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.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.

See it's not mush. It's a person, it's just OK to abort a person. Let m see if I can find a link to the chello argument. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Why?

 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.

 sebster wrote:


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'.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.

Knockagh wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.

Knockagh wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.

My answer to this thread title is “The price of a condom” .
Well, not every condom is going to stop an abortion, but they do help as a general rule…

This is pretty crass.

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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

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...

I'd be happy if that were possible.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Pregnant woman challenges pro-lifers to pay her $1 million in 72 hours or else she terminates her baby.



http://www.prolifeantiwoman.com/


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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 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.

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.

This is just a pathetic stunt.

On to your second point

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So "Give me a million dollars or you're all frauds"?

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.

unless I'm the father, none.

Even if I was the father. None.

This woman should not be allowed to ever have children.

Seems to have been a marketing stunt for a novel.