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.

Phototoxin wrote:Abstinence. 100% guaranteed

If we're going to take religious sources into consideration, 99.999999% guaranteed. Still, pretty darn good.

Frazzled wrote:I don't know, your cat looks pretty shifty to me. TBone says its best to nuke all cats from orbit, just to be sure.

Pot murdered at least a million people (not personally, of course, giving him another advantage). The cat sleeps 16 hours a day, spends at least 4 grooming, and 2 more eating and crapping (or playing in the box). There's only so much you can do for 2 hours a day.

biccat wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Abstinence. 100% guaranteed

If we're going to take religious sources into consideration, 99.999999% guaranteed. Still, pretty darn good.

Frazzled wrote:I don't know, your cat looks pretty shifty to me. TBone says its best to nuke all cats from orbit, just to be sure.

Pot murdered at least a million people (not personally, of course, giving him another advantage). The cat sleeps 16 hours a day, spends at least 4 grooming, and 2 more eating and crapping (or playing in the box). There's only so much you can do for 2 hours a day.

Well facts are in evidence, however as cats are the bane of TBone's existence, he proffers its better to be safe than sorry. What can I say? Wiener dogs are hardcore.

Phototoxin wrote:
Personhood is an invented concept.

So is humanity, it wasn't that long ago that having a particularly dark complexion rendered one subhuman, or a lesser human.

Phototoxin wrote:
I agree with the logic, though I question the cut off point. If I go into my city centre and start a killing spree when I go to court can I argue that I'm performing post-birth abortions on people I judge unworthy of life? What right has anyone got to kill another human, let alone 'person'?

I'm not arguing for post-birth abortions, I'm arguing that there is a clear and meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child. This stands in contrast to the argument made in the OP article, and the argument that we cannot abort fetuses because they're really just neonates.

Manchu wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm not assuming it, that's why I posed a question.

Whether KK's example constitute the only acceptable instances of taking human life is beside the point.

I disagree, if those are the only justifiable instances of taking a human life, then abortion must be justified on those grounds.

If they don't, then greater flexibility is afforded.

I would be interested to know whether the author of this report has kids, and for that matter how many of her supporters or detractors have kids too.

In my experience someone who has been present at the birth of a child would have to be one cold fish sociopathic mother fether to think that what they are holding was not a person, or worthy of life.

On the disability angle: The problem is not whether someone has the potential to live a meaningful life, it is who we should allow to decide such a thing.

On the economic angle: A newborn, judged on the economic situation of its parent? When did the world decide that Original Sin should extend to credit ratings?

Finally: I can't believe that anyone could be so dense as to publish an article like this and then be shocked and surprised that it makes people angry. Dr Dumbass should go outside more often, IMO.

dogma wrote:

Manchu wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm not assuming it, that's why I posed a question.

Whether KK's example constitute the only acceptable instances of taking human life is beside the point.

I disagree, if those are the only justifiable instances of taking a human life, then abortion must be justified on those grounds.

If they don't, then greater flexibility is afforded.

Excellent point. It's a matter of organization. KK offered those three examples regardless of them of forming an exhaustive list. We only have to ask whether the list is exhaustive if abortion cannot be justified as similar to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I'm not arguing for post-birth abortions, I'm arguing that there is a clear and meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child. This stands in contrast to the argument made in the OP article, and the argument that we cannot abort fetuses because they're really just neonates.

As much as obliterating the distinction would clarify the imperative, I have to agree that it can't be done. Genetics aside, no one would confuse an acorn for a tree.

Relapse wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

biccat wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.

Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.

Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.

What do you tell parents that just found themselves out of a job and unable to support their kids? Pick who lives and who dies?
There is always the option of adoption. I find the idea of abortion for convenience wrong.

Adoption isnt like the movies. It is hard, Just because someone wants to have a kid but cant doesnt mean they can go in an get one. And those who adopt want to make sure if they are going to pay alot get a good kid.
And because race is part of the abortion issue i'm going to bring it up. *Gulp*
Because of various racist policies in the past(and today) people of color tend t be underprivileged and do not make up a high amount of wealthy people who wish to adopt. And bcause few wish to adopt outside their race. So there are few around to adopt babies who are not white(and when they do it may be overseas) So for those of color who got pregnant adoption isnt really an issue, So by not allowing abortion we are still forcing a disproportional amount in a cycle of poverty.
And im off to hd from the war i just started.

Like I said earlier, all around me, people are adopting.

And yet, the number of children in foster care has not dipped below 400,000 in over a decade.



Edited for correct number.



Edit #2: And number of actual adoptions has hovered around 50,000 for the last 9 years...

Edit #3: Source, btw

Relapse wrote:Like I said earlier, all around me, people are adopting.

May i ask where you live? The demographic? Typical race and income range of those adopting? and the race of the child they are adopting?

An interesting side article appearing at the same time:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/dutch-mobile-euthanasia-units


What will surpise is that I'm supportive of such a service.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Relapse wrote:Like I said earlier, all around me, people are adopting.

May i ask where you live? The demographic? Typical race and income range of those adopting? and the race of the child they are adopting?

I live in Utah, and it's white, middle income and up adopting all races.

Does anyone else hear an echo of eugenics in the original article? Birth defects = unworthy of life? Didn't the extreme eugenicists also want this?

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:Does anyone else hear an echo of eugenics in the original article? Birth defects = unworthy of life? Didn't the extreme eugenicists also want this?

Yes, but that was just one aspect (and, a somewhat tame one) of their belief system.

I think this is a case of Hitler Ate Sugar (aka the Association Fallacy)

Kilkrazy wrote:Philip K Dick wrote a fun short story in which abortion was allowed up the age at which the ability to understand algebra appeared.

Why not calculus?

You aren't alive until you understand preferential calculus. Yes.


Jokes aside, I'm not touching this argument.

Grakmar wrote:I think this is a case of Hitler Ate Sugar (aka the Association Fallacy)

You know who else demagogued Jews and wanted to drive them out of where they were living? Jimmy Carter.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:Does anyone else hear an echo of eugenics in the original article? Birth defects = unworthy of life? Didn't the extreme eugenicists also want this?

yes indeed. Interestingly one of the first big efforts of early Christians were to take in abandoned children and rail against the practice. Nothing new under the sun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I think this is a case of Hitler Ate Sugar (aka the Association Fallacy)

You know who else demagogued Jews and wanted to drive them out of where they were living? Jimmy Carter.

We're not talking about yesterday now. We're talking Hitler because its ok to thump your chest about the evil nazis.

*Nazis were in fact evil.

Manchu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the woman's opinion is more relevant as she is in the position of making the decision.

Not if the decision in question is whether abortions procured some period of time after conception can be legally obtained.

Whether abortions are to be legally obtainable or not, women not men are still the people at the "sharp end".

Historically we have seen that women denied legal abortion will resort to gin, hot baths and coathangers.

That is a situation that men will never have to face.

The fact that people will break the laws is not a valid argument against them. A better argument against a law is that it is unenforceable or that enforcing it will produce other, graver injustices than that which the law seeks to prevent. Women have no special insight into this.

I don't need to have a uterus myself to realize that poking at it with a coat hanger is dangerous. Similarly, lacking a uterus does not impede my comprehension of the clinical impact of pregnancy. To the extent that women, as opposed to men, have a particular stake in the topic of abortion, it is a question of a specific woman rather than women generally. In this respect, we see abortion as it is best understood: subject to conscience. The act is also subject to the conscience of the one who performs the abortion, which could be a man. This person cannot dismiss the responsibility to act in accordance with his conscience simply because he is not a woman.

biccat wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Abstinence. 100% guaranteed

If we're going to take religious sources into consideration, 99.999999% guaranteed. Still, pretty darn good.

Not going to lie, this just made me giggle.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

biccat wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.

Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.

Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.

Dude, you need to stop posting on Dakka while you are high.

Don't do that stuff. I i'm just terrible at spelling.

Come on, I was just having a joke with you man, chill.

biccat wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I think this is a case of Hitler Ate Sugar (aka the Association Fallacy)

You know who else demagogued Jews and wanted to drive them out of where they were living? Jimmy Carter.

The height intellectual honesty is clearly comparing the Holocaust to advocacy of the two state solution.

And, I'm really not sure how Carter appealed to American antisemitism. At least assuming that's what you mean, because demagogue isn't, you know, a verb.

Manchu wrote:The fact that people will break the laws is not a valid argument against them. A better argument against a law is that it is unenforceable or that enforcing it will produce other, graver injustices than that which the law seeks to prevent. Women have no special insight into this.

An argument that people will break the law, at least break it en masse, is basically an argument that the law is unenforceable. In essence, while you may punish some, you cannot punish enough of the actual law breakers to render the law forceful.

Manchu wrote:
I don't need to have a uterus myself to realize that poking at it with a coat hanger is dangerous. Similarly, lacking a uterus does not impede my comprehension of the clinical impact of pregnancy. To the extent that women, as opposed to men, have a particular stake in the topic of abortion, it is a question of a specific woman rather than women generally. In this respect, we see abortion as it is best understood: subject to conscience. The act is also subject to the conscience of the one who performs the abortion, which could be a man. This person cannot dismiss the responsibility to act in accordance with his conscience simply because he is not a woman.

Ultimately, though, the procedure is one undergone by women. They bear the health risks related not only to the abortion, but the pregnancy itself. They also bear the economic risks related to pregnancy.

The argument "Well, you shouldn't have had sex." is nice and all, but what someone should or should not have done has no bearing on how the consequences of what was done are dealt with; especially if initial options are limited.

According to US law, the difference between killing babies and abortion involves location and technique. The fetus must have a certain portion of its physicality remaining within the body of the woman. Standard practice is to simply leave the entire fetus within the woman. Using ultrasound, the fetus is injected with a terminating solution and then removed. If the fetus is removed from the woman beyond the restricted limit before termination occurs than the procedure could be considered illegal. This would be US law as introduced by Rick Santorum and signed by George W. Bush.

Hitler might have eaten sugar, he also breathed air...

While the Nazi regeme was known for its eugenics it wasn't uncommon in many other other countries at the time. The Nazi just turned it up to 11.

dogma wrote:because demagogue isn't, you know, a verb.

Indeed.

Er wait, no, you're wrong. Again.

Phototoxin wrote:While the Nazi regeme was known for its eugenics it wasn't uncommon in many other other countries at the time. The Nazi just turned it up to 11.

The US had a eugenics movement, as I suspect did England and most of Europe.

biccat wrote:
Indeed.

Er wait, no, you're wrong. Again.

Fair point, but that would mean your initial statement either entailed Carter manipulating "the Jews", or that "the Jews" were simply a political issue.

Unless, of course, you meant "Israel" instead of "the Jews", but that would entail its own set of, potentially antisemitic, implications.

Unless, as before, you're siding with unsubstantiated claims regarding Carter claiming that certain things were "too Jewish". I suppose that might be the foundation for your position, but I suspect that its merely an excuse that you're using to justify a rather thinly veiled appeal to the notion that being anything other than pro-Israel is tacit to being antisemitic.

Basically, you saw Carter being not pro-Israel, decided that made him antisemitic, and further have concluded that anything else pointing to that antisemitism must therefore be true. We call this confirmation bias.

And of course, this also dovetails nicely into your standard "liberals/Democrats are evil" refrain.

This is clearly crossing the line.
Aborting a fetus before it can survive outside its mother seems perfectly reasonable.
If that line keeps getting pushed back then we keep pushing the time limit back.
If it comes to the point where we can keep a fetus alive outside its mother no matter how old then we just ban abortion all together.

Can a new-born baby survive independently, once it's exited the womb?

Albatross wrote:Can a new-born baby survive independently, once it's exited the womb?

Not what i said 'nor what i meant.

Finally: I can't believe that anyone could be so dense as to publish an article like this and then be shocked and surprised that it makes people angry. Dr Dumbass should go outside more often, IMO.

Probably because the majority of people don't bother to 'think'. Its an academic debate on ethics. Obviously it doesn't mean its what she believes. This is how society grows and progresses, through out-of-the-box thinking.

I wouldn't expect most people to understand it however. There is nothing to get angry over.

Albatross wrote:Can a new-born baby survive independently, once it's exited the womb?

Can any child? Can an old person? How about someone who is unemployed or on welfare. Off with their heads!