Abortion: Humane or not?

[Allentyr]

Ah, but only when the child is born. Fetuses aren't born yet, so too bad.

You see, you're a prime example of why most pro-lifers think that pro-choicers are heartless savages.

Kudos.

Do I give a shit? Or more importantly, what's your argument against that reality?

[Dyakovo]

In which case the mother can consent to an abortion in her person fetus' stead. That is indeed quite simple.

A mother of a newborn doesn't have the right to give consent to kill that newborn when it is perfectly healthy.

That's nice. Has absolutely nothing to do with abortions though.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, it is totally okay to perform actions that unfortunately lead to the death of humans but protect the liberties of others. We do it all the time when we go to war over grave injustices.

This, pretty much.

Most of the time people go to war, it's with other people who can actually think, or carry arms, or not be restricted to the confines of the bowels of a human being.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ah, but only when the child is born. Fetuses aren't born yet, so too bad.

You see, you're a prime example of why most pro-lifers think that pro-choicers are heartless savages.

Kudos.

This, by the way, is what i'm trying to avoid with my position that they are in fact people.
I think it's a fundamental miscommunication between two camps of people.

[Teara Romaneasca]

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.

To be quite honest the only reason why I keep bringing up that fetuses are not people is because of the defense people make for the contrary, that is, people thinking they are people.

A fetus is a developing human cell, but that doesn't mean said human cell canot undergo different changes and end up no viable, see fetus in fetu and other diseases (including rH rejection) that happen in development.

From which point a human heart is beating amid the cells, we have a baby.

In general, I find it interesting we care more about harm to chickens and the like processed for human consumption then the unborn baby cut up in the abortion process. The womb used to be a virtually safe place.

[Camelza]

Then you'd basically be arguing that its totally okay to kill humans.

Yes, it is totally okay to perform actions that unfortunately lead to the death of humans but protect the liberties of others. We do it all the time when we go to war over grave injustices.

Well said, Mav.

[Galloism]

This, pretty much.

Most of the time people go to war, it's with other people who can actually think, or carry arms, or not be restricted to the confines of the bowels of a human being.

Bowels?

I think you need to redo anatomy class.

[Allentyr]

You see, you're a prime example of why most pro-lifers think that pro-choicers are heartless savages.

Kudos.

This, by the way, is what i'm trying to avoid with my position that they are in fact people.
I think it's a fundamental miscommunication between two camps of people.

They're people, alright. I'm just saying they just don't have the rights we do, and shouldn't anyway.

[Ostroeuropa]

To be quite honest the only reason why I keep bringing up that fetuses are not people is because of the defense people make for the contrary, that is, people thinking they are people.

A fetus is a developing human cell, but that doesn't mean said human cell canot undergo different changes and end up no viable, see fetus in fetu and other diseases (including rH rejection) that happen in development.

From which point a human heart is beating amid the cells, we have a baby.

In general, I find it interesting we care more about harm to chickens and the like processed for human consumption then the unborn baby cut up in the abortion process. The womb used to be a virtually safe place.

Why the heart exactly?
It is neither a sufficient nor a necessary component in a human being. We can replace it easily and the subject won't lose humanity.
Unless you're playing shadowrun.

[Dyakovo]

To be quite honest the only reason why I keep bringing up that fetuses are not people is because of the defense people make for the contrary, that is, people thinking they are people.

A fetus is a developing human cell, but that doesn't mean said human cell canot undergo different changes and end up no viable, see fetus in fetu and other diseases (including rH rejection) that happen in development.

From which point a human heart is beating amid the cells, we have a baby.

Wrong. For it to be a baby it has to have been born.

[Mavorpen]

This, pretty much.

Most of the time people go to war, it's with other people who can actually think, or carry arms, or not be restricted to the confines of the bowels of a human being.

Yes. You...you do know what an analogy is, right?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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).

I'm of the view that viability and risks should determine case-by-case whether or not an abortion is okay to do from a medical angle.

The less viable to live outside the womb the fetus is the less "rights" it has for medical professionals to be concerned about their life. You can't give rights to a cell in the same proportion as a neonate. That's not how we operate or how we should operate.

[Dyakovo]

Most of the time people go to war, it's with other people who can actually think, or carry arms, or not be restricted to the confines of the bowels of a human being.

Yes. You...you do know what an analogy is, right?

Analogy... That's the study of everything anal, right?

[Galloism]

From which point a human heart is beating amid the cells, we have a baby.

In general, I find it interesting we care more about harm to chickens and the like processed for human consumption then the unborn baby cut up in the abortion process. The womb used to be a virtually safe place.

Why the heart exactly?
It is neither a sufficient nor a necessary component in a human being. We can replace it easily and the subject won't lose humanity.
Unless you're playing shadowrun.

We even made an (arguably) better running version:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-man- ... d=13838596

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be quite honest the only reason why I keep bringing up that fetuses are not people is because of the defense people make for the contrary, that is, people thinking they are people.

A fetus is a developing human cell, but that doesn't mean said human cell canot undergo different changes and end up no viable, see fetus in fetu and other diseases (including rH rejection) that happen in development.

From which point a human heart is beating amid the cells, we have a baby.

In general, I find it interesting we care more about harm to chickens and the like processed for human consumption then the unborn baby cut up in the abortion process. The womb used to be a virtually safe place.

Not really, you have a pumping heart early in the pregnancy.

That means nothing as you still don't have the complex system a baby has.

[Ostroeuropa]

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).

I'm of the view that viability and risks should determine case-by-case whether or not an abortion is okay to do from a medical angle.

The less viable to live outside the womb the fetus is the less rights it has. You can't give rights to a cell in the same proportion as a neonate. That's not how we operate or how we should operate.

See, conversely, I view the fetus as a person right from the moment the brain activity fires up, but also recognize that viability is entirely irrelevant to the autonomy argument.

It MAY be relevant as to whether the doctors attempt to remove the child and save its life, or simply remove it and accept it's going to die.

You can remove it at 9 months for all I care.

[Sanctissima]

You see, you're a prime example of why most pro-lifers think that pro-choicers are heartless savages.

Kudos.

Do I give a shit? Or more importantly, what's your argument against that reality?

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

[Galloism]

Do I give a shit? Or more importantly, what's your argument against that reality?

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

I wonder if you're also on board with compulsory living organ donation.

[Mavorpen]

Do I give a shit? Or more importantly, what's your argument against that reality?

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

Sorry but it doesn't. Women aren't livestock where you can determine if they give birth or not.

[Jamzmania]

A mother of a newborn doesn't have the right to give consent to kill that newborn when it is perfectly healthy.

That's nice. Has absolutely nothing to do with abortions though.

If you're using the "consent for those who cannot give consent" analogy it does.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do I give a shit? Or more importantly, what's your argument against that reality?

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

I wonder if you're also on board with compulsory living organ donation.

Aw fuck it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm of the view that viability and risks should determine case-by-case whether or not an abortion is okay to do from a medical angle.

The less viable to live outside the womb the fetus is the less rights it has. You can't give rights to a cell in the same proportion as a neonate. That's not how we operate or how we should operate.

See, conversely, I view the fetus as a person right from the moment the brain activity fires up, but also recognize that viability is entirely irrelevant to the autonomy argument.

It MAY be relevant as to whether the doctors attempt to remove the child and save its life, or simply remove it and accept it's going to die.

You can remove it at 9 months for all I care.

Right. I mean, it's why I said from a medical angle.

One of my nephews was born at 6 months and is a healthy boy nowadays, so yes considerations should be taken at the third trimester whether or not the child can be saved and whether or not the child can survive.

Below that? We can't even bother from a medical angle given the child will die no matter what doctors do.

[Allentyr]

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

Morals are subjective. Boom.

And no, the fetus does not have that right, actually.

[Dyakovo]

That's nice. Has absolutely nothing to do with abortions though.

If you're using the "consent for those who cannot give consent" analogy it does.

No, it really doesn't.

[Jamzmania]

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

Sorry but it doesn't. Women aren't livestock where you can determine if they give birth or not.

And fetuses aren't parasites where you can determine if they live or die.