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

Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Page 7 of 11 [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:01 pm

mercifullyfree wrote:
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?


You can't think of one. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

And that does not really demonstrate that fetuses absolutely don't have a right to be born anyway.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:02 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Failures and accidents happening don't necessarily negate the rights of those fetuses to be born. Logically speaking. ;)



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:02 pm

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.


_________________
--James


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:04 pm

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Failures and accidents happening don't necessarily negate the rights of those fetuses to be born. Logically speaking. ;)

people should be fighting for their right to be born, yet for some reason nobody cares about them. why not fund research into preventing miscarriage?


_________________
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, 12:08 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Failures and accidents happening don't necessarily negate the rights of those fetuses to be born. Logically speaking. ;)

people should be fighting for their right to be born, yet for some reason nobody cares about them. why not fund research into preventing miscarriage?


You didn't address my point.

Just because, for example, a human being dies from a car accident doesn't mean he didn't have the right to live longer.

And there are people who are fighting for their right to be born, lol. That's the whole point of all the disagreements and fights going on (with clinics being bombed and so) because of such subject matter.



hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,302

23 Jan 2013, 12:11 pm

People who bomb abortion clinics make all prolifers look bad and reveal themselves for the hypocrites that they are. When they do that what if they kill a pregnant woman who works there or is a patient there? They sure aren't caring about those babies right to life (or the right to life of any of the people in there, worker or patient).



mercifullyfree
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:13 pm

MCalavera wrote:
You can't think of one. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

And that does not really demonstrate that fetuses absolutely don't have a right to be born anyway.


One cannot prove a negative, especially in regards to abstract human inventions such as rights. However, one can convince others to change their perception of rights by demonstrating how it would be in their best interest to do so. As a woman, I know exactly how it would NOT be in my best interest to humor the idea of embryos having the same rights as adults who are already going about their lives. Many potential drawbacks to society as a whole have been listed. I have not heard even the beginning of a convincing case why anyone would benefit from an increased number of unwanted babies and children running around. Sentimentalism towards a stranger's fetus does not outweigh the negatives.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:22 pm

hanyo wrote:
People who bomb abortion clinics make all prolifers look bad and reveal themselves for the hypocrites that they are. When they do that what if they kill a pregnant woman who works there or is a patient there? They sure aren't caring about those babies right to life (or the right to life of any of the people in there, worker or patient).


I never said it wasn't ironic.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:26 pm

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Failures and accidents happening don't necessarily negate the rights of those fetuses to be born. Logically speaking. ;)

people should be fighting for their right to be born, yet for some reason nobody cares about them. why not fund research into preventing miscarriage?


You didn't address my point.

Just because, for example, a human being dies from a car accident doesn't mean he didn't have the right to live longer.

And there are people who are fighting for their right to be born, lol. That's the whole point of all the disagreements and fights going on (with clinics being bombed and so) because of such subject matter.

there is nothing to address - you haven't agreed to save the foetuses from being miscarried yet, so we haven't gotten to full grown adults yet. if you truly think there is a universal right to life, that has to extend to all of the foetuses that could be aborted (by nature or humans), not just the select few that may be aborted by humans alone. they have a right to live also... don't they?

i don't agree with your "right to life" thing, so i don't have to worry about the person in the car accident. he's not on my radar in this debate, he's on yours.


_________________
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, 12:27 pm

mercifullyfree wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
You can't think of one. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

And that does not really demonstrate that fetuses absolutely don't have a right to be born anyway.


One cannot prove a negative, especially in regards to abstract human inventions such as rights. However, one can convince others to change their perception of rights by demonstrating how it would be in their best interest to do so. As a woman, I know exactly how it would NOT be in my best interest to humor the idea of embryos having the same rights as adults who are already going about their lives. Many potential drawbacks to society as a whole have been listed. I have not heard even the beginning of a convincing case why anyone would benefit from an increased number of unwanted babies and children running around. Sentimentalism towards a stranger's fetus does not outweigh the negatives.


So it's a matter of opinion after all.

By the way, speaking of positives and negatives, my little sister was one whom my parents were considering aborting at first, but then they changed their minds about it after a long talk, and look at her now. She's a blessing in the family. And I wouldn't have learned the things I learned from her if she hadn't been born. That, to me, is a positive.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone here. The topic of abortion is not something I'm emotionally invested. I did say I have a problem with some cases of abortion, but I don't really care at the end of the day what the law should state about it. To me, this is just one more topic to discuss and debate, nothing more.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:28 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
there is nothing to address - you haven't agreed to save the foetuses from being miscarried yet, so we haven't gotten to full grown adults yet. if you truly think there is a universal right to life, that has to extend to all of the foetuses that could be aborted (by nature or humans), not just the select few that may be aborted by humans alone. they have a right to live also... don't they?


I never said that any being had an absolute right to live.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:30 pm

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
there is nothing to address - you haven't agreed to save the foetuses from being miscarried yet, so we haven't gotten to full grown adults yet. if you truly think there is a universal right to life, that has to extend to all of the foetuses that could be aborted (by nature or humans), not just the select few that may be aborted by humans alone. they have a right to live also... don't they?


I never said that any being had an absolute right to live.

correct, you said that they have a right to be born. so do all foetuses have that right, or only some of them?


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


hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,302

23 Jan 2013, 12:32 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone here. The topic of abortion is not something I'm emotionally invested. I did say I have a problem with some cases of abortion, but I don't really care at the end of the day what the law should state about it. To me, this is just one more topic to discuss and debate, nothing more.


I'm emotionally invested in it because until recently I was capable of getting pregnant. I don't want children, to give birth, or be pregnant at all. If I were to get pregnant all I'd want is for it to be out of me asap.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:33 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
there is nothing to address - you haven't agreed to save the foetuses from being miscarried yet, so we haven't gotten to full grown adults yet. if you truly think there is a universal right to life, that has to extend to all of the foetuses that could be aborted (by nature or humans), not just the select few that may be aborted by humans alone. they have a right to live also... don't they?


I never said that any being had an absolute right to live.

correct, you said that they have a right to be born. so do all foetuses have that right, or only some of them?


I also never said that any being had an absolute right to be born. Note the word "absolute". :D



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

23 Jan 2013, 12:33 pm

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
there is nothing to address - you haven't agreed to save the foetuses from being miscarried yet, so we haven't gotten to full grown adults yet. if you truly think there is a universal right to life, that has to extend to all of the foetuses that could be aborted (by nature or humans), not just the select few that may be aborted by humans alone. they have a right to live also... don't they?


I never said that any being had an absolute right to live.

correct, you said that they have a right to be born. so do all foetuses have that right, or only some of them?


I also never said that any being had an absolute right to be born. Note the word "absolute". :D

so what are the conditions?


_________________
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, 12:34 pm

I don't know about conditions, but my whole aim just now in this thread was to keep things in perspective.