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

Opinions on abortion?

Page 7 of 19 [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

18 Jan 2018, 2:46 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
In total, there's no way that anyone's going to convince me that once a sperm penetrates an egg it becomes a "person."


That depends on what you mean by "person", though it's largely moot.

If you mean a person in the legal sense, regarded as having human rights, dignity or worth, you don't need to be convinced of anything. The rights afforded a fetus are already enshrined in law both within the Anglosphere and elsewhere, and are likely only to become more favourable to the unborn as medicine advances.

If you're using the common parlance - i.e. a human - that's determined at the point of conception.

Any other definition of/standard for "person" is subjective and therefore not useful to the establishment of a principle or statute.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,693
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Jan 2018, 2:50 pm

For all the pro-choice side's concern for the well being of the unborn, I'd like to see them give a $hit about children after they're born. If said children need to be on public assistance in order to survive, the pro-choice types tend to be the ones who then consider them and their parents to be parasites.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Jan 2018, 2:50 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Mikah wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
I won't let the opponents of abortion use those rare events as a way to further their agenda.


Proponents of abortion do exactly this. It's always straight to rape, incest and mother on the brink of death. They use these extreme examples to further their agenda, which is the premature termination of any pregnancy whenever they please.


I don't usually reply to your crass posts. Acting like everyone takes the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly crosses a line.

Also completely unsurprised that you snipped my post and attributed transparently imaginative motives to me. You guys have like one tune! lol


You're reading things that aren't there. I didn't said anything about people taking the decision to abort lightly, nor anything about your motives, I don't know what your agenda is. You made a sweeping statement about one side, I retorted with my own. I don't know if it applies to you or not and I assume as a thoughtful person you did not also assume your statement automatically applied to me.


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


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

18 Jan 2018, 2:57 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
For all the pro-choice side's concern for the well being of the unborn, I'd like to see them give a $hit about children after they're born. If said children need to be on public assistance in order to survive, the pro-choice types tend to be the ones who then consider them and their parents to be parasites.


How about everyone simply continues talking past each other using broad, derogatory stereotypes? That's bound to be constructive.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Jan 2018, 2:59 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Because it's a process to becoming a person. I'd be more reluctant to terminate a fetus that was closer to the completion of that process.


That's not exactly airtight, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a less arbitrary and more precise way of judging whether a "potential human being" should be destroyed.


It's always going to be arbitrary and imprecise. That's why abortion debates tend to be messy affairs.

I've already accepted that there are no really good answers to this question. I just know how I feel about my rights in regard to my body as a woman.


_________________
"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)


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Jan 2018, 3:02 pm

Mikah wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
I won't let the opponents of abortion use those rare events as a way to further their agenda.


Proponents of abortion do exactly this. It's always straight to rape, incest and mother on the brink of death. They use these extreme examples to further their agenda, which is the premature termination of any pregnancy whenever they please.


I use rape because it's the only way I'd ever get pregnant, and I don't follow the logic that we shouldn't abort a fetus because it's a "person," except in cases of rape or incest where suddenly it's not.


_________________
"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)


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 Jan 2018, 3:24 pm

Mikah wrote:
You're reading things that aren't there. I didn't said anything about people taking the decision to abort lightly, nor anything about your motives, I don't know what your agenda is. You made a sweeping statement about one side, I retorted with my own. I don't know if it applies to you or not and I assume as a thoughtful person you did not also assume your statement automatically applied to me.


I didn't think I left much doubt as to my opinion, but thank you for your concern.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,693
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Jan 2018, 3:25 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For all the pro-choice side's concern for the well being of the unborn, I'd like to see them give a $hit about children after they're born. If said children need to be on public assistance in order to survive, the pro-choice types tend to be the ones who then consider them and their parents to be parasites.


How about everyone simply continues talking past each other using broad, derogatory stereotypes? That's bound to be constructive.


When did I use a derogatory stereotype? As conservatives have co-opted the pro-choice movement, they've been hardhearted toward the plight of those living without, even children. That's a fact, not a stereotype. If you think I'm wrong, demonstrate how I am.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Jan 2018, 3:38 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Because it's a process to becoming a person. I'd be more reluctant to terminate a fetus that was closer to the completion of that process.


That's not exactly airtight, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a less arbitrary and more precise way of judging whether a "potential human being" should be destroyed.


It's always going to be arbitrary and imprecise. That's why abortion debates tend to be messy affairs.

I've already accepted that there are no really good answers to this question. I just know how I feel about my rights in regard to my body as a woman.


It is, at the very least, an honest position. Though perhaps not one that could be said to have passed all tests of morality and logic. I do have counter arguments to the position that everyone has a "right" to do with their body what they will, but perhaps that can be had another day. In the end though, it all boils down to the nature of the unborn - for the bodily autonomy argument to work, the unborn must have no rights to bodily autonomy themselves which brings us back to square one.


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


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

18 Jan 2018, 3:45 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Because it's a process to becoming a person. I'd be more reluctant to terminate a fetus that was closer to the completion of that process.


That's not exactly airtight, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a less arbitrary and more precise way of judging whether a "potential human being" should be destroyed.


It's always going to be arbitrary and imprecise. That's why abortion debates tend to be messy affairs.

I've already accepted that there are no really good answers to this question. I just know how I feel about my rights in regard to my body as a woman.


It is, at the very least, an honest position. Though perhaps not one that could be said to have passed all tests of morality and logic. I do have counter arguments to the position that everyone has a "right" to do with their body what they will, but perhaps that can be had another day. In the end though, it all boils down to the nature of the unborn - for the bodily autonomy argument to work, the unborn must have no rights to bodily autonomy themselves which brings us back to square one.


The unborn don't have bodily autonomy, they can't even rely on their own body for survival. They require the body of a host (woman) to survive. An unborn fetus does not have autonomy over the body of the host woman and never should.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

18 Jan 2018, 4:03 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For all the pro-choice side's concern for the well being of the unborn, I'd like to see them give a $hit about children after they're born. If said children need to be on public assistance in order to survive, the pro-choice types tend to be the ones who then consider them and their parents to be parasites.


How about everyone simply continues talking past each other using broad, derogatory stereotypes? That's bound to be constructive.


When did I use a derogatory stereotype?


Are you saying you find the suggestion that "children on public assistance are parasites" to be admirable?

Quote:
As conservatives have co-opted the pro-choice movement, they've been hardhearted toward the plight of those living without, even children.


Likewise, is this intended to be complimentary?

Quote:
That's a fact, not a stereotype. If you think I'm wrong, demonstrate how I am.


You're the one making the positive assertion, Bill. Support your claim with solid data or concede that it stems from your own bias against "conservatives", whatever you mean by that term.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Jan 2018, 4:32 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
The unborn don't have bodily autonomy, they can't even rely on their own body for survival. They require the body of a host (woman) to survive. An unborn fetus does not have autonomy over the body of the host woman and never should.


How does being unable to rely on one's body for survival negate the right to bodily autonomy?


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


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

18 Jan 2018, 4:43 pm

Mikah wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
The unborn don't have bodily autonomy, they can't even rely on their own body for survival. They require the body of a host (woman) to survive. An unborn fetus does not have autonomy over the body of the host woman and never should.


How does being unable to rely on one's body for survival negate the right to bodily autonomy?


You don't get to self-determine what happens to your body when your self isn't even self-sufficient from your mother's body yet. Surely this is obvious. You can`t be autonomous over someone else's body (your host, if you are a fetus)--your "right to exist" does no supersede anyone else's bodily autonomy and never can. If you rely on someone else's body to exist, their bodily autonomy has primacy. It's very simple when you stop ignoring the autonomy of women over their own bodies and try to give it to the "unborn".



MissChess
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 429
Location: the TARDIS

18 Jan 2018, 4:44 pm

Hi Mikah,

I'm hoping to find out if you're on board with the consensus adifferentname and I are (I think?) working on regarding when life begins. It was yesterday, I think.

Realistically, I don't anticipate changing your views, nor do I anticipate changing my own. That being said, I'm highly interested in the idea of an intelligent discussion that doesn't devolve to name-calling.

adifferentname, I'm working on a response to your comments from yesterday, but as I'm at work just now it's incompossible. My brain just doesn't switch direction fast enough for me to write that out amid job stuff. Will try to revisit the topic this evening from home.


_________________
~MissChess


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Jan 2018, 4:50 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Because it's a process to becoming a person. I'd be more reluctant to terminate a fetus that was closer to the completion of that process.


That's not exactly airtight, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a less arbitrary and more precise way of judging whether a "potential human being" should be destroyed.


It's always going to be arbitrary and imprecise. That's why abortion debates tend to be messy affairs.

I've already accepted that there are no really good answers to this question. I just know how I feel about my rights in regard to my body as a woman.


It is, at the very least, an honest position. Though perhaps not one that could be said to have passed all tests of morality and logic. I do have counter arguments to the position that everyone has a "right" to do with their body what they will, but perhaps that can be had another day. In the end though, it all boils down to the nature of the unborn - for the bodily autonomy argument to work, the unborn must have no rights to bodily autonomy themselves which brings us back to square one.


Thank you.

I don't pretend my position is the "ultimate truth." I recognize that this debate is messy and complicated, and I even acknowledge that many pro-lifers have strong arguments.

Adifferentname seems to have faith that science will offer us solutions. That'd be great if it comes to pass, but, until then, we're all just stumbling around in the dark.


_________________
"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)


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,693
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Jan 2018, 5:03 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For all the pro-choice side's concern for the well being of the unborn, I'd like to see them give a $hit about children after they're born. If said children need to be on public assistance in order to survive, the pro-choice types tend to be the ones who then consider them and their parents to be parasites.


How about everyone simply continues talking past each other using broad, derogatory stereotypes? That's bound to be constructive.


When did I use a derogatory stereotype?


Are you saying you find the suggestion that "children on public assistance are parasites" to be admirable?

Quote:
As conservatives have co-opted the pro-choice movement, they've been hardhearted toward the plight of those living without, even children.


Likewise, is this intended to be complimentary?

Quote:
That's a fact, not a stereotype. If you think I'm wrong, demonstrate how I am.


You're the one making the positive assertion, Bill. Support your claim with solid data or concede that it stems from your own bias against "conservatives", whatever you mean by that term.


(Sigh) I never once called children on public assistance parasites. I think you know I was referring to heartless conservatives.
Of course I wasn't being complimentary to conservatives for their heartlessness. But it's the truth.
Of course I have a bias against conservatives... if they care about someone before they're born and after they die, but could care less about them - even hinder their existence - in between.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer