Abortion Debate- Fetuses, Periods, and Wanking

[Wikipedia and Universe]

In the hopes of stopping a threadjack here, I have made yet another abortion debate thread. Basically, the debate is about whether fetuses are real people, or whether by that logic if wanking and periods are murder, etc, etc, etc.

Here are the posts:

These apples do not look like apples yet.

-Do not look... But still have potential. More potential than an orange seed does to become an apple.

It's just a baby who has not left the womb. With this idea, food not cooked is not food.

Well, bread isn't toast yet.

So if eggs and sperm can eventually become a baby, that means they're sacred and must be protected. Mastrubation and going through your menstrual cycle without getting pregnant are murder. Just taking your supposition to it's logical end.

And what if I object to the whole experience of pregnancy? Or are you one of those people that believe that if you dare have sex you must take a kid as consequence?

Thoughts^TM?

[Orlkjestad]

You forgot unrestricted pro-choice. The ones you did put for unrestricted pro-choice are joke options.

[Galenaima]

I feel life begins at conception; wanking isn't murder, periods are natural so obviously, not murder. But once the egg and sperm meet, that's a human life.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

You forgot unrestricted pro-choice. The ones you did put for unrestricted pro-choice are joke options.

Added, even though unrestricted technically implies that you support it even up until labor with the result or goal being death of the fetus/baby. C-section is not abortion.

EDIT: Sorry I wiped everyone's votes.

[The Rich Port]

I find it a bit disturbing women use abortion as their main sources of birth control, but you can't restrict abortion for the life-styles of a few.

Time-wise, I'm pro-choice.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I'm both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. I am Pro-life in the sense that I would never have an abortion. I am Pro-Choice in the sense that it's my choice to make. Well, me and basic human anatomy.

[The Norwegian Blue]

You forgot unrestricted pro-choice. The ones you did put for unrestricted pro-choice are joke options.

Added, even though unrestricted technically implies that you support it even up until labor with the result or goal being death of the fetus/baby. C-section is not abortion.

No, it implies that one supports the legal right to abort at any point during the pregnancy. It does not in any way imply that one supports choosing to do so. I'd think a woman who got a purely elective abortion seven months into her pregnancy was either a lunatic or a monster - but seeing as there is no evidence that any woman has EVER gotten a purely elective abortion seven months into a pregnancy, I think it's counterproductive to erode the right to bodily autonomy to prevent something that doesn't actually ever happen.

(Also, technically speaking, since the word "abortion" refers to ending the pregnancy, it could plausibly be argued that inducing labor early constitutes an "abortion" of sorts - it's a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy, after all.)

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Added, even though unrestricted technically implies that you support it even up until labor with the result or goal being death of the fetus/baby. C-section is not abortion.

No, it implies that one supports the legal right to abort at any point during the pregnancy. It does not in any way imply that one supports choosing to do so. I'd think a woman who got a purely elective abortion seven months into her pregnancy was either a lunatic or a monster - but seeing as there is no evidence that any woman has EVER gotten a purely elective abortion seven months into a pregnancy, I think it's counterproductive to erode the right to bodily autonomy to prevent something that doesn't actually ever happen.

(Also, technically speaking, since the word "abortion" refers to ending the pregnancy, it could plausibly be argued that inducing labor early constitutes an "abortion" of sorts - it's a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy, after all.)

I don't think it's ethical to do so, and I alway question the legality of an act that would make one a "complete monster". Once the point of viability is reached, wait a few until it is even more viable (without threatening the life of the mother if that is the particular case), C-section it, incubate it, and go to a TPR hearing. I also did mean the right to do so. I think that if it extends into a certain period where it could survive, you should be able to technically abort it, but the methods should change and goals change to life preservation.

Also, C-section is not abortion per se. Note I said PER SE, not technically speaking.

[Rhodmhire]

Ah, I remember these...I must have missed at least a few thousand in my time away.

I swear to God though, I thought that I just saw one of these threads on the front page of General not even a week ago. Strange, yet expected.

I don't need to go on about my basically-pro-choice standpoint again, so I guess I'll just wait for someone to poke my bee's nest to get really involved.

[Demen]

Ah, I remember these...I must have missed at least a few thousand in my time away.

I swear to God though, I thought that I just saw one of these threads on the front page of General not even a week ago. Strange, yet expected.

I don't need to go on about my basically-pro-choice standpoint again, so I guess I'll just wait for someone to poke my bee's nest to get really involved.

You better get involved, dammit.

[Norstal]

I'm both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. I am Pro-life in the sense that I would never have an abortion. I am Pro-Choice in the sense that it's my choice to make. Well, me and basic human anatomy.

What if it's a taco you made and it was imperfect? Wouldn't you abort it?!

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Ah, I remember these...I must have missed at least a few thousand in my time away.

I swear to God though, I thought that I just saw one of these threads on the front page of General not even a week ago. Strange, yet expected.

I don't need to go on about my basically-pro-choice standpoint again, so I guess I'll just wait for someone to poke my bee's nest to get really involved.

I created this thread with the primary intention of stopping a threadjack in another thread, not because I thought it'd be really nice to have yet another abortion debate.

Also, YO DUDE, when did you come back?

EDIT: Oh, just this month? NS relapse?

[Grenartia]

I find it stupid that there are 20,000 different options for Pro-choice, but only one for Pro-life. OP, please change this bias immediately.

I didn't think so, and I don't see the difference between that and abortion.

It's so nice when the "pro-life" crowd comes right out and says "I have absolutely no idea what pregnancy entails!" It saves the rest of us the bother of taking your arguments seriously.

WTF are you talking about? Explain.

[Norstal]

I find it stupid that there are 20,000 different options for Pro-choice, but only one for Pro-life. OP, please change this bias immediately.

...Why? It's either you care about life or you don't.

[Rhodmhire]

You better get involved, dammit.

Jeez, you're practically stomping on my bee's nest here. Alright, let's see what I can extract here:

In the hopes of stopping a threadjack here, I have made yet another abortion debate thread. Basically, the debate is about whether fetuses are real people, or whether by that logic if wanking and periods are murder, etc, etc, etc.

So, basically, abortion. Lots of roots, lots of paths, kind of like the way to truth. Only a lot bloodier and usually only for women (usually, I don't want to say always and be proven wrong with some obscure incident in the East or something of that nature).

-Do not look... But still have potential. More potential than an orange seed does to become an apple.

I've seen this "Libertarian" Mesa guy around very briefly. Interesting little metaphor he has going there, but if we're going to talk about the "human" qualities of a fetus, we must realize that the major difference that most people see between a fetus and a human is that of sapience. Now, that can sometimes be only tentatively stated, as I believe some people might argue that babies might not necessarily be "sapient" in the ways that say educated adults are, but that depends on if you have a slightly different understanding of "sapience," I suppose.

Another thing too is that, in all honesty, even if it is a human, it is dependent upon the mother for everything. Dat placenta, dat umbilical cord, dat source of food is the link between the two, and the mother is the supplier.

When they say a fetus is a parasite, they aren't trying to be dicks, they're seeing the symbiotic relationship. One could definitely argue that, I'm sure some people would say it's parasitic, some would say it's mutualistic, I would personally say it's more commensalistic, but whatever the case, the fetus depends upon the mother, it depends upon her body, even if it is a human I believe that it would have no right to overrule her ability to decide what to do with it.

I don't know if that's a big contribution, but if it will stop Demen from stomping on my bee hive, I'm fine with it.

I need that fucking honey.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

I find it stupid that there are 20,000 different options for Pro-choice, but only one for Pro-life. OP, please change this bias immediately.

It's so nice when the "pro-life" crowd comes right out and says "I have absolutely no idea what pregnancy entails!" It saves the rest of us the bother of taking your arguments seriously.

WTF are you talking about? Explain.

Bias? All I know is that from my experience there are a number of "shades" of pro-choice, while being pro-life is fairly straightforward. Pro-life with exceptions is basically option 3. It's ambiguous so I couldn't decide.

What other options do you want?

[Siorafrica]

Another abortion thread? Pro life,but I wouldn't mind terminating all of these threads in the first term. Wow,I made a joke about abortion,I thought even I couldn't go that far.

[Rhodmhire]

I created this thread with the primary intention of stopping a threadjack in another thread, not because I thought it'd be really nice to have yet another abortion debate.

Well, I guess as long as you're saving those orphans from being threadjacked, I can tolerate another abortion thread.

For the orphans, of course.

Also, YO DUDE, when did you come back?

Yo bro. I came back on June 1st, exactly one year after I left to pursue my quest of fame and fortune (and studying for tests).

Another abortion thread? Pro life,but I wouldn't mind terminating all of these threads in the first term. Wow,I made a joke about abortion,I thought even I couldn't go that far.

There are jokes about jokes about abortion. Don't worry, if you crossed any lines, they weren't really significant anyway.

I have at least one involving a chicken crossing the road, an abortion clinic, and scrambled eggs--but I don't need to prove that there are no lines to be crossed. I think you understand the point.

...But you can still ponder why the chicken cross that road, if you are curious. I'd love to give you the answer, you know, for knowledge's sake.

[Marcheria]

TAG

[Wiztopia]

I find it stupid that there are 20,000 different options for Pro-choice, but only one for Pro-life. OP, please change this bias immediately.




WTF are you talking about? Explain.

Bias? All I know is that from my experience there are a number of "shades" of pro-choice, while being pro-life is fairly straightforward. Pro-life with exceptions is basically option 3. It's ambiguous so I couldn't decide.

What other options do you want?

I guess you could have had an option saying anti choice.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

In the hopes of stopping a threadjack here, I have made yet another abortion debate thread. Basically, the debate is about whether fetuses are real people, or whether by that logic if wanking and periods are murder, etc, etc, etc.

So, basically, abortion. Lots of roots, lots of paths, kind of like the way to truth. Only a lot bloodier and usually only for women (usually, I don't want to say always and be proven wrong with some obscure incident in the East or something of that nature).

As I stated before I created this thread for one reason- to stop a threadjack in another thread, not because I like prolonged abortion debates. What people do with this thread is their business henceforth.

EDIT: Ninja, you saw my clarification.

[Wikkiwallana]

I find it a bit disturbing women use abortion as their main sources of birth control, but you can't restrict abortion for the life-styles of a few.

Time-wise, I'm pro-choice.

Source on women doing this?

[Grenartia]

I find it stupid that there are 20,000 different options for Pro-choice, but only one for Pro-life. OP, please change this bias immediately.




WTF are you talking about? Explain.

Bias? All I know is that from my experience there are a number of "shades" of pro-choice, while being pro-life is fairly straightforward. Pro-life with exceptions is basically option 3. It's ambiguous so I couldn't decide.

What other options do you want?

I'm just saying, I'm Pro-life for different reasons than the Republicants on TV. They're Pro life for religious reasons. I'm Pro life because the fetus does have a right to live, and while the woman does have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, the fetus's right to live supercedes her right. Simply marking Pro life doesn't make that distinction.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Also, YO DUDE, when did you come back?

Yo bro. I came back on June 1st, exactly one year after I left to pursue my quest of fame and fortune (and studying for tests).

In what country do you live? My school year ended yesterday.

[The Norwegian Blue]

No, it implies that one supports the legal right to abort at any point during the pregnancy. It does not in any way imply that one supports choosing to do so. I'd think a woman who got a purely elective abortion seven months into her pregnancy was either a lunatic or a monster - but seeing as there is no evidence that any woman has EVER gotten a purely elective abortion seven months into a pregnancy, I think it's counterproductive to erode the right to bodily autonomy to prevent something that doesn't actually ever happen.

(Also, technically speaking, since the word "abortion" refers to ending the pregnancy, it could plausibly be argued that inducing labor early constitutes an "abortion" of sorts - it's a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy, after all.)

I don't think it's ethical to do so, and I alway question the legality of an act that would make one a "complete monster". Once the point of viability is reached, wait a few until it is even more viable (without threatening the life of the mother if that is the particular case), C-section it, incubate it, and go to a TPR hearing. I also did mean the right to do so. I think that if it extends into a certain period where it could survive, you should be able to technically abort it, but the methods should change and goals change to life preservation.

Also, C-section is not abortion per se. Note I said PER SE, not technically speaking.

Well, look at it as a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis.

If the government's position is "how you deal with your pregnancy is none of our business," then what happens is:

- No women get elective late-term abortions.
- There is no legal precedent for the government interfering in pregnancies which anti-choicers can use to argue in favor of further restrictions on abortion.

If the government's position is "how you deal with your pregnancy IS our business, but only up to a point" then what happens is:

- No women get elective late term abortions.
- There is now a legal precedent which anti-choicers can use to justify why the government should be entitled to move the deadline back from six months to five or four or three, or why you should have to get a mandatory sonogram, or why you should be forced to endure waiting periods, or why you should be required to listen to a speech about what a dirty whore you are, and so on and so forth.

I don't support elective late-term abortions - but they're a boogieman. They don't happen, legal or illegal. No one carries an unwanted pregnancy for seven or eight months just for shits and giggles only to abort it a few weeks before they would otherwise give birth, and no doctor agrees to perform such a procedure. They've been legal in Canada for years now, and the total number of cases of them actually occurring, despite being perfectly legal, is...zero. I don't see a good reason to put conditions on the right to bodily autonomy simply to prevent something that doesn't happen. (This is also why you won't see me out protesting viability limits - from a purely ethical standpoint, I don't think there should be any law against elective abortion at any stage, but I'm not overly worried about the infringement of rights that no one actually wants to exercise except insofar as allowing that the government has any claim on women's uteruses sets a bad precedent.)