Abortion

[domus]

If you were going to be logically consistent you would be looking to ban all contraception and masturbation as well. That's killing a potential child as well according to your stupid logic.

What an absurd notion. A fetus is a living human being in its earliest stage of life. Semen is simply semen. It is not a living being with a heartbeat. It will never be anything more than semen if you simply masturbate. There is zero equivalence and I think you know it.

 

[Showbags]

So if I can promise to kill you painlessly, that is not murder. Really? What about killing a person with severe brain damage and in a vegetative state painlessly? Should that be permissible if the parent feels burdened or overwhelmed? if not-why not?

These are what are called moral dilemmas. There is no easy answer to any of them.

Who's to say that euthanising a person in a vegetative state isn't a mercy (not saying it is or isn't). For many, your stance would cause them decades of suffering in their own body.

And has been raised previously, preventing something from existing is different from killing something already existing imo.

What an absurd notion. A fetus is a living human being in its earliest stage of life. Semen is simply semen. It is not a living being with a heartbeat. It will never be anything more than semen if you simply masturbate. There is zero equivalence and I think you know it.

What about before the foetus develops a heartbeat (not that a heartbeat means anything imo)?

Again unless you are arguing from an all life and potential for life is sacred point of view then there is plenty of equivalence in terms of pain caused. It is simply preventing the chance for a cluster of cells to develop into a human life, the same as contraception/masturbation.

Let me ask you whether you would support an abortion in the case of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life (not having a go, just a question)?

 

[Baby Duck]

Again, before a certain period of gestation, it is simply a mass of cells (a zygote or gamete). So unless your arguing from a god bothering all life is sacred type viewpoint then I dont understand your outrage.

When the zygote or gamete develops into a foetus and begins developing the ability to feel pain etc then the conversation changes completely. But before then, from a moral standpoint, an abortion is exactly the same as wearing a condom or taking the pill.

Science is not prescriptive, it tells us nothing about morality. We can only arbitrarily declare moral standpoints from science based on personal opinions.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Showbags]

Science is not prescriptive, it tells us nothing about morality. We can only arbitrarily declare moral standpoints from science based on personal opinions.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Agree, abortion isn't a black and white issue.

I prefer the moderate approach of allowing abortion up to a certain period of gestation (and for certain circumstances after).

The other issue is though that even if you do prohibit abortion after that, it doesn't mean the practice will stop, it will simply move underground. There is an argument, rightly or wrongly, that you'd rather abortions occur in regulated environments rather than back alley shonk clinics.

 

[Niximus]

Well, there are many people trapped in their bodies who still wish to live with every fibre of their being. When you kill an unborn baby you are ending its life and all prospects of enjoying the countless wonders we encounter every day.

The same as when you put on a condom take birth control, or simply turn down sex. Any woman who isn't constantly pregnant is taking that opportunity to experience the world from many potential people who will never be.
A sperm and egg have no mind, a fertilised egg has no mind, an embryo has no mind. A baby has a mind.

My daughter in law is pregnant. Her baby is only six weeks old. It has a heartbeat and its brain is already developing. It is a baby in its vey earliest stage of life. If someone harmed my daughter in law in an effort to kill her unborn baby I would consider it a murder-right now.

You're free to consider it however you wish, but understand that there are people who just as strongly as you consider the killing of animals for food equally murder, or the owning or pets as literally slavery.

I'm sure we all agree that killing a person is wrong we just differ on our criteria for what is a person. For me, the presence of a mind is a big factor and definitely the absence of a mind makes something clearly not a person to me.

Now, I'm not a vegetarian or vegan, but if my definition on what makes a person was to extend there are many animals that would meet the criteria for personhood before we got to a 6 week in foetus. There are some animals that I would give that status to now.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

What an absurd notion. A fetus is a living human being in its earliest stage of life. Semen is simply semen. It is not a living being with a heartbeat. It will never be anything more than semen if you simply masturbate. There is zero equivalence and I think you know it.

Technically no

In eastern medicine seamen is a preventitive medicine. It is seen as a life force for women ( swallowed) An anti ageing medicine The dna also highly beneficial. Especially if the man is older.

The fluid produced by a female when arouaed is also seen as a life force. For older men.

 

[domus]

Technically no

In eastern medicine seamen is a preventitive medicine. It is seen as a life force for women ( swallowed) An anti ageing medicine The dna also highly beneficial. Especially if the man is older.

The fluid produced by a female when arouaed is also seen as a life force. For older men.

It doesn't matter what myths abound about semen- it isn't a living being.

 

[domus]

Let me ask you whether you would support an abortion in the case of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life (not having a go, just a question)?

Yes I would. Those are rare exceptions.

 

[Niximus]

Yes I would. Those are rare exceptions.

If terminating a foetus is literally the same as murder then how on earth could you possibly make an exception and murder a child just because the mother was r*ped?

 

[Taylor]

Abortion has more in common with elderly involuntary euthanasia than it does masturbation. Ending a life for the convenience of another.

Abortion without the ending of a life already started down the path to being born is called contraception. That's the point of choice where you aren't paying for your decisions with someone else.

 

[domus]

If terminating a foetus is literally the same as murder then how on earth could you possibly make an exception and murder a child just because the mother was r*ped?

One could ask the same of choosing between the fetus and mother. One could ask the same of someone who decides one soldier's death is necessary in order to prevent the death of one hundred soldiers or a high ranking officer. Life thrusts moral dilemmas upon us all of the time. You asked me a question which I answered honestly. If my daughter was r*ped and so traumatized by it that she believed having the child would haunt her and remind her of that experience every day, I would believe it would be a sad and tragic decision but the right one. There are degrees of murder and terms like manslaughter used in our criminal court every day. Ten people may kill a person and each could be charged with a different crime and some even walk free. Killing your unborn baby because it is inconvenient or will harm your career is very different to killing an unborn baby after a young girl has been r*ped by her father. If you don't see the difference you are simply disingenuous.

 

[Niximus]

One could ask the same of choosing between the fetus and mother. One could ask the same of someone who decides one soldier's death is necessary in order to prevent the death of one hundred soldiers or a high ranking officer. Life thrusts moral dilemmas upon us all of the time. You asked me a question which I answered honestly. If my daughter was r*ped and so traumatized by it that she believed having the child would haunt her and remind her of that experience every day, I would believe it would be a sad and tragic decision but the right one. There are degrees of murder and terms like manslaughter used in our criminal court every day. Ten people may kill a person and each could be charged with a different crime and some even walk free. Killing your unborn baby because it is inconvenient or will harm your career is very different to killing an unborn baby after a young girl has been r*ped by her father. If you don't see the difference you are simply disingenuous.

I totally see a difference, but it is not consistent with your argument that killing a 6-week old foetus is the same as murder. Is the foetus a person, or isn't it?

If a woman can kill a foetus that was the product of rape, can she kill a 4 year old that was the product of rape? If not, why not? What are the differences between the foetus and the child that makes it OK to kill one but not the other? I know what my reasons for considering them different are.

I have given a clear separation between something that has a mind, and something that does not. The foetus has no mind and so whether you are terminating because of rape, or because you accidentally fell pregnant and don't want a child it makes no difference.

You said that you would consider terminating a 6-week old foetus the same as murder, but if that foetus was the product of rape then somehow murder is OK. The only difference is the circumstances of how that foetus came to be. If it is a person, then those circumstances should be irrelevant.

If the foetus is not a person, and therefore terminating it is not murder:
- Abortion because you don't want children is OK - it's not a person
- Abortion because you were r*ped is OK - it's not a person

If the foetus is a person, and terminating it is literally the same as murder:
- Abortion because you don't want children is wrong - it's an innocent person you're killing
- Abortion because you were r*ped is wrong - it's an innocent person you're killing, it had no say in how it came to be

If you actually just want to punish women for having sex:
- Abortion because you don't want children is wrong - **** should have kept her legs closed, live with the consequences
- Abortion because you were r*ped is OK - you didn't voluntarily have sex, you are innocent and shouldn't have your life ruined further

 

[Taylor]

What do you hope to gain from that line of questioning?
An admission of hypocrisy? That would come with it a big caveat that you have both agreed that abortion is killing a child - the only hypocritical part is that the cause of the pregnancy determined whether the act was murder or not.

Denial of abortion isn't a punishment either. It is denial of a means of discharging the responsibility. You're ether responsible for your actions or you aren't and someone else shouldn't cover the bill for your escape from your actions.

 

[domus]

I totally see a difference, but it is not consistent with your argument that killing a 6-week old foetus is the same as murder. Is the foetus a person, or isn't it?

If a woman can kill a foetus that was the product of rape, can she kill a 4 year old that was the product of rape? If not, why not? What are the differences between the foetus and the child that makes it OK to kill one but not the other? I know what my reasons for considering them different are.

I have given a clear separation between something that has a mind, and something that does not. The foetus has no mind and so whether you are terminating because of rape, or because you accidentally fell pregnant and don't want a child it makes no difference.

You said that you would consider terminating a 6-week old foetus the same as murder, but if that foetus was the product of rape then somehow murder is OK. The only difference is the circumstances of how that foetus came to be. If it is a person, then those circumstances should be irrelevant.

If the foetus is not a person, and therefore terminating it is not murder:
- Abortion because you don't want children is OK - it's not a person
- Abortion because you were r*ped is OK - it's not a person

If the foetus is a person, and terminating it is literally the same as murder:
- Abortion because you don't want children is wrong - it's an innocent person you're killing
- Abortion because you were r*ped is wrong - it's an innocent person you're killing, it had no say in how it came to be

If you actually just want to punish women for having sex:
- Abortion because you don't want children is wrong - **** should have kept her legs closed, live with the consequences
- Abortion because you were r*ped is OK - you didn't voluntarily have sex, you are innocent and shouldn't have your life ruined further

You chose to be disingenuous. I just explained how two people could kill someone and one could face life in prison and the other walk free. The motivation for the killing is everything in the view of our legal system. When we are at war, such moral dilemmas arise every day. The end result is a dead child, man or woman but the reasons for their death are what we examine. A bomb dropped on an enemy target to kill a large group of ISIS terrorists even when aware there could be innocent lives lost is not the same as someone walking into a school and slaughtering twenty children for kicks. Or perhaps you think it is. The same could be said for someone who kills their much loved partner when they discover they have a hideous, incurable disease. Such an act took place here in Australia just last year. The man was charged with murder. I don't believe the trial has taken place. Would you condemn him? If a man's wife and two children were drowning and he chose to save her knowing full well that would mean the death of his two children, is that murder? Would you dare to compare such a situation with a mum or dad who kills their children in an act of rage or spite? Murder is still murder. Nothing has changed. it is simply not a one size fits all crime. The same applies to abortion.

Your scenario of the mum killing a four year old as he is a product of rape is invalid. Once the mum has decided to carry the baby to full term and raise it, the argument that having the baby would psychologically destroy her is null and void.

 

[Niximus]

What do you hope to gain from that line of questioning?
An admission of hypocrisy? That would come with it a big caveat that you have both agreed that abortion is killing a child - the only hypocritical part is that the cause of the pregnancy determined whether the act was murder or not.

Exactly, that is the hypocrisy. If the foetus is a person then the cause of the pregnancy should be irrelevant - killing it would be wrong 100% of the time.
If the foetus is not a person then the cause of the pregnancy should again be irrelevant - it is not an actual person.

Denial of abortion isn't a punishment either. It is denial of a means of discharging the responsibility. You're ether responsible for your actions or you aren't and someone else shouldn't cover the bill for your escape from your actions.

That doesn't work if you make a distinction between a foetus conceived through consensual sex and one through rape.
One would be 'covering the bill' for the actions of their mother, and one 'covering the bill' for the actions of their father.

It is impossible to consider a foetus a full person capable of being murdered and make an exception for rape.

 

[Taylor]

Exactly, that is the hypocrisy. If the foetus is a person then the cause of the pregnancy should be irrelevant - killing it would be wrong 100% of the time.
If the foetus is not a person then the cause of the pregnancy should again be irrelevant - it is not an actual person.


That doesn't work if you make a distinction between a foetus conceived through consensual sex and one through rape.
One would be 'covering the bill' for the actions of their mother, and one 'covering the bill' for the actions of their father.

It is impossible to consider a foetus a full person capable of being murdered and make an exception for rape.

The consideration is only there because the pro-abortion argument features arguments for victims of rape, I don't have the stats for how many abortions were performed on rape victims compared to total abortions but I am guessing it's a small minority.

Especially if you consider a rape victim presenting at hospital is treated to prevent pregnancy, not stop one - you don't become pregnant as soon as the semen hits the cervix. I don't count that as abortion.

The stark alternative is to say no abortion at all. Then you say, what a monster. But I'm not the rapist or the person ending the lives of children, so how does everyone fit on that high ground.

 

[Niximus]

Nothing has changed. it is simply not a one size fits all crime. The same applies to abortion.

Agreed. If a mind is present it is wrong to kill it, if there is no mind then it is not a person and I have no moral objection to killing it.

 

[Taylor]

Agreed. If a mind is present it is wrong to kill it, if there is no mind then it is not a person and I have no moral objection to killing it.

Where does coma fit in?

 

[Niximus]

Especially if you consider a rape victim presenting at hospital is treated to prevent pregnancy, not stop one - you don't become pregnant as soon as the semen hits the cervix. I don't count that as abortion.

That treatment prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus. There are many people who definitely do consider than an abortion as they believe that life begins at conception.

 

[domus]

Agreed. If a mind is present it is wrong to kill it, if there is no mind then it is not a person and I have no moral objection to killing it.

That's not what I said. The aborted baby is a human in progress-unquestionably. Killing it under any circumstances is tragic. However as I said, there are some very rare scenarios where I think it is sadly a choice someone could make with justification. Just as soldiers and people in power in times of war are justified in making decisions which lead to the deaths of many innocent people. That doesn't mean people suddenly become non human in those moments, but the circumstances and motivations are different. Their deaths are still tragic.

 

[Niximus]

Where does coma fit in?

Once a mind exists it gains rights that something that merely has the potential to develop a mind does not have.

So even though the mind is inactive it retains the rights. If it has been able to specify ahead of time regarding medical care that is ideal though if you don't wish to be left in a coma then the best you can do is refuse life support and food, we're not allowed to make the choice to end it more easily.
If they haven't made the choice ahead of time then it falls to the next of kin who can do the same with refusing life sustaining assistance.

A brain dead person however, is no longer a person, the mind though it once existed is no more and though the heart may be beating, there is nobody there.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

If it can survive outside the womb it lives

If it can't survive outside the womb. It doesnt

 

[Niximus]

That's not what I said. The aborted baby is a human in progress-unquestionably. Killing it under any circumstances is tragic. However as I said, there are some very rare scenarios where I think it is sadly a choice someone could make with justification. Just as soldiers and people in power in times of war are justified in making decisions which lead to the deaths of many innocent people. That doesn't mean people suddenly become non human in those moments, but the circumstances and motivations are different. Their deaths are still tragic.

That is not an accurate comparison.

You're saying that:
Soldier makes decision to do X to achieve objective Y
X indirectly results in innocent people getting killed
and so this death is tragic, but justified.

The foetus is not an unintended indirect victim of an abortion, it is the target. The more accurate comparison to the soldiers would be a doctor needing to operate on the mother to remove a tumour, but unintentionally killing the foetus. The death was an indirect result of their justified action.

If you believe that a foetus is a person, then it would be like those soldiers specifically targeting and killing a non-combatant on purpose. This is not only murder, it is a war crime.

 

[Niximus]

If it can survive outside the womb it lives

If it can't survive outside the womb. It doesnt

That definition is problematic though. Are we talking with, or without technological assistance? There are many premature babies that would meet the mind criteria that would not survive without intensive medical care so you'd have to say it includes that assistance.

Then as technology improves the time at which we can successfully keep a foetus alive outside of the womb gets pushed back.

Eventually if we get to the point where we can completely gestate a human via technological means, what then? If someone goes through fertility treatment to have a child but has extra embryos frozen are they legally obligated to gestate them in an artificial womb?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Tayl0r talks much disingenuous shit.