Abortion

[JackWhitehead1]

Red, I will reply tomorrow, I need some sleep
But having read your reply, I think you need to calm down a little.

You have opinionated reason, but you do not need to assert such an aggressive tone to get it across.
Despite whether or not I think what you say is easily refutable, docile, or absolutely incredulously ignorant, I don't make that opinion public.

Furthermore, you need to realise that the reason everything I say has an uncertain tone to it, is primarily because I don't hold it shrine-like to my belief.
The "If statements I use are to give perspective
I.e. "What if"
It asks you to consider my argument, not agree with it.
There is no need to ridicule my methods, because that is the way I like to debate.
I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong is the wrong way to go about things, even if it's true.

If I can ask a question to prepare my reply properly, can you see from my point of view, that the morality of abortion is undecided?
Or are you definitely sure that I am wrong, and abortion is morally fine?

[JackWhitehead1]

And davedave,
I apoligise for a cheap reply.
But I really am quite tired, and it's fair to say that with this thread, I have probably been the main attraction so to say.

I might reply properly tomorrow, but I don't feel that there are many things worth replying to properly.
(That's not an insult, I genuinely can't find many bits of what you said that I can reply to)

With the exception of 2 things.
I don't feel I have been definite in my backing up opinions which I think is where you're making the assumption I haven't made any.
Again, I stress that my opinions are opinions, the evidence I supply are opinions and I am very agnostical in my approach, leaving room for everybody's point of view.

2nd thing, I can derive from what you say that I am genuinely unaware of when I am crossing the line between legality and morality.
But I do not think it matters in terms of discussion.
If you do "stop" me, It'll just be annoying and will stop fluent discussion.
What do you think?

[JTW]

It's someone else dictating that their morality supersedes yours. That's why this will continue to be a legal issue, not a moral one.  We have two ideas of morality coming into conflict here, yours and mine.  The difference is that if mine is put into law, it doesn't take away your right to do as your morality dictates, whereas instituting your "morality" necessarily inflicts itself upon everyone else.  To find an equivalent to that, we'd have to find another morality that impinged upon your right to practice your morality.  The handiest example of that is forced abortions.  If we instituted a policy of forced abortions, that would be an application of the moral position that life begins at birth that impinged on your right to hold and practice your own personal morality.

So when does life truly begin then? At viability, or at birth? You don't know, so why are you saying it's not a moral issue if you can't determine whether it has moved into sentience or not? Your argument that it's not a person until it is born isn't a moral issue, but the definition of when life begins is and affects the "kill".

I mean, in Canada we have NO abortion laws. We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time and is essentially "having" the baby when she decides to abort it half way through labor. As long as the baby (and it IS a baby by this time, fuck sakes, she's popping the thing out dammit!) remains half way in the womb when it is killed it's still considered abortion. Fucking sick.

But hey, you don't have a big problem with killing, so the difference between a few centimeters of a womans birth canal shouldn't bother you, huh?

[Ambassador Pony]

So when does life truly begin then? At viability, or at birth? You don't know, so why are you saying it's not a moral issue if you can't determine whether it has moved into sentience or not? Your argument that it's not a person until it is born isn't a moral issue, but the definition of when life begins is and affects the "kill".

Deciding when it's right to kill is not a moral issue?

I mean, in Canada we have NO abortion laws. We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time

 

When did we start discussing your mom?

[JTW]

lol, that's helpful.

[JackWhitehead1]

AP,
What do you believe it is then?

And in this thread, we haven't discussed anybody's mother in particular, that was unnecessary.

[Davedave]

I don't feel I have been definite in my backing up opinions which I think is where you're making the assumption I haven't made any.

Why is conception the critical point for you?  You haven't said.  Have you offered the argument that maybe the fetus is conscious?  You could have said that matters to you, that you investigated development of consciousness, and presented the evidence you have to support the claim that a fetus is conscious, then used that to explain how you arrived at your opinion.  But you have yet to do that.  You haven't offered ANY backup to your opinion, however post hoc or transparently bs it might be.  What I'd like to see is some sort of set of objective criteria that you bind your opinion to, that are both supported by evidence you have presented and not obviously created simply to support a pre-formed opinion.

Bad example:  I like the Nissan 350Z.

Marginally better example.  I like the Nissan 350Z because it looks cool and 350 is my favorite number and z is my favorite letter.

Much better example.  Because I commute on the 110 freeway which has famously short onramps, I need a car that has very good low-end acceleration.  I also am interested in fuel economy and low overall cost.  Using these criteria, I have found that the Nissan 350Z is the best car for me.  However, if Kia started making a car with better gas mileage, that had a better 0-60 for less money, I'd buy that instead.

Do you see the difference?  In the last one, there is still room for conversation, because 0-60 almost always comes at the expense of fuel economy, and generally affects sticker price too.  This is stating an opinion through outlining relevant personal criteria, presenting specs on those criteria, and offering your interpretation of the best balance of the choices.  Someone else might say, "Hey, for a few bucks more, you can get a Stingray, which though it doesn't get as good a gas mileage, goes faster, plus it takes corners better."  Or, "You know, you wouldn't be sacrificing much to check out the MR2.  It's a lot cheaper and more fuel efficient, and you don't really lose that much off the line."  That's how you make this a conversation.

If you do "stop" me, It'll just be annoying and will stop fluent discussion.
What do you think?

Jack,

How annoying do you reckon it is to me to have you insist that you're trying to keep this on topic about abortion, then every third line, dragging it back into legal issues?  You are the one stopping fluent discussion.  I'm not going to talk to you about this like you're a five-year-old.  If you want anyone to take your opinion seriously, if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion, it's up to you to make sure you are upholding your end of the bargain.

[Davedave]

So when does life truly begin then?

There is no "truly" answer to that question.  There are only beliefs and opinions and the law.  The question here, though, has nothing to do with when life begins, but rather, when a clump of cells gains the right to be legally protected from the decisions of others.  If you say that this right ought to be granted at the point where the clump of cells becomes alive, then you need to say that yourself and provide your own support for that position and how that position is justified by available evidence.

You don't know, so why are you saying it's not a moral issue...?

Because you can't seem to manage to define your criteria or justify your position without slipping into legality.  If you could manage to constrain the conversation appropriately, I'd happily treat it as you do.  But since you keep dragging legality into it, I will not refuse to play along.

The definition of when life begins is..."

When life begins isn't a moral issue.  When life begins is a matter of opinion, not morality.  It is only a moral issue after we have decided to make it a relevant factor in the decision about awarding rights to the fetus, which is a legal issue.  However, it is NOT considered a relevant factor in that decision.  The legal issue is decided that, no matter what the definition of life is, right to life is awarded at birth.

[JTW]

So when does life truly begin then?

There is no "truly" answer to that question.  There are only beliefs and opinions and the law.  The question here, though, has nothing to do with when life begins, but rather, when a clump of cells gains the right to be legally protected from the decisions of others.  If you say that this right ought to be granted at the point where the clump of cells becomes alive, then you need to say that yourself and provide your own support for that position and how that position is justified by available evidence.

Well, it's either alive or it isn't. That's my scientific evidence.

You don't know, so why are you saying it's not a moral issue...?

Because you can't seem to manage to define your criteria or justify your position without slipping into legality.  If you could manage to constrain the conversation appropriately, I'd happily treat it as you do.  But since you keep dragging legality into it, I will not refuse to play along.

But that had to be established by somebody. We could have very well established conception as the definition of a person. What's your point?

The definition of when life begins is..."

When life begins isn't a moral issue.  When life begins is a matter of opinion, not morality.  It is only a moral issue after we have decided to make it a relevant factor in the decision about awarding rights to the fetus, which is a legal issue.  However, it is NOT considered a relevant factor in that decision.  The legal issue is decided that, no matter what the definition of life is, right to life is awarded at birth.

Fair enough. It's safe to say that a child born premature at 6 months is a person by law and an aborted fetus at 6 months isn't. I see the light now. And this isn't a moral issue how?

[Davedave]

Well, it's either alive or it isn't. That's my scientific evidence.

Yes, yes.  We know you're an idiot.  You don't have to rub our noses in it.

But that had to be established by somebody. We could have very well established conception as the definition of a person.

Why conception?

It's safe to say that a child born premature at 6 months is a person by law and an aborted fetus at 6 months isn't. I see the light now. And this isn't a moral issue how?

How is it a moral issue?  It seems like a very straightforward legal definition to me.

[Red McWilliams]

Red, I will reply tomorrow, I need some sleep
But having read your reply, I think you need to calm down a little.

Thanks for the advice, Dr Phil, but you leave the worrying about my mental state to me, m'kay.

Furthermore, you need to realise that the reason everything I say has an uncertain tone to it, is primarily because I don't hold it shrine-like to my belief.

They're your opinions you're asserting, right?  If all you want to do is say "maybe, possible, what if" you're wasting our time.  Yes, we all know that maybe, possible what ifs exist, but I've considered those along with the the rest of the available evidence and reached a conclusion.  If you really want me to consider something new, you'll have to bring something new to the conversation.

The "If statements I use are to give perspective
I.e. "What if"
It asks you to consider my argument, not agree with it.
There is no need to ridicule my methods, because that is the way I like to debate.
I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong is the wrong way to go about things, even if it's true.

Do you think I'm some 15 year old kid that has no perspective?  I've considered multiple angles and looked at many different opinions.  Usually, those opinions have some sort of support behind them beyond just "what ifs".  You said you like playing devil's advocate, is that all you're doing now?

If I can ask a question to prepare my reply properly, can you see from my point of view, that the morality of abortion is undecided?

Undecided in the sense that people have different opinions about it?  Sure.

Or are you definitely sure that I am wrong, and abortion is morally fine?

Based on the arguments I've seen so far, I have no reason to think that there is anything morally wrong with abortion.  If you have something new, beyond the assertions you've made already, I'd consider it.

[styleislove]

I, for one, support abortion.
The damned fetus-thing isn't a person, and it wouldn't matter to me if it was.
You know what I'd do if I ever got accidently pregnant? Have an abortion.
People will probably veiw me as cruel now, but I don't care.
I wouldn't feel obligated to keep this unwanted child at all.
Any child of mine would only cause world-chaos, anywhoo.

[Frank]

Abortion is an excuse for women to not have to face the music of the mistake they made when they had unprotected sex. It is an awful solution to an irresponsible decision that kills a living creature.

Animals are living creatures yet we kill them all the time and eat them.

It amazes me that in a world were starvation exists, that people in the worlds greediest country, America, would object to abortion. When there are too many mouths to feed and you don't have enough food to feed them you will start to starve. You will do anything to keep the population under control then. When a horrible death is staring you in the face it's amazing how beliefs, ethics, scruples, morality, fly straight out the window.

You can take a high handed view right now because you have a decent standard of living, a roof over your heads, and plenty to eat. But just imagine an America with a billion people living in it. They all need housing, clothing, jobs, and most importantly, enough to eat. How long before so many people starts effecting your standard living. massive unemployment driving down wages. Food shortages because there are too many people.

There are plenty of overpopulated countries on this planet. Just look at the wonderful standard of living that they enjoy. Even if things stay as they are it is estimated that by 2050 there will be 420 million people living in America and by the end of the century over 600 million.

Here's a little article for you in case you think I'm exaggerating. read the whole thing. you'll find it very enlightening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/13/usa.topstories3

When I travel abroad and come back, I'm always stunned by the consumption here. Cars are bigger, people travel further distances, they build bigger houses. This is the ultimate disposable consumer society," the center's director, Victoria Markham, said.

It is commonly quoted that the US has 5% of the world's population but uses 25% of its energy. Less well known is that each American now occupies about 20% more land for housing, schools, shopping, roads and so on than he or she did 20 years ago. Almost 3,000 acres (1,214 hectares) of farmland are concreted over every day, and the rate is increasing.

Notice the highlighted. Every year more mouths and less farmland to grow food. If that isn't a recipe for disaster then I don't know what is. I live in the UK. One of the most crowded countries on the planet. Americans are lucky. You still live in a country that is relatively spacious. If you want to keep it that way I suggest you start having less children and not more. If that means abortions then so be it.

[xphobe]

Although the US is one of the most populous countries in the world, it is also one of the largest in area. 

http://www.geohive.com/default1.aspx

According to this, the projection is for the US population to increase 38% by 2050.  The population of the US does not seem to be the problem here.   Nor China, incidentally - they have got their population fairly well locked down to ZPG through disincentives such as loss of government benefits (which isn't a bad idea IMO), birth control and, yes, abortion.

From the statistics on the above page, it appears that the trick to keeping the world population from approaching 10 Billion in 2050 is to change attitudes about, and access to, birth control in countries like India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigera, Brazil, and the Congo.

But we rich, privileged Americans can't be lecturing the rest of the world about birth control because that's "racist".  How arrogant of us Americans to tell others how they should live (right Frank?)   Let them breed with abandon.  Our job is to shut up and keep shoveling our wheat into their exponentially multiplying hungry mouths.  I got it.

It is commonly quoted that the US has 5% of the world's population but uses 25% of its energy.

What's less commonly quoted is that the US produces 13% of the world's wheat, 18% of the world's rice, and 50% of the world's soybeans.  You get what you pay for.

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html

[Fuzzy_Wuzzy]

A fetus is not a person.

I am a pro choice, and i agree with the statement above.

The strongest argument so-called pro-life"ers" can come up with is this: It kills off the potential life of a human being!

With that logic, you have to go and have sex non-stop because the moment you stop having sex will mean that you are basically hindering the "potential life" from coming into existence. If you dont do this, you are a hypocrite.

By the way, pro-life people, are you expecting a woman who was impregnated by rape to raise the rapist's kid?

[Freak]

Really what I think we need to do is give every male a vasectomy at birth, then a free re-connect any time they want after they become a legal adult. You'd have to work out the kinks on the procedure so you don't have too many problems, of course. Realistically, this is just pie-in-the-sky.

[xphobe]

A fetus is not a person.

I am a pro choice, and i agree with the statement above.

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.  It's the law in the US.

The strongest argument so-called pro-life"ers" can come up with is this: It kills off the potential life of a human being!

With that logic, you have to go and have sex non-stop because the moment you stop having sex will mean that you are basically hindering the "potential life" from coming into existence. If you dont do this, you are a hypocrite.

By the way, pro-life people, are you expecting a woman who was impregnated by rape to raise the rapist's kid?

The most embarrassing thing about being pro-choice myself is having to listen to the strawman arguments and hedging from other so-called pro-choice advocates.

Let's be clear: a fetus is a human life.  It is not legally a person, and it is not legally murder to kill it, but we are taking a unique human life.  If you don't have the stomach to cofront the reality of that, then you should gracefully bow out of the discussion.

Let's not dehumanize the issue by calling it a "mass of cells".  Ultimately aren't we all just masses of cells?   There's no magical point at which a "mass of cells" becomes human, unless you want to retrace all the way to the moment of conception.  There's merit in that idea incidentally, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

We debate pointlessly about "viability".  Hah.  As if a two month old baby was "viable".  Try leaving it alone for a few days without adults to bring it water, and see how viable it is.

Do you have a problem with killing?  Is that why you don't want to admit to yourself that that's what it is?  As Frank points out, we kill animals all the time.  We kill people too, for various reasons.  Sometimes we kill innocent people.

It all comes down to what society has decided.  Our society has decided that it's ok to abort a fetus, but not to kill a born human infant.  Another society might come to a different conclusion.  Some societies permit capital punishment, some do not.  Some permit sex with 14-year-olds, some do not.  Some permit euthanasia, some do not.  Morality is relative.  That's another thing people seem to have a problem with.  Morality is always relative, whether you claim to get your answers from the Bible, or the Quran, or simply from a consensus vote.

To me it comes down to whether a woman has the right to determine whether another human being should be allowed to remain inside her own body against her will.   I'd vote yes, even if that decision results in the death of the other human being.  Even if that other human being were declared a "person".

[Fuzzy_Wuzzy]

A fetus is not a person.

I am a pro choice, and i agree with the statement above.

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.  It's the law in the US.

I dont live in the US and i can say irrelevant things if i want to, why? Is that a problem?

The strongest argument so-called pro-life"ers" can come up with is this: It kills off the potential life of a human being!

With that logic, you have to go and have sex non-stop because the moment you stop having sex will mean that you are basically hindering the "potential life" from coming into existence. If you dont do this, you are a hypocrite.

By the way, pro-life people, are you expecting a woman who was impregnated by rape to raise the rapist's kid?

The most embarrassing thing about being pro-choice myself is having to listen to the strawman arguments and hedging from other so-called pro-choice advocates.

Maybe i was using a strawman, but i hope you see the illogic behind pro life and their "soon-to-be" human arguments. if i came off as a stupid, arrogant and an embarrassing teenager, then i apologize.

Let's be clear: a fetus is a human life.  It is not legally a person, and it is not legally murder to kill it, but we are taking a unique human life.  If you don't have the stomach to cofront the reality of that, then you should gracefully bow out of the discussion.

I consider fetus as any other cells. There is a difference between potential life and life itself. I guess it depends on your perspective and the angle you are observing. If you cant respect other people's thoughts and opinions, you should gracefully bow out of the discussion.

Let's not dehumanize the issue by calling it a "mass of cells".  Ultimately aren't we all just masses of cells?   There's no magical point at which a "mass of cells" becomes human, unless you want to retrace all the way to the moment of conception.  There's merit in that idea incidentally, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

But they are just lump of cells? I think consciousness draws a line between humans and just lump of cells.

Do you have a problem with killing?  Is that why you don't want to admit to yourself that that's what it is?  As Frank points out, we kill animals all the time.  We kill people too, for various reasons.  Sometimes we kill innocent people.

I refuse to consider it as a "killing". You scratch your hand, your skin cells falls off and dies, i view it just like that.

[Frank]

But we rich, privileged Americans can't be lecturing the rest of the world about birth control because that's "racist".  How arrogant of us Americans to tell others how they should live (right Frank?)   Let them breed with abandon.  Our job is to shut up and keep shoveling our wheat into their exponentially multiplying hungry mouths.  I got it.

It is commonly quoted that the US has 5% of the world's population but uses 25% of its energy.

What's less commonly quoted is that the US produces 13% of the world's wheat, 18% of the world's rice, and 50% of the world's soybeans.  You get what you pay for.

You can lecture as much as you like. Just as long as you practice what you preach! And you won't go on producing 13% of the world's wheat, 18% of the world's rice, and 50% of the world's soybeans if you go on producing more people yourselves and then concreting over your farmland to house them.

[Davedave]

According to this, the projection is for the US population to increase 38% by 2050.  The population of the US does not seem to be the problem here.

It is commonly quoted that the US has 5% of the world's population but uses 25% of its energy.

What's less commonly quoted is that the US produces 13% of the world's wheat, 18% of the world's rice, and 50% of the world's soybeans.  You get what you pay for.

xphobe,

You're missing the point.  In energy consumption terms, the population of the United States is equivalent to 1.5 billion people, making us the largest country on the planet.  Add a thirty-eight percent increase to that and you've got a very serious problem, assuming current consumption rates do not radically alter, which they may and hopefully will.  You can talk about a numerically slightly larger number of people eating wheat, but you're ignoring the slightly smaller number of Americans, who will be eating and consuming everything in the world you can possibly imagine, at five times the rate of people elsewhere.  The world can better afford a half billion more Nigerians than 114 million more Americans.

[Davedave]

Let's be clear: a fetus is a human life.  It is not legally a person, and it is not legally murder to kill it, but we are taking a unique human life.  If you don't have the stomach to cofront the reality of that, then you should gracefully bow out of the discussion.

We don't need anyone here telling others when it's time to bow out of the conversation, xphobe.  Your position has not nearly been that well argued yet.

Let's not dehumanize the issue by calling it a "mass of cells".  Ultimately aren't we all just masses of cells?   There's no magical point at which a "mass of cells" becomes human, unless you want to retrace all the way to the moment of conception.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what you just demanded we all do?  If we are all masses of cells, then how is it dehumanizing to refer to a fetus as a mass of cells?  In any case, you reserve the right to cut your hair, trim your fingernails, exfoliate your skin, remove a tumor, and on and on, no?  These are all simply excising cells.  There may be no perfect analogy, but the comparisons are there.  What is it about a fetus that would exempt it?  The fact that it has some amount of foreign DNA living inside the nuclei?  That's a pretty mundane and unremarkable difference, frankly.  A cancerous tumor has slightly altered DNA.  In a genetic sense, many tumors are not technically and precisely identical to "you".  And they are quite alive and growing.  Why does your kidney tumor not have its own set of rights?  Please don't impose your magical point on everyone else, thanks.

We debate pointlessly about "viability".  Hah.  As if a two month old baby was "viable".  Try leaving it alone for a few days without adults to bring it water, and see how viable it is.

Which is why some of us don't necessarily have any particular problem with infanticide either.

It all comes down to what society has decided.

How do you meld this conclusion with this one:

Let's be clear: a fetus is a human life.

If it "all" comes down to what society has decided, xphobe, then the legal decision made in Roe v. Wade is ALL.  A fetus is NOT a human life.  Period.

[Evolutions Golden Toad]

Would it make any difference to you if a fetus was a person?

Only somewhat.  I am coming into this thread late and as such the response will be huge, and to every post I find interesting, as a result you will find my arguments unfolding over time.  But to start this off with…

If a person, a fully adult person, were hooked against your will into your metabolism, would you not have the right to remove him?  I am using rights based ethics here.  Under a consistent rights based ethic, the initiator of force here violating someones rights is the fetus, unless you give consent.

Now, I am more of a utilitarian,  but even then, the fetus does not matter.  Compare the capacity for suffering an interest forming of a fetus, at any stage of development, and you will find them paling in comparison to the capacity of the mother.  Under utilitarianism, one must seek to maximize utility, or good.  In this case  combination of maximizing the differential between pleasure and pain, and maximizing the number (and because they exist on a sliding scale with intelligence, magnitude) of held interests satisfied.  A fetus cannot feel pain until very late in the pregnancy, and cannot hold meaningful interests until will after birth.  If the mother does not want it in there, she is within her right to remove it.

Outside the womb is a different story because a baby can feel pain and hold rudimentary interests.  As a result, killing it does not maximize utility with available options, if the mom doesn’t want it.  Adoption does. 

It's hard to draw the ethical line on abortion.
I.e. When can the Fetus be rendered "conscious"?
Before this moment, aborting the Fetus is arguably as moral as uprooting a plant.
Yet then there are other issues; A plant does not have the ability to Become a child.
A Fetus probably does.

Consciousness is irrelevant, because even if a late stage fetus has a primary consciousness, which it certainly does not until it can at least feel pain, very late in the pregnancy, it is still going to be a rudimentary one until well after birth, and one that is no more morally problematic while still in the womb, to crushing a well-developed lizard or chicken egg. 

Potential is irrelevant.

This is because we can think of future people as having interests, and feeling pain, and an interest in living.  But they wont have those interests until they are alive.  If they are never alive, they have no moral standing. 

To think otherwise would lead to problems as we would then be obligated to maximize the number of people on this planet, because the abstract future people have an interest in coming into existence… this clearly does not work.

from my knowledge, I believe that a Fetus is an individual Human body, is it not?

Human genetic code is irrelevant. We are not fundamentally different or special as compared to a lizard.  The difference is one of magnitude of held interest and the capacity for suffering and pleasure, a matter of degree.

But a Fetus is an individual Human body, and in definition, a person is an individual Human body.

Not necessarily true. Would you refuse to ascribe personhood to an intelligent alien species or self-aware android intelligence?

Personhood is determined by the mind, and its capacity to think and feel, not based upon the genetic code possessed by a lump of unthinking cells parasitizing some woman’s uterus.

Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?

See above

knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts.

Not all consciousnesses are created equal… they must develop for a while

I do get quite sick of Christians who so piously want to take everyone's choice away but who are not taking care of as many children as they possibly can and who vote against welfare, education, etc.

That is because they don’t care about kids at all.  Their primary objective is the control of and subordination of women and the condemnation of sex.

It is argumentatively too late.

And it can damage the mother.

Giving birth actually carries a greater medical risk to the mother than the abortion does.  No dice.

Abortion is an excuse for women to not have to face the music of the mistake they made when they had unprotected sex. It is an awful solution to an irresponsible decision that kills a living creature.

See what I mean about hating women and sex (I am still waiting on your responses in the homosexuality thread by the way)

What about rape?  I suppose they ask for that?  What about cases of women who are married/responsible, but have a birth control or condom failure and get pregnant as a result, and cannot afford, or know they are ill-suited to taking care of a screaming little monkey on acid?

More to the point, why should someone be punished for a min of 18.75 years for a mistake that lasted 2-13 minutes on average, that they are compelled to make by their evolutionary history and brain chemistry.

The simple fact is, this is not about the fetus at all for you. It is about the desire to subjugate other people and punish them for actions you subjectively disapprove of.

So what if the law is changed tomorrow to define a fetus as a person?

Let's talk on moral terms here Dave, not pedantry.

In the words of Silent Cal.  You lose.  At least to me.  You run into a wall when talking to a relativist like DaveDave, but I am a functionalist…

We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time and is essentially "having" the baby when she decides to abort it half way through labor.

Actually, no you misogynist dick.  By all means, go swallow down your fundy bulls**t, but that is not how partial birth abortion works you miserable f**k.  It is a late term abortion, but not midway through normal labor.  What they do is induce labor, typically well before viability, and kill the large but undeveloped fetus.  They do this in cases not where the “cunt cant make up her mind” but typically when the pregnancy is for whatever reason high risk and they don’t want to damage her uterus. 


It is done to preserve her fertility. Less than 1% of abortions are partial birth, and almost all of them are for medical necessity 

Not that you give a s**t about women, you would rather punish her for being damaged goods, for having the temerity to have a high risk pregnancy. 

f**k you

As long as the baby (and it IS a baby by this time, f**k sakes, she's popping the thing out dammit!) remains half way in the womb when it is killed it's still considered abortion. f**king sick.

It would be if you were not lying out your ass

Well, it's either alive or it isn't. That's my scientific evidence.

You don’t have a very good track record talking about science on this board.

[velkyn]

It's someone else dictating that their morality supersedes yours. That's why this will continue to be a legal issue, not a moral one.  We have two ideas of morality coming into conflict here, yours and mine.  The difference is that if mine is put into law, it doesn't take away your right to do as your morality dictates, whereas instituting your "morality" necessarily inflicts itself upon everyone else.  To find an equivalent to that, we'd have to find another morality that impinged upon your right to practice your morality.  The handiest example of that is forced abortions.  If we instituted a policy of forced abortions, that would be an application of the moral position that life begins at birth that impinged on your right to hold and practice your own personal morality.

So when does life truly begin then? At viability, or at birth? You don't know, so why are you saying it's not a moral issue if you can't determine whether it has moved into sentience or not? Your argument that it's not a person until it is born isn't a moral issue, but the definition of when life begins is and affects the "kill".

I mean, in Canada we have NO abortion laws. We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time and is essentially "having" the baby when she decides to abort it half way through labor. As long as the baby (and it IS a baby by this time, f**k sakes, she's popping the thing out dammit!) remains half way in the womb when it is killed it's still considered abortion. f**king sick.

But hey, you don't have a big problem with killing, so the difference between a few centimeters of a womans birth canal shouldn't bother you, huh?

EGT has done a great job on how again you make up nonsense to create your strawmen. Will you ignore this thread now that someone rebutted your baseless claims as  you have so many times?   

[Evolutions Golden Toad]

It's someone else dictating that their morality supersedes yours. That's why this will continue to be a legal issue, not a moral one.  We have two ideas of morality coming into conflict here, yours and mine.  The difference is that if mine is put into law, it doesn't take away your right to do as your morality dictates, whereas instituting your "morality" necessarily inflicts itself upon everyone else.  To find an equivalent to that, we'd have to find another morality that impinged upon your right to practice your morality.  The handiest example of that is forced abortions.  If we instituted a policy of forced abortions, that would be an application of the moral position that life begins at birth that impinged on your right to hold and practice your own personal morality.

So when does life truly begin then? At viability, or at birth? You don't know, so why are you saying it's not a moral issue if you can't determine whether it has moved into sentience or not? Your argument that it's not a person until it is born isn't a moral issue, but the definition of when life begins is and affects the "kill".

I mean, in Canada we have NO abortion laws. We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time and is essentially "having" the baby when she decides to abort it half way through labor. As long as the baby (and it IS a baby by this time, f**k sakes, she's popping the thing out dammit!) remains half way in the womb when it is killed it's still considered abortion. f**king sick.

But hey, you don't have a big problem with killing, so the difference between a few centimeters of a womans birth canal shouldn't bother you, huh?

EGT has done a great job on how again you make up nonsense to create your strawmen. Will you ignore this thread now that someone rebutted your baseless claims as  you have so many times?   

I am still waiting on his response in the other thread where he spooged his bigoted fundie BS all over the board....

[JackWhitehead1]

Excellent, Egt. Great post.

[JTW]

Would it make any difference to you if a fetus was a person?

Only somewhat.  I am coming into this thread late and as such the response will be huge, and to every post I find interesting, as a result you will find my arguments unfolding over time.  But to start this off with…

If a person, a fully adult person, were hooked against your will into your metabolism, would you not have the right to remove him?  I am using rights based ethics here.  Under a consistent rights based ethic, the initiator of force here violating someones rights is the fetus, unless you give consent.

But the consent was granted when you opted to have sexual intercourse.

Now, I am more of a utilitarian,  but even then, the fetus does not matter.  Compare the capacity for suffering an interest forming of a fetus, at any stage of development, and you will find them paling in comparison to the capacity of the mother.  Under utilitarianism, one must seek to maximize utility, or good.  In this case  combination of maximizing the differential between pleasure and pain, and maximizing the number (and because they exist on a sliding scale with intelligence, magnitude) of held interests satisfied.  A fetus cannot feel pain until very late in the pregnancy, and cannot hold meaningful interests until will after birth.  If the mother does not want it in there, she is within her right to remove it.

It may well be. But it's not the point.

Outside the womb is a different story because a baby can feel pain and hold rudimentary interests.  As a result, killing it does not maximize utility with available options, if the mom doesn’t want it.  Adoption does. 

So why not have the baby and put it up for adoption instead of aborting it then?

Abortion is an excuse for women to not have to face the music of the mistake they made when they had unprotected sex. It is an awful solution to an irresponsible decision that kills a living creature.

See what I mean about hating women and sex (I am still waiting on your responses in the homosexuality thread by the way)

What about rape?  I suppose they ask for that?  What about cases of women who are married/responsible, but have a birth control or condom failure and get pregnant as a result, and cannot afford, or know they are ill-suited to taking care of a screaming little monkey on acid?

There's always adoption. In the case of rape I can't say, I'm not a female.

More to the point, why should someone be punished for a min of 18.75 years for a mistake that lasted 2-13 minutes on average, that they are compelled to make by their evolutionary history and brain chemistry.

The simple fact is, this is not about the fetus at all for you. It is about the desire to subjugate other people and punish them for actions you subjectively disapprove of.

Of course. And it's about your reckless and wanton lasciviousness and disregard for the consequences therein too, I suppose?  :

So what if the law is changed tomorrow to define a fetus as a person?

Let's talk on moral terms here Dave, not pedantry.

In the words of Silent Cal.  You lose.  At least to me.  You run into a wall when talking to a relativist like DaveDave, but I am a functionalist…

k?

We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time and is essentially "having" the baby when she decides to abort it half way through labor.

Actually, no you misogynist dick.  By all means, go swallow down your fundy bulls**t, but that is not how partial birth abortion works you miserable f**k.  It is a late term abortion, but not midway through normal labor.  What they do is induce labor, typically well before viability, and kill the large but undeveloped fetus.  They do this in cases not where the “cunt cant make up her mind” but typically when the pregnancy is for whatever reason high risk and they don’t want to damage her uterus. 


It is done to preserve her fertility. Less than 1% of abortions are partial birth, and almost all of them are for medical necessity 

Not that you give a s**t about women, you would rather punish her for being damaged goods, for having the temerity to have a high risk pregnancy. 

f**k you

Let's try to remain civil here. There's always adoption. Or C-sections.

As long as the baby (and it IS a baby by this time, f**k sakes, she's popping the thing out dammit!) remains half way in the womb when it is killed it's still considered abortion. f**king sick.

It would be if you were not lying out your ass

Well, it's either alive or it isn't. That's my scientific evidence.

You don’t have a very good track record talking about science on this board.

Coming from a scientific propaganda source like you, I take that as a compliment.

[Evolutions Golden Toad]

But the consent was granted when you opted to have sexual intercourse.

No.  They dont. By that logic, women consent to be raped when they get drunk, or go out scantily clad.  Just because something is a foreseeable consequence of an action, does not mean that you intend it or give consent to it.

And even if that were the case, consent for something ongoing in your body is something that can be retracted at any time. If what you say is true, once you put your tiny little penis into a woman with her consent, she cannot tell you to get the hell out.  Good luck defending that position in court.

It may well be. But it's not the point.

No. It is exactly the point. If the fetus does not possess those characteristics, it has no moral worth. I realize you are not familiar with this idea of arguing honestly or even conpetantly, but do try to catch up with the rest of the class.

So why not have the baby and put it up for adoption instead of aborting it then?

Hear that sound?  That was the sound of the point flying in a sublime arc over your head.

The point there was to say "once you have the kid, you dont get to kill it". Before the point where it is viable outside the womb, the utilitarian calculus prior to the statement you twisted, applies and it is OK to kill the fetus. 

There's always adoption. In the case of rape I can't say, I'm not a female.

And there is always the right of the mother to control what goes on inside her own body.  ANd your commend on rape is just special, refusing to take a position on whether or not the ask for it, cute. 

Of course. And it's about your reckless and wanton lasciviousness and disregard for the consequences therein too, I suppose?

So it IS about punishing someone. Thanks for showing your true colors.  As for my conduct, I cannot by definition have kids, unless some girl looks like Brad Pitt when I am drunk, and they somehow convince a power-bottom to top...

Let's try to remain civil here. There's always adoption. Or C-sections.

I am sorry, but it is rather hard for me to remain civil with people who show an utter lack of intellectual honesty, and a contempt for women.

Let me spell this out for you, because you either dont understand or are being deliberatly obtuse.

Partial Birth abortions are but one type of late term (after mid-way through a pregnancy) abortion.  They are never done when a fetus is viable outside the womb, because at that point labor is typically induced and the baby taken care of and put up for adoption, or is taken to term.

Late term abortions of any kind are almost always done to protect the life of the mother from a pregnancy, not a birth, that could kill her. 

Partial Birth abortions as they are called, are a gruesome, but effective way, to make sure her uterus is not damaged by the procedure so that her fertility is not affected.

Do you understand now how adoption and C section do not apply?

Coming from a scientific propaganda source like you, I take that as a compliment.

So a working scientist is a propagandist now?  I suppose a historian is nothing more than a propagandist if you dont agree with him in his field of expertise? That is funny.  Heaven forbid I lay the record straight on evolution, philosophy of science and human sexuality, things well within the scope of my training...

(granted, here I am dealing with ethics, but I think I am doing a pretty good job for something I study on the side)

[JTW]

But the consent was granted when you opted to have sexual intercourse.

No.  They dont. By that logic, women consent to be raped when they get drunk, or go out scantily clad.  Just because something is a foreseeable consequence of an action, does not mean that you intend it or give consent to it.

Please. This is why upstanding civilians like me have such a hard time taking people like you seriously. No wonder you get railed on. Grow up and face some personal responsibility for once in your life. If I drink and make the choice to drive I don't blame it on the beer company. (although you probably would)

And even if that were the case, consent for something ongoing in your body is something that can be retracted at any time. If what you say is true, once you put your tiny little penis into a woman with her consent, she cannot tell you to get the hell out.  Good luck defending that position in court.

Huh? I thought I was a person and the fetus wasn't?

It may well be. But it's not the point.

No. It is exactly the point. If the fetus does not possess those characteristics, it has no moral worth. I realize you are not familiar with this idea of arguing honestly or even conpetantly, but do try to catch up with the rest of the class.

The point is that it is a human life with infinite moral worth. Yeah I know it doesn't mean much to a low life like you but it does to most other people.

So why not have the baby and put it up for adoption instead of aborting it then?

Hear that sound?  That was the sound of the point flying in a sublime arc over your head.

The point there was to say "once you have the kid, you dont get to kill it". Before the point where it is viable outside the womb, the utilitarian calculus prior to the statement you twisted, applies and it is OK to kill the fetus. 

I'm not arguing with the law here pal. It's the morality we want to peel back. If I give birth to a premature baby at 6 1/2 months that would otherwise "not be viable" outside of the womb without medical care, is it morally sound to kill it?

There's always adoption. In the case of rape I can't say, I'm not a female.

And there is always the right of the mother to control what goes on inside her own body.  ANd your commend on rape is just special, refusing to take a position on whether or not the ask for it, cute. 

The mother controls whether or not she wants to kill her unborn baby alright, ironically what you're doing is taking away the right of whoever impregnated her to make a decision regarding their unborn child. Why don't you take a good look in the mirror before you go calling the kettle fascist, mmk?

And if a woman decides to have the baby after she's been raped she'd be more of a man than you'll ever be. That's called balls - something you lack (or lick, depending on your perspective). You don't want to be a real man anyways so I guess that's self apparent.

Of course. And it's about your reckless and wanton lasciviousness and disregard for the consequences therein too, I suppose?

So it IS about punishing someone. Thanks for showing your true colors.  As for my conduct, I cannot by definition have kids, unless some girl looks like Brad Pitt when I am drunk, and they somehow convince a power-bottom to top...

Of course it's about punishing someone for their mistakes. That's what justice is all about. You of all people should know the value of failure.

Btw, we're glad you're not spreading your genes into the pool. Darwinism at its finest.

Let's try to remain civil here. There's always adoption. Or C-sections.

I am sorry, but it is rather hard for me to remain civil with people who show an utter lack of intellectual honesty, and a contempt for women.

Let me spell this out for you, because you either dont understand or are being deliberatly obtuse.

Partial Birth abortions are but one type of late term (after mid-way through a pregnancy) abortion.  They are never done when a fetus is viable outside the womb, because at that point labor is typically induced and the baby taken care of and put up for adoption, or is taken to term.

Wrong. As long as just a portion of the baby remains inside the mother according to Canadian law, it hasn't been born yet and is therefore applicable to being killed. Canada has no abortion law.

Late term abortions of any kind are almost always done to protect the life of the mother from a pregnancy, not a birth, that could kill her. 

Partial Birth abortions as they are called, are a gruesome, but effective way, to make sure her uterus is not damaged by the procedure so that her fertility is not affected.

Do you understand now how adoption and C section do not apply?

We haven't argued the woman's health. I don't have a problem with an abortion if it is a last resort. It is the flippant disregard for human life I take issue with which of course if you rationalize has "no moral worth" doesn't mean much.

Hey I got a suggestion: Don't want to be called an inhuman monster? Don't approve of wanton abortions.

Coming from a scientific propaganda source like you, I take that as a compliment.

So a working scientist is a propagandist now?  I suppose a historian is nothing more than a propagandist if you dont agree with him in his field of expertise? That is funny.  Heaven forbid I lay the record straight on evolution, philosophy of science and human sexuality, things well within the scope of my training...

(granted, here I am dealing with ethics, but I think I am doing a pretty good job for something I study on the side)

Your worldview taints your research. That's what I'm saying. You're not an honest scientist.

The bottom line remains - you support the killing of an innocent lifeform that was caused by a mistake that someone caused and won't take responsibilty for like a normal human being. We know you're not normal. Your homosexuality proves this. No wonder we think you're subhuman. You're less valuable than any of the aborted babies you've tacitly or otherwise approved of. How's that sound?

[screwtape]

And it's about your reckless and wanton lasciviousness and disregard for the consequences therein too, I suppose? 

It always comes down to punishing what they perceive as immoral for the conservatives.  "You had sex, so now you have to take your medicine, you filthy whore!"