Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What someone has said about abortion on another forum.

Page 9 of 11 [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

10 Feb 2021, 1:50 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
In my mind, the fetus is a full person when he/she starts looking like a person, and responds (in basic term) like a person would. Sometime between 2-3 months gestation.

I don't feel there's any dispute that the fetus, at approximately 6-7 months gestation, is a fully-realized infant person.

I'm pro-choice---but I do believe a laudable objective is to seek to avoid having to get an abortion. For both men and women.


Absolutly 'high five'



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

10 Feb 2021, 7:09 pm

HeroOfHyrule wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It’s a simple fact. Zefs are not people and should not be granted the rights and protections we offer to people.

That does not mean that people are not entitled to grieve for miscarried zefs. People are entitled to grieve for all sorts of things that don’t come to pass, or that aren’t people. You are allowed to grieve when your house burns down with nobody inside and comprehensive insurance. That doesn’t make your house a person. You are allowed to grieve when a pet dies. That doesn’t make your pet a person (although in most cases it has a stronger claim to personhood than a zef). You are allowed to grieve when an opportunity collapses, but that doesn’t make the opportunity a person.

What differentiates a person from a non-person isn’t whether we grieve for it, but whether it has a sense of its ongoing existence. Persons have natural rights, and should have legal rights. Non-persons do not have natural rights, and should not have legal rights.

You do realize your definition of "personhood" doesn't really include people with various, profound disabilities. By your own logic, people who have severe brain damage or mental disabilities and are assumed to not be properly aware of what's going on around them, so thus have "no sense of their ongoing existence", are not people and should have no rights.

I hope there is more to your logic and that isn't just it, because your definition of "personhood" has a huge, unmissable slippery slope involved in it that is already often used to dehumanize a group of people.


The definition of "personhood" is indeed a messy subject that we all have differing opinions on. Unfortunately, not every moral dilemma can have a clear, concise answer.

Personally, I don't think any being has a "right" to use my body regardless of the state of its physical development.

As to the topic at hand, women who suffer a miscarriage or who have an abortion should be allowed to grieve. However, women who don't see a z/e/f as a person shouldn't be pressured into seeing a clump of cells as the equivalent to a baby. Two different perspectives can exist at the same time and be equally valid.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


HeroOfHyrule
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2020
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,247

10 Feb 2021, 7:25 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
HeroOfHyrule wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It’s a simple fact. Zefs are not people and should not be granted the rights and protections we offer to people.

That does not mean that people are not entitled to grieve for miscarried zefs. People are entitled to grieve for all sorts of things that don’t come to pass, or that aren’t people. You are allowed to grieve when your house burns down with nobody inside and comprehensive insurance. That doesn’t make your house a person. You are allowed to grieve when a pet dies. That doesn’t make your pet a person (although in most cases it has a stronger claim to personhood than a zef). You are allowed to grieve when an opportunity collapses, but that doesn’t make the opportunity a person.

What differentiates a person from a non-person isn’t whether we grieve for it, but whether it has a sense of its ongoing existence. Persons have natural rights, and should have legal rights. Non-persons do not have natural rights, and should not have legal rights.

You do realize your definition of "personhood" doesn't really include people with various, profound disabilities. By your own logic, people who have severe brain damage or mental disabilities and are assumed to not be properly aware of what's going on around them, so thus have "no sense of their ongoing existence", are not people and should have no rights.

I hope there is more to your logic and that isn't just it, because your definition of "personhood" has a huge, unmissable slippery slope involved in it that is already often used to dehumanize a group of people.


The definition of "personhood" is indeed a messy subject that we all have differing opinions on. Unfortunately, not every moral dilemma can have a clear, concise answer.

Personally, I don't think any being has a "right" to use my body regardless of the state of its physical development.

As to the topic at hand, women who suffer a miscarriage or who have an abortion should be allowed to grieve. However, women who don't see a z/e/f as a person shouldn't be pressured into seeing a clump of cells as the equivalent to a baby. Two different perspectives can exist at the same time and be equally valid.

I definitely agree that women should be allowed their feelings about this, whether they think the zygote/fetus is a person or not. Like I said before, I don't care about people having abortions or care about how they view fetuses. I just think when you're explaining your logic in a discussion like this the definition of "personhood" that you're giving should be thought out a bit more.

What immediately stuck out to me and made me even say anything is that I've seen people who argue that a lot of severely autistic people "aren't fully aware of their existence/their environment" (whether that's true or not), and thus should not be kept alive if they need treatment or given any rights/protections, as they are viewed as just a mindless waste of resources. I don't like seeing logic that is reminiscent of that on a forum for autistic people.



Rexi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,388
Location: "I know there's nothing we can do. But my heart can't accept it." "If this is real, then I want to change the future."

10 Feb 2021, 8:44 pm

Maybe my purpose in life is to help women abort zygotes. I mean, doing 30, even 15 per day must be pretty satisfying.


_________________
My Pepe Le Skunk. I have so much faith in our love for one another. Thanks for being an amazing partner. :heart: x :heart:

Any topic, PM me; mind my profile.


Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

11 Feb 2021, 3:39 am

I believe each woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, if she wants an abortion then that should be her choice.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

11 Feb 2021, 7:50 am

I agree with “choice.” I agree a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body.

It’s sad, though, that a growing baby in the mother has to be in the middle of all this.

I’m glad my mother didn’t abort me, even though I was “unplanned.”



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 Feb 2021, 9:49 am

Biscuitman wrote:
I believe each woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, if she wants an abortion then that should be her choice.

Every woman DOES have the right to choose what happens to her body. For reasonable people who oppose abortion, it's not her body or her choices of what to do with it that is up for debate.



Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

11 Feb 2021, 10:45 am

AngelRho wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I believe each woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, if she wants an abortion then that should be her choice.

Every woman DOES have the right to choose what happens to her body. For reasonable people who oppose abortion, it's not her body or her choices of what to do with it that is up for debate.



You need to iterate this again, what you say do not compute.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Feb 2021, 11:12 am

Gaffer Gragz wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I believe each woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, if she wants an abortion then that should be her choice.

Every woman DOES have the right to choose what happens to her body. For reasonable people who oppose abortion, it's not her body or her choices of what to do with it that is up for debate.



You need to iterate this again, what you say do not compute.


I believe he is saying as soon as a woman becomes pregnant, there are now two bodies and two sets of "rights" to consider, not just her own.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

11 Feb 2021, 1:05 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I believe each woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, if she wants an abortion then that should be her choice.

Every woman DOES have the right to choose what happens to her body. For reasonable people who oppose abortion, it's not her body or her choices of what to do with it that is up for debate.


are you trying to state that those who believe it should be her choice whether she terminates a pregnancy or not, are not reasonable people?



Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

11 Feb 2021, 1:45 pm

Mikah wrote:
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I believe each woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, if she wants an abortion then that should be her choice.

Every woman DOES have the right to choose what happens to her body. For reasonable people who oppose abortion, it's not her body or her choices of what to do with it that is up for debate.



You need to iterate this again, what you say do not compute.


I believe he is saying as soon as a woman becomes pregnant, there are now two bodies and two sets of "rights" to consider, not just her own.


Edit: This is irony. (For what I try to tell, see )
Soooo, to take this all the way with this logic, we kill the woman and saves the foetus? Wow, that makes totally sense if you are a person that thinks 'I have the duty to judge others'. For other people, this is just wrong.

(here)
What is the core here, is that some see that this is separate things, Females be free to choose and at the same time judge that any stem cell mass has to evolve into something. This is legally, biologically not possible.

And yes, many will say: adopt away etc, and yes that's a legal biological option. But we humans have the ability to use reason, and there are so many outcomes possible (unintended consequences the most hurtful to consider.)
Stop judge where you have no say. Support where its needed, with this I'm sure we will get the best outcome with fewest problems. Educate, support.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Feb 2021, 2:12 pm

Gaffer Gragz wrote:
Soooo, to take this all the way with this logic, we kill the woman and saves the foetus?


No, that is probably the one instance where abortion is morally justified. No right or wrong answer, one life ends or the other.

---

I'm not sure I want to go through this whole argument again, it's not yet that time of year where xfg and I ritually butt heads. But to certain unnamed planks I address the following:

I'm assuming one of two things: Either you generally support the restriction of abortion after the fetus/baby reaches a certain gestational age, be it 24 or 22 weeks or whatever it is where you live or you understand why people would support such a limit. That is, there is a certain gestational age where it becomes seriously morally questionable to perform an abortion for trivial reasons. Pulling out a baby a day before the due date and executing it on the spot because mommy has changed her mind - is morally questionable.

Those who are against abortion just have a different date in mind for when that act becomes questionable. That is it, the main difference and the core of the argument. It's not a plot to control women, it's solely about the nature of what is aborted during the procedure. As I've stated before, if you want to control women in that way - you attack contraception, not abortion. Contraception provides 99.9% of that freedom.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

11 Feb 2021, 2:24 pm

Off Topic
Meta-Topic Comment: It amazes me that the vast majority of posts in this thread are made by MEN.

This implies that if men would not involve themselves in discussions on women's reproductive rights, there would be no such discussions, and women would be free to exercise those rights!

But no ... men must butt in and try to control women and do all their thinking and "moralizing" for them.

What is the matter, guys?  Does it bother you that women have thoughts and lives that do not involve you?  Are you all afraid that women, if left to decide anything for themselves, might make decisions without your approval?  Do you lie awake at night wondering if the women in your lives may have already secretly aborted fetuses you helped conceive?



HeroOfHyrule
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2020
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,247

11 Feb 2021, 2:34 pm

I noticed that a lot of the posts in topics like this are from men. I hope I am allowed to express my opinion without seeming controlling, as I am a trans man (born female) and this topic directly affects me since I can become pregnant (even trans men taking testosterone can still ovulate without menstruating, which is why having the option of abortion is often important to us).



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

11 Feb 2021, 2:37 pm

Fnord wrote:
Off Topic
Meta-Topic Comment: It amazes me that the vast majority of posts in this thread are made by MEN.

This implies that if men would not involve themselves in discussions on women's reproductive rights, there would be no such discussions, and women would be free to exercise those rights!

But no ... men must butt in and try to control women and do all their thinking and "moralizing" for them.

What is the matter, guys?  Does it bother you that women have thoughts and lives that do not involve you?  Are you all afraid that women, if left to decide anything for themselves, might make decisions without your approval?  Do you lie awake at night wondering if the women in your lives may have already secretly aborted fetuses you helped conceive?


Oh I didn't think of this as a possible men vs women thing. I thought some people were against abortion from both genders, and some people were for it from both genders.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Feb 2021, 2:51 pm

Fnord wrote:
Off Topic
Meta-Topic Comment: It amazes me that the vast majority of posts in this thread are made by MEN.

This implies that if men would not involve themselves in discussions on women's reproductive rights, there would be no such discussions, and women would be free to exercise those rights!

But no ... men must butt in and try to control women and do all their thinking and "moralizing" for them.

What is the matter, guys?  Does it bother you that women have thoughts and lives that do not involve you?  Are you all afraid that women, if left to decide anything for themselves, might make decisions without your approval?  Do you lie awake at night wondering if the women in your lives may have already secretly aborted fetuses you helped conceive?


Women are perfectly capable of holding their own in a debate, they do not need to be protected from contrary opinions. How does a man stating an opinion morph into "doing women's thinking for them" in your eyes?

You have an alarmingly low opinion of women, Sir Fnordalot.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!