Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Xeng He]

Self-awareness is not the only measure of 'biological difference'. Indeed, the fact that you skipped straight past the biological difference that the new born baby is breathing, and eating at one end and excreting at the other - is interesting. Size. Coherency of nervous system. Development of organs. There are considerably more massive 'biological differences' than JUST how they each respond to stimuli.

But do any of those differences matter in terms of cognition? I don't think they do...

To say nothing of the issue of premature births, which respond similarly to whatever developmental level they're at, except in the breathing/eating department, which...doesn't really matter for personhood definitions.

I don't think infanticide is justifiable, and I think 'Peter Singer' has issues to resolve. I don't really approve of late term abortion, either (indeed, I'm not a fan of ANY kind of abortion, honestly) - but that doesn't mean my position is logically inconsistent.

To put it simply - a born child should be surrendered by a parent that doesn't want it. The child risks abuse and violence if it remains where it's not wanted. It's not too much to ask that kids brought into this world should be loved, wanted and treated well.

But abuse and violence with a chance of escaping it is, in my opinion, better than simply not being allowed to continue. The child should be allowed to decide, once it knows the stakes, whether it wants to live or die knowing those risks.

So how is that logically consistent? Simple - if a woman no longer wants to carry a baby to term, the pregnancy should be ended at that point and IF POSSIBLE, the product of that pregnancy should be surrendered into the care of another.

But the right to life of a fetus...gets ignored, in this case.

It's certainly not the child's fault it's in the mother's womb (by any stretch of the imagination) and so you can't say it forfeited its rights by being there...

So if we're going by the "if possible" qualifier, where we're going to have to weigh one conscious being's rights against another's, I think that life should be held over bodily integrity here. Because it's the greater of the two.

The day someone invents the technology to effectively and efficiently remove a foetus without terminating it's development, and to bring that foetus to term externally and place it where it is wanted - is the day I'll stop arguing for 'abortion' rights. And at that point, they'll be irrelevant.

I'm hoping this comes around myself, honestly. Then I can stop hearing claims of misogyny and wanting to "punish sl*ts".

[Dyakovo]

The day someone invents the technology to effectively and efficiently remove a foetus without terminating it's development, and to bring that foetus to term externally and place it where it is wanted - is the day I'll stop arguing for 'abortion' rights. And at that point, they'll be irrelevant.

I'm hoping this comes around myself, honestly. Then I can stop hearing claims of misogyny and wanting to "punish sl*ts".

Stop being misogynistic and stop making arguments that make it clear that what you want is to punish sluts then...

[Xeng He]

Which is human?

(Image)
(Image)

Here's a human and a dolphin about 4 weeks in. Which one is human?

(Image)

(Image)

I'm fine with abortion 4 weeks in.

Here's a fetus 22 weeks in.


And another, that I admittedly don't know the week count of.


Which is the human, hm?

[Xeng He]

Stop being misogynistic and stop making arguments that make it clear that what you want is to punish sluts then...

I'm for legalizing prostitution. I support cheap and easy access to contraceptives, and education about those contraceptives. I'm for first and early second trimester abortion.

How can being (in a very on-the-fence way, even) against abortion after the 23rd week make one anti-slut in a way being for legalizing sluts can't wash away?

[Dyakovo]

Which is human?

(Image)
(Image)

Here's a human and a dolphin about 4 weeks in. Which one is human?

(Image)

(Image)

I'm fine with abortion 4 weeks in.

Here's a fetus 22 weeks in.


And another, that I admittedly don't know the week count of.


Which is the human, hm?

So you admit you don't know...

[Zottistan]

I'm under no obligation to help them. Under my personal morality, I should, and I probably would help them, but I'm not obligated.

What about when you're directly responsible for their suffering?

But a pregnant woman is not responsible for a fetus.

I'm under no obligation to help them. Under my personal morality, I should, and I probably would help them, but I'm not obligated.

Actually, that depends a lot on local laws.

I'm under no moral obligation, and shouldn't be under a legal one.

[Xeng He]

But a pregnant woman is not responsible for a fetus.

How so? She and one other are the reason it's in the womb in the first place...

[Arkinesia]

All I know is, the hospital should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Esternial]

*snip*

So you admit you don't know...

And implied that as long as it doesn't clearly resemble a human being, it shouldn't be considered worthy of pro-life argumentation.

[Cosmicus]

One of the reasons why there needs to be separation of church and state. It's fucking ridiculous, especially when lives are at risks.

You want us to be godless commies?

Well it's a helluva lot better than being religious fanatics who don't let a dying woman have an abortion which could save her life simply because "God said so". And nobody said we had to be 'godless', or 'commies'. Separating the church and state for the good of the people has no link to forced atheism or communism.

[Esternial]

You want us to be godless commies?

Well it's a helluva lot better than being religious fanatics who don't let a dying woman have an abortion which could save her life simply because "God said so". And nobody said we had to be 'godless', or 'commies'. Separating the church and state for the good of the people has no link to forced atheism or communism.

You need to update your sarcasm detection software.

[Cosmicus]

Well it's a helluva lot better than being religious fanatics who don't let a dying woman have an abortion which could save her life simply because "God said so". And nobody said we had to be 'godless', or 'commies'. Separating the church and state for the good of the people has no link to forced atheism or communism.

You need to update your sarcasm detection software.

In what part of the sentence "You want us to be godless commies?" is any sarcasm shown?

[Mavorpen]

You need to update your sarcasm detection software.

In what part of the sentence "You want us to be godless commies?" is any sarcasm shown?

Right there.

[Cosmicus]

In what part of the sentence "You want us to be godless commies?" is any sarcasm shown?

Right there.

Well, I dunno about you, but, that ain't exactly obvious in a way I can understand.

[Zottistan]

But a pregnant woman is not responsible for a fetus.

How so? She and one other are the reason it's in the womb in the first place...

It enters her womb against her will, she's not resposnible for it.

[Xeng He]

And implied that as long as it doesn't clearly resemble a human being, it shouldn't be considered worthy of pro-life argumentation.

If by resemble, you mean neurologically, and you also added in "or animal other than a sponge", yes.

[Ifreann]

This seems to have turned into a generic abortion thread very quickly...

[Xeng He]

It enters her womb against her will, she's not resposnible for it.

It enters her womb against its will, too. At least in the woman's case she can (Assuming she learns she's pregnant before the 23rd week) kick it out. The fetus doesn't exactly get that choice.

[Farnhamia]

It enters her womb against her will, she's not resposnible for it.

It enters her womb against its will, too. At least in the woman's case she can (Assuming she learns she's pregnant before the 23rd week) kick it out. The fetus doesn't exactly get that choice.

The fetus should have planned better.

[The Darwinian People]

It enters her womb against its will, too. At least in the woman's case she can (Assuming she learns she's pregnant before the 23rd week) kick it out. The fetus doesn't exactly get that choice.

The fetus should have planned better.

Unless you're being sarcastic (you never can tell on the internet), I'm going to assume you're trying to draw some equivalence between the pro-Life demand for women that don't want babies to plan against pregnancies and the, you believe to be equally, ridiculous argument that a foetus should plan against invading a woman's body.

The difference is; a woman can plan against it and, in modern times, it really doesn't take much, but a foetus cannot.

[Bottle]

It enters her womb against its will, too. At least in the woman's case she can (Assuming she learns she's pregnant before the 23rd week) kick it out. The fetus doesn't exactly get that choice.

The fetus should have planned better.

Government should not be in the business of supplying uterine housing for Fetal Americans simply because some don't feel like breathing for themselves. Fetal Americans should pull themselves up by their tiny umbilical bootstraps.

[Samuraikoku]

Unless you're being sarcastic (you never can tell on the internet), I'm going to assume you're trying to draw some equivalence between the pro-Life demand for women that don't want babies to plan against pregnancies and the, you believe to be equally, ridiculous argument that a foetus should plan against invading a woman's body.

The difference is; a woman can plan against it and, in modern times, it really doesn't take much, but a foetus cannot.

Rape/failed contraception. Your argument is invalid.

[Esternial]

This seems to have turned into a generic abortion thread very quickly...

The title was a big spoiler.

[Ifreann]

This seems to have turned into a generic abortion thread very quickly...

The title was a big spoiler.

I'm not surprised that it happened, just that it happened so fast.

[The Darwinian People]

Unless you're being sarcastic (you never can tell on the internet), I'm going to assume you're trying to draw some equivalence between the pro-Life demand for women that don't want babies to plan against pregnancies and the, you believe to be equally, ridiculous argument that a foetus should plan against invading a woman's body.

The difference is; a woman can plan against it and, in modern times, it really doesn't take much, but a foetus cannot.

Rape/failed contraception. Your argument is invalid.

I've already stated, and whilst you were here, that rape is a wholly different subject. As for failed contraception, I would generally support a woman's right to an early-term abortion.

But abortion, as a form of contraception, which has been argued here as completely legitimate, is just a hideous show of our society's depravity. Of course, I'm not blind to external factors; a lot has contributed to the current society we will in that both, contradictorily, glorifies and demonises promiscuity so as to endorse something that comes close to the feminist described rape culture.