Abortion - An age old issue

[JU 199]

Am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who hurts themselves or dies in the process of commiting murder?

Well, yeah, Its not considered murder before a certain point. I don't people should have to risk death just because of a mistake.

 

[Big_Boss]

I fully support it, especially in cases where it's rape or the mother will die giving birth. Which is still very common, it's really awful.

I'll just leave it as that, I won't bring too much politics into it but this subject is one of the few political things I'm passionate about.

 

[Brandobaris]

The interesting thing is, as medical advances are made, infants who would have been unable to live outside the womb at birth are now able to. Many argue as long as the child has been "born" either naturally, or through caesarean now have rights. I'm wondering how long until a fetus can exist outside the womb on external life support going through almost it's entire fetal development and live. Where will the abortion argument be then?

At what point will personhood be decided? Brain development? At birth, a Chimp has more developed cognitive abilities and sense of self than a newborn human. So scientifically, the Chimp is more of a person than the Human until they reach 4-6 years of age. Do infants now have no rights until the ages in which they have demonstrated cognitive thought?

Or do you simply then say a Human life, no matter what stage of development it is, is now a life? Now you have to contend with other problems, naturally occurring "Failure to Launch" abortions.

 

[Chinaman]

It amazes me how stupid Americans are. Really... all you have to do is re-word something and it changes their entire perception of the issue. To the point of I don't think Americans believe in anything.

Here is an example and it's abortion related. We know I'm a registered democrat. You don't hear too often about Asians running for office and I want to change that. Anyway, we know democrats have the loudest "pro-choice" advocates. They don't seem to believe in choice much of anywhere else but let's assume they really do feel like abortion should be a purely a choice...

I just say something like "only a doctor and or judge should get to dictate a woman's body because they are educated and have been doing this for years." Their brains immediately hear "woman's body" and "educated" two phrases they have said so many times it triggers an emotional response over having any validity in a God damn conversation... so they're like YEAH!!!

Congratulations, you are not pro-choice. You might be okay with abortion... but only if a competent man is deciding the abortion, not your stupid whore ass.

Now see when I say it like that UGH I'm so misogynist, you can't even...

 

[Ruin]

It amazes me how stupid Americans are. Really... all you have to do is re-word something and it changes their entire perception of the issue. To the point of I don't think Americans believe in anything.

Here is an example and it's abortion related. We know I'm a registered democrat. You don't hear too often about Asians running for office and I want to change that. Anyway, we know democrats have the loudest "pro-choice" advocates. They don't seem to believe in choice much of anywhere else but let's assume they really do feel like abortion should be a purely a choice...

I just say something like "only a doctor and or judge should get to dictate a woman's body because they are educated and have been doing this for years." Their brains immediately hear "woman's body" and "educated" two phrases they have said so many times it triggers an emotional response over having any validity in a God damn conversation... so they're like YEAH!!!

Congratulations, you are not pro-choice. You might be okay with abortion... but only if a competent man is deciding the abortion, not your stupid whore ass.

Now see when I say it like that UGH I'm so misogynist, you can't even...

Can you make a version of this post without the snark and the autism? I have no idea what point you're trying to make or if you even have one.

 

[Chinaman]

Can you make a version of this post without the snark and the autism? I have no idea what point you're trying to make or if you even have one.

But it's the snark and autism that make me such a good democrat lol.

 

[Joan Nyan]

But it's the snark and autism that make me such a good democrat lol.

No, if you were a good Democrat you would be arguing for the destruction of Western civilization under the guise of helping oppressed people. You just typed a mess of autism that no one understands.

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

While I understand that there are a number of arguments for and against all this, I'm just not comfortable in declaring an unborn fetus a human being. What makes a human being so special, as far as I'm concerned, is that spark of creativity that goes along with our general awareness of the world. A fetus has neither of those things, and while I know that they will one day gain that level of cognition, they aren't what I would call a "person" yet.

And since they are no more than chunks of gestating cellular material, I am perfectly fine with the idea of abortion. Especially if that means we can pick and choose just what type of person this fetal mass will develop into one day. For example, while I have nothing but respect and compassion for those born with Down Syndrome, there's no reason that there should be anyone born with that condition anymore. That the condition still exists in living people is a shameful reflection of our inability to make even the most basic decision on what is worthy of being considered a desirable human.

There are many questions and problems that go along with this mindset, of course. Much of wish I seem to believe comes off as a type of eugenics. And to an extent, I would agree with that criticism. There was much that was wrong with the eugenics movement. But the basic premise that we can better the human species by making simple, common sense choices on what basic traits are worthy of the word "human", is a reasonable notion to me. Though such a notion is fraught with perilous questions and problems, I think that it is an attainable ideal.

Just as a gardener can prune his garden to make it more beautiful, we can nip a number of conditions in the bud that would otherwise detract from a person's experiencing a full human life. A new term would be men other than eugenics though. One that doesn't have all of that genocide, racism, and clinical murder baggage attached to it. And now of this really touches on issues such as a potential father's parental rights. But as a basic justification for abortion, I think there's enough to this point of view for it to be worthy of consideration.

(Yeah, suck on that autistic wall of text, Deep Thoughts.)

 

[Joan Nyan]

While I understand that there are a number of arguments for and against all this, I'm just not comfortable in declaring an unborn fetus a human being. What makes a human being so special, as far as I'm concerned, is that spark of creativity that goes along with our general awareness of the world. A fetus has neither of those things, and while I know that they will one day gain that level of cognition, they aren't what I would call a "person" yet.

Neither does a newborn baby until a few years old at least, so are you also okay with post-natal infanticide? If not, what is so magical about vaginas that can turn something which is not a person into a person?

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

Neither does a newborn baby until a few years old at least, so are you also okay with post-natal infanticide? If not, what is so magical about vaginas that can turn something which is not a person into a person?

One facet of this whole trainwreck debate is that there isn't a clearly defined point where the fetal chunk of flesh ceases to be a mindless proto-person.

I personally think that the line between not-human and human lies somewhere inside the womb. But, of course, my opinion isn't scientific fact. I'm not sure where that line can factually be drawn. The safest bet seems to be to differentiate between where a fetus can start experiencing sensory input on par with what we might experience.

This presents its own series of problems though, and since I'm only partially awake at this point, I would say that I disagree with your assertion that a newborn doesn't experience personhood as I previously attempted to define it. But this just further goes to highlight the core issue behind the abortion debate: Everyone has different standards and definitions about what makes us human.

 

[Joan Nyan]

One facet of this whole trainwreck debate is that there isn't a clearly defined point where the fetal chunk of flesh ceases to be a mindless proto-person.

I personally think that the line between not-human and human lies somewhere inside the womb. But, of course, my opinion isn't scientific fact. I'm not sure where that line can factually be drawn. The safest bet seems to be to differentiate between where a fetus can start experiencing sensory input on par with what we might experience.

This presents its own series of problems though, and since I'm only partially awake at this point, I would say that I disagree with your assertion that a newborn doesn't experience personhood as I previously attempted to define it. But this just further goes to highlight the core issue behind the abortion debate: Everyone has different standards and definitions about what makes us human.

Embryos being human is factually, scientifically clear though. If you look at their DNA, you will see that it is in fact human DNA, the exact same DNA that they will have as adults.

Regardless, in the absence of a consensus on what counts as a person, the safest bet, as in the one which actually ensures safety, would be to start protecting them at the earliest possibility (conception) in order to ensure that there is no chance you are killing human lives.

 

[Null]

Regardless, in the absence of a consensus on what counts as a person, the safest bet, as in the one which actually ensures safety, would be to start protecting them at the earliest possibility (conception) in order to ensure that there is no chance you are killing human lives.

I'm not even being edgy when I say that post-birth euthanasia should be an option for mentally or physically crippled peoples. There is nothing special or significant about the life of a embryonic cell cluster or new born baby.

A lot of people tend to hold the belief that a child's life is more valuable than an adults (especially seniors), but IMO a 60 year old is far more pitiable than a newborn. A newborn only has the potential for life, a 60 year old has survived life and is a treasure trove of experience and knowledge. Unbinding a 60 year old's brain loses the world a significant chunk of humanity that can never be replaced. A newborn can't eat solids and knows nothing. It's like trying to convince me that a brand new off the shelf collectible is somehow more valuable than an antique because of its unrealized potential. Fuck off with that.

If you believe in souls I guess it can make sense from a religious or spiritual perspective, but if you don't believe in that shit, not harvesting stem cells for research is wasted potential and letting a severely handicapped baby live out a shit life is just fucking cruel.

 

[Pepsi-Cola]

Embryos being human is factually, scientifically clear though. If you look at their DNA, you will see that it is in fact human DNA, the exact same DNA that they will have as adults.

Regardless, in the absence of a consensus on what counts as a person, the safest bet, as in the one which actually ensures safety, would be to start protecting them at the earliest possibility (conception) in order to ensure that there is no chance you are killing human lives.

it seems like abortions are to you what foreskins are to @*Asterisk*

 

[Joan Nyan]

I'm not even being edgy when I say that post-birth euthanasia should be an option for mentally or physically crippled peoples. There is nothing special or significant about the life of a embryonic cell cluster or new born baby.

A lot of people tend to hold the belief that a child's life is more valuable than an adults (especially seniors), but IMO a 60 year old is far more pitiable than a newborn. A newborn only has the potential for life, a 60 year old has survived life and is a treasure trove of experience and knowledge. Unbinding a 60 year old's brain loses the world a significant chunk of humanity that can never be replaced. A newborn can't eat solids and knows nothing. It's like trying to convince me that a brand new off the shelf collectible is somehow more valuable than an antique because of its unrealized potential. Fuck off with that.

If you believe in souls I guess it can make sense from a religious or spiritual perspective, but if you don't believe in that shit, not harvesting stem cells for research is wasted potential and letting a severely handicapped baby live out a shit life is just fucking cruel.

I don't believe in souls but I do believe that we have to have some rules as a society that we consistently follow and at the top of that list is "don't kill innocent people".

it seems like abortions are to you what foreskins are to @*Asterisk*

Thanks for the custom title idea

 

[Null]

I don't believe in souls but I do believe that we have to have some rules as a society that we consistently follow and at the top of that list is "don't kill innocent people".

We don't follow that consistently.

First and foremost, DIGNITAS exists. See: euthanizing severely deformed infants and fetuses.

Second, the concept of innocence is a contextual item. A person who is hanged for treason, for instance, is the best example of common practice execution in the world and the best example of contextual innocence. Recently, a CIA embedded nuclear scientist in Iran was hanged for treason after Hillary Clinton emails showed that he was relaying information to the United States. To the US, he was a daring and brave man putting his life on the line for a Force for Good(tm), enabling the US to make sure that an unstable and dangerous dictatorship didn't get nuclear weapons. To Iran, he had lied to the government, his colleagues, and to their God, selling out the country and her people to a belligerent, invasive foreign entity that hypocritically hoards its own nuclear arsenal while forbidding others from doing the same.

But surely all fetuses and infants are innocent. The question is if they're people and if they deserve protections that animals or cellular organisms don't get.

In the eyes of a woman who's been raped, her fetus is the product of physical and emotional abuse that is growing into an 9 month to 18 year obligation that will remind them every. single. day. that they were raped. To her, that fetus might be a parasite. There are plenty of parasites that we remove from our bodies all the time that we don't afford rights to. Why is a rape fetus treated differently?

 

[Joan Nyan]

First and foremost, DIGNITAS exists

Why should I give a fuck what the Swiss do?

In the eyes of a woman who's been raped, her fetus is the product of physical and emotional abuse that is growing into an 9 month to 18 year obligation that will remind them every. single. day. that they were raped. To her, that fetus might be a parasite. There are plenty of parasites that we remove from our bodies all the time that we don't afford rights to. Why is a rape fetus treated differently?

Because they're objectively human lives (living beings with human DNA) and not parasites. That's a fact and facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[Null]

Because they're objectively human lives (living beings with human DNA) and not parasites. That's a fact and facts don't care about your feelings.

Au contraire, facts are facts and don't care about your feelings. A clump of cells that can easily be squatted out without the woman even noticing is not a person. Most miscarriages happen like that within the first month because the fetus is so small (literally microscopic). If your idea of humanity was applied in law, we'd have to start ringing women up who smoke during pregnancy for child abuse. We'd have to charge women who don't do proper neonatal care as wreckless endangerment. Au contraire, facts are facts, and we don't give fetuses constitutional rights because they're not people. If a cell clump cannot survive on its own without being attached by a cord to my bowels, you better fucking believe I don't consider that thing its own person.

 

[ulsterscotsman]

Au contraire, facts are facts and don't care about your feelings. A clump of cells that can easily be squatted out without the woman even noticing is not a person. Most miscarriages happen like that within the first month because the fetus is so small (literally microscopic). If your idea of humanity was applied in law, we'd have to start ringing women up who smoke during pregnancy for child abuse. We'd have to charge women who don't do proper neonatal care as wreckless endangerment. Au contraire, facts are facts, and we don't give fetuses constitutional rights because they're not people. If a cell clump cannot survive on its own without being attached by a cord to my bowels, you better fucking believe I don't consider that thing its own person.

You where once that clump of cells aswell Null.

 

[Null]

You where once that clump of cells aswell Null.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” - Mark Twain

 

[ulsterscotsman]

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” - Mark Twain

And how is that any excuse to steal the chance of life from an other person?