Page 27 of 57 FirstFirst ...
17
25
26
27
28
29
37
... LastLast
  1. #521
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    No. It is not. It's that there shouldn't be artificial and misogynistic legal barriers between a woman and her medical care.



    Rather than leave the decision up to nosy neighbours with religious motives, I'd rather leave it to doctors and their ethics.

    That's it. If you're pretending it's anything else, you're misrepresenting my position.

    Edit: Also, the notion of "compromising" over people's basic rights is asinine, in and of itself.
    I don't see how this is at all misrepresenting your opinion since you've said as much right here:

    If you want to be scientific and non-arbitrary, the only sensible argument I've seen would be to use the same measure we use to determine end-of-life; whether there's coherent brain activity. That doesn't emerge in a fetus until around week 24 of development; you can't reasonably push personhood back much further than that.

    But again; the argument's irrelevant to the abortion debate. It simply doesn't matter, because the host woman's bodily autonomy rights would still trump any hypothetical right to life of the fetus.
    And here:

    Nobody's arguing that human life does not matter.

    We're pointing out that A> a fetus is not a human being, by definition, and B> even if it were, the pregnant woman's right to control, the use of her body trumps any right to life of the fetus.
    Using bodily autonomy as your argument for being pro-choice falls apart because to my knowledge no doctor has ever performed a preterm cesarean section simply on the mother's desire to not carry the child any longer. Therefore: at some point the baby's right to life does trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

  2. #522
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    They may profess to be secular, but their position on this particular subject is not rooted in an objective analysis of the facts at hand. Guaranteed.
    Whatever you say(no true Scotsman).. So is causing a miscarriage murder?

  3. #523
    Quote Originally Posted by Acidbaron View Post
    I find pro-life people fairly dumb, since they randomly add the value of life to something that isn't even human yet. By that logic each time i jerk off, every time i have sex i'm killing a shit ton of babies.
    Maybe some extremely misguided religious people would believe that, but what you described is not the case at all. The argument always comes down to when life begins, and I don't know any serious person who believes sperm/eggs are their own person. However, once a sperm fertilizes an egg and genetic code that is different from the mother/father exists, that's a good starting place for when a new life actually begins. This still even allows for wiggle room of a week or two after sex to take measures to not get pregnant, as it takes roughly a week or two before an egg gets fertilized. Some middle ground, if you call it that, is when a heartbeat is detected. However, the pro-life argument is all about protecting a life, and typically pro-abortion people avoid trying to pin down when a life begins because their arguments tend to fall apart if you get honest answers of them. This is how the phrases "it's a choice between the doctor and the mother" came about, as it was a cope-out to actually coming up with a rational argument that people would believe.

    Now why is this all suddenly in the forefront again? There was a lot of legislation coming to light and gaining approval about allowing 3rd trimester abortions, and some states have made rebuttals legislation to bring it back more towards Roe vs Wade as we've gone extremely far from its original scope. For those that don't know, Roe vs Wade was primarily about 1st trimester abortions, as even then 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were not a popular idea and looked down upon. There has been polling down with current day people, and roughly half of Americans are okay with 1st trimester abortions... but it drops immensely when you're talking about 2nd/3rd trimester, as they are extremely unpopular. The common rebuttal is that "well 2nd/3rd trimester abortions are so rare, we're not talking about that!", however even NPR put out regulations for their broadcasters to stop referring to 2nd/3rd trimester abortions as rare, as because we don't know how rare they actually are. On top of that, what's the point of passing legislation to allow 2nd/3rd trimester abortions when they're extremely unpopular to the average person and they're supposed to be rare?

    All that aside, we're coming to a point where modern medicine where babies can be born around the 20-21 week point and survive. That's the middle of the 2nd trimester, a point where legislation says it's okay to have abortions (and still do occur). This is why the discussion of when a life begins is extremely important, as we're at the point most previous definitions no longer apply that support abortion. We have tons of laws that protect a child from harm/abuse even if they're one day born, but we're somehow completely fine with harming/abusing the same child one day earlier when it comes to some legislation.

    Now, many pro-abortion sentiments and arguments I see are rooted in history, yet those espousing them likely don't know where they come from. The movement for abortion (and Planned Parenthood) is actually a white supremacy movement in the early/mid-1900's, as most of it's logic and reasoning (still used today) was the same that the Nazis used to implement abortions. Margaret Sanger is the centerpiece of all this in the US, as she was an avid birth control advocate and eugenicist. She along with other like-minded groups/individuals all spoke highly of the Third Reich, and they aimed to control the human population and weed out all the undesirables, which mostly included "blacks" and "yellows," aka non-white people. She was also very anti-religious, as she despised how Catholic families tended to have many kids, and she thought it increased poverty and advocated population control to boot. With all these goals in mind, she created Planned Parenthood, to implement population control and practice eugenics to remove "undesirables" from the world. While its history has been whitewashed to the point where most people don't know its history, it's goals and practices and rhetoric/language remain pretty much the same as when it's founders actively supported the practices and logic of the Third Reich. Many people in this thread who are defending abortions has even used the same language Sanger and her supporters (and the Nazis) used to promote/defend abortions in the name of eugenics and white supremacy. When it comes to black abortions, they've likely succeed as current estimates are that the black population in the US would be double in size if it weren't for abortions (at least as of the mid-1970's).

    Well, I wanted to get into the condition of many former Planned Parenthood employees and how they suffer from PTSD and other psychological disorders after working there for extended periods of time, but I think my post is long enough for now. Simple point is this: I can guarantee most pro-abortion people think they're informed and know where there stance is coming from, but they likely don't realize how deeply rooted it is in Nazism and white supremacy.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2019-05-30 at 07:09 PM.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #524
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurrora View Post
    I don't see how this is at all misrepresenting your opinion since you've said as much right here:

    And here:
    Because they were asking about legal conflicts between rights, rather than about practical ethics of medical care.

    Like I said; you're misrepresenting my opinion, because (as you've made clear, here) you're ignoring context.

    Using bodily autonomy as your argument for being pro-choice falls apart because to my knowledge no doctor has ever performed a preterm cesarean section simply on the mother's desire to not carry the child any longer. Therefore: at some point the baby's right to life does trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy.
    You're confusing medical ethics with legal questions, again. They're two separate things, y'know. Doctors may be legally entitled to do such a procedure, if the circumstances warrant it, but said procedure is medically unethical in almost all circumstances because those that would justify it are incredibly rare.

  5. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    typically pro-abortion people avoid trying to pin down when a life begins because their arguments tend to fall apart if you get honest answers of them
    This is a bald faced lie.

    Pro choice advocates all over the thread, all over the world have cited the components of the developed brain that makes the self.

    The rest of your word(lie) salad is not worth reading ebcause you strawman.

  6. #526
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,630
    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    Whatever you say(no true Scotsman)..
    I did not make a "no true Scotsman" argument.

    I pointed out that if your argument is based on premises that are fundamentally faith-based, then you can't claim that your argument is secular and thus rational.

    I'll grant that there's a narrow window where they may be making up non-religious imaginary things, but I really don't see the point in distinguishing between that and religious things, when from an outside perspective, they're essentially the same.

    So is causing a miscarriage murder?
    I feel like you're baiting me into saying "no", so you can link a fetal homicide law and proclaim victory.

    When all doing so would do is demonstrate that you didn't read said law, which doesn't grant personhood to a fetus in the first place, doesn't apply to abortions, and so on.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    and typically pro-abortion people avoid trying to pin down when a life begins because their arguments tend to fall apart if you get honest answers of them. This is how the phrases "it's a choice between the doctor and the mother" came about, as it was a cope-out to actually coming up with a rational argument that people would believe.
    This is, frankly, bullshit.

    We're pretty open that there can be objectively determinative markers for when personhood could exist; the usual metric I've cited time and again is the emergence of coherent brain activity, typically around Week 21. It's the same marker we use to medically define the end of a life, so I feel it works fine to establish the beginning.

    It's just irrelevant, since if you pushed as hard as you possibly could, this would push for late-term abortions to rely primarily on inducing birth, but late-term abortions are vanishingly rare to begin with and almost exclusively occur due to risks to the mother or malformations in the fetus, both of which would overrule that concern in those circumstances to begin with.

    It's a silly question that doesn't really help argue for change, basically.
    Last edited by Endus; 2019-05-30 at 07:35 PM.

  7. #527
    If only the CDC tracked abortion statistics as well as reasons given for abortion.

    If only adoption rates were tracked, as well as temporary foster care statistics.

    If only manslaughter charges were even across the board. A man can be charged for feeding his SO a cocktail designed to force an abortion and be charged, a woman can walk into a clinic and have it done as a procedure. Its a life when its convenient.
    Last edited by GrinningMan; 2019-05-30 at 07:29 PM.
    You're not to think you are anything special. You're not to think you are as good as we are. You're not to think you are smarter than we are. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are. You're not to think you know more than we do. You're not to think you are more important than we are. You're not to think you are good at anything. You're not to laugh at us. You're not to think anyone cares about you. You're not to think you can teach us anything.

  8. #528
    Conservatives can't give a solid definition of what defines a person. They say a fetus will develop into a human being if left alone, thus a fetus is a human being with full rights.

    So does that mean a chicken egg is the same as a chicken? (So basically we all eat baby chickens?)

    Is a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly?

    They should be able to be consistent with their logic right?
    Last edited by Hilhen7; 2019-05-30 at 07:27 PM.

  9. #529
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    There are no pro-life arguments.

    Seeing that this is still a topic of contention and discussion in the US is evidence in itself that the US socially is a few decades behind on the rest of the modern world.
    There is one key pro-life argument: at some point, we consider an entity human, and it is illegal to kill humans (generally speaking). The question is, when is a fetus/baby considered a human. You can argue that it's upon delivery, upon its ability to be self-sustaining outside the womb, upon its ability to survive with assistance outside the womb, when a certain level of brain function starts, when there's a heart beat, upon conception, etc. To say there's no pro-life argument to be made is ignorant, intentionally or otherwise. BTW, pro-choicer here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilhen7 View Post
    Conservatives can't give a solid definition of what defines a person.
    What is the "liberal's" solid definition of what defines a person? As a pro-choice liberal, I'd like to know what definition you think I am using.

  10. #530
    Banned Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    4,282
    Quote Originally Posted by GrinningMan View Post
    If only the CDC tracked abortion statistics as well as reasons given for abortion.

    If only adoption rates were tracked, as well as temporary foster care statistics.

    If only manslaughter charges were even across the board. A man can be charged for feeding his SO a cocktail designed to force an abortion and be charged, a woman can walk into a clinic and have it done as a procedure. Its a life when its convenient.
    Yes. Do you not understand how consent works? If I give you a dollar, it’s a gift. If you take a dollar, it’s theft. Neither changes the concept of a dollar.

    Try a different argument.

  11. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by DSRilk View Post


    What is the "liberal's" solid definition of what defines a person? As a pro-choice liberal, I'd like to know what definition you think I am using.
    Well my requirement is a person must be a sentient individual.

    For example if your in a permanent vegetative state, I would no longer consider you a person. You would be a pile of flesh and bone at that point.
    Last edited by Hilhen7; 2019-05-30 at 07:38 PM.

  12. #532
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    We're pretty open that there can be objectively determinative markers for when personhood could exist; the usual metric I've cited time and again is the emergence of coherent brain activity, typically around Week 21. It's the same marker we use to medically define the end of a life, so I feel it works fine to establish the beginning.
    While it works for me, it only works for those people who do not subscribe to the idea that life is defined (at least in part) by the existence of a soul and that the soul exists "in" a fetus pre-coherent-brain-activity.

    Unfortunately, there is really very little debate to be had. The core problem (at least here in the US) is that each side generally comes at the argument with a very different assumption about the definition of life.

  13. #533
    Quote Originally Posted by Noxx79 View Post
    Yes. Do you not understand how consent works? If I give you a dollar, it’s a gift. If you take a dollar, it’s theft. Neither changes the concept of a dollar.

    Try a different argument.
    One party consent is still rape.
    You're not to think you are anything special. You're not to think you are as good as we are. You're not to think you are smarter than we are. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are. You're not to think you know more than we do. You're not to think you are more important than we are. You're not to think you are good at anything. You're not to laugh at us. You're not to think anyone cares about you. You're not to think you can teach us anything.

  14. #534
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilhen7 View Post
    Well my requirement is a human being must be sentient.

    For example if your in a permanent vegetative state, I would no longer consider you person. You would be a pile of flesh and bone at that point.
    I'd generally agree, though I think there's a debate to be had regarding level of sentience. My point, however, was that liberals will not all subscribe to a singular definition any more than all conservatives would. That and in reality most pro-lifers I've met absolutely have a very specific definition of what defines a person. I just don't agree with them.

  15. #535
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,630
    Quote Originally Posted by DSRilk View Post
    While it works for me, it only works for those people who do not subscribe to the idea that life is defined (at least in part) by the existence of a soul and that the soul exists "in" a fetus pre-coherent-brain-activity.
    And that's why I keep referring to it as religious or pseudo-religious.

    If you think there's a "soul", that's a spiritual argument, not an objective one. That's fine for you, but it has no business being raised as an argument to control the actions of others.

  16. #536
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I did not make a "no true Scotsman" argument.

    I pointed out that if your argument is based on premises that are fundamentally faith-based, then you can't claim that your argument is secular and thus rational.

    I'll grant that there's a narrow window where they may be making up non-religious imaginary things, but I really don't see the point in distinguishing between that and religious things, when from an outside perspective, they're essentially the same.



    I feel like you're baiting me into saying "no", so you can link a fetal homicide law and proclaim victory.

    When all doing so would do is demonstrate that you didn't read said law, which doesn't grant personhood to a fetus in the first place, doesn't apply to abortions, and so on.

    - - - Updated - - -



    This is, frankly, bullshit.

    We're pretty open that there can be objectively determinative markers for when personhood could exist; the usual metric I've cited time and again is the emergence of coherent brain activity, typically around Week 21. It's the same marker we use to medically define the end of a life, so I feel it works fine to establish the beginning.

    It's just irrelevant, since if you pushed as hard as you possibly could, this would push for late-term abortions to rely primarily on inducing birth, but late-term abortions are vanishingly rare to begin with and almost exclusively occur due to risks to the mother or malformations in the fetus, both of which would overrule that concern in those circumstances to begin with.

    It's a silly question that doesn't really help argue for change, basically.
    My question was simply to see if you are arguing from an objective standpoint or not. Judging by your second sentence I can see that you are not since you mentioned laws which are subjective. So, are you saying within the 1st trimester, causing a miscarriage is ok but anything after that is not? Sorry but the subject of abortion isn't black and white like you make it out to be.

    A woman is going to get an abortion regardless of the law so it should be made safe for them. Personally, I oppose getting an abortion based on a moral position but I'm not going to stop them. My position has nothing to do with religion in any way. If you think killing an unborn child is moral, said person probably doesn’t care about morality or doesn't know anything about morals.

    It's not at all silly because we need to decide when a life is a life and not whether you intended to have it or not. If the law is like you said it is, it's contradictory and makes little sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilhen7 View Post
    Conservatives can't give a solid definition of what defines a person. They say a fetus will develop into a human being if left alone, thus a fetus is a human being with full rights.

    So does that mean a chicken egg is the same as a chicken? (So basically we all eat baby chickens?)

    Is a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly?

    They should be able to be consistent with their logic right?
    Same goes for liberals, how can it be murder if I cause someone to miscarry when they don't consider it a human or a baby. Neither side is completely right on this subject.

  17. #537
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And that's why I keep referring to it as religious or pseudo-religious.

    If you think there's a "soul", that's a spiritual argument, not an objective one. That's fine for you, but it has no business being raised as an argument to control the actions of others.
    Agreed. The only problem is that they don't see it as a religious argument. It's simply fact in their eyes. Most importantly, unlike some things that people do that go against their faith, this is not one that is victimless. If someone commits adultery, that's a much more personal sin. Taking a life, however (as they see this), is not just a sin - it is something akin to murder, and thus a law (in their mind) is the only acceptable solution. I don't see an easy way to get them to buy into the argument that their religion should allow them to let this one go. The only solution as I see it is a dilution or dissolution of the general faith of the population. In the US, that's a bit of a way off, I'm afraid.

  18. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilhen7 View Post
    Conservatives can't give a solid definition of what defines a person. They say a fetus will develop into a human being if left alone, thus a fetus is a human being with full rights.

    So does that mean a chicken egg is the same as a chicken? (So basically we all eat baby chickens?)

    Is a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly?

    They should be able to be consistent with their logic right?
    You realize we don’t eat fertilized eggs right?

    That’s an interesting philosophical question though, I wonder what the intersection of vegans and pro-choice individuals looks like.
    Last edited by Aurrora; 2019-05-30 at 08:05 PM.

  19. #539
    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    Same goes for liberals, how can it be murder if I cause someone to miscarry when they don't consider it a human or a baby. Neither side is completely right on this subject.
    It doesn't have to be considered murder for it to carry a greater penalty. For example, if someone ran me over, they'd be responsible for my injuries. If they ran me over while I was carrying a television, they'd be responsible for both. Given the level of value a mother may put on her pregnancy, there is an argument to be made that causing someone to miscarry should carry a potentially heavy penalty. Then again, I'm a liberal who does not subscribe to it being equated with murder full out. It would be nice if people would stop assuming that there are two sides in this, each with a monolithic position.

  20. #540
    There would be one fewer insanely handsome men in the world.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •