[Abortion Megathread] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? REVISED POLL

[Lady Scylla]

Where is the line drawn between fetus and child? There must be a justifiable and clear division between the two, otherwise it's nothing more than a dehumanization tactic.

At the moment when consciousness is first achieved, perhaps?

Colour me sceptical over that first paragraph. It also seems they're erroneously conflating consciousness (awake) with being actually cognisant (self-aware).

[Arcipelago]

At the moment when consciousness is first achieved, perhaps?

Colour me sceptical over that first paragraph. It also seems they're erroneously conflating consciousness (awake) with being actually cognisant (self-aware).

"MOTHERS will want to crucify me for this seemingly cruel question, but it needs to be posed: How do we know that a newly born and healthy infant is conscious? There is no question that the baby is awake. Its eyes are wide open, it wriggles and grimaces, and, most important, it cries. But all that is not the same as being conscious, of experiencing pain, seeing red or smelling Mom’s milk."
They are saying the same thing you are. From what I read between 24-28 weeks babies in the womb have the ability sense their surroundings, feel, learn, but might not be actually conscious. They are likely not conscious in quiet sleep, but could be in active sleep. Also, they talk about how self-awareness isn't simply defined. If self-awareness is knowing your own state and how your actions have effects, then are teenagers considered self aware?

Just reread the article.

[Wallenburg]

Colour me sceptical over that first paragraph. It also seems they're erroneously conflating consciousness (awake) with being actually cognisant (self-aware).

"MOTHERS will want to crucify me for this seemingly cruel question, but it needs to be posed: How do we know that a newly born and healthy infant is conscious? There is no question that the baby is awake. Its eyes are wide open, it wriggles and grimaces, and, most important, it cries. But all that is not the same as being conscious, of experiencing pain, seeing red or smelling Mom’s milk."
They are saying the same thing you are. From what I read between 24-28 weeks babies in the womb have the ability sense their surroundings, feel, learn, but might not be actually conscious. They are likely not conscious in quiet sleep, but could be in active sleep. Also, they talk about how self-awareness isn't simply defined. If self-awareness is knowing your own state and how your actions have effects, then are teenagers considered self aware?

Just reread the article.

It appears you are also conflating consciousness and sapience.

And yes, teenagers are self-aware. That is a non-question.

[Belle Ilse en Terre]

Because the religious do? Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.


Except that the fetus cannot consent and that it doesn't have 100% survival rate anyway. Also, I guess their life is more important than that of the one supporting it, and has more choice than the mother. Funny that.



I can be polite, and I think you are wrong.

I am unsure of what you mean by saying "Because the religious do? Thanks for the laugh, I needed it."

I do not intend suggest all people of religions are polite; I wish the someone from the pro-abortion side would be respectful and discuss the issue. I was not aware that by disagreeing I had brought up the subject of grammar or had requested insults and derision.

Everyone has a zero percent chance of survival; everyone dies. The unborn child cannot consent, but that does not revoke its legal right to life. I would finally ask you to reread my statements. I did not say a child has greater rights than their mother. They have equally the right to determine whether the child will live. The mother's vote is not the only one that counts. There are two.

Happy Heckling.

[Wallenburg]

I am unsure of what you mean by saying "Because the religious do? Thanks for the laugh, I needed it."

I do not intend suggest all people of religions are polite; I wish the someone from the pro-abortion side would be respectful and discuss the issue. I was not aware that by disagreeing I had brought up the subject of grammar or had requested insults and derision.

If you want people to speak with you respectfully, don't insult them on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Also, I am not aware of anyone currently posting here that is "pro-abortion". We have plenty of pro-choice people here, but not many pro-abortion people.

Everyone has a zero percent chance of survival; everyone dies. The unborn child cannot consent, but that does not revoke its legal right to life. I would finally ask you to reread my statements. I did not say a child has greater rights than their mother. They have equally the right to determine whether the child will live. The mother's vote is not the only one that counts. There are two.

Happy Heckling.

The fetus does not have a legal right to life, as it is not a legal person.

[The V O I D]

I am unsure of what you mean by saying "Because the religious do? Thanks for the laugh, I needed it."

1. I do not intend suggest all people of religions are polite; I wish the someone from the pro-abortion side would be respectful and discuss the issue. I was not aware that by disagreeing I had brought up the subject of grammar or had requested insults and derision.

2. Everyone has a zero percent chance of survival; everyone dies. The unborn child cannot consent, but that does not revoke its legal right to life. I would finally ask you to reread my statements. I did not say a child has greater rights than their mother. They have equally the right to determine whether the child will live. The mother's vote is not the only one that counts. There are two.

Happy Heckling.

1. First off: there are no 'pro-abortion' people, aside from the Church of Euthanasia. There are plenty of Pro-Choicers here, however.

2. And secondly, no one cares for the fetus' supposed right to life. It loses that right the moment it conflicts with the mother's ownership over her body. Saying that the fetus' right to life overrides her right to her body means that the fetus somehow owns her body, which it doesn't. Also, see my prior post in response to you.

[Lady Scylla]

Colour me sceptical over that first paragraph. It also seems they're erroneously conflating consciousness (awake) with being actually cognisant (self-aware).

"MOTHERS will want to crucify me for this seemingly cruel question, but it needs to be posed: How do we know that a newly born and healthy infant is conscious? There is no question that the baby is awake. Its eyes are wide open, it wriggles and grimaces, and, most important, it cries. But all that is not the same as being conscious, of experiencing pain, seeing red or smelling Mom’s milk."
They are saying the same thing you are. From what I read between 24-28 weeks babies in the womb have the ability sense their surroundings, feel, learn, but might not be actually conscious. They are likely not conscious in quiet sleep, but could be in active sleep. Also, they talk about how self-awareness isn't simply defined. If self-awareness is knowing your own state and how your actions have effects, then are teenagers considered self aware?

Just reread the article.

Teenagers are self-aware. The problem in that part of the article is then conflating, again, cognisance with that, this time, of accountability.

[Godular]

I am unsure of what you mean by saying "Because the religious do? Thanks for the laugh, I needed it."

I do not intend suggest all people of religions are polite; I wish the someone from the pro-abortion side would be respectful and discuss the issue. I was not aware that by disagreeing I had brought up the subject of grammar or had requested insults and derision.

Everyone has a zero percent chance of survival; everyone dies. The unborn child cannot consent, but that does not revoke its legal right to life. I would finally ask you to reread my statements. I did not say a child has greater rights than their mother. They have equally the right to determine whether the child will live. The mother's vote is not the only one that counts. There are two.

Happy Heckling.

The fetus' right to live does not supercede the rights of the woman within which it resides. Pregnancy is an unfortunate case where one entity imposes upon the rights of another by virtue of its very existence. This is not intentional, and it is not malicious, but if the woman does not wish for her body to be used in such a manner it is wrong to deny her the right to rectify the situation, as doing so goes against the very equality you claim to speak to.

[Godular]

Pretty sure Belle had no idea what they were saying, because that English is fairly butchered - even for phone use.

Here's an ultimatum counterargument to destroy Belle's argument, though: it is the WOMAN'S BODY. Short of strapping her down and keeping her in an artificially induced coma, there is literally no way to stop her from attempting to abort, finding someone willing to abort, etc. And if she's financially well off, she can just fly to a country where they are legal, get the abortion, and then come home.

Also, yes. Euthanasia should be legal for those in immeasurable suffering and/or who are already ill with a fatal disease that has no cure and their chances of survival look grim. Whether because they ask for it - or if they are in a coma (whether medically induced to stop them from feeling the pain consciously, or simply from the disease itself) because a relative signed the proper forms. Just like how relatives can pull the plug on braindead people. Because braindeath is essentially death. The body continues functioning, but only with the support of machines to some degree.

You are right, half of the time, or thereabouts, the child being slain is a women. It is their own body and they have the right to preserve it.

Your comment has almost nothing to do with the statement you have quoted.

I would also like to apologise, I forgot that you are Enlightenend Atheists who appear to lack respect for those they disagree with.

Watch your mouth. Snide comments will not aid you here.

My primary point is that life is important and should not quickly be tossed aside.

And our point is that the woman's reason for seeking abortion services are not for you to judge. You do not know her situation, and you cannot know her situation. It is all well and good to speak out against blithely discarding the life of another, but who are you to decide whether such a decision is justified or not?

Your greatest achivement, as far as convincing me goes, is to dissiade me from accepting your cause, until I meet a man who can be polite and think that I am wrong.

Why just a man?

[Mattopilos]

I am unsure of what you mean by saying "Because the religious do? Thanks for the laugh, I needed it."

well, that is simple: the religious are intolerant on many issues, yet you are trying to aim the gun at those that oppose pro-birth views. I find that laughable.

I do not intend suggest all people of religions are polite; I wish the someone from the pro-abortion side would be respectful and discuss the issue. I was not aware that by disagreeing I had brought up the subject of grammar or had requested insults and derision.

Trust me, you would understand the attitude of people who are pro-choice after all the hilariously bad and fallacious arguments we have had to go through.

Everyone has a zero percent chance of survival; everyone dies.

Not true in any sense of the word. If they are alive and born, they are alive, and therefore are 'surviving'. Lets not go into semantics for arguments.

The unborn child cannot consent, but that does not revoke its legal right to life.

I am not talking from a legal standpoint. I don't agree with all laws for the reason that they are bullshit and focus too much on morals.

I would finally ask you to reread my statements. I did not say a child has greater rights than their mother. They have equally the right to determine whether the child will live

Except they don't given that ONE can actually make that choice, while the other is simply a thing that happens to feed off the other. One voice matters, because only one has the voice. One also only exists due to the other, and only one can consent.

The mother's vote is not the only one that counts. There are two.

The father's? You cannot mean the child, since it is not born, cannot consent, and, I will repeat, requires the mother to survive in the first place. it has no "voice".

[Belle Ilse en Terre]

well, that is simple: the religious are intolerant on many issues, yet you are trying to aim the gun at those that oppose pro-birth views. I find that laughable.

Trust me, you would understand the attitude of people who are pro-choice after all the hilariously bad and fallacious arguments we have had to go through.

I am terrribly sorrow that you lack a worthy opponent in the debate.

The mother's vote is not the only one that counts. There are two.
[/quote]
The father's? You cannot mean the child, since it is not born, cannot consent, and, I will repeat, requires the mother to survive in the first place. it has no "voice".[/quote]

I mean to say the unborn child has a desire, confirmed by evolution and all other theories, to live. It instinctually wishes to survive to pass on its genes. We know this through biology. Biology also points to a fetus being human through all stages of its life. Genetically, it is human, it is a vague human form; why is the fetus not human?

I noticed several arguments of mine were simply written off as 'bs'. I am not sure exactly how describing an argument, however poor in quality, with a profanity disproves it. Would those who done so please clarify?

[Godular]

well, that is simple: the religious are intolerant on many issues, yet you are trying to aim the gun at those that oppose pro-birth views. I find that laughable.

Trust me, you would understand the attitude of people who are pro-choice after all the hilariously bad and fallacious arguments we have had to go through.

I am terrribly sorrow that you lack a worthy opponent in the debate.

The father's? You cannot mean the child, since it is not born, cannot consent, and, I will repeat, requires the mother to survive in the first place. it has no "voice".

I mean to say the unborn child has a desire, confirmed by evolution and all other theories, to live. It instinctually wishes to survive to pass on its genes. We know this through biology.

Something you seem to possess only a passing familiarity with, evidently. The fetus does not instinctively do anything until at least 24 weeks into pregnancy, when its synaptic pattern actually takes on some degree of coherence. Before that point it is just random neurons firing, and the fetus is no more functional than any other organ within the woman's body.

Biology also points to a fetus being human through all stages of its life. Genetically, it is human, it is a vague human form; why is the fetus not human?

Genetically, cancer is human too. It is not, however, *A* human. Physical separation is an important distinguishing factor that many pro-lifers fail to take into account. So long as the fetus resides within and draws sustenance from the body of another human being, any speech relating to preserving the rights of the 'unborn' come at the expense of the rights of the woman.

I noticed several arguments of mine were simply written off as 'bs'. I am not sure exactly how describing an argument, however poor in quality, with a profanity disproves it. Would those who done so please clarify?

Small note: 'One' does not equal 'several'. Your attempt to rely on 'Nazis' as a basis for your argument was already demonstrated to be fallacious because as I stated before, one can make an argument supporting any old point by drawing some correlation with Nazis. It is a foolish and ultimately counterproductive tactic to use.

[Godular]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/index.html

Welp. Starting up fast. I understand that the policy is something that sorta flips on and off like a light-switch depending on the party the president happens to belong to at the time, but it is still disappointing to say the least.

[The V O I D]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/index.html

Welp. Starting up fast. I understand that the policy is something that sorta flips on and off like a light-switch depending on the party the president happens to belong to at the time, but it is still disappointing to say the least.

It is a sad day.

[Wallenburg]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/index.html

Welp. Starting up fast. I understand that the policy is something that sorta flips on and off like a light-switch depending on the party the president happens to belong to at the time, but it is still disappointing to say the least.

It's not much in of itself, but it whispers of policy to come and that is what is most frightening.

[HokusPOTUS]

Abortion is self defense

4Chan, is that you?

[HokusPOTUS]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/index.html

Welp. Starting up fast. I understand that the policy is something that sorta flips on and off like a light-switch depending on the party the president happens to belong to at the time, but it is still disappointing to say the least.

Was more good or bad done by this policy? Thats what I am interested in, and what will detemine my standing. As for now, I don't really have one, since I don't know the full details.

[Wallenburg]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/index.html

Welp. Starting up fast. I understand that the policy is something that sorta flips on and off like a light-switch depending on the party the president happens to belong to at the time, but it is still disappointing to say the least.

Was more good or bad done by this policy? Thats what I am interested in, and what will detemine my standing. As for now, I don't really have one, since I don't know the full details.

It's an arbitrary restriction on the flow of funds to abortion providers, one that does absolutely nothing to help anyone. The "Mexico City policy" only makes it harder for abortion providers to accommodate patients, especially poor ones. I'd call that bad.

[Neutraligon]

Was more good or bad done by this policy? Thats what I am interested in, and what will detemine my standing. As for now, I don't really have one, since I don't know the full details.

It's an arbitrary restriction on the flow of funds to abortion providers, one that does absolutely nothing to help anyone. The "Mexico City policy" only makes it harder for abortion providers to accommodate patients, especially poor ones. I'd call that bad.

Oh the problem is worse then that. Unsanitary abortion providers in Africa are way to common. By removing funds from sanitary providers women will go to the only providers remaining, the unsanitary ones. All that is happening is that you will more likely have women dying from things like infections, incomplete abortions, bleeding out, etc.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's an arbitrary restriction on the flow of funds to abortion providers, one that does absolutely nothing to help anyone. The "Mexico City policy" only makes it harder for abortion providers to accommodate patients, especially poor ones. I'd call that bad.

Oh the problem is worse then that. Unsanitary abortion providers in Africa are way to common. By removing funds from sanitary providers women will go to the only providers remaining, the unsanitary ones. All that is happening is that you will more likely have women dying from things like infections, incomplete abortions, bleeding out, etc.

Plus, abortion and infanticide are inversely proportional.

Societies that lack abortion access tend towards higher rates of infanticide. You can make someone give birth, but you can't make them conjure food for another mouth, out of the ether.

[Wallenburg]

It's an arbitrary restriction on the flow of funds to abortion providers, one that does absolutely nothing to help anyone. The "Mexico City policy" only makes it harder for abortion providers to accommodate patients, especially poor ones. I'd call that bad.

Oh the problem is worse then that. Unsanitary abortion providers in Africa are way to common. By removing funds from sanitary providers women will go to the only providers remaining, the unsanitary ones. All that is happening is that you will more likely have women dying from things like infections, incomplete abortions, bleeding out, etc.

I was under the impression that this policy blocked foreign donations to US providers, not American donations to foreign providers.

[Luziyca]

I support the right for women to have an abortion. It is not ideal, but it's not my circus, and not my monkeys.

The legal parental surrender idea seems interesting, though.

[Godular]

Soooo... in light of the recent thread about abortion, and that this'n is still technically viable, do we wanna see about merging?

[Wallenburg]

Soooo... in light of the recent thread about abortion, and that this'n is still technically viable, do we wanna see about merging?

I don't know. Late term mergers tend to be detrimental to the health of the megathread.