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

Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Page 6 of 11 [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

22 Jan 2013, 8:05 pm

robo37 wrote:
ripped wrote:


Now we have the ugly little Nazi fine print: 'We will tell you what to do with your body because...well just because.'


Stopped reading when you played the Nazi comparison card.


That is fair. There is a lot I could have said in a more polite and respectful way.
But it would be remiss of me to fail to elaborate on this one point.
You are dictating to other women the terms on which they may live their lives, and the terms on which they may use their bodies.
You just don't have the right to do that.



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

22 Jan 2013, 8:07 pm

robo37 wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
It is living and human and so are my sperm. It does not make it a baby. Calling it baby is lexical warfare. So.


A sperm is one cell. A half developed baby is, what, a couple of trillion? Is that a serious comparison?

Vexcalibur wrote:
robo37 wrote:
I mean organisms capible of conscious judgement which occurs at the latest at the 16
Fox News biology..




Nope, basic actions such as sucking it's thumb and kicking the womb occur as early as 12 weeks, complex decisions which are formed by working out cause and effect along with understanding of spacial awareness usually occurs at 16 weeks. (moving its hands in the direction of light as to block it out as mentioned below)

http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info ... ekly16.htm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Even if it was true then the answer is not to ban abortion but to encourage it to happen as early as possible. Optimally, I would make Pregnancy tests come with Planned Parenthood pamphlets explaining reproductive rights and instructions to locate the latest one.


I agree. 16 weeks is PLENTY OF TIME for a woman to test and arrange for abortion, anyone with half a brain knows having unprotected sex leads to a possibility of a baby.

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
If we lived a few centuries back you could argue that the slave trade is acceptable, as most constitutions denied slaves' rights.
The relevancy of this statement is minus 4000. You are comparing abortion to slavery now?


No, just pointing out the irrelevance of the "the majority of people think this" argument. But, now you mention it, caiming a human to be owned by someones (i.e. the mother) is starting to ring a bell...

Vexcalibur wrote:
I guess that you fit the stereotype. Your care about life ends at birth.


Are you serious? If that wasn't the case I wounldn't be against gun legalisation, war, bullying, any kind of abuse... how would it make any sense for anyone to care more about fetuses than everyone else? I sorry but I'm downright offended if you're suggesting my fundraising towards all these people and animals I apparently don''t care about is dishonest.

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
Except you're suggesting authorities
I am not suggesting authorities to do anything. I am just saying that optimally it should be considered immoral to give to birth in those cases. Of course, immoral is not necessarily illegal.


So you're saying that it's better for someone to loose their chance to life completely rather than have one that is marginally worse off? And, preempting you're "I don't consider it a person" argument, you shouldn't find either immoral.

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
No, because it doesn't involve killing anything.
It might kill a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria. Since we worry that much about non-people dying...


"a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria" - you talk as if it's a tumor. Both are arrangements of "a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria", in fact I could well call you just ""a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria". Out of the three the tumor is obviously the odd one out, though, unless you've ever seen a tumor move my itself and make up it's own judgement?

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
Yet you completely ignore the greatest type of freedom, freedom to live which* concerns the second body involved.

Western society believes in no such thing as freedom to live. Else everyone would be entitled to free food and health care and we all would be commies. I consider that we have a duty to live. And the punishment is death.

But your freedoms end when other people's freedoms begin. Just because I had a right to live (For starters, no such live is given before birth, but let us ignore that)


So let me get this straight - you believe humans just magically become alive the moment their head pops out of the vagina?

Vexcalibur wrote:
it would not mean that I can force you to donate me your organs or to risk dying for me.


Again, preventing taking does not equate to enforcement of giving. Money is actually a pretty good example of this.

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
"benefits everyone" - not the thief
It does benefit the thief too. If he needed food and shelter then prison will do that just as well.


Oh, well that makes it alright then. You've somwhow managed to argue against the allowance of free choice AND justified theft at the same time. Well done.

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
My point being not all babies are born under a perfect relationship. Quite often they are raised by a single parent, and if that parent is a man
If a father is the single parent. Then some things must have happened. The mother may be death or in prison / mental health institution or left, in which the father has full custody and the mother does not exert any decision power. Or maybe the single father was somehow able to adopt without a couple, but in that case he also has full custody...

The father though did not get pregnant, so he does not need the same length of maternity leave. He can't lactate either, so there is no excuse there. He must get a nanny or find a way to make money without a schedule else he is doomed.


I'm going to end the sexism debate here (though my view is that there is a lot of sexism both ways, except the male-focused sexism lies in the legal system whereas the female-focuses sexism lies in sociology).

Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
You're forgetting this is the farther's potential child, to have an abortion denies him of a son/daughter.
I am not forgetting anything. It is not relevant though. It is still impossible to give any of the parents decision power different to 0% or 100%. So one parent will have to get full decision power. It is only fair it was the mother.

Sucks to be the father of a zygote that is about to die.... Except that really the mother is most likely not the father's last ever chance to have children. Also, all my sperm are potential children, yet I don't spend any tears on them. And if you don't want this to happen to you, I have an easy solution: To avoid sticking your penis into women that have different family plans than you.


Again, sperm are just single cells, life as an identy completely changes when trillions on cells get together to form a self-functioning organism. And as for the father having future chances, that depends on the mother, and the baby inside her is still a formation of both the mother an father, developing bother traits from the father's side and from the mother's. In any other field if something is half created by one person and half created by another, rights are split.

And how many of these unwanted babies are you prepared to adopt yourself?



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

22 Jan 2013, 9:15 pm

If I got a woman knocked up and she knew it was going to be an aspie chances are shell either abort it because of that or set it up for adoption but what mother would want an aspie baby?Sadly its not my choice to make but hers.


_________________
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

23 Jan 2013, 2:34 am

I'm all for abortion, because it saves the unborn human from the suck that's life.

I don't know what that makes me.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 11:12 am

visagrunt wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
It is living and human and so are my sperm. It does not make it a baby. Calling it baby is lexical warfare. So.


So call it a human being,
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.

Quote:
A sperm is one cell. A half developed baby is, what, a couple of trillion? Is that a serious comparison?


If quantity of cells is so important, then take a look at this: Every time a man ejaculates, he discharges 350 millions of cells. The average number of cells in an adult body is 50*10^12 cells. I guess that means that your average fetus has around 2*10^12 cells. By your ridiculous argument, every 5714.285714285715 ejaculations are the same as an abortion.

Quote:
Nope, basic actions such as sucking it's thumb
Nothing at all like conscious judgment.


_________________
.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 11:29 am

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.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 11:32 am

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.

one opinion encroaches on the rights of the mother, and the other opinion does not. that's what it boils down to for me. the discussion is only relevant if it is not intended as a way to encroach on her rights.


_________________
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

23 Jan 2013, 11:34 am

The other opinion supports the prevention a potential human being from having life.

By the way, rights are given by laws. It's not something you just deserve without context.



Last edited by MCalavera on 23 Jan 2013, 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 11:35 am

MCalavera wrote:
The other opinion supports the prevention a potential human being from having life.

doesn't matter to me, as it encroaches on the mother's rights. i consider those paramount.


_________________
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

23 Jan 2013, 11:37 am

hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
The other opinion supports the prevention a potential human being from having life.

doesn't matter to me, as it encroaches on the mother's rights. i consider those paramount.


It also encroaches on the fetus' rights to be born. Let's keep things in perspective.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 11:41 am

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
The other opinion supports the prevention a potential human being from having life.

doesn't matter to me, as it encroaches on the mother's rights. i consider those paramount.


It also encroaches on the fetus' rights to be born. Let's keep things in perspective.

nope, doesn't matter to me. i am pro-choice and i do know that i am fairly extreme. i do not hold that the foetus has a "right" to be born as it has to be carried by a mother who does not necessarily want it in her body. so the language people use is not really relevant. call it what you want, it does not change the rights of the mother in my eyes.

i look forward to the days of foetal transplants. until then, i am pro-choice.


_________________
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

23 Jan 2013, 11:50 am

As I said, rights aren't something any being just has without context. Rights are subjective at the end of the day, and the most "absolute" that rights can go is when they are provided by the laws. Either way, what may be right to you may be the opposite to someone else.

There good points on both sides. Some say it's not right for a mother to simply abort, and others argue she has every right to abort any time. And some are in the middle. But it's still an opinion. No matter how emotionally invested you may be in your position, no side is absolutely right or wrong. Being emotionally invested doesn't make your point any more right.



mercifullyfree
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 362
Location: internet

23 Jan 2013, 11:51 am

There is no such thing as a "right to be born" and there is no benefit for a society to create such a right, whereas there is a great deal of negatives. Unless, of course, one prefers a much larger population of children in poverty, single and teen mothers, higher unemployment, lower wages, more people requiring government assistance, death and illness from illegal abortion, multitudes of women's lives ruined, reduction of many women's willingness to have standard vag sex with men due to the risk (including within marriage), increased infanticide and neglect, more strain on natural resources, more damn screaming babies in restaurants, and so forth. I know that some people just love babies so much that they can't get enough of them, but do the rest of us really need this? I think not!



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 11:53 am

mercifullyfree wrote:
There is no such thing as a "right to be born"


That's an opinion. And even if the law may agree with you, it's still an opinion.

Quote:
and there is no benefit for a society to create such a right, whereas there is a great deal of negatives. Unless, of course, one prefers a much larger population of children in poverty, single and teen mothers, higher unemployment, lower wages, more people requiring government assistance, death and illness from illegal abortion, multitudes of women's lives ruined, reduction of many women's willingness to have standard vag sex with men due to the risk (including within marriage), increased infanticide and neglect, more strain on natural resources, more damn screaming babies in restaurants, and so forth. I know that some people just love babies so much that they can't get enough of them, but do the rest of us really need this? I think not!


You are being selective. For every thing, there are goods and there are bads. That's not the way to make your position more right.



mercifullyfree
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 362
Location: internet

23 Jan 2013, 11:56 am

I can't think of any positives to society as a whole increasing the amount of poor, unwanted children, unless one were a wealthy employer of unskilled labor who wants more bodies in his sweatshop, or a warmongering head of state who is running low on future cannon fodder, but this does not benefit society as a whole does it?



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 11:59 am

the "right to be born" doesn't really work on a logical level. we would have to start trying harder to prevent miscarriages. miscarriages are also called "spontaneous abortions" after all... and those foetuses have a right to be born in the same model. women would have to be held to task for risking their unborn babies, because those babies had a right to be born just like any other. obviously, this is absurd, but is it really different?


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