Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Post Reply New Topic

I don't really see the relevance.

Coincidentally, the fetus itself is created by and extracted from a larger, complete organism.
A human fetus. A prospect human being. That sort of stuff.

You may be going overly literalistic in this. When I mean human being I mean person. But I stand by all of it.


Birth.

Human (Adjective). Oh, and no lexical warfare please. It is closer to a thing than an "individual".
Or is it? Apparently I don't even agree on this.


We are square back to schrödinger's abortion then.

Extract the fetus. If it survives, then it was a birth by dissection. If it dies out of still needing the mother's organism to stay alive, then it was not a complete organism yet.

f**k you.

Logically I am correct. In fact if it was not for logic I would not ever have come to this conclusion. Lack of brain tells me there is no consciousness at conception. So we have to draw a line somewhere. Birth is the only line that can be drawn that is not absurdly arbitrary. Ok, some anti-choicers are idiotic enough to believe that it makes even the remote sense to draw the line at conception, but like I said that's definitely not the case.

I have in the past admitted that the truth value of a fetus being a person is a fuzzy value like 0.67 (completely made up). We know that a person is a person at birth (based on our laws only) and that it does not even have a brain until some week from conception. So maybe we should interpolate or something. But my logic tells me that 0.90 of a human being hardly deserves more rights than 1.00 of one.

There is medically and biologically no metric that defines any stage of pregnancy in which the thing is definitely a person. Personhood is something that is in the fuzzy side of things. So you would be sounded more like a quack if you make a positive claim and insist that you have biology on your side. I would not be surprised though, considering how you were apologetic of homeopathy in the past.

Ethically? At this point it seems like you just wanted to add modifiers to the claim that I would be wrong. But I strongly disagree. We cannot force people to go through pregnancies. Sorry.

Yeah, because autism makes me about...20% of a human being, so I should have less rights and privileges because of that.

Logic goes both ways.

This is not logic.

It can be if you base humans on "what they are" in comparison to other humans, and it'd be logical to assume that humans will advance to a greater level if only the "ideal" are allowed to live or have greater rights, for example. Eugenics is logical, even if it's an awful practice.

Cause and effect and all that.

I've had to split posts off this thread because of a personal attack and a swear filter dodge.

If you can't keep it civil, at least stay within the TOS.

This doesn't make any more sense than your last post.
At what point did you decide a person with Aspergers is 'less' than someone who is NT?

What is arbitrary about the threshold of viability? This is the moment at which a fetus makes the transition from have zero potential to survive outside the uterus, to having an actual (if slim) chance of survival. This is a real transition that occurs in pregnancy, and it is an important stage in embryonic development. The only thing that is arbitrary about it is where we estimate that transition to occur. But even here, we have empirical evidence. We know, from clinical experience, that the prospect of survival for a fetus delivered before 21 weeks, 5 days gestational age (from LMP) is zero. No child has ever been delivered earlier than this and survived.

On the other hand, we know that the prosects for viability of a fetus delivered at, say, 30 weeks are greater than 95%. Your so-called "logic" suggests that termination of a pregnancy at this stage is ethically no different than termination of a pregnancy at 19 weeks. I reject that notion categorically. I have no legal or ethical objection to terminating a pregnancy in a case where the fetus is not viable. But in the moment that the fetus presents the potential to survive out of the uterus, the ethical calculus changes.

I have never suggested that we can force women to go through pregnancies. The difference is that my pro-choice argument rests on sound principles that do not fly in the face of biological and medical reality.

Abortion, adoption... no real difference. Kid's screwed either way.

That's funny. Sounds like something someone would do.

That'd be because we who have AS are considerably disabled in comparison to the normal public, and most of us leech off the welfare system as we're too disable to work -- a good portion of us need many of our daily lodgings and trappings done for us and given to. Stats are all throughout General here regarding studies on outcome.

Technically, I'm more of a burden than an NT baby for my mother and society.

So, if you say a fetus is only 90% of a human and a baby is a full 100%, I'm running at 25% (AS adult), so you may as well abort me right not if that's your logic.

Hehe it might cause road rage with the people who have the bumper sticker that says honk if you love Jesus!

I am not going to reinforce your bias.
I am borderline AS, which means in my case an absence of emotional reactions that comes across as 'weird', or cold. I can function ok, but always have struggled socially. My emotions are there, but I cannot act on them.
This makes me unpopular, but not less than human.
I have the advantage in this situation of belief in God. If God doesn't make mistakes, then I am not a mistake. And I cant believe you are either.

The only bias I have is cold hard facts. I can show them to you if you want.

What about those with AS that are not a burden on society? Will you condemn those who have managed to find success along with the rest of us?

No, but they'll be aborted all the same, as if the majority are considerably disabled and the minority aren't (just like with Down's); you can see how that goes.

Whilst it's people's choice (the majority have spoken), but aborting someone because there's a good chance they can be disabled is about as ethical as..., actually, there's nothing ethical about it, as it's not ethical and it's in the unethical realm.