowed to just kill it?

A woman has full rights to remove a human that is living in her body for any reason.

You seem to be a veteran at this kind of argument, as you have that one phrase that makes it sound like you know what you're on about - I assume you've heard of the violinist analogy?

 statu wrote:

So you would punish this hypothetical rape victim, for being raped, by essentially physically and mentally torturing her? You're going to put her through incredible pain, force her to be reminded every day of what happened, at the time she's trying to forget, and leave her scarred for life? And for what? A chance a not yet human can live? If I gave you a dog you didn't want, you'd refuse. If I dumped it on you, and ran off, you'd give it to dogs trust or some equivalent. If I gave a you a dog, forced you to raise it for nine months, then gak out a watermelon before you could give it away, you'd find a way out of it. A foetus is not yet a baby, early enough, as far as the ECHR sees it, it isn't granted any human rights. Until it is born and at the very least viable, it's essentially a tumour

She shouldn't have been wearing that outfit, gone to that party, had that drink, been so pretty.... etc. etc. etc. (the usual victim blaming excuses)

A woman has full rights to remove a human that is living in her body for any reason.

thats an opinion, not a fact.

I would be far more disgusted if they just threw away useful research materials.

Also, there's too many people anyway, abortions for everyone!

 Soladrin wrote:
I would be far more disgusted if they just threw away useful research materials.

Also, there's too many people anyway, abortions for everyone!

I have a list of people you could retroactively take care of for me.

But my own list is still so big...

 Frazzled wrote:

A woman has full rights to remove a human that is living in her body for any reason.

thats an opinion, not a fact.

Its also not true, but I struggle with any ethical system where it is not the case.

I phrased it in that fashion because Grey Templar took issue with the dehumanization of the foetus using the term 'parasite'. I'm now waiting to see if there's any reaction to 'human' instead.

 Soladrin wrote:
But my own list is still so big...

trade?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

A woman has full rights to remove a human that is living in her body for any reason.

thats an opinion, not a fact.

Its also not true, but I struggle with any ethical system where it is not the case.

I phrased it in that fashion because Grey Templar took issue with the dehumanization of the foetus using the term 'parasite'. I'm now waiting to see if there's any reaction to 'human' instead.

I agree (I think if reading correctly). In the use abortion in the case of rape or incest has been a justifiable reason most everywhere I've seen.

 statu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 statu wrote:

Right I've sat here and read this tripe you keep on spewing about not using contraceptives and then being forced to have a child. Have you even considered that maybe it isn't as black and white as she just didn't use any? What if she was raped? What if she was abused and talked into performing acts she didn't want to? What if she had passed out at a party and got passed around the guys there? In the last she wouldn't necessarily know till it was too late. In the abuse example she'd probably have been cut off as soon as the guy found out she was pregnant and as such was of little use to him. Should she still be forced to carry the child, go through all the pain and suffering involved, just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling that you saved a child?

Again, you seem to ignore that the baby is a person too. Just like you and me. That situation is really sucky all around. No need to make it even worse by committing murder.

Thats why I think Rape should be a more heavily punished crime. In the situation you describe, that should warrant minimum life in prison without parole. Aggravated rape should be eligible for the death penalty.

But one bad act doesn't excuse another. Its still a human being and it wasn't guilty of the crime.

So you would punish this hypothetical rape victim, for being raped, by essentially physically and mentally torturing her? You're going to put her through incredible pain, force her to be reminded every day of what happened, at the time she's trying to forget, and leave her scarred for life? And for what? A chance a not yet human can live? If I gave you a dog you didn't want, you'd refuse. If I dumped it on you, and ran off, you'd give it to dogs trust or some equivalent. If I gave a you a dog, forced you to raise it for nine months, then gak out a watermelon before you could give it away, you'd find a way out of it. A foetus is not yet a baby, early enough, as far as the ECHR sees it, it isn't granted any human rights. Until it is born and at the very least viable, it's essentially a tumour

This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.

Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.

By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.

I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.

 Grey Templar wrote:


This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.

Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.

By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.

I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.

But we're not punishing an innocent child. We're terminating a hypothetical-maybe-one-day-child for the sake of the alive-right-now-and-actually-fully-a-person woman.

By every definition of life, my finger is alive, and its human. This is dead simple. However, if its going to cause me excruciating pain, a doctor will remove it for me.

Its the ony safe way of going about the issue if you are biologically male. If not, it means that any time you have sex you run the risk of having your body distorted, being put through hormonal hell for 9 months, horrendous pain or surgery giving birth. Or getting ripped from your V to your A. Or death. Because, you know, that still happens.

It costs nothing to give up a child for a adoption, but its a massive burden on the state, and an emotional blow to the child.

Much easier to abort it whilst its still a foetus, rather than a person.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.

Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.

By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.

I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.

But we're not punishing an innocent child. We're terminating a hypothetical-maybe-one-day-child for the sake of the alive-right-now-and-actually-fully-a-person woman.

By every definition of life, my finger is alive, and its human. This is dead simple. However, if its going to cause me excruciating pain, a doctor will remove it for me.

Its the ony safe way of going about the issue if you are biologically male. If not, it means that any time you have sex you run the risk of having your body distorted, being put through hormonal hell for 9 months, horrendous pain or surgery giving birth. Or getting ripped from your V to your A. Or death. Because, you know, that still happens.

It costs nothing to give up a child for a adoption, but its a massive burden on the state, and an emotional blow to the child.

Much easier to abort it whilst its still a foetus, rather than a person.

A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...

Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.

Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.

Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.

Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.

Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.

If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.

Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.

By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.

I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.

But we're not punishing an innocent child. We're terminating a hypothetical-maybe-one-day-child for the sake of the alive-right-now-and-actually-fully-a-person woman.

By every definition of life, my finger is alive, and its human. This is dead simple. However, if its going to cause me excruciating pain, a doctor will remove it for me.

Its the ony safe way of going about the issue if you are biologically male. If not, it means that any time you have sex you run the risk of having your body distorted, being put through hormonal hell for 9 months, horrendous pain or surgery giving birth. Or getting ripped from your V to your A. Or death. Because, you know, that still happens.

It costs nothing to give up a child for a adoption, but its a massive burden on the state, and an emotional blow to the child.

Much easier to abort it whilst its still a foetus, rather than a person.

A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...

Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.

Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.

Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.

Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.

Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.

If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.

I don't know one person in this thread were comparing babies to cockroaches. Shows how far we have sunk.
GG

 Swastakowey wrote:


A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...

Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.

Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.

Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.

Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.

Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.

If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.

I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.


It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.

If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.

Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.

Remake that point in the case of rape then

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...

Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.

Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.

Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.

Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.

Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.

If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.

I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.


It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.

If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.

Ignoring the fact that my grandmother had few miscarriages and her first 2 children as a result of rape (60 years ago deaf children in board schools were not treated well) and not once has she refereed to pregnancy as hell or anything negative. In fact the most pain she ever had was having her first kids taken away from her at birth. We have met one of them, but the other has never been seen since.

See in your example, someone is dying of natural causes. The right thing to do would be to try help the poor guy out. But you did not create the guy. The situation is very different. Of course if someone on the side of the road is burning alive you have the choice to help him or not. But usually you are seen as a coward for letting the guy burn regardless of if you know him or not. It is a cowardly thing to let someone die when you are in every position to help them. Unless of course you think we should also be allowed to let people die because you don't feel like going through the effort? ESPECIALLY if you had a hand in getting the person in that situation to begin with.

The child is part of the persons creation, they helped put them there (99.99% of the time) and therefore have the obligation to take care of them. It's like buying a dog, then killing it because you changed your mind. Sick and unjust.

 statu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.

Remake that point in the case of rape then

Still doesn't change the fact its a human being. Even when the mother didn't make the choice to get pregnant, its still a human being in all cases. It has, or should have, all the rights associated with being such. Because your rights were violated doesn't give you the right to violate another's rights.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...

Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.

Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.

Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.

Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.

Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.

If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.

I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.


It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.

If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.

Ignoring the fact that my grandmother had few miscarriages and her first 2 children as a result of rape (60 years ago deaf children in board schools were not treated well) and not once has she refereed to pregnancy as hell or anything negative. In fact the most pain she ever had was having her first kids taken away from her at birth. We have met one of them, but the other has never been seen since.

See in your example, someone is dying of natural causes. The right thing to do would be to try help the poor guy out. But you did not create the guy. The situation is very different. Of course if someone on the side of the road is burning alive you have the choice to help him or not. But usually you are seen as a coward for letting the guy burn regardless of if you know him or not. It is a cowardly thing to let someone die when you are in every position to help them. Unless of course you think we should also be allowed to let people die because you don't feel like going through the effort? ESPECIALLY if you had a hand in getting the person in that situation to begin with.

The child is part of the persons creation, they helped put them there (99.99% of the time) and therefore have the obligation to take care of them. It's like buying a dog, then killing it because you changed your mind. Sick and unjust.

That's some great anecdotal evidence you have there.

Except you cannot accidentally become 'with dog'. If I set out to buy a dog, I get a dog. If I set out to have an orgasm, it sometimes results in pregnancy. Fortunately, we have a procedure to dela with that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 statu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.

Remake that point in the case of rape then

Still doesn't change the fact its a human being. Even when the mother didn't make the choice to get pregnant, its still a human being in all cases. It has, or should have, all the rights associated with being such. Because your rights were violated doesn't give you the right to violate another's rights.

Imagine if I was to strap myself to you, force you to act as the mother to me for nine months, and then go through pain like you can't imagine at the end, and leave you pretty damn scarred up, so that I could live. I then offer you a button. Pressing the button means you get to walk away, with a minimum of discomfort, you'd feel little if any regret at my passing, are you completely 100% certain that no part of you would want to press the button? You would happy put yourself through all that pain and suffering for gaks and giggles?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.

They made the conscious choice to have sex, not to get pregnant. The pregnancy is an unwanted side-effect of the thing they were after, which is an orgasm.

And we're still missing the bodily-autonomy thing here.

Yes, many procedures. Many of which don't come with the problem of murder attached. Vasectomy, condoms, hysterectomy, etc...

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...

Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.

Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.

Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.

Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.

Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.

If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.

I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.


It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.

If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.

Ignoring the fact that my grandmother had few miscarriages and her first 2 children as a result of rape (60 years ago deaf children in board schools were not treated well) and not once has she refereed to pregnancy as hell or anything negative. In fact the most pain she ever had was having her first kids taken away from her at birth. We have met one of them, but the other has never been seen since.

See in your example, someone is dying of natural causes. The right thing to do would be to try help the poor guy out. But you did not create the guy. The situation is very different. Of course if someone on the side of the road is burning alive you have the choice to help him or not. But usually you are seen as a coward for letting the guy burn regardless of if you know him or not. It is a cowardly thing to let someone die when you are in every position to help them. Unless of course you think we should also be allowed to let people die because you don't feel like going through the effort? ESPECIALLY if you had a hand in getting the person in that situation to begin with.

The child is part of the persons creation, they helped put them there (99.99% of the time) and therefore have the obligation to take care of them. It's like buying a dog, then killing it because you changed your mind. Sick and unjust.

That's some great anecdotal evidence you have there.

Except you cannot accidentally become 'with dog'. If I set out to buy a dog, I get a dog. If I set out to have an orgasm, it sometimes results in pregnancy. Fortunately, we have a procedure to dela with that.

Explain please, how one accidentally gets pregnant? (outside of rape that's forced not accident). If I go driving, I go driving to get somewhere. If I make a mistake and kill a few people its not my fault and I should be able to exempt myself from the consequences. That doesn't sound right does it? If you want to get laid then you must accept that there are consequences that might happen if you mess it up. That consequence is a human child. If you cannot stop yourself from getting pregnant that is your fault not the childs fault. It is stupidly easy to not get pregnant.

Explain how one can accidentally have sex? Because it seems clear having sex is a choice and it is common sense that sex = baby.

Also saying pregnancy is hell is also anecdotal...

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.

They made the conscious choice to have sex, not to get pregnant. The pregnancy is an unwanted side-effect of the thing they were after, which is an orgasm.

And we're still missing the bodily-autonomy thing here.

There are ways to have sex without pregnancy that don't involve murder. Why can't people use them? Especially when many are free.

Because they exist, there is no reason to allow abortions. If you get to that point, you are beyond the point of choice. Its quite simple actually.