Abortion: Humane or not?

[Vazdaria]

It appears we're on the same boat here. Theology and medical science should be strictly divided.

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Embryology is clear: life begins at conception.

[Hurdegaryp]

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Personally, I prefer the phrase "I think, therefore I am".

So, basically, thought determines whether or not you're a person. Hence, a fetus isn't a person.

That said, this doesn't make it a useless waste of carbon-based watery flesh.

Neither is a chicken, and we eat those. So are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting? It's probably healthier meat than pork, so I'm inclined to agree.

[Dyakovo]

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Embryology is clear: life begins at conception.

So charge every woman who miscarries with manslaughter.
*nods*

[Ostroeuropa]

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Personally, I prefer the phrase "I think, therefore I am".

So, basically, thought determines whether or not you're a person. Hence, a fetus isn't a person.

That said, this doesn't make it a useless waste of carbon-based watery flesh.

Eh.
They kind of do think past a certain age.
Or dream. Or whatever it is.
Theres brain activity, at least.

I bet it's fucking crazy and completely alien given their understanding of the universe at the time.

[Vazdaria]

Medically unnecessary Abortion is a horrible practice that should be endee Immediately

Define unnecessary. Is it unnecessary police brutality to remove a rapist from somebodies orifice when they request it?

Well... i'm kind of stuck then. What, exactly, is the difference here fundamentally?

Someone is inside your body without your consent.
You wish them removed.
You report to the authorities to ask them to safeguard your rights.
They do so.

Your child's in your body, but you've no right to kill it. Women do not have the right to kill their children, regardless of its stage of development.

[Mavorpen]

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Embryology is clear: life begins at conception.

And red apples are red.

So?

[Galloism]

That's what happens now, except without all the legalese in the way.

Sure.

EXCEPT!!!!

Because we advanced the:

"They aren't people" argument instead of the
"Bodily autonomy!!" argument, we're in a position where on-demand abortion is illegal when it shouldnt be, because, quite rightly, people look at babyscans and go
"That's clearly a person." when it hits a certain age and is viable.

We should instead be getting them to understand that the personhood is irrelevant to the discussion.

Further, it basically does the pro-lifers propoganda for us to be denying that they are people. It makes us seem like assholes.
Instead of acknowledging that they are people, and it's unfortunate for them, but the pregnant person is excercising their human right to bodily autonomy, and liberty is important.

The Law of Unintended Consequences:

In addition to tax consequences (described earlier), you are opening up pregnant women who seek an abortion to even further denigration by society. Why? A parent is expected to go through fire for his/her child (sometimes literally), and tacit acceptance of fetal personhood plays right into the shame/bad parent angle, and could be used both socially and legally unless specifically prohibited (legally speaking).

"Your honor, I have evidence that the defendant previously killed one of her children. " or perhaps "You honor, I have evidence the defendant previously aided in killing one of his children. "

[Vazdaria]

Embryology is clear: life begins at conception.

So charge every woman who miscarries with manslaughter.
*nods*

Nonsense, she didn't intentionally miscarry.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Personally, I prefer the phrase "I think, therefore I am".

So, basically, thought determines whether or not you're a person. Hence, a fetus isn't a person.

That said, this doesn't make it a useless waste of carbon-based watery flesh.

Indeed, saying it is a waste of resources MIGHT be too much. Mostly because it is the natural process of reproduction.

However, medical science has advanced for a reason, to make our lives more practical and healthy.

And, well, there's a problem with that when it come to neonates. Neonates basically don't think, they're in survival mode so they have no thought processes, under the rubric of "whatever thinks is a person" the neonate fails at it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Define unnecessary. Is it unnecessary police brutality to remove a rapist from somebodies orifice when they request it?

Well... i'm kind of stuck then. What, exactly, is the difference here fundamentally?

Someone is inside your body without your consent.
You wish them removed.
You report to the authorities to ask them to safeguard your rights.
They do so.

Your child's in your body, but you've no right to kill it. Women do not have the right to kill their children, regardless of its stage of development.

Suppose your child is raping you. They're in your body then.
I'd say that yes, you do in fact, have the right to kill the child if it's necessary to stop that.

For sure, a fetus has more sympathy because it's not actively engaging in the activity, but that doesn't change what's going on here.

Someone is violating bodily autonomy.
The victim approaches the authorities and demands they protect their rights.
The state does so.

[Vazdaria]

Embryology is clear: life begins at conception.

And red apples are red.

So?

So, youve no right to kill a developing human being unless it poses a threat to the life of the mother.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Embryology is clear: life begins at conception.

Yes, biological life begins at conception, good job at remembering embryology 101.

Now, can you remember embryology 102 and describe why we can't consider a zygote the same as a fucking baby?

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure.

EXCEPT!!!!

Because we advanced the:

"They aren't people" argument instead of the
"Bodily autonomy!!" argument, we're in a position where on-demand abortion is illegal when it shouldnt be, because, quite rightly, people look at babyscans and go
"That's clearly a person." when it hits a certain age and is viable.

We should instead be getting them to understand that the personhood is irrelevant to the discussion.

Further, it basically does the pro-lifers propoganda for us to be denying that they are people. It makes us seem like assholes.
Instead of acknowledging that they are people, and it's unfortunate for them, but the pregnant person is excercising their human right to bodily autonomy, and liberty is important.

The Law of Unintended Consequences:

In addition to tax consequences (described earlier), you are opening up pregnant women who seek an abortion to even further denigration by society. Why? A parent is expected to go through fire for his/her child (sometimes literally), and tacit acceptance of fetal personhood plays right into the shame/bad parent angle, and could be used both socially and legally unless specifically prohibited (legally speaking).

"Your honor, I have evidence that the defendant previously killed one of her children. " or perhaps "You honor, I have evidence the defendant previously aided in killing one of his children. "

That's a possible consquence, sure.
It'd need to be handled very delicately, and maybe i'm wrong, I just think we'd be better off dropping the "they aren't people" part of our arguments.

[Mavorpen]

And red apples are red.

So?

So, youve no right to kill a developing human being unless it poses a threat to the life of the mother.

Of course I don't. Doctors do though if the mother requests it and it won't risk their health.

[Galloism]

And red apples are red.

So?

So, youve no right to kill a developing human being unless it poses a threat to the life of the mother.

You sure you want to be that absolute? Before you answer, I want you to think about it really hard.

[Allentyr]

Nonsense, she didn't intentionally miscarry.

Manslaughter is unintentional. Murder is intentional.

Your child's in your body, but you've no right to kill it. Women do not have the right to kill their children, regardless of its stage of development.

If there was an intruder in your home stealing your precious things, you have no right to forcibly evict/arrest this intruder?

[Vazdaria]

So, youve no right to kill a developing human being unless it poses a threat to the life of the mother.

Of course I don't. Doctors do though if the mother requests it and it won't risk their health.

Doctors shouldn't have the right to kill a developing human being either.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And red apples are red.

So?

So, youve no right to kill a developing human being unless it poses a threat to the life of the mother.

A developing human being whose life cannot be independent of the mother's biologically isn't even worth considering in an abortion or medical science.

[Sanctissima]

Personally, I prefer the phrase "I think, therefore I am".

So, basically, thought determines whether or not you're a person. Hence, a fetus isn't a person.

That said, this doesn't make it a useless waste of carbon-based watery flesh.

Indeed, saying it is a waste of resources MIGHT be too much. Mostly because it is the natural process of reproduction.

However, medical science has advanced for a reason, to make our lives more practical and healthy.

And, well, there's a problem with that when it come to neonates. Neonates basically don't think, they're in survival mode so they have no thought processes, under the rubric of "whatever thinks is a person" the neonate fails at it.

True, but I still don't advocate that it has 0 rights. I don't advocate that it has the same rights as it's mother, in fact, far from it. I do however advocate that it has 1 inalienable right: the right to live. This right takes precedence over the mother's rights to her body (unless of course, as I already stated, it's the result of rape or if the mother's life is in danger).

[Vazdaria]

Nonsense, she didn't intentionally miscarry.

Manslaughter is unintentional. Murder is intentional.

Your child's in your body, but you've no right to kill it. Women do not have the right to kill their children, regardless of its stage of development.

If there was an intruder in your home stealing your precious things, you have no right to forcibly evict/arrest this intruder?

Ah, but in this instance it is your child. And your child has the right to use your resources.

[Mavorpen]

Of course I don't. Doctors do though if the mother requests it and it won't risk their health.

Doctors shouldn't have the right to kill a developing human being either.

That's too bad. They do under certain circumstances.

[Vazdaria]

So, youve no right to kill a developing human being unless it poses a threat to the life of the mother.

A developing human being whose life cannot be independent of the mother's biologically isn't even worth considering in an abortion or medical science.

That's like saying "the life of the black man is not worth protecting" you're dehumanizing the developing child!

[Sanctissima]

Doctors shouldn't have the right to kill a developing human being either.

That's too bad. They do under certain circumstances.

Well, that's very cold and dehumanizing of you.

[Ostroeuropa]

Doctors shouldn't have the right to kill a developing human being either.

That's too bad. They do

They have the right to remove it from someone who's bodily autonomy it is violating.
they do not have the right to kill it.

Semantics, I know.

[Allentyr]

If there was an intruder in your home stealing your precious things, you have no right to forcibly evict/arrest this intruder?

Ah, but in this instance it is your child. And your child has the right to use your resources.[/quote]

"Right"? Naw.

That implies it'd be A-Okay if my child tried to bleed me dry. And there's a reason why it's still considered stealing when a child steals something from their parents.