Abortion Debate- Fetuses, Periods, and Wanking

[Buffett and Colbert]

I posit that homosexuality is the most murderous of them all. I mean, not only does the homosexual deprive women of the penis they crave (unless they are producing lesbian porn, which is alright), but he never allows billions of sperm to form into precious babies. Instead, they are wasted in the most morally depraved manner... *shudders*

/not serious

[The Norwegian Blue]

well over 10 BILLION condoms are used worldwide every year,

To be fair, I use like 30% of those.

It's only like 7 billion for the rest of the world excluding me.

So, do you have a LOT of parties involving oddly-shaped balloons, or do I need to feel sorry for NnT and her poor horribly bruised girl-parts?

[Wikkiwallana]

Is that 40% of all women actually all women, or is it limited to those likely to get pregnant: tweens to late middle age?

Oops, sorry, I accidentally deleted the "of childbearing age" there. It's roughly 40% of all women aged 15 to 44.

Hmm, I was hoping it was of all women, and that the childbearing age percentage would be higher.

[Galloism]

To be fair, I use like 30% of those.

It's only like 7 billion for the rest of the world excluding me.

So, do you have a LOT of parties involving oddly-shaped balloons, or do I need to feel sorry for NnT and her poor horribly bruised girl-parts?

Both. Plus I'm building a collection of giant condom statues each shaped like one of our presidents.

It seemed appropriate.

[Rhodmhire]

I just completed my freshman year (started September 1st), and I mistook your statement to mean you had upcoming tests, as I know at least one person on here (lives in Philippines) who just started his school year. I just got done cramming like hell to get last-minute late shit done before the zeros just entered became permanent (I go to an online school and zeros can be reversed, but only from the current quarter and there is a shorter cutoff time with some teachers, and some of them enforce lateness penalties; only two of mine did), and had gone awake for 48 hours while getting a total of 3 hours of involuntary naps. I live in Pittsburgh, PA by the way. It's generally nice depending on the neighborhood.

Yeah, I was talking about the year between the fall of 2010 and now. I did actually have to study quite recently for finals, which is why I didn't post much at all this week. Anyways, I can see where the misunderstanding came from, no worries.

I posit that homosexuality is the most murderous of them all. I mean, not only does the homosexual deprive women of the penis they crave (unless they are producing lesbian porn, which is alright), but he never allows billions of sperm to form into precious babies. Instead, they are wasted in the most morally depraved manner... *shudders*

This has never before come to my attention. We'd better alert the press about this, stat. I'll get the ink and the--

/not serious

Damn, the one time I had to put my reader's on in the middle of a post. [/snap_of_failure]

[Norstal]

To be honest, the whole "mother's rights > fetus's rights" thing is the keystone of this whole debate. It almost really wouldn't matter if the fetus was a person, I think. If it is, then it's a person who is totally dependent upon the mother until it is born. It cannot survive on its own without her nourishment. It does not provide anything of benefit to her directly (biologically speaking) except that it carries on her genetic material and continues the survival of the species in general. I don't see why its "rights" would overrule the mother's if it was unwanted.

Sure, it's probably going to end up being the pride and joy of her life, no shit about that. But that's emotion, that's family, not science.

I completely agree with you and that's the argument I've been using.

Just...watch out when Nulono comes over here and say something incredibly strawmanish. Probably something along the lines of "SO YOU WANT TO KILL EVERYONE LOL?"

[Rhodmhire]

To be honest, the whole "mother's rights > fetus's rights" thing is the keystone of this whole debate. It almost really wouldn't matter if the fetus was a person, I think. If it is, then it's a person who is totally dependent upon the mother until it is born. It cannot survive on its own without her nourishment. It does not provide anything of benefit to her directly (biologically speaking) except that it carries on her genetic material and continues the survival of the species in general. I don't see why its "rights" would overrule the mother's if it was unwanted.

Sure, it's probably going to end up being the pride and joy of her life, no shit about that. But that's emotion, that's family, not science.

I completely agree with you and that's the argument I've been using.

Just...watch out when Nulono comes over here and say something incredibly strawmanish. Probably something along the lines of "SO YOU WANT TO KILL EVERYONE LOL?"

Oi, I'm kind of already anticipating that pseudo-hole in the argument. But for every reasonable argument, I guess someone's going to try to dig a hole and try to bury it, even if they're using spoons to dig it.

Anyways, thanks for concurring.

[Wiztopia]

To be honest, the whole "mother's rights > fetus's rights" thing is the keystone of this whole debate. It almost really wouldn't matter if the fetus was a person, I think. If it is, then it's a person who is totally dependent upon the mother until it is born. It cannot survive on its own without her nourishment. It does not provide anything of benefit to her directly (biologically speaking) except that it carries on her genetic material and continues the survival of the species in general. I don't see why its "rights" would overrule the mother's if it was unwanted.

Sure, it's probably going to end up being the pride and joy of her life, no shit about that. But that's emotion, that's family, not science.

Another argument is that a person who is pro-life does not support women's rights because they are basically telling a woman what to do with her own body.

[Grenartia]

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.

Nope. Women's rights trump a fetus' "rights"

I remember you saying something similar in the last thread.

Who cares? A woman can do what she wants with her own body.

A fetus fulfills 6 out of the 7 standard requirements for something to be considered alive, and they won't be able to fulfill the 7th until about 13 years after birth. Therefore, a fetus is alive, and since it is a result of human reproduction, a person.

And as a Libertarian, I agree with people being able to do whatever the fuck they want with their own bodies...to a point. Believe it or not, there exists a point where somebody shouldn't be allowed to do something, and that point is when that person knowingly performs an action that directly deprives another person of their rights with out that person's informed consent.

Therefore, since we've established that a fetus is in fact, a person, albeit a person that cannot give informed consent, and that abortion is an action that deprives a fetus of life, and all people have a right to life, logic leads us to the following conclusion:

Abortion is an act performed by one or more persons, with the knowledge and intent to deprive a fetus of its right to life, and therefore is wrong.

While the fetus does deprive a woman of her right to convenience, that right does not supercede the fetus's right to life. If a member of your family was in a coma, but had a significant chance of getting out of it, but taking care of that family member was a pain in the ass, would you simply pull the plug so that you could sit down on the couch, watch TV, and down a few beers?

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

A fetus is not a person.

Source/proof/evidence/logical, well-sourced proof that disproves my logic is needed.

Again, I repeat myself. Show some proof that a woman's rights to comfort and other wants supercedes the fetus's right to live. Show me some evidence that a fetus doesn't have any rights. Otherwise, I'll just have to believe you're trolling.

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.

Does the reason you support that stance affect what you might consider an acceptable reason for abortion, or if you believe there is such a thing? If it does not the distinction is irrelevant to the poll.

I believe that the only acceptable reason for abortion is if the mother's life would be put in danger by giving birth, and no alternative option will work. I can understand rape as a justification, but I just don't agree with it (the father should have to be castrated, and pay for all of the child's needs though).

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.

You quite voluntarily said that you see no difference between pregnancy and a situation in which your health is not in any way endangered, you are not being forced to have anything attached to your body against your will, your body is undergoing absolutely no changes, let alone permanent ones, and you are experiencing no physical pain. That would seem to make it pretty darn clear that you know fuck-all about pregnancy.

Its pretty damn obvious that you didn't get my point. The focus in that situation was on the person who's life was getting terminated, not on the person doing the terminating.

IE A fetus is not a person, its a fetus. IT has no heartbeat does not react to the outside environment it does not defend itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Philosophically here, if a fetus can be declared a victim of homicide (as this law says it can), then does it not stand to reason that a fetus is a person (yes I realize that it specifically says its not any proof of the personage of a fetus, but we're talking philosophically). After all, you can't murder something that isn't a person (which is how everyone sleeps at night when thinking about abortion).

Also, at what point does a fetus actually become a person to you people? Is there some sort of a wave of a magical wand somewhere, and the fairy who waves it declares,"Poof! You're a person!" ?

[Wiztopia]

Nope. Women's rights trump a fetus' "rights"

I remember you saying something similar in the last thread.

A fetus fulfills 6 out of the 7 standard requirements for something to be considered alive, and they won't be able to fulfill the 7th until about 13 years after birth. Therefore, a fetus is alive, and since it is a result of human reproduction, a person.

And as a Libertarian, I agree with people being able to do whatever the fuck they want with their own bodies...to a point. Believe it or not, there exists a point where somebody shouldn't be allowed to do something, and that point is when that person knowingly performs an action that directly deprives another person of their rights with out that person's informed consent.

Therefore, since we've established that a fetus is in fact, a person, albeit a person that cannot give informed consent, and that abortion is an action that deprives a fetus of life, and all people have a right to life, logic leads us to the following conclusion:

Abortion is an act performed by one or more persons, with the knowledge and intent to deprive a fetus of its right to life, and therefore is wrong.

While the fetus does deprive a woman of her right to convenience, that right does not supercede the fetus's right to life. If a member of your family was in a coma, but had a significant chance of getting out of it, but taking care of that family member was a pain in the ass, would you simply pull the plug so that you could sit down on the couch, watch TV, and down a few beers?

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

Source/proof/evidence/logical, well-sourced proof that disproves my logic is needed.

Again, I repeat myself. Show some proof that a woman's rights to comfort and other wants supercedes the fetus's right to live. Show me some evidence that a fetus doesn't have any rights. Otherwise, I'll just have to believe you're trolling.

Does the reason you support that stance affect what you might consider an acceptable reason for abortion, or if you believe there is such a thing? If it does not the distinction is irrelevant to the poll.

I believe that the only acceptable reason for abortion is if the mother's life would be put in danger by giving birth, and no alternative option will work. I can understand rape as a justification, but I just don't agree with it (the father should have to be castrated, and pay for all of the child's needs though).

You quite voluntarily said that you see no difference between pregnancy and a situation in which your health is not in any way endangered, you are not being forced to have anything attached to your body against your will, your body is undergoing absolutely no changes, let alone permanent ones, and you are experiencing no physical pain. That would seem to make it pretty darn clear that you know fuck-all about pregnancy.

Its pretty damn obvious that you didn't get my point. The focus in that situation was on the person who's life was getting terminated, not on the person doing the terminating.

IE A fetus is not a person, its a fetus. IT has no heartbeat does not react to the outside environment it does not defend itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Philosophically here, if a fetus can be declared a victim of homicide (as this law says it can), then does it not stand to reason that a fetus is a person (yes I realize that it specifically says its not any proof of the personage of a fetus, but we're talking philosophically). After all, you can't murder something that isn't a person (which is how everyone sleeps at night when thinking about abortion).

Also, at what point does a fetus actually become a person to you people? Is there some sort of a wave of a magical wand somewhere, and the fairy who waves it declares,"Poof! You're a person!" ?

Common sense obviously. A woman is born and a fetus isn't. That is how it women's rights trump any fetal "rights".

A fetus isn't a person because it is not born yet.

[Rhodmhire]

Another argument is that a person who is pro-life does not support women's rights because they are basically telling a woman what to do with her own body.

Yes, that is true also. It does come down to rights, more so than it comes down to biological status.

Heck, if you want to talk about biology, we are all biologically connected as humans, as great apes, as mammals, as vertebrates, as animals, as organisms. Yet we still find ourselves killing each other, our biological cousins, our fellow organisms. And not all, but several of the proponents of such killings via wars, capital punishment, animal cruelty, animal hunting, animal consumption, and so forth--while not saying they are not correct on some or all points--would still very hastily draw the line at the "murder" of a fetus because it is a "biological human."

But I might be digressing.

[Grenartia]

I remember you saying something similar in the last thread.

Again, I repeat myself. Show some proof that a woman's rights to comfort and other wants supercedes the fetus's right to live. Show me some evidence that a fetus doesn't have any rights. Otherwise, I'll just have to believe you're trolling.
Also, at what point does a fetus actually become a person to you people? Is there some sort of a wave of a magical wand somewhere, and the fairy who waves it declares,"Poof! You're a person!" ?

Common sense obviously. A woman is born and a fetus isn't. That is how it women's rights trump any fetal "rights".

A fetus isn't a person because it is not born yet.

Well, for the 2nd time, you've refused to provide me with a source when I've asked for it, so consider yourself considered a troll.

Ok. So its ok with you if I go back in time and convince your mother to abort you, because she was born and you weren't?

I didn't think so.

[Grenartia]

Another argument is that a person who is pro-life does not support women's rights because they are basically telling a woman what to do with her own body.

Yes, that is true also. It does come down to rights, more so than it comes down to biological status.

Heck, if you want to talk about biology, we are all biologically connected as humans, as great apes, as mammals, as vertebrates, as animals, as organisms. Yet we still find ourselves killing each other, our biological cousins, our fellow organisms. And not all, but several of the proponents of such killings via wars, capital punishment, animal cruelty, animal hunting, animal consumption, and so forth--while not saying they are not correct on some or all points--would still very hastily draw the line at the "murder" of a fetus because it is a "biological human."

But I might be digressing.

Philosophically here, if a fetus can be declared a victim of homicide (as this law says it can), then does it not stand to reason that a fetus is a person (yes I realize that it specifically says its not any proof of the personage of a fetus, but we're talking philosophically). After all, you can't murder something that isn't a person (which is how everyone sleeps at night when thinking about abortion).

[Rhodmhire]

Philosophically here, if a fetus can be declared a victim of homicide (as this law says it can), then does it not stand to reason that a fetus is a person (yes I realize that it specifically says its not any proof of the personage of a fetus, but we're talking philosophically). After all, you can't murder something that isn't a person (which is how everyone sleeps at night when thinking about abortion).

I'm sorry, I'm exhausted. I'm not trying to be rude, but I absolutely cannot tell what you're getting at here. Could you elaborate a bit, please?

[Galloism]

Common sense obviously. A woman is born and a fetus isn't. That is how it women's rights trump any fetal "rights".

A fetus isn't a person because it is not born yet.

Well, for the 2nd time, you've refused to provide me with a source when I've asked for it, so consider yourself considered a troll.

Ok. So its ok with you if I go back in time and convince your mother to abort you, because she was born and you weren't?

I didn't think so.

I doubt he'd have a single objection if you did.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Philosophically here, if a fetus can be declared a victim of homicide (as this law says it can), then does it not stand to reason that a fetus is a person (yes I realize that it specifically says its not any proof of the personage of a fetus, but we're talking philosophically). After all, you can't murder something that isn't a person (which is how everyone sleeps at night when thinking about abortion).

I'm sorry, I'm exhausted. I'm not trying to be rude, but I absolutely cannot tell what you're getting at here. Could you elaborate a bit, please?

He's made an inherently contradictory position so I'm a little confuzzled as well.

[Galloism]

I'm sorry, I'm exhausted. I'm not trying to be rude, but I absolutely cannot tell what you're getting at here. Could you elaborate a bit, please?

He's made an inherently contradictory position so I'm a little confuzzled as well.

I think he's saying that calling a fetus a nonperson is inherently contradictory, as it can be murdered, and the perpetrator charged with murder.

[Rhodmhire]

He's made an inherently contradictory position so I'm a little confuzzled as well.

I think that NSG needs an abortion oracle or a fetus sage or something of that nature. With all of this confusion in all of these countless threads, it seems like it has become a long-needed necessity.

[Buffett and Colbert]

He's made an inherently contradictory position so I'm a little confuzzled as well.

I think he's saying that calling a fetus a nonperson is inherently contradictory, as it can be murdered, and the perpetrator charged with murder.

But it can't be murdered.

[Rhodmhire]

I think he's saying that calling a fetus a nonperson is inherently contradictory, as it can be murdered, and the perpetrator charged with murder.

But it can't be murdered.

My cerebrum is just melting at this point. I'm hoping that this can be explained sooner rather than later.

[Galloism]

I think he's saying that calling a fetus a nonperson is inherently contradictory, as it can be murdered, and the perpetrator charged with murder.

But it can't be murdered.

Actually, yes it can.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386

In 38 states, anyway.

[Rhodmhire]

But it can't be murdered.

Actually, yes it can.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386

In 38 states, anyway.

Ah, then it was my use of "murdered" in my post. I see. The fluid has stopped melting.

No, wait a minute, it's starting up again. In the post (s)he quoted, I didn't even mention the word. What on earth--

[Grenartia]

He's made an inherently contradictory position so I'm a little confuzzled as well.

I think he's saying that calling a fetus a nonperson is inherently contradictory, as it can be murdered, and the perpetrator charged with murder.

Thank you, Darth.

[Grenartia]

But it can't be murdered.

Actually, yes it can.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386

In 38 states, anyway.

From what I read on wiki, there's also a federal law.

[Galloism]

I think he's saying that calling a fetus a nonperson is inherently contradictory, as it can be murdered, and the perpetrator charged with murder.

Thank you, Darth.

Which logically means that injuring a woman to the extent that she miscarried should only be assault, battery, and destruction of property, if of course one is to be consistent with the nonperson status of the fetus.

Of course, that's all rather irrelevant, since the central issue is one of bodily sovereignty, not of personhood.