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.

And that is okay to you?

"We want to see this child, so we don't care if it is suffering, because WE want to see it."

That's pretty monstrous, prolong a child's suffering and pain for the sake of what, exactly?

Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).

 Medium of Death wrote:
Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).

No. It isn't. And you especially can't start to make that argument if you have a penis.

In many cases, I'm actually okay with abortions up until the 60th trimester.

 curran12 wrote:
And that is okay to you?

"We want to see this child, so we don't care if it is suffering, because WE want to see it."

That's pretty monstrous, prolong a child's suffering and pain for the sake of what, exactly?

I'm not saying that is the decision I would make.

Some people are like that they want to make as many memories as they can and seek closure.

jamesk1973 wrote:

Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.

You are welcome to your opinion.

It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

Whats your point?

The heart starts beating around the sixth week.

At the 8th week I am seeing definite physical traits. So, no maybe you don't want to kill it at this time.

Definite traits of what? A misshapen peanut?

Even though the heart starts beating at that point, its not until well into the 3rd trimester that a fetus is capable of surviving for any significant amount of time outside of the uterus. In my unprofessional non-expert opinion, this is not indicative of a unique, individual, separate, distinct, and complete organism, but rather a more-or-less parasitic entity.

Guns are messy. If only we had some kind of, chamber. A place we could stack the babies and then quiety euthenize them with some kind of gas. A gas chamber if you would.

Do minority babies have to get in the back of the chamber? (Note: I'm not trying to be offensive, only sardonic... if it makes you feel any better for laughing, I am also a minority even though I don't really look it).

I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.

It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.

When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.

The guilt has got to be crushing.

For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.

chaos0xomega wrote:


For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.

What you call relative morality in this case would be called a lack of morality by others.

chaos0xomega wrote:
.



For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.

Well that makes it so much better then! Like James said, it's easy to destroy things when you dehumanizes them. It's why lots of sociopaths refer to their victims as it.

chaos0xomega wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.

You are welcome to your opinion.

It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

Whats your point?

That it is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

He does not consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to be a human. Ergo, he would have no problem killing it.

jamesk1973 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.

What you call relative morality in this case would be called a lack of morality by others.

Again, its relative morality. You can't enforce your own view of morality onto someone else (especially if that someone is from a different culture and faith than yours).

That it is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

He does not consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to be a human. Ergo, he would have no problem killing it.

And again, I say, whats your point? I'm not even really sure I consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to even be alive, so is aborting it really killing it?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).

No. It isn't. And you especially can't start to make that argument if you have a penis.

I wasn't making an argument, I was just putting something out there. Surely social pressue and appealing to emotion does scew things slightly? It might not be the full picture, but couldn't it be part of the picture?

jamesk1973 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.

You are welcome to your opinion.

It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

Whats your point?

That it is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

He does not consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to be a human. Ergo, he would have no problem killing it.

You know why they aren't considered human? Because they aren't.

A heartbeat doesn't define something as human, otherwise pretty much all animals would be considered human.
Having a shape similar to the human form also doesn't qualify something as human, otherwise pretty much all simians would be considered human as well...

You know what makes someone human? Our brain, our sense of self.

So if you wan't to discuss that terminating a pregnancy after the 12th week (the earliest where brain activity can be measured in an EEG), is the equivalent of killing a person, you'll at least have some semblance of logic to fall back on and I would even be inclined to agree with you (barring some noticeable exceptions like extreme danger to the life of the mother or inviability of the foetus after birth and other reasons like those), otherwise please do stop with the nonsense posts because I can feel my brain cells suiciding every time I have to read them...

jamesk1973 wrote:
I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.

It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.

When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.

The guilt has got to be crushing.

It can however be balanced against the very real life problems that an unwanted child can bring.

Fortunately for men, when considering the crushing guilt of abortion we can withdraw entirely from the debate, and leave it to the people involved, since it will never concern us.

 Sasori wrote:

Eloquent.

Not really.

Yet if i were to stab this wormlike ball of gak with a butcher knife forty seven times I would be the bad guy...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.

It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.

When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.

The guilt has got to be crushing.

It can however be balanced against the very real life problems that an unwanted child can bring.

Fortunately for men, when considering the crushing guilt of abortion we can withdraw entirely from the debate, and leave it to the people involved, since it will never concern us.

Except for those men that want to have a say. They have no option whatsoever.

They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.

I hear this talk about Relative Morality. Can someone point me to the Absolute Morality I should be following?

The settlement was silly, unless there was payment for certain tests which were not administered or were administered incorrectly. If they were not given services they had paid for, then a settlement makes sense, but 50 million *seems* excessive.

That being said, there is a difference between murdering a living child, and terminating a fetus.

The line between where I consider life to begin is the point where a fetus becomes viable to survive out of the womb without constant medical care. The only time this line shifts is if there is some developmental disability that causes the fetus to not be viable even beyond birth, in which case "life" begins at birth.

I don't know all the specific circumstances of this situation. It is possible that the fetus could have been viable without significant constant medical care, and that the tests would have been conducted beyond this point.

But if those tests would have been conducted prior to the point of viability, then the argument being made by the OP's article is a poor one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.

Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.

PhantomViper wrote:


So if you wan't to discuss that terminating a pregnancy after the 12th week (the earliest where brain activity can be measured in an EEG), is the equivalent of killing a person, you'll at least have some semblance of logic to fall back on and I would even be inclined to agree with you (barring some noticeable exceptions like extreme danger to the life of the mother or inviability of the foetus after birth and other reasons like those), otherwise please do stop with the nonsense posts because I can feel my brain cells suiciding every time I have to read them...

I want to express my wholehearted agreement with what you wrote here. Well, except for that last part about the brain cells.

I think the EEG benchmark is an outstanding point at which we establish personhood.

OP: Complains about the emotional guilt and suffering that must surely be impacting women who have had an abortion.

After posting an article comparing their decision to terminate their pregnancy with genocide and other "you should feel emotional guilt and mental suffering for your decision" talk.

Of course everything OP complains about and doesn't like is covered by the non-gun portion of the constitution.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).

Of course it is. It's not even arguable that the people dancing around screaming that you're evil for having an abortion play a part in all the guilt. And some people have an abortion and don't care at all.

But then, it's all about policing women's sexuality anyway. If it wasn't they'd actually care about the fetus after it was born.

PhantomViper wrote:

A heartbeat doesn't define something as human, otherwise pretty much all animals would be considered human.
Having a shape similar to the human form also doesn't qualify something as human, otherwise pretty much all simians would be considered human as well...

You know what makes someone human? Our brain, our sense of self.

Of course, if you go by measurable brain activity then you're again including many animals.

All that aside, there is a potential discussion about disability that is quite interesting and touches on a lot of the assumptions we make about life (though it's a bit buried under the nonsense about a fetus being "a baby".). If you could tell your baby was going to turn out disabled in some way and abort it, then have a new, un-disabled baby, would that be a good thing to do?

I find it easy to say, well, if you do that then maybe the net misery in the world will decrease and we'll all be better off, but that seems very dismissive of the positives hardships can provide and the value of diversity.

Ableism has to play a part somewhere - the idea that a disabled child is somehow worth less. But I don't believe that more lives > less lives.

I think my final answer is that it's a problem that we view disabled people's lives as worth less than other people's, like there's some objective standard for judging how valuable someone's life is and they're at the low end of it. Aborting disabled kids is a symptom of that rather than the issue itself.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


But then, it's all about policing women's sexuality anyway. If it wasn't they'd actually care about the fetus after it was born.

This statement is exceeding full of gak.

All that aside, there is a potential discussion about disability that is quite interesting and touches on a lot of the assumptions we make about life (though it's a bit buried under the nonsense about a fetus being "a baby".). If you could tell your baby was going to turn out disabled in some way and abort it, then have a new, un-disabled baby, would that be a good thing to do?

I find it easy to say, well, if you do that then maybe the net misery in the world will decrease and we'll all be better off, but that seems very dismissive of the positives hardships can provide and the value of diversity.

Ableism has to play a part somewhere - the idea that a disabled child is somehow worth less. But I don't believe that more lives > less lives.

I think my final answer is that it's a problem that we view disabled people's lives as worth less than other people's, like there's some objective standard for judging how valuable someone's life is and they're at the low end of it. Aborting disabled kids is a symptom of that rather than the issue itself.

This, this is fething gold!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.

so men only are involved in making kids when it comes to money/support?



so maybe woman should split into two pieces like a bacterium if they want sole decision making rights? thats the same logic you just used.

as it is, its quite sexist to pretend that men are not involved in the making of a child, and should have no say in abortions.

I think that if two people are responsible, reasonable adults, they will of course both come to a mutually agreeable decision.

It would be a very unreasonable man or woman who thought they were the only one with a say in something that obviously affects both people, and was made by both people.

this is something that each COUPLE will have to choose for themselves.

It only physically affects one person. Pregnancy is a complex medical problem experienced by the woman that is having her body adapt to this condition. The man might have been involved in making it, by it's the woman's body that is forever changed and/or damaged by this.

A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.

Well, that was a silly article.

I propose we shift discussion to a far more relevant question:

Should we disable murder children?

 d-usa wrote:

A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.

You might wanna re-think that.

I couldn't get a vasectomy w/o my then-wife's approval.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Well, that was a silly article.

I propose we shift discussion to a far more relevant question:

Should we disable murder children?

Actually, the way things are going, we'll probably weaponize them instead.

Human fetuses are babys, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around a fetuses age truly makes no difference. Show me a fetus born of a woman that turns out a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.

 d-usa wrote:
It only physically affects one person. Pregnancy is a complex medical problem experienced by the woman that is having her body adapt to this condition. The man might have been involved in making it, by it's the woman's body that is forever changed and/or damaged by this.

A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.

pregnancy isnt forced.... when you have consensual sex, you have consented-to the possibility of having a child, together, and there most certainly is mutual "ownership" of the child at any stage,

abortions can also harm a womans body, let alone the childs, so the "OMG PREGNANCY IS AWFUL" argument isnt as valid as you think,

not to mention your argument is basically "you dont have a vagina, so your opinion does not count"

it takes two to make one, it takes two to choose if they want to break one.

any responsible, enlightened couple, will make a mutual decision, not a unilateral one based on who has the vagina.