[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Strahcoin]

I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.

We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.

Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being. (Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.

[Vassenor]

I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.

We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.

Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being. (Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.

Your appeal to emotion has been noted and ignored.

[The New California Republic]

I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.

A truism, what's the point of saying it?

We were all fetuses once.

Ditto for what I just said.

We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies.

You are repeating your same argument that was debunked several dozen pages ago. Repetition is tiresome.

However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.

"We have no right to resuscitate someone, because that's just how death works!"

See how fucking odd that logic is?

Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being.

If the woman does not want to carry the fetus to term, then this condescending ditty won't make any difference.

(Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.)

That has no bearing on its status in the womb though, i.e. not a person.

We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.

And you have yet again resorted to appeals to emotion, because your other arguments have failed.

[The Free Joy State]

I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.

Pregnancy is part of biology. Sometimes it is unavoidable (contraceptives don't always work; rape happen). It is not inevitable, and it can be stopped.

We are not mindless mammals. We are conscious. Thinking, rational. We can prevent outcomes that are undesirable to us.

We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.

Yes, your repeated "your mother didn't abort you" is noted. It's no more successful than it was last time:

One more thing: we were all fetuses once. That means we have, according to you, "invaded our mothers' bodies".

Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being.

No. There are many risks to pregnancy that can be fatal or permanently disabling (including to the renal system, cardiovascular system, nervous system). The potential for fatal eclampsia, haemorrhage, diabetes, septic miscarriage...

These are not small prices to pay.

(Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.

Appeal to potential. Noted. Ignored.

[Strahcoin]

It seems that my biggest challenge here is to show the immorality of abortion to those who dehumanize the fetus.

sigh

You'd think that, with the amount of times we have repeated it, that you'd realise that their humanity was never in dispute.

Given: Killing a newborn baby is immoral. (If you don't agree with this, then your "morals" are... questionable at best, immoral at worst.)
1. Besides the location, there is little to no difference between a fetus about to come out and a baby already born.

Except, you know, the violation of rights that is the crux of the pro-life position that only ends with birth.

But yeah, only location.

It'd be like saying the difference between me stabbing you and me not stabbing you is location. It's so simplified that it misses every important bit.

Yes; there are too many posts for me to respond.


1. Well, you and others have said that the fetus is not a human being and therefore has no right to life...

Human being and human surprisingly aren't synonyms. What are is human being and person.

3. One is a person, the other is too. Your flat-out refusal to acknowledge this is causing the mistake on your part. Besides, what I meant was no measurable differences - more than just what the dictionary says.

1) They're not.
2) We would be much more open to accepting it if you could come up with an argument for why it is a person without ignoring key sections of the definition (like treating human and person as synonyms, defining person as human + alive then complaining that the definition has been changed, etc.).

5. I used morals, not emotions. But, if you want a selfish argument against abortion, fine. I'll try my best.
Humans have generally improved society as a whole. The fetus has potential to do this. With (or even, albeit less likely, without) the right nurture, this fetus will be born, grow, and help improve society (assuming the society is under capitalism). New human lives = new potential = greater productivity and ideas = innovation = better society.

Or there's the chance that they could end up fucking up the society, a problem with potential-based arguments.

1. Unfortunately, it was.
2. Pregnancy is part of biology. Besides, we were all fetuses once, so allowing abortion to kill/destroy other fetuses without giving them a chance would be hypocritical.
3. Something that is human is either a "person" or a "part". The fetus is not a part. It is an individual human being.
4. "The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being." - https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html
Oh, here's a dictionary entry: A human being is "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being?s=ts
5. More help than harm. Few people (at least in the U.S.) are unemployed, meaning that most people (after a certain age) are producing for society. While there is the chance that they will cause notable harm, that chance is very low. Whether or not a fetus will grow to be bad is unknowable when the fetus is still in the body. It's imperative that we give them a chance.

[The New California Republic]

Unfortunately, it was.

No. The nature of the fetus as human was never disputed. The only reason you are making this mistake is because you still don't understand the basic concepts in this debate.

Pregnancy is part of biology. Besides, we were all fetuses once, so allowing abortion to kill/destroy other fetuses without giving them a chance would be hypocritical.

Nonsensical argument that has been debunked earlier.

Something that is human is either a "person" or a "part". The fetus is not a part. It is an individual human being.

Your attempted definitions of "person" are progressively getting worse and worse.

Whether or not a fetus will grow to be bad is unknowable when the fetus is still in the body. It's imperative that we give them a chance.

At the expense of the woman's bodily sovereignty? No.

[Kernen]

5. More help than harm. Few people (at least in the U.S.) are unemployed, meaning that most people (after a certain age) are producing for society. While there is the chance that they will cause notable harm, that chance is very low. Whether or not a fetus will grow to be bad is unknowable when the fetus is still in the body. It's imperative that we give them a chance.

You can reverse that and remain logically consistent. Whether or not the fetus will grow up to be good is unknowable, and so there's no reason to give them a chance. That's why opportunity is not a factor in balancing the interests for and against abortion.

[Estanglia]

I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.

We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.

Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being. (Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.

Appeal to emotion discarded.

sigh

You'd think that, with the amount of times we have repeated it, that you'd realise that their humanity was never in dispute.



Except, you know, the violation of rights that is the crux of the pro-life position that only ends with birth.

But yeah, only location.

It'd be like saying the difference between me stabbing you and me not stabbing you is location. It's so simplified that it misses every important bit.



Human being and human surprisingly aren't synonyms. What are is human being and person.



1) They're not.
2) We would be much more open to accepting it if you could come up with an argument for why it is a person without ignoring key sections of the definition (like treating human and person as synonyms, defining person as human + alive then complaining that the definition has been changed, etc.).



Or there's the chance that they could end up fucking up the society, a problem with potential-based arguments.

1. Unfortunately, it was.
2. Pregnancy is part of biology. Besides, we were all fetuses once, so allowing abortion to kill/destroy other fetuses without giving them a chance would be hypocritical.
3. Something that is human is either a "person" or a "part". The fetus is not a part. It is an individual human being.
4. "The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being." - https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html
Oh, here's a dictionary entry: A human being is "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being?s=ts
5. More help than harm. Few people (at least in the U.S.) are unemployed, meaning that most people (after a certain age) are producing for society. While there is the chance that they will cause notable harm, that chance is very low. Whether or not a fetus will grow to be bad is unknowable when the fetus is still in the body. It's imperative that we give them a chance.

1) It wasn't. It never was.
2) Appeal to emotion discarded.
3) Incorrect on both counts.
4) Initiation. In other words, the beginning. It's like saying an engine is a car because it is the beginning of a car.
5) You're still basing this entire argument on a huge "maybe".

[Kernen]

I've already established why Strahcoin's appeals to morality are appeals to emotion, and got no response, so marking them as appeals to emotion seems futile.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I've already established why Strahcoin's appeals to morality are appeals to emotion, and got no response, so marking them as appeals to emotion seems futile.

They’ve also been repeatedly advised that there are better and easier ways to address any moral qualms they might have about abortion without disrupting anyone’s rights, yet they continue to soldier on.

They’ve also been repeatedly advised that the humanity of the fetus has never been in question, and that its personhood is functionally irrelevant to the matter, yet they continue to claim we are ‘dehumanizing’ the fetus.

They continue to talk about biology yet also claim that a fetus can be delivered at ten weeks and actually survive, drop the same inane Reaganism about we were all fetuses once even though THAT was addressed as well, and seems to intend on building a pile of strawmen reaching halfway to the moon.

Par for the course, really.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Except for most pro-lifers, who believe that they're people once conception happens.

Even if they are people, they still have no right to use another person's body without that person's consent. Hypothetical conjoined twins are a wholly different issue regarding body-ownership. The fetus does not own the woman's body, and as long as that fetus is within her body its future is dependent solely upon whether she wishes it to remain. This is as it should be.

The problem with this argument is that we compel behavior all the time from people. Moreover, does bodily sovereignty extend to control over natural processes?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Even if they are people, they still have no right to use another person's body without that person's consent. Hypothetical conjoined twins are a wholly different issue regarding body-ownership. The fetus does not own the woman's body, and as long as that fetus is within her body its future is dependent solely upon whether she wishes it to remain. This is as it should be.

The problem with this argument is that we compel behavior all the time from people.

Certain extant double standards do not constitute a basis to make more.

Moreover, does bodily sovereignty extend to control over natural processes?

Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The problem with this argument is that we compel behavior all the time from people.

Certain extant double standards do not constitute a basis to make more.

Moreover, does bodily sovereignty extend to control over natural processes?

Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.

Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.

[Katganistan]

If society's interests override your right to bodily sovereignty, we'd have forced organ donations and likely have banned abortions.

We do have one of these, in some places in the US.

[Jebslund]

1. He doesn't want to help them, he wants both of them to suffer because he thinks that a painless death is worse than a lifetime of agony.
2. Yeah, people have been saying that for 70 years, yet we still have a lot of the same problems we had back then. Hmm...

Tell you what, if you think that lifetime of suffering is worse than dying, why don't you go and kill disabled people?

"You think that a fetus that is going to be born with defects that people rarely survive, and, when they do, have a life-long uphill climb ahead of them in the best cases should be aborted before it ever gains awareness if the mother wishes to spare them that and herself the not-insignificant problems of raising such a child that she knows she is not prepared for. Why don't you go out and kill people who have adjusted to their lives and learned to live with their disabilities and are already aware?"

Because, at best, that would be locking the barn after the horses have gotten out, fled south of the border, and set up a stand on the beach selling seashells and tequila to tourists while flirting with every senorita with a half-decent body who comes by.

At worst, that would be murder, seeing as, at that point, we'd be talking about sapient people, not a nonsapient clump of cells.

Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.

Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.

Funny you should mention that. As no law has been made or even considered to stop attempts to halt that, nor are people compelled to do so, I would say aging does, in fact, fall within the purview of bodily sovereignty. As do other natural processes that people spend thousands of dollars annually attempting to/successfully reversing and/or halting.

[Kernen]

If society's interests override your right to bodily sovereignty, we'd have forced organ donations and likely have banned abortions.

We do have one of these, in some places in the US.

Wrongfully, yes.

[Katganistan]

Yo creo que el derecho de una persona a hacer lo que desee con su cuerpo está bien.Cualquiera debe poder tomar,fumar,usar drogas,ponerse tatuajes,operarse, etc.Las mujeres son y deben seguir siendo libres de hacer lo que quieran con sus cuerpos y el Estado o la Iglesia no se lo pueden prohibir.Pero en el caso del aborto es distinto porque desde el momento de la concepción se forma un ser humano distinto a la madre que y como la Declaración Universal de los derechos humanos defiende los derecho de cualquier ser humano este merece protecciónpor parte del Estado.

Usted malinterpreta la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, dado que el Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU afirma que el acceso al aborto y la prevención de la mortalidad materna son derechos humanos.

https://reproductiverights.org/press-ro ... tality-are.

You misunderstand the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, given that the UN Human Rights Committee Asserts that Access to Abortion and Prevention of Maternal Mortality are Human Rights.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Certain extant double standards do not constitute a basis to make more.



Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.

Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.

Don’t fucking split hairs over that kinda shit. All I hear is you trying to justify ‘The woman’s wishes don’t matter, Let the fetus finish!’ which to me is every bit as bad as ‘The woman’s wishes don’t matter, let the rapist finish!’.

I don’t fucking care if it is a ‘natural process’ or not, if the woman does not consent to the fetus’ presence then an aversive situation exists which the woman should have every right to rectify with immediacy and effect.

[Necroghastia]

Certain extant double standards do not constitute a basis to make more.



Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.

Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.

A lot of peoples' senses get duller as they get older. Should we ban glasses and hearing aids? They interfere with a natural process.
Cancer growth is also a natural process, should we ban treatment for that?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.

Don’t fucking split hairs over that kinda shit. All I hear is you trying to justify ‘The woman’s wishes don’t matter, Let the fetus finish!’ which to me is every bit as bad as ‘The woman’s wishes don’t matter, let the rapist finish!’.

I don’t fucking care if it is a ‘natural process’ or not, if the woman does not consent to the fetus’ presence then an aversive situation exists which the woman should have every right to rectify with immediacy and effect.

Comparing a fetus, which has done nothing at all, to a rapist, is neurotic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.

A lot of peoples' senses get duller as they get older. Should we ban glasses and hearing aids? They interfere with a natural process.
Cancer growth is also a natural process, should we ban treatment for that?

Treating the symptoms of natural processes (such as removing a tumor or palliative care for aging) is fine, but trying to stop nature (such as trying to reverse aging) is wrong.

[Necroghastia]

A lot of peoples' senses get duller as they get older. Should we ban glasses and hearing aids? They interfere with a natural process.
Cancer growth is also a natural process, should we ban treatment for that?

Treating the symptoms of natural processes (such as removing a tumor or palliative care for aging) is fine, but trying to stop nature (such as trying to reverse aging) is wrong.

Why?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Treating the symptoms of natural processes (such as removing a tumor or palliative care for aging) is fine, but trying to stop nature (such as trying to reverse aging) is wrong.

Why?

Because it is attempting to mold creation to our image. It is not possible without negative consequences, and will only be possible in truth when Christ has returned in power to abolish death forever.

[The New California Republic]

Why?

Because it is attempting to mold creation to our image. It is not possible without negative consequences, and will only be possible in truth when Christ has returned in power to abolish death forever.

I thought it had been a while since Jesus had invaded the thread...

[Necroghastia]

Why?

Because it is attempting to mold creation to our image. It is not possible without negative consequences, and will only be possible in truth when Christ has returned in power to abolish death forever.

We've been molding creation to our image since we've had tools.