Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That everyone is entitled to irresponsible sex, not just men.

Tom

Unless you think that this was also the justification from the Holocaust, this is a sidetrack from what I was trying to find out from @allright .

 

[columbus]

No, it really isnt.

Yeah actually it really is.
In fact there's one term in particular that's been used for both purposes rather commonly.

Parasite.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Unless you think that this was also the justification from the Holocaust, this is a sidetrack from what I was trying to find out from @allright .

You asked a question and I answered it.
I do think that is the main reason for feticide rights. So that women can walk away from, and sweep under the rug, the results of irresponsible sex the way men are accustomed to doing.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I said once conception starts, I disagree with abortion.

You gotta be super precise with baby killers, or they'll drag you down a semantic rabbit hole.

Conception is very brief, the merging of two haploid cells to form a new human being. It's the pregnancy that takes most of the time.
Tom

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

My post was a year old. Time flies.


I said once conception starts, I disagree with abortion.

Sorry, I must have missed that bit.

It is subjective. Abortion argumente are usually based on peoples morals of right snd wrong. For example, some consider late abortions alright but not early ones. Its like you have to wait for you to "see" life before using morality such as when to apply the law ln whether and when an child should live.

How is this a reason to not allow abortion?

If someone killed someone else as an adult, they still killed and the other is dead. It doesnt matter why, who, when, and where. Doesnt matter if its a child, adult, senior. The point of when someone is growing at conception to their last breathe is all life.

Morally, what do you based life on?

The presence of certain biochemical functions & reactions. Which means a sperm cell & egg cell are alive so not sure why you think 'life begins at conception'.

If science says that killing is alright in self defense does it still make right regardless of how the method of death is defined?

Considering science doesn't deal with moral questions this is never likely to come up.

I agree with a lot of things with the church based on its reasoning not my own.

Is that supposed to make your position sound more reasonable? Because it has precisely the opposite affect.

Let me ask. Is murder okay if it were a child, adult, senior, rapist, priest, a judge, trump, and so forth?

Which taking a life is more justified morally? (Not legally. That depends on country)

It would really depend on the context. Dealing in absolutes is very simplistic. If I were about to be raped and you had the power to end the rapist's life before they committed the act (there's no other way to stop the rape) you'd be committing an immoral act either way:

1. If you kill my would-be rapist you'd be ending a life but sparing me from further physical & mental harm;
2. If you don't kill my rapist you're allowing him to commit an immoral act and also committing one yourself by refusing to save me from physical & mental harm;

How would you act here since you consider both my life and the life of this rapist to be of equal value in this hypothetical scenario?

Both are life. Goes back to my question above. Rape doesn't justify the death of a person.

A foetus isn't a person though. It has to be born first.

Even if death can be justified, there is no "eye for an eye" scenario. Foetus gets free pass.

And so you're willing to subject the mother to months if not years of physical & mental trauma dealing not only with the pregnancy but with potentially raising the child and being reminded of rape every time she sees, hears or thinks of the child. This assumes, of course, that the mother survives both pregnancy & birth. Savita Halappanavar's doctors took the reasoning that 'both mother and foetus have an equal right to life' and she died an entirely preventable death because of it.

If you believe life begins at conception why will you defend the foetus' life but not the mother's? The 'pro-life' position results in a surprisingly large amount of preventable deaths and displays a surprisingly large amount of contempt for living, breathing people.

You gotta be super precise with baby killers, or they'll drag you down a semantic rabbit hole.

Technically a foetus isn't a baby until it's born

Seriously though, I'm nominating this for the 'Most Loaded Post of the Year' award.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You asked a question and I answered it.

You answered a question not directed to you without understanding the context.

Please: just take a few extra seconds to look a post or two back in the quote thread so you can understand the conversation before jumping in.

 

[columbus]

Technically a foetus isn't a baby until it's born

Like I said
Actually, a prior feticide rights human once attributed the authority to decide whether a fetus is a baby or not to an emergency room admittance form.
The form had different boxes to check if your child was born or not born yet.

, I'm nominating this for the 'Most Loaded Post of the Year' award.

You should go through a few more posts before you commit.
And not just mine, although I am spectacularly good at loaded posts.
Tom

 

[columbus]

ou answered a question not directed to you without understanding the context.

I answered the question you actually asked.

And I also understood the context extremely well. Which is why I answered the question itself.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really don't see how you failed epically here?

Let me rephrase your question a bit.
"Until you prove that it is a 'human' life the burden of proof is upon those who oppose slavery."

Now do you get it?
Tom

Still drinking that strawman Kool-Aid.

 

[columbus]

Still drinking that strawman Kool-Aid.

The depth of your understanding and the power of your logic is an inspiration to us all.

Doubtless.

Tom

 

[Curious George]

You asked a question and I answered it.
I do think that is the main reason for feticide rights. So that women can walk away from, and sweep under the rug, the results of irresponsible sex the way men are accustomed to doing.
Tom

Is that an ad hominem and an equivocation rolled into one?

The main argument for "feticide rights" is that it is not something that should be regulated by the government.

 

[columbus]

Is that an ad hominem and an equivocation rolled into one?

No.
It's an answer to the question, exactly as asked. Followed up with my explanation for why feticide rights people don't get simple things like elementary biology.

The main argument for "feticide rights" is that it is not something that should be regulated by the government.

I would like to see it done differently as well. It's a complex problem, not well served by the numskulls who run the government.
But frankly, I am not too impressed with the people who don't understand the science either.

I have actually had posters on RF question whether a fetus is alive.
Tom

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Most anti-abortionalist are about morals. If we were about science, we can justify pretty much anything as a right for one person to live and another to die.

How is this a reason to not allow abortion?

Many anti-abortionist say a child is a child because of one point of life that grows with the body. We don't separate life from the body and what makes life, well, life both in awareness, body, and mind. My mind doesn't work as in "this is nothing up until a certain age then it's all of the sudden a child and then after pregnancy then all of the sudden it has rights." I could never be a doctor, lawyer, nor soldier. I see no justification with taking a life.

The presence of certain biochemical functions & reactions. Which means a sperm cell & egg cell are alive so not sure why you think 'life begins at conception'.

When growing starts, that's life.

Considering science doesn't deal with moral questions this is never likely to come up.

Exactly. Abortion is a morality issue not a scientific one. If we judged life based on science, we can justify pretty much anything. Going back to the Roman days and such; horrible. I'm glad there are morals I just wish they are balanced.

Is that supposed to make your position sound more reasonable? Because it has precisely the opposite affect.

I agree doesn't mean I support it.

I agree according to their foundations not my own. I have no bias against the Church; wrong person to talk to about that.

It would really depend on the context. Dealing in absolutes is very simplistic. If I were about to be raped and you had the power to end the rapist's life before they committed the act (there's no other way to stop the rape) you'd be committing an immoral act either way:

1. If you kill my would-be rapist you'd be ending a life but sparing me from further physical & mental harm;

1. If you don't kill my rapist you're allowing him to commit an immoral act and also committing one yourself by refusing to save me from physical & mental harm;

The only killing I'd do is by automatic self-defense. That doesn't change my morals. It's still wrong. Our body has a fight or flight response that supersedes our morals until we can either stop it in its tracks or moralize it after the act. Many women who have abortions (say my mother) have harsh reactions after taking their child's life. Why would they if they were comfortable with taking a child just as you throw something away when you found its not useful anymore or can't return it.

How would you act here since you consider both my life and the life of this rapist to be of equal value in this hypothetical scenario?

Morally, I see no choice. I wouldn't pick either.

A foetus isn't a person though. It has to be born first.

You can't be born a person if someone kills you beforehand. That's the point: the right to live.

And so you're willing to subject the mother to months if not years of physical & mental trauma dealing not only with the pregnancy but with potentially raising the child and being reminded of rape every time she sees, hears or thinks of the child. This assumes, of course, that the mother survives both pregnancy & birth. Savita Halappanavar's doctors took the reasoning that 'both mother and foetus have an equal right to life' and she died an entirely preventable death because of it.

I can't play favorites. Life is life. Mother and child.

If you believe life begins at conception why will you defend the foetus' life but not the mother's? The 'pro-life' position results in a surprisingly large amount of preventable deaths and displays a surprisingly large amount of contempt for living, breathing people.

I don't put myself in positions to where I need to make that choice for someone else. All I can control is my decisions and how I react to the decisions I make with or without thinking about it.

But, you got to ask me more specifically about my feelings on pro-life. A lot of people are pro-life because of religious reasons. I don't look into it. Like the holocaust, it bothers me so much I have dreams about it. Can't remember why I entered into the debate. I have to look up the rest of my comments.

Technically a foetus isn't a baby until it's born

Seriously though, I'm nominating this for the 'Most Loaded Post of the Year' award.

The feutus can't be born if you stop it from growing.

Anti-abortionist is about the right to live the whole nine months forward not to keep the child after X amount of months.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You gotta be super precise with baby killers, or they'll drag you down a semantic rabbit hole.

Conception is very brief, the merging of two haploid cells to form a new human being. It's the pregnancy that takes most of the time.
Tom

Em. I should have given up long time ago. I'm pretty simple. You conceived. You grow. You born. You live. You age. You die. I'm learning about rebirth. Interesting to think about when not too literal about it.

 

[Curious George]

No.
It's an answer to the question, exactly as asked. Followed up with my explanation for why feticide rights people don't get simple things like elementary biology.


I would like to see it done differently as well. It's a complex problem, not well served by the numskulls who run the government.
But frankly, I am not too impressed with the people who don't understand the science either.

I have actually had posters on RF question whether a fetus is alive.
Tom

Hmmm, except irresponsible is very much a value judgment that was not substantiated. Really what you are suggesting is that it is irresponsible to choose abortion. Perhaps if you actually articulated your full argument you could see where the equivocation and ad hominem are.

Fortunate for you, I do understand elementary biology and am for "feticide rights." So, you do not have to worry about that pet peeve of yours right now.

 

[columbus]

You conceived. You grow. You born. You live. You age. You die.

It's not all that complex.
At least, not until people try to justify choosing death for other people. Then the logic and evidence get all twisted and self contradictory.
Tom

 

[columbus]

m, except irresponsible is very much a value judgment that was not substantiated.

It's rather like driving a car.
If you can't take responsibility for the possible outcome of causing harm, then driving is irresponsible.
Same with sex. If having potentially fertile sex, while in a situation where you'd rather kill your offspring than provide the most basic needs, you are behaving irresponsibly.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

The depth of your understanding and the power of your logic is an inspiration to us all.

Doubtless.

Tom

I tried reason with you, it did not work. All that is left is ridicule.

 

[columbus]

, I do understand elementary biology a

Good.
You'd be surprised how many feticide rights people don't think that the life cycle of a Primate applies to human beings.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's rather like driving a car.
If you can't take responsibility for the possible outcome of causing harm, then driving is irresponsible.
Same with sex. If having potentially fertile sex, while in a situation where you'd rather kill your offspring than provide the most basic needs, you are behaving irresponsibly.
Tom

You are still making the same error of assuming that a fetus is a human being. This places the burden of proof upon you.