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

Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Page 10 of 11 [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

24 Jan 2013, 4:04 am

Dillogic wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Most women wouldn't want an aspie baby and would abort them if they knew its an aspie ahead of time they would abort it.


I agree with you, and they eventually will figure out how to test for such.

But, that's the law.
That's heartbreaking and worries me but that's reality and its her body her choice.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

24 Jan 2013, 4:08 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
That's heartbreaking and worries me but that's reality... .


Done with Down's all the time, and people with Down's can be just as happy and nice as anyone else (often nicer I've found); modern medical care has been able to fix many of the congenital problems they experience too, so their lifespan is longer.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jan 2013, 5:51 am

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
It's not part of the woman's body. It's inside her body, yes, but it's its own person.

to a woman that wants it gone, it could sometimes be seen as a parasite. not necessarily as a person. you speak in absolutes.


Right, but her perception doesn't absolutely negate the right of that parasite.

that isn't an absolute right, as you pointed out. so there is no need to consider that right, apparently.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jan 2013, 6:04 am

Dillogic wrote:
Whilst I'm all for abortion too, but I still think a "fetus" is close enough to a "baby" that I couldn't call it anything negative in comparison to a child that's just been born or one that's close enough to be; both are parasites if you want to call one such but the other not. I'm technically a parasite to my mother, and I'm running at 31.

Semen ain't anything by itself. Eggs ain't anything either. But get them going together, and something resembling a baby comes from that, then it's as clear cut as I can see it.

It's creation of life.

Do people say it's not because it makes it easier on the people who go through with it? Well, if the pregnancy was unplanned, then said consenting adults (teenagers included) should have taken the proper care to not actually make a baby; calling it not a baby human is a nice way to feel better for yourself, but said fetus will be born into a human -- it's already set in motion. Killing sperm cells isn't going to. The same with eggs. Rape? No worries there as it's unplanned without choice.

Don't have any stake in the politics of this, but fetus turning into a born child is cause and effect. Both are utterly dependent on people to survive too.

people use language intentionally. words like "baby" and "human" and "life" are used as tools to try to soften people's minds so that abortion becomes a horrifying choice. words like "bundle of cells" and "embryo" and "foetus" are more neutral. but for people that have a thing growing inside of them that they want removed, it can be seen and spoken of as a parasite. i've seen that word used on this very forum, and i've heard it in real life. it's not rare or particularly shocking, except perhaps to the people want to preserve some sort of sanctity or dignity to the thing that is growing inside the uterus. if you use a certain word, that word will carry meaning as to your politics.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

24 Jan 2013, 6:35 am

hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
It's not part of the woman's body. It's inside her body, yes, but it's its own person.

to a woman that wants it gone, it could sometimes be seen as a parasite. not necessarily as a person. you speak in absolutes.


Right, but her perception doesn't absolutely negate the right of that parasite.

that isn't an absolute right, as you pointed out. so there is no need to consider that right, apparently.


As you said, there are no absolute rights. And this applies to mothers as well. And to all human beings.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jan 2013, 6:39 am

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
It's not part of the woman's body. It's inside her body, yes, but it's its own person.

to a woman that wants it gone, it could sometimes be seen as a parasite. not necessarily as a person. you speak in absolutes.


Right, but her perception doesn't absolutely negate the right of that parasite.

that isn't an absolute right, as you pointed out. so there is no need to consider that right, apparently.


As you said, there are no absolute rights. And this applies to mothers as well. And to all human beings.

so then what is the point of this conversation, exactly?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

24 Jan 2013, 6:44 am

As I said, to keep things in perspective. And to encourage critical thinking.

If you want to demonstrate why abortion is the way to go, you don't do it by speaking in absolutes. This means you should accept that it's reasonable for some people to see a fetus as a human being with its own rights just like the mother. If you don't, then you're saying that they absolutely have no rights, which indicates that you're arguing in absolutes. That's the same mistake most pro-lifers do. Speaking in absolutes.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jan 2013, 6:53 am

MCalavera wrote:
As I said, to keep things in perspective. And to encourage critical thinking.

If you want to demonstrate why abortion is the way to go, you don't do it by speaking in absolutes. This means you should accept that it's reasonable for some people to see a fetus as a human being with its own rights just like the mother. If you don't, then you're saying that they absolutely have no rights, which indicates that you're arguing in absolutes. That's the same mistake most pro-lifers do. Speaking in absolutes.

i am thinking critically, but you keep moving the goalposts and questioning everything, which isn't actually critical thinking - it's just critical noise. it isn't possible to have a fruitful debate like that, as it's rather like debating creation with someone who says "but the world doesn't exist. it's all a mirage!" then when you agree, the person says, "but the world exists if you are standing on it!"

there is no framework in that - it's pointless. you may want to consider ahead of time what you are actually discussing and limit yourself accordingly, or you may want to take a stance prior to engaging. either way, it's not worth my time to have this discussion with you. maybe someone else has the patience, but i don't.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

24 Jan 2013, 6:58 am

hyperlexian wrote:
i am thinking critically, but you keep moving the goalposts and questioning everything, which isn't actually critical thinking - it's just critical noise. it isn't possible to have a fruitful debate like that, as it's rather like debating creation with someone who says "but the world doesn't exist. it's all a mirage!" then when you agree, the person says, "but the world exists if you are standing on it!"


No, you've not been thinking critically in this thread. There have been a couple of members here in this thread who have, but you're not one of them so far. And I don't even care to make sense of the analogy that you're describing here. It looks like you just want to use rhetorics to indicate that I suck at critical thinking when I was absolutely clear that I was never arguing for absolutes, while you, and others, on the other hand, kept arguing for absolutes despite me pointing out the lack of logic in it and asking that you address the logic in my arguments. Which neither you nor they did ever address.

Quote:
there is no framework in that - it's pointless. you may want to consider ahead of time what you are actually discussing and limit yourself accordingly, or you may want to take a stance prior to engaging. either way, it's not worth my time to have this discussion with you. maybe someone else has the patience, but i don't.


Your lack of understanding of my position does not mean I lack framework.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jan 2013, 7:03 am

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i am thinking critically, but you keep moving the goalposts and questioning everything, which isn't actually critical thinking - it's just critical noise. it isn't possible to have a fruitful debate like that, as it's rather like debating creation with someone who says "but the world doesn't exist. it's all a mirage!" then when you agree, the person says, "but the world exists if you are standing on it!"


No, you've not been thinking critically in this thread. There have been a couple of members here in this thread who have, but you're not one of them so far. And I don't even care to make sense of the analogy that you're describing here. It looks like you just want to use rhetorics to indicate that I suck at critical thinking when I was absolutely clear that I was never arguing for absolutes, while you, and others, on the other hand, kept arguing for absolutes despite me pointing out the lack of logic in it and asking that you address the logic in my arguments. Which neither you nor they did ever address.

Quote:
there is no framework in that - it's pointless. you may want to consider ahead of time what you are actually discussing and limit yourself accordingly, or you may want to take a stance prior to engaging. either way, it's not worth my time to have this discussion with you. maybe someone else has the patience, but i don't.


Your lack of understanding of my position does not mean I lack framework.

hahaha don't blame other people's critical thinking when your own arguments don't hold water. you argued in absolutes (or at least didn't allow any leeway), then changed your position when it was disputed. and so it went, back and forth, then finally your absolute position was a position of "no absolutes" - a lazy argument.

nahhhh it's a waste of time to play this game with you. i'm out.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

24 Jan 2013, 7:08 am

hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i am thinking critically, but you keep moving the goalposts and questioning everything, which isn't actually critical thinking - it's just critical noise. it isn't possible to have a fruitful debate like that, as it's rather like debating creation with someone who says "but the world doesn't exist. it's all a mirage!" then when you agree, the person says, "but the world exists if you are standing on it!"


No, you've not been thinking critically in this thread. There have been a couple of members here in this thread who have, but you're not one of them so far. And I don't even care to make sense of the analogy that you're describing here. It looks like you just want to use rhetorics to indicate that I suck at critical thinking when I was absolutely clear that I was never arguing for absolutes, while you, and others, on the other hand, kept arguing for absolutes despite me pointing out the lack of logic in it and asking that you address the logic in my arguments. Which neither you nor they did ever address.

Quote:
there is no framework in that - it's pointless. you may want to consider ahead of time what you are actually discussing and limit yourself accordingly, or you may want to take a stance prior to engaging. either way, it's not worth my time to have this discussion with you. maybe someone else has the patience, but i don't.


Your lack of understanding of my position does not mean I lack framework.

hahaha don't blame other people's critical thinking when your own arguments don't hold water. you argued in absolutes (or at least didn't allow any leeway), then changed your position when it was disputed. and so it went, back and forth, then finally your absolute position was a position of "no absolutes" - a lazy argument.

nahhhh it's a waste of time to play this game with you. i'm out.


Sure, let's check the post that triggered our recent exchange here:

Quote:
MCalavera wrote:
The question is if a fetus is really on the same level in terms of value as sperm or skin cells. Why can't it on the same level of value as a baby that just got out of the mother's womb?

That's where it boils down to. Opinions.


Doesn't look like I was arguing in absolutes here.

For reference, go back to the following link and reread what I was really arguing.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf221350-0-75.html



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

24 Jan 2013, 6:28 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Yes, the agenda is feministic. Why shy away from what it really is. Just as the agenda of most pro-lifers is religious.

It was sarcasm. Of course my agenda is "feministic". I tend to agree on a lot of points with feminists. But I disagree with extreme feminists in their (awful) treatment of trans women and possibly other things. If we define feminism as looking for equality, then I am all for it.


_________________
.


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

24 Jan 2013, 6:56 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
If we define feminism as looking for equality, then I am all for it.


I'm not versed on feminism, but that's generally what it means, right?

Yep, people should be all for that.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Jan 2013, 5:03 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
That's stupid. Being human (adjective) does not make a thing a human being (sust.).

My skin cell are HUMAN skin cells. They are not human beings.


But your skin cells are cells created by and extracted from a larger, complete organism. The correct analog to your skin cells would be the skin cells of the fetus. The correct analog to you is the fetus itself. You cannot pretend that these are interchangable concepts.

But what is it if it's not a human being? What is the defining point in embryology that changes a collection of cells into a human being?

The individual is undeniably human, and undeniably distinct from the woman in whose uterus it is developing. It is a complete organism.

You are fighting a stupid battle, in which you are logically, medically, biologically and ethically on the wrong side. And all you serve to do is give the anti-choice side a perfect opportunity to cut the legs out from under your argument. This contributes precisely nothing useful to any debate on the legal, political or medical ethical question of access to abortion.

Be useful to that debate, or let others get on with it.

Here's one of the rare cases where I disagree with you, Visagrunt. At the developmental starge where the vast majority of miscarriages and abortions happen, an embryo doesn't have skin. It might not even have much of a dermis - just the undifferentiated tissue that will become dermis (and CNS, etc.).



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

25 Jan 2013, 5:27 pm

LKL wrote:
Here's one of the rare cases where I disagree with you, Visagrunt. At the developmental starge where the vast majority of miscarriages and abortions happen, an embryo doesn't have skin. It might not even have much of a dermis - just the undifferentiated tissue that will become dermis (and CNS, etc.).


I have never suggested that it does.

What I have said is that the organism is human (by reason of the typical 46 chromosomes, and their source), and it is distinct (by reason of its distinct genome). I have never suggested that it is fully formed or viable.

But there is no point in pretending that a fetus isn't alive or isn't human, because it is most clearly both of those things. The justification for maternal access to abortion must be cast in a way that acknowledges those facts, and stands up to scrutiny in the face of them. That is why I place my limit at the threshold of viability.


_________________
--James


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Jan 2013, 6:17 pm

Visagrunt^I misunderstood your meaning, then.
Your stance is, as always, reasonable. :wink:
Many of us in the abortion debate speak only in terms of the ends of a pregnancy: the unformed embryo, or the fetus one day before it's born.