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.

 sebster wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
They should be respected in as much as if they believe life starts at conception, then they don't have to get an abortion. People who believe a bundle of cells doesn't constitute life shouldn't not be able to have an abortion just because some other people think life starts a bit earlier. People can enforce whatever limits they want on it for themselves, but they shouldn't be able to apply those limits to everyone.

That line of arguing doesn't work because if you believe its a person, then accepting it as a personal choice is kind of ridiculous. Because then you would believe it was murder.

I mean, I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with abortion because I don't believe it is a person, but it really shouldn't be too hard to understand the case for banning it made by people who do.

I don't really care if they think it's a person. It's a personal choice where life starts, just because they've arbitrarily decided that a bundle of cells that can't feel anything is life, doesn't mean they should be able to enforce that on people who don't. I'm not stopping them not getting an abortion, they shouldn't be able to stop women who they don't even know being able to get one.

This is BRILLIANT!!!

Personally, I would not pay a dime to stop an abortion.

But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.

In the same way that if a religious dictatorship offered to halt the execution of a condemned "Blasphemer," I would donate everything I possibly could to do so.

So... If Evangelicals really buy into their own bs, they are forced to either pay up, or shut up (or make up an even more insane reason to ignore it).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

This lady is one sick puppy. It is a bit of a statement as well. "put your money where your mouth is". All well and good if the child is saved, but then what happens when people start to follow her foot steps? "I need money or the baby dies" funding campaigns will show up and after this likely to fail.

Means nothing to the women (as evident) because she loses nothing either way.

This is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences" and she is essentially forcing Evangelicals, and others who (delusional) believe that a bundle of cells is a "Human Being," to face up to their beliefs.

That she might lead the way to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands or millions of others to do the EXACT Same Thing is probably the best thing about this.

Those other campaigns may fail.

But that will just highlight the obscene absurdity of the so-called "Pro-Life" crowd to throw untold Millions of Dollars into campaigns to criminalize abortion while allowing what they claim to be "children" to be what they claim to be "murdered" when they have the means to stop such actions.

If a group CANNOT or WILL NOT "Put their money where their mouth is," then it just exposes their beliefs as hypocrisy, and thus not to be taken seriously (which most people don't as it is).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

That something is "Potentially Human" is irrelevant when giving ethical or moral weight to it in this case.

That is because EVERY CELL in your body right now is potentially a human being[/i}.

We can take ANY cell, and induce pluripotency, turning it into a gamete (Sperm or Egg Cell), and then that in turn will [i]eventually become a human. In fact, you do not even need two people to create a viable embryo, you can create both sperm and egg from the same person's cells.

So, are we to shed tears for every skin cell that dies, simply because it is potentially a human being?

And this does not even begin to address the untold MILLIONS of viable zygotes and embryos yearly that self-abort, yet would have eventually "become a human being."

A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).

This does admit to a continuum that exists in LATE Pregnancy.

HOWEVER. . .

Even in late Pregnancy, Bodily Autonomy Trumps ANY/i] possible rights the fetus might have as a "Child" prior to natural delivery.

No one can be forced to donate bodily build, tissue, or organs, [i]even if they have already begun to do so, and withdrawal will result in the death of the Donee.

This means that a pregnant woman can, at any time, withdraw the donation of her fluids, tissues, and organs from the support of the fetus, even if she has only days until delivery (technically - this is still being legislated, but in other advanced countries they have come down in favor of the Mother's rights over the rights of any fetus).

If it is in the latter weeks of the pregnancy, though, it is usually easier to just deliver the baby, and be done with it, but there do remain rare conditions where it becomes a choice between the mother and the fetus, and the mother needs to win out, because if she dies, so does any possible child.

The so-called "Pro-Life" arguments are NOT based upon either Science or Facts of any kind.

They are nothing more than an emotional appeal based upon a faith-based ideology that has no evidential support for its claims.

MB

It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Besides it being a false dilemma, there are a few concerns about the legitimacy of the claim that would prevent someone from giving to this. I wouldn't personally give to this but would definitely do it for a person I actually knew that needed the funds. Hell, I'd even adopt the kid probably.

A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).

So... someone who is born without strong enough lungs to breathe on their own is able to be murdered by their parents? The human brain doesn't arrive at "adulthood" until you're in your 20s.

You're still arguing murder is viable "at a certain point".

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".

A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.

A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.

BeAfraid wrote:
This is BRILLIANT!!!

Personally, I would not pay a dime to stop an abortion.

But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.

In the same way that if a religious dictatorship offered to halt the execution of a condemned "Blasphemer," I would donate everything I possibly could to do so.

So... If Evangelicals really buy into their own bs, they are forced to either pay up, or shut up (or make up an even more insane reason to ignore it).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

This lady is one sick puppy. It is a bit of a statement as well. "put your money where your mouth is". All well and good if the child is saved, but then what happens when people start to follow her foot steps? "I need money or the baby dies" funding campaigns will show up and after this likely to fail.

Means nothing to the women (as evident) because she loses nothing either way.

This is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences" and she is essentially forcing Evangelicals, and others who (delusional) believe that a bundle of cells is a "Human Being," to face up to their beliefs.

That she might lead the way to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands or millions of others to do the EXACT Same Thing is probably the best thing about this.

Those other campaigns may fail.

But that will just highlight the obscene absurdity of the so-called "Pro-Life" crowd to throw untold Millions of Dollars into campaigns to criminalize abortion while allowing what they claim to be "children" to be what they claim to be "murdered" when they have the means to stop such actions.

If a group CANNOT or WILL NOT "Put their money where their mouth is," then it just exposes their beliefs as hypocrisy, and thus not to be taken seriously (which most people don't as it is).

MB

Since you seem so self-righteous and all-knowing, pray tell me, what is the difference between one living clump of cells and the other, that you'd call one a human but not the other?

BeAfraid wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

That something is "Potentially Human" is irrelevant when giving ethical or moral weight to it in this case.

That is because EVERY CELL in your body right now is potentially a human being[/i}.

We can take ANY cell, and induce pluripotency, turning it into a gamete (Sperm or Egg Cell), and then that in turn will [i]eventually become a human. In fact, you do not even need two people to create a viable embryo, you can create both sperm and egg from the same person's cells.

So, are we to shed tears for every skin cell that dies, simply because it is potentially a human being?

No, because a skin cell will never be a human being. Yes, it is possible with science to turn a skin cell into one of the building bricks needed to produce the cells that will grow into a human being, but the skin cell itself will not grow into a human being, neither will a sperm or egg cell. It is the clump of cells that forms after fertilisation of an egg cell with a sperm cell that grows into an adult human and that is thus already human. "Human" is not something that suddenly gets assigned to a living being at a random point, it is there from the beginning, the beginning being a fertilised egg cell.

BeAfraid wrote:
A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).

So a human on temporary life support after an accident is no longer human? Nice one there.

BeAfraid wrote:
This does admit to a continuum that exists in LATE Pregnancy.

HOWEVER. . .

Even in late Pregnancy, Bodily Autonomy Trumps ANY/i] possible rights the fetus might have as a "Child" prior to natural delivery.

No one can be forced to donate bodily build, tissue, or organs, [i]even if they have already begun to do so, and withdrawal will result in the death of the Donee.

This means that a pregnant woman can, at any time, withdraw the donation of her fluids, tissues, and organs from the support of the fetus, even if she has only days until delivery (technically - this is still being legislated, but in other advanced countries they have come down in favor of the Mother's rights over the rights of any fetus).

That is just a matter of personal opinion.

If it is in the latter weeks of the pregnancy, though, it is usually easier to just deliver the baby, and be done with it, but there do remain rare conditions where it becomes a choice between the mother and the fetus, and the mother needs to win out, because if she dies, so does any possible child.

BeAfraid wrote:
The so-called "Pro-Life" arguments are NOT based upon either Science or Facts of any kind.

They are nothing more than an emotional appeal based upon a faith-based ideology that has no evidential support for its claims.

MB

You might as well be talking about your own views here, especially since you present your own personal opinion as fact and seem pretty keen on enforcing this on others. You are doing here what is called "pseudoscience."

 Swastakowey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".

A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.

A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.

So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?

BeAfraid wrote:

This means that a pregnant woman can, at any time, withdraw the donation of her fluids, tissues, and organs from the support of the fetus, even if she has only days until delivery (technically - this is still being legislated, but in other advanced countries they have come down in favor of the Mother's rights over the rights of any fetus).

Thats simply not true. In fact many countries are actually moving the last date back in view of new evidence on the date at which a fetus is viable.

BeAfraid wrote:

If it is in the latter weeks of the pregnancy, though, it is usually easier to just deliver the baby, and be done with it, but there do remain rare conditions where it becomes a choice between the mother and the fetus, and the mother needs to win out, because if she dies, so does any possible child.

The Pro-Life argument is not about abortion where there is a risk to the mothers life. Almost no one is saying "we must risk mother and child dieing and continue at all costs!"

BeAfraid wrote:

The so-called "Pro-Life" arguments are NOT based upon either Science or Facts of any kind.

They are nothing more than an emotional appeal based upon a faith-based ideology that has no evidential support for its claims.

That is also not true. They have a different opinion on at what point an egg and sperm becomes a human. For some it is at the point at which fertilization happens. Your view of "It's not until natural childbirth" is far more extreme and based on no science, or legal opinion at all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?

If a parent carrying a baby in a baby carrier slips and falls we don't charge them with involuntary manslaughter? No, so why would that be any diffrent?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".

A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.

A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.

So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?

I would say no. I am not an expert on law in my own country and even less so on yours. However if a siamese twin trips and causes the death of their attached sibling is this manslaughter? When is someone is reliant on you to the point that they are a part of you, is tripping over accidentally killing somone? Because technically they both slipped and one died, because they are one?

I know no reasonable person would charge a pregant women of manslaughter because through unfortunate circumstance her baby died for obvious reasons.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".

A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.

A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.

So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?

I would say no. I am not an expert on law in my own country and even less so on yours. However if a siamese twin trips and causes the death of their attached sibling is this manslaughter? When is someone is reliant on you to the point that they are a part of you, is tripping over accidentally killing somone? Because technically they both slipped and one died, because they are one?

I know no reasonable person would charge a pregant women of manslaughter because through unfortunate circumstance her baby died for obvious reasons.

But if they are one, then why is that person not allowed bodily autonomy?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".

A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.

A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.

So if a pregnant woman slips walking down the stairs and has a miscarriage, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?

I would say no. I am not an expert on law in my own country and even less so on yours. However if a siamese twin trips and causes the death of their attached sibling is this manslaughter? When is someone is reliant on you to the point that they are a part of you, is tripping over accidentally killing somone? Because technically they both slipped and one died, because they are one?

I know no reasonable person would charge a pregant women of manslaughter because through unfortunate circumstance her baby died for obvious reasons.

But if they are one, then why is that person not allowed bodily autonomy?

They aren't one... Just so happens that one person is 100% reliant on someone else to the point they are apart of them. Still 2 people, just like conjoined twins, they just happen to be 100% reliant on each other to the point they are one person (as in they have to do things together and everything one does directly effects the other etc). If one trips they both trip etc.

I think a better question at this point is:


"How much would you pay to stop this thread?"

BeAfraid wrote:
This is BRILLIANT!!!

Personally, I would not pay a dime to stop an abortion.

But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.


MB

Thats just stupid. It ignores basic economics. People who care are adopting or otherwise providing charity work where it will do better.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Besides it being a false dilemma, there are a few concerns about the legitimacy of the claim that would prevent someone from giving to this. I wouldn't personally give to this but would definitely do it for a person I actually knew that needed the funds. Hell, I'd even adopt the kid probably.

A viable human being is one with a brain that is matured enough to complete to adulthood, AND which contains a set of viable organs, and IS BREATHING on its own (not "Can" breath on its own, but IS breathing on its own).

So... someone who is born without strong enough lungs to breathe on their own is able to be murdered by their parents? The human brain doesn't arrive at "adulthood" until you're in your 20s.

You're still arguing murder is viable "at a certain point".

"Will be" ≠ "Is"

And, no, I am not trying to re-define Murder.

It isn't murder to destroy a lump of cells, regardless of what they MIGHT BE at some point.

Again, REGARDLESS of what you wish to call it is irrelevant.

You want to say it is murder, Fine[i/i] then be ready for the avalanche of redefinitions of other words to follow. But recognize that it does not matter [i]WHAT you call the termination of a pregnancy, the life of the fetus NEVER trumps the life or choices of the mother. [i]EVER![i/]

MB

We're all just a lump of cells.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's not "potentially a human being" it's GOING TO BE a human being if left unmolested. That's the hole in your logic. Sure modern medicine can do some crazy things with genetics now, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that a pregnant woman, at any stage, will have a human being after the allotted time.

Unless there's a miscarriage, which isn't exactly uncommon, hence the "potential".

A baby dying of natural causes does not mean potential human, just means it didn't get its full life.

A single sperm is a potential human. A pregnant mother carries a human. That human, like you, can die at any moment whether by murder, natural causes, sickness, accidents etc. That does not make it a potential human, just a human that, like you, can die for whatever reason. Unless you think you are not fully alive because you are potentially dead within the next few minutes. Dying is common afterall.

Then every cell in your body is a distinct human that I can sue you for not allowing to come to term.

You would then be dismembered, reduced to individual cells, and those cells induced to form zygotes, and brought to term.

Trying to play the "It is a human" card on a single cell (a gamete at that) leads to no life anywhere, because nothing can ever become multicellular without it being reduced again to a zygote to form the "Humans" each cell represents.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:
I think a better question at this point is:


"How much would you pay to stop this thread?"

I am bailing before I get burnt from the Stoopid over more than just my face and hands.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

And, no, I am not trying to re-define Murder.

It isn't murder to destroy a lump of cells, regardless of what they MIGHT BE at some point.

What you wish to call it is irrelevant.

Left alone a fetus grows to be a human. Arguing that it won't and "it's just a bunch of cells" is stoopid.


See how crappy an argument that makes? Having a different opinion from someone doesn't make either one of you stupid or irrelevant. It makes you different. Like the difference between a fetus and a lump of cells.

 Manchu wrote:
Seems to have been a marketing stunt for a novel.

Do you have a link for this? I don't disbelieve you, I just want to read the reasoning behind this tawdry stunt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:
They are nothing more than an emotional appeal based upon a faith-based ideology that has no evidential support for its claims.

You could almost be describing the lady in the OP

BeAfraid wrote:
But if I REALLY BELIEVED that the fetus was a "child" then I would be hard pressed to discover a credible reason not to donate as much as I could afford.

Once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

Resolving a hostage situation by giving the hostage taker what they want encourages others to use the same tactic. It's why French citizens are more likely to be killed as hostages even though their country is one of the most willing to pay for their freedom. That's why paying this donkey-cave her ransom is the last thing I'd do if I wanted to save the lives of unborn children.

 Scrabb wrote:
I think a better question at this point is:


"How much would you pay to stop this thread?"

1 cent.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do you have a link for this? I don't disbelieve you, I just want to read the reasoning behind this tawdry stunt.

If you go to the blackmail page itself, it says the ransom note was an excerpt from some novel.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do you have a link for this? I don't disbelieve you, I just want to read the reasoning behind this tawdry stunt.

If you go to the blackmail page itself, it says the ransom note was an excerpt from some novel.

http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Animals-Novel-Paperback-July/dp/B010TSP3BS
It has some glowing reviews..... seven reviews....all one star
"You shouldn't tarnish the pro-choice movement with your nonsense."
"It's rare that I am so irritated by an advertising strategy, but this is beyond the pale. WTF guys, WTF?"
"I agree that the "advertising" of this book by pretending the author was a woman intending to have an abortion was disgusting. "Chad Kultgen has established himself as one of the most honest and candid chroniclers of human relationships working today."
Obviously he's showing us he's not honest by pretending to be a woman having an abortion. Disgusting. Of course, what do we expect in today's world where self promotion is valued above anything like honor or actual honesty?"
"The abortion stunt was sick. I hope it brings you everything you were hoping for. Posting "I have every intention of having an abortion," the woman writes anonymously in an essay posted to the site, "but I'm giving you a chance to stop it." to try and get people to buy this book is morally wrong."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Kultgen
"Critics have maintained that his books have a tendency, when utilizing male protagonists, to come across as misogynistic and trite. Kultgen claims to frequently, "get messages from people who didn't enjoy the books. They tend to be a bit irate and usually take the time to tell me that I'm the worst living writer, the world would be a better place without me, I have no understanding of women or all of my books should be burned."[4] The New York Times published a balanced piece on his work in 2011, based on interviews with him, and including people who claimed that his works were based on their personas.[5] Penthouse has called his work, "appalling," while Maxim has labelled it, "pure filth.""

So... He doesn't think of a man and take away reason and accountability?

Well this is disappointing.

The confusion here on abortion is the difference between legal personhood (sentience/sapience) and the genetic identification of humanity. Just being human doesn't grant you full rights, this is why a mentally challenged person is typically counted as a minor, same with the elderly with power and attorney and what-not (this is also why across much of human civilization, being called "simple", a "moron", an "idiot", etc is such a great insult, as we often judge the worth of man by intelligence). The same with fetuses, only to a more dramatic level as they literally are non-sentient. Their only value comes from potential, and otherwise their lives are without value if cut short before birth. To quote John Marshal-

"I still have the hammer and the anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!"

While this was in regards to his five year old son being taken by King Stephen, it holds relevance to the issue of abortion as new fetuses can be created with little fuss to replace any losses that either happen naturally or unnaturally. And as a fetus for most of its existence is not self aware, no harm can be done as there is no feeling, no hurt to be had on its part as the abortion is executed. It ensures the father and mother can have a child at a later time when they are financially able to support it (and not say, be burdened with an accident or stupidity on their part, broken condom or drunk sex), and it does not lead to a painful and miserable life on the part of the future child being born and put up for adoption and thus shoved into the foster care system (a horrible existence best avoided entirely by cutting the strand of fate prior to birth). Or in the case of diseased persons such as myself burdened with hereditary genetic, yeah you don't want to pass those down on the line, and aborting a baby with such DNA would be a mercy more than anything else.

Although this appears to be a fake, in this scenario it would be far better for the woman to go through with the abortion if she cannot financially support the child, and there is no family willing to raise it. It would be chucked into the foster system, and the word "dysfunctional" does not even begin to describe it. Most likely the kid would have a fairly miserable life and have poor chances for great success. Better a non-sentient fetus is purged than a sentient child goes through a hellish childhood that may produce a broken being.

In short-

-It is illogical to abort when there is either family willing to take the child, you are financially able to support it, or just in general able to give the child a good life without ruining yourself and need not surrender it to the foster system.

-It is logical to abort the fetus if it is diseased and damned to a miserable existence for its days in sentience, there is no family to rear it properly and thus it will be surrendered, or obviously the mother's life is in danger/spawned by rape.

-In times of great distress for the species, ban all abortions if we ever suffer a severe decline in numbers that threatens our survival, and encourage abortions large-scale if the human population expands beyond its limits to help curtail growth.

Bah, just my ramblings.

Witness the fetus. He will ride eternal in Valhalla, shiny and chrome. He lives, he dies, he lives again.

WITNESS!

(Or adapt to whatever less cool religious views you hold. Like boring stuff about paradise and not having the time to sin…)

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't really care if they think it's a person. It's a personal choice where life starts, just because they've arbitrarily decided that a bundle of cells that can't feel anything is life, doesn't mean they should be able to enforce that on people who don't. I'm not stopping them not getting an abortion, they shouldn't be able to stop women who they don't even know being able to get one.

Yes, it's a personal choice. But what you're missing is that if you have made a personal choice that it is a life, then abortion is killing a human life. Nowhere on earth considers killing another person a 'personal choice', because holy fething gak of course it isn't.

And so, it really shouldn't be too hard to realise that if a person considers it a human life, then they would want to protect it just as they'd protect any other human life.

text removed.


Reds8n

If you really have nothing better to offer than insulting another user, then it's better you don't post at all.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?

Spoiler:

There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.

Such as?

In countries like Russia abortions are so common that the birth rates are suffering because of which limiting their number might be advantageous.