Should Healthcare cover the cost of Abortions?

[Acim]

No, it's falling short because it's a very poor analogy.

You're comparing a fertilized egg with a child of toddler age.

I'm comparing the choice to end existence of an organism based on 'rights' of another.

The basic difference here is the most important one, the fact that the fertilized egg is inside a mother. Since the mother is of no significance to pro-lifers,

Which is gross exaggeration at best, and bald faced lie if being accurate.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I'm comparing the choice to end existence of an organism based on 'rights' of another.

But this is a very specific and distinct case: the organism doesn't exist on its own, but is part of another organism. It's not a toddler, or any sort of independent entity.

The mother, remember? You're saying she becomes absolutely irrelevant as soon as she's carrying a zygote, a fertilized egg. You're saying that if she terminates that pregnancy, it's the same as if she killed a toddler.

And that's a bald faced lie.

-Nato

 

[Acim]

An anti-abortion argument based on potential does not withstand rational scrutiny.

Try me.

Every human cell has the potential (DNA) to turn into a developing human.

Let's compare how many of these cells have turned into humans, while also comparing how many fetuses have turned into humans. Care to do that?

Every sperm has the potential to fertilize an egg. Are individual sperm entitled to basic human rights?

Once conception is realized, I would argue yes.

The vast majority of zygotes (the phase before implantation) abort naturally and do not go on to become people. Did they really have the potential to turn into humans?

Did they reach conception? No?
Now, you know.

If you carry your potentiality argument to its logical conclusion, the most ethical thing we can do is ensure that every single human egg is fertilized, successfully implanted in the uterus and carried to term. Even that solution would require a monumental holocaust of human sperm.

How about we just go with conception since it more or less makes things fairly obvious.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

How about we just go with conception since it more or less makes things fairly obvious.

It only makes it obvious how comfortable you are making wholly arbitrary distinctions in order to deny women reproductive rights.

-Nato

 

[Acim]

Men can be so footloose and fancy free when it comes to deciding what women should tolerate happening to their bodies against their will. Can you imagine squeezing a football out of your rectum? If you woke up one day and discovered there was a real possibility you might have to do this in a few months time unless you pop in to your doctor for a quick injection as soon as possible, I bet you would be on the phone immediately to book an appointment.

In this analogy am I only person in human history to do this? Am I squeezing a football out of my rectum that has no chance of becoming a developing human being? If yes, I am only human to go through this football thingy, and it has no chance of becoming developing human, then you are correct. Otherwise, I would say you are as far off as one could possibly be.

 

[kreative37]

Neither Abortion or Murder are feelings.

Why do you feel abortion should be murder? In what ways do you think the government supports it? Why should a woman's opinion over what should happen with her life and her body be less important than what you a complete stranger decide should happen? Why do you think you are better informed and more capable of making that decision then the woman herself being advised by her doctor? Why do you think your place is between a woman and her fertilized egg?

How can you possibly understand the scope and situation of every person who would have to go through having an abortion and still consider yourself rational and objective?

I was just stating that healthcare shouldn't cover the cost, because I feel that a human is a human even if it's the size of a pea. It is living, and has the potential to live and develop just like you or I. If someone out there will adopt them, they should have that right. If the laws of the land is against murder, they shouldn't support it in cost wise. Now as against abortion as I am, well if those people out there who do make that decision, then they can pay for it themselves. . . :sad:

 

[Acim]

But this is a very specific and distinct case: the organism doesn't exist on its own, but is part of another organism. It's not a toddler, or any sort of independent entity.

Which would only make the case for pro-life stronger.

The mother, remember? You're saying she becomes absolutely irrelevant as soon as she's carrying a zygote, a fertilized egg.

No, I'm not saying that, and is straw-man tripe. You can't have it both ways, that the organism is completely dependent on mom, but that pro-lifers have absolutely no concern for mom. I don't project that onto your argument, even though if we perhaps really explored things, it would plausibly show up that way.

You're saying that if she terminates that pregnancy, it's the same as if she killed a toddler.

And that's a bald faced lie.

I'm saying if she terminates pregnancy with exclusive consideration of her rights and complete neglect of rights of the organism that is dependent on her, and is 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the time becoming a human being, then it is equal to me exercise my choices (so called rights) to do whatever killing I deem necessary for my own reasons. You may not like that, or agree with it, but if I'm saying my 'rights' trump your disagreement, tell me how you will prevent that? Go ahead, give it your absolutely best shot.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I was just stating that healthcare shouldn't cover the cost, because I feel that a human is a human even if it's the size of a pea. It is living, and has the potential to live and develop just like you or I. If someone out there will adopt them, they should have that right. If the laws of the land is against murder, they shouldn't support it in cost wise. Now as against abortion as I am, well if those people out there who do make that decision, then they can pay for it themselves. . . :sad:

I just love counting the amount of times people post sentimental pro-life affirmations that never mention the mother even once. What better way to declare to the world that you understand the full context of this matter?

-Nato

 

[Acim]

It only makes it obvious how comfortable you are making wholly arbitrary distinctions in order to deny women reproductive rights.

I'm not denying reproductive rights.

That is lie.

Abortion is denial of a right.

Give me a list of 'reproductive rights.' Is your list only 1 item? If not, provide me an honest list of 'reproductive rights' and let's see if it is accurate that I am denying all rights, some rights, majority of rights, or very very narrow, single solitary 'right' that is questionable at best. Can you have intellectual integrity to go through with this, or is straw-man position the only one that you are willing to stick with?

 

[Sententia]

If someone out there will adopt them, they should have that right.

Its a right to force other people to carry children to term so you can adopt them?

If the laws of the land is against murder, they shouldn't support it in cost wise.

Abortion isn't murder. (Look up Murder if you are confused or ask a lawyer)

Now as against abortion as I am, well if those people out there who do make that decision, then they can pay for it themselves. . . :sad:

Well at least you are for them legally being able to get one if they need it. God forbid its medically necessary to save their lives and they end with the poor misfortune of being poor though. They couldn't pay and would just have to watch the baby grow until it kills them. What would you suppose a good christian should do in that circumstance? Hold their hand and whisper heaven awaits until they die?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I'm saying if she terminates pregnancy with exclusive consideration of her rights and complete neglect of rights of the organism that is dependent on her, and is 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the time becoming a human being, then it is equal to me exercise my choices (so called rights) to do whatever killing I deem necessary for my own reasons. You may not like that, or agree with it, but if I'm saying my 'rights' trump your disagreement, tell me how you will prevent that? Go ahead, give it your absolutely best shot.

Since I guess you're not equipped to understand that there's a big, adult, female distinction between a developing fetus and a toddler, I'm not going to play on the Acim-go-round anymore. It's giving me a headache.

-Nato

 

[Alceste]

In this analogy am I only person in human history to do this? Am I squeezing a football out of my rectum that has no chance of becoming a developing human being? If yes, I am only human to go through this football thingy, and it has no chance of becoming developing human, then you are correct. Otherwise, I would say you are as far off as one could possibly be.

Sure, let's say for argument's sake that the ONLY way humanity can produce footballs is for a man such as yourself to squeeze them out of his rectum, and that your rectum football will gradually develop sentience and the ability to feel pain while it is gestating in your bowels. Not yet though - at the start it has only the POTENTIAL to become a sentient rectum football. It can not think or feel or experience suffering.

I still think you'd be rushing off to your doctor the instant you knew you had contracted a rectum football to get him to put the kibosh on the whole arrangement, unless you REALLY wanted a football.

 

[Acim]

Sure, let's say for argument's sake that the ONLY way humanity can produce footballs is for a man such as yourself to squeeze them out of his rectum, and that your rectum football will gradually develop sentience and the ability to feel pain while it is gestating in your bowels. Not yet though - at the start it has only the POTENTIAL to become a sentient rectum football. It can not think or feel or experience suffering.

I still think you'd be rushing off to your doctor the instant you knew you had contracted a rectum football to get him to put the kibosh on the whole arrangement, unless you REALLY wanted a football.

Think all you want. As a responsible, pro-lifer, I think I'd exercise reproductive rights and bring the football to term.

Score a touchdown, and do a little victory dance right in front of you.

Just cause that's the kind of mutha I am.

 

[Alceste]

Think all you want. As a responsible, pro-lifer, I think I'd exercise reproductive rights and bring the football to term.

Score a touchdown, and do a little victory dance right in front of you.

Just cause that's the kind of mutha I am.

You're pretty hard core then. Tell you what, I will become an ardent anti-abortionist the day you pass a sentient rectum football. Don't worry about the tearing and stitches - they can do a pretty good job these days of making you nearly the way you were after such a physically traumatic experience. Almost.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was just stating that healthcare shouldn't cover the cost, because I feel that a human is a human even if it's the size of a pea. It is living, and has the potential to live and develop just like you or I. If someone out there will adopt them, they should have that right. If the laws of the land is against murder, they shouldn't support it in cost wise. Now as against abortion as I am, well if those people out there who do make that decision, then they can pay for it themselves. . . :sad:

I feel that destroying a musical instrument is something akin to murder.

I really do - I'm not making this up. It bothers me greatly to see any musical instrument smashed. I feel like the instrument maker and each person who plays it infuses the instrument with a small part of their own "souls", and this amalgam of souls in the instrument, while not sentient, is still something sacred that shouldn't just be destroyed for no reason.

Now, because I realize that these feelings have no rational basis, I set them aside and would never dream of using them as the basis for any sort of restriction on anyone else.

However, since we've decided that our personal feelings (and just our personal feelings, apparently) are a valid basis for legal restrictions on anyone, how should we express my feelings in law? How long a prison sentence should we give to a rock musician who smashes his guitar? Should Pete Townshend - that unrepentant serial offender - get the death penalty?

 

[Acim]

You're pretty hard core then. Tell you what, I will become an ardent anti-abortionist the day you pass a sentient rectum football. Don't worry about the tearing and stitches - they can do a pretty good job these days of making you nearly the way you were after such a physically traumatic experience. Almost.

I'll tell you what. When I conceive of a sentient football that at least 2 doctors believe stands great likelihood to develop into human, I will become pro-abortion. Not with my kid, I'll have that one, but I'll allow for that choice thing to be what is most sensible given the likelihood of this hypothetical we are setting up.

Deal?

 

[Acim]

I feel that destroying a musical instrument is something akin to murder.

I really do - I'm not making this up. It bothers me greatly to see any musical instrument smashed. I feel like the instrument maker and each person who plays it infuses the instrument with a small part of their own "souls", and this amalgam of souls in the instrument, while not sentient, is still something sacred that shouldn't just be destroyed for no reason.

Now, because I realize that these feelings have no rational basis,

But you've explained a basis of rationality that you said works for you. Something you are not making up. Perhaps there are others who agree with you, and who can see reason to 'save the instruments.' Thus, holding a position that is 'pro instrument' wouldn't be irrational.

And if we ever live in a world where life (great condition) of an instrument is dependent on the inner physical connections between a human and an instrument, I might join you in this pro instrument stance you are alluding to. It would not be irrational to me if such a connection presented itself, and there was what appeared a strong likelihood that we could see soul from instrument after it is birthed from humans. We might not see that soul while in the human body that houses it, but if say 100% of the cases that birth these instruments showed souls, I'm feeling quite confident that I would join your position, and call it rational.

I set them aside and would never dream of using them as the basis for any sort of restriction on anyone else.

If you are serious about your claim, I don't see why you wouldn't entertain idea that people ought not to destroy their instruments when there are people like you who would gladly take them and find a home. Perhaps here in hypothetical land where reality is you might just be making up your allegiance to instruments, the fact may be you don't care what people do with them, which also would have basis for rationality. But I really could see world where if say 1000 people agreed with this position, it could be some kind of law, say misdemeanor where a person who willingly destroys an instrument is faced with substantial fine. And they, like all people, are given opportunity to keep and nurture that instrument (taught how this works) or provided means to give instrument to those who would love and care for it (taught how to go about process of transferring).

However, since we've decided that our personal feelings (and just our personal feelings, apparently) are a valid basis for legal restrictions on anyone, how should we express my feelings in law?

Again, if person is seen or able to be shown (proven) as one who willingly destroyed an otherwise well working instrument, they would face misdemeanor charges either at state and/or federal level.

How long a prison sentence should we give to a rock musician who smashes his guitar?

Good question. I would say given the publicity of this violent act, in lieu of the existing misdemeanor, I'd go with 60 days in jail, or 1 year's revenue, or up to $250,000. Up to judge to decide which is most appropriate given particulars of the case.

Should Pete Townshend - that unrepentant serial offender - get the death penalty?

Guess we can't make it retroactive, but if Pete does it again in place where this is the law, I say 1 year's revenue would be sufficient lesson for him to realize the consequences of his actions. Teach him and others who think what Pete did was okay.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

You're pretty hard core then. Tell you what, I will become an ardent anti-abortionist the day you pass a sentient rectum football.

Both times my wife was pregnant, she would constantly complain that it wasn't fair that I didn't have to go through the pain and discomfort of pregnancy and childbirth.

"I would if I could, darling," I would always say.

Making promises you know there's no possible way you'd ever have to keep is awesome, but it's also pretty meaningless.

-Nato

 

[Kathryn]

Kind of, but we also need to let old people to die sooner - or let young people immigrate more easily - if the whole show isn't going to keel over in the next couple decades, demographically speaking.

What if the old people don't want to die sooner?

 

[Kathryn]

Nobody's going to go to all that trouble to make a football for somebody else to play with.

I thank God often for two women who would disagree with you - the mother of my adopted brother, and the mother of my adopted grandson.

Thank you, whoever and wherever you are, for allowing this little one to live, and to become part of our family!