NationStates

Katganistan wrote:Oh, I long for the day when science will make it possible for *men* to be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Because the day a fetus can be removed from a woman who doesn't want it, and implanted into the man who insists he has a right to his child being born -- I forsee this entire argument ending.

When it's no longer a matter of, "The woman deciding what life is worth!" and more, "Well, *I* don't want it either!" that's when this idiocy will end.

If the woman doesn’t want it, but the father does...then the child is wanted by someone. Part of the pro-choice argument is to avoid unwanted pregnancies, well this pregnancy is wanted by the father. It is both their child. By this argument, if a father is not responsible for the child, they shouldn’t be responsible for child-support services either, when they decide to run off on their kids.

Napkiraly wrote:

The South Falls wrote:By principle, yes.

Translation: I support the killing of babies.

Translation: I can't be bothered to debate a dirty leftist, so I'm going to make a generalization that skirts all the technicalities and makes you out to be a horrible person!

I have the right to do with my body which I please even if I kill someone. This should apply outside of the womb as well. Who am I to be told that I cannot end another life?

Genivaria wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Eh, why? Adoption exists, and people still support laws against child abuse.

^this post is why.
Because apparently the 9 months where the woman's body is drastically altered, her immune system is weakened, and could possibly fucking die just isn't worthy of mentioning.

Nor the 50,000+ kids who age out before they're adopted.
Nor the fact that the foster system is woefully overfilled (over 108,000 kids waiting in foster care for an average of 8 YEARS before they are adopted) and unfortunately mismanaged occasionally to a catastrophic and newsworthy degree.

But hey, kids dying or being traumatized in foster care is better than them never being born.

Katganistan wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You mean babies that are conceived via in vitro fertilization?
That doesn't really settle the issue.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that a woman who is already pregnant. In vitro fertilization is used EXCLUSIVELY by people who WANT to become pregnant, but for some reason, can't without medical intervention.

Perhaps if the potential parents consent, it could be performed for cases where x parents want a child but y doesn't.

Might sound weird, buts it a large planet. I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of it, but it don't see why it couldn't be used by other people with different wants.

Since people on this thread seem to be on edge, please not I mentioned 'consenting'.

Now that I read this, I think I drifted off topic

The South Falls wrote:

Telconi wrote:
All pregnancies pose an eminent threat to the mother's life?

Small, but yes. And anyway, the mother has right over her body and to make those choices.

She does, but those are diminished when she is carrying her child within her. Chances are she is responsible for its conception. She has no right to kill a child unless that child is going to passively kill her.

Napkiraly wrote:I have the right to do with my body which I please even if I kill someone. This should apply outside of the womb as well. Who am I to be told that I cannot end another life?

Stop, stop, stop.


It does not apply to born people. It does to unborn non-people. They are not born, and therefore do not supersede the rights of the born.

Geneviev wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:There are extremely strict restrictions on late-term abortions. The main moral difference is that infanticide involves a person, while abortion does not.

There's no real difference.

Yes there is. There is a difference between infanticide and abortion. They are two distinct and clearly defined concepts. Muddying the waters by conflating the two isn't helpful.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ghost Land wrote:What exactly is the moral difference between infanticide and an abortion (at least very late term)?

There are extremely strict restrictions on late-term abortions. The main moral difference is that infanticide involves a person, while abortion does not.

Ghost Land wrote:Does it solely come down to whether the fetus/baby has actually been born, and that being the one factor that magically determines whether it's acceptable or unacceptable to kill said fetus/baby?

I didn't realise that personhood was magic. TIL...

So basically, what you're saying is that if it hasn't been born yet, it's basically just an inanimate object taking up space.

A quick Google search will reveal that fetuses begin having brain function about 43 days in, can hear from about 23 weeks in, and can detect light via its eyes from about 16 weeks in (having virtually fully developed eyes by 26 weeks). I'd imagine most fetuses just prior to an abortion are some combination of confused, alarmed, or terrified for their own lives.

I'm not going to let myself get dragged too far into this cesspit of a thread, considering it's late and I don't particularly like posting too much here in NSG anyway.

The South Falls wrote:

Telconi wrote:
All pregnancies pose an eminent threat to the mother's life?

Small, but yes. And anyway, the mother has right over her body and to make those choices.

I don't think you understand what eminent means.

Hrythingia wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Small, but yes. And anyway, the mother has right over her body and to make those choices.

She does, but those are diminished when she is carrying her child within her. Chances are she is responsible for its conception. She has no right to kill a child unless that child is going to passively kill her.

So does the fetus's right supersede the mothers?

Hrythingia wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Which is all of them.

No, most pregnancies are handled with routine and pose little credible threat to the mother's life.

My high school US History/World History/Student Council teacher died giving birth. *Most* pregnancies may end well in the US and other developed nations, but you don't know if you got one of the *most* pregnancies or one of the *some* pregnancies until the fecal matter has hit the rotary air ambulation device or the baby is born with no complications.

If you were handed a revolver with 100 chambers and told one contained a bullet, would you spin the wheel and pull the trigger if the result was 18 years of being expected to put in hard work and sacrifices to raise someone who may or may not appreciate it if you didn't feel you were up to the task?

The South Falls wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Translation: I support the killing of babies.

Translation: I can't be bothered to debate a dirty leftist, so I'm going to make a generalization that skirts all the technicalities and makes you out to be a horrible person!

I don't have to make you out to be a terrible person. You readily admitted that the only thing holding you back from killing a full formed human fetus is whether or not it's popped out of the vagina or not. That's a pretty fucking horrendous position to hold. Wouldn't be surprised if you'd support killing a child while it was in the birth canal since it's technically not born at that point. You might as well complete the journey and join the likes of Peter Singer and Joona Räsänen and go full pro-infanticide.

The South Falls wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:I have the right to do with my body which I please even if I kill someone. This should apply outside of the womb as well. Who am I to be told that I cannot end another life?

Stop, stop, stop.


It does not apply to born people. It does to unborn non-people. They are not born, and therefore do not supersede the rights of the born.

Why?

Telconi wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Empathy.

You do realize there are pro-life women right?

You do realize there are pro-choice men right?

Katganistan wrote:

Genivaria wrote:^this post is why.
Because apparently the 9 months where the woman's body is drastically altered, her immune system is weakened, and could possibly fucking die just isn't worthy of mentioning.

Nor the 50,000+ kids who age out before they're adopted.
Nor the fact that the foster system is woefully overfilled (over 108,000 kids waiting in foster care for an average of 8 YEARS before they are adopted) and unfortunately mismanaged occasionally to a catastrophic and newsworthy degree.

But hey, kids dying or being traumatized in foster care is better than them never being born.

They might go to a foster home, better kill em instead.
~Katganistan

Katganistan wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Because the stakes would be very different when they have to put their money where their mouth is.

You and I know the vast majority would nope the fuck outta there.

I mean the question "why does it need to be a man?" pretty much made my point.

Is this the ideal? So you prove the man doesn’t want the child after experiencing pregnancy. Congrats. Guys’ bodies aren’t made for pregnancy anyway. But not wanting to be pregnant does’g mean the dad doesn’t want to be the father. And let’s say your point is proven, the guy leaves, and the girl aborts. Who wins? Nobody. The girl is alone, the unwanted pregnancy is now just an unwanted pregnancy that’s dead, and the man is probably going to get some other girl pregnant, continuing the cycle. If you like Pyrrhic victories, then there you go.

Napkiraly wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Translation: I can't be bothered to debate a dirty leftist, so I'm going to make a generalization that skirts all the technicalities and makes you out to be a horrible person!

I don't have to make you out to be a terrible person. You readily admitted that the only thing holding you back from killing a full formed human fetus is whether or not it's popped out of the vagina or not. That's a pretty fucking horrendous position to hold. Wouldn't be surprised if you'd support killing a child while it was in the birth canal since it's technically not born at that point.

No. I don't. That's a child who is so close to being born, it's a null point. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, because the parents so not want the child. And this "popping out of the vagina" you seek to diminish is the beginning of human life. It's why we don't count age from conception.

Telconi wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Stop, stop, stop.


It does not apply to born people. It does to unborn non-people. They are not born, and therefore do not supersede the rights of the born.

Why?

The born are people.

New haven america wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Who said that? I didn't.

Then why did you never mention it?

Also a list of health problem caused by pregnancy: Weight gain, mood swings, hormonal issues, nausea, soreness and swelling in the joints and breasts, and an overall decreased quality of life. After pregnancy you have: Lack of bladder control, postpartum depression, blood pressure problems, gestational diabetes, bone density issues, cancer, etc...

Mere discomfort and inconvenience (to men who don't face it).

Ghost Land wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:There are extremely strict restrictions on late-term abortions. The main moral difference is that infanticide involves a person, while abortion does not.


I didn't realise that personhood was magic. TIL...

So basically, what you're saying is that if it hasn't been born yet, it's basically just an inanimate object taking up space.

A quick Google search will reveal that fetuses begin having brain function about 43 days in, can hear from about 23 weeks in, and can detect light via its eyes from about 16 weeks in (having virtually fully developed eyes by 26 weeks). I'd imagine most fetuses just prior to an abortion are some combination of confused, alarmed, or terrified for their own lives.

I'm not going to let myself get dragged too far into this cesspit of a thread, considering it's late and I don't particularly like posting too much here in NSG anyway.

So you made alot of irrelevant and unbacked claims and than tossed out an insult before running away.
2/10.

The South Falls wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Why?

The born are people.

Why is having been born the defining metric? Why is seperating human life into 'people' and 'not people' okay, by any qualification?

The South Falls wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:I don't have to make you out to be a terrible person. You readily admitted that the only thing holding you back from killing a full formed human fetus is whether or not it's popped out of the vagina or not. That's a pretty fucking horrendous position to hold. Wouldn't be surprised if you'd support killing a child while it was in the birth canal since it's technically not born at that point.

No. I don't. That's a child who is so close to being born, it's a null point. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, because the parents so not want the child. And this "popping out of the vagina" you seek to diminish is the beginning of human life. It's why we don't count age from conception.

The child is viable at 24 weeks. I was born at 32 weeks and survived. That’s a live baby, one that with support can survive and thrive.

The South Falls wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:I don't have to make you out to be a terrible person. You readily admitted that the only thing holding you back from killing a full formed human fetus is whether or not it's popped out of the vagina or not. That's a pretty fucking horrendous position to hold. Wouldn't be surprised if you'd support killing a child while it was in the birth canal since it's technically not born at that point.

No. I don't. That's a child who is so close to being born, it's a null point. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, because the parents so not want the child. And this "popping out of the vagina" you seek to diminish is the beginning of human life. It's why we don't count age from conception.

IIRC East Asian cultures traditionally counted age from conception, considering babies to be born at the age of one.

Telconi wrote:

Katganistan wrote:
Nor the 50,000+ kids who age out before they're adopted.
Nor the fact that the foster system is woefully overfilled (over 108,000 kids waiting in foster care for an average of 8 YEARS before they are adopted) and unfortunately mismanaged occasionally to a catastrophic and newsworthy degree.

But hey, kids dying or being traumatized in foster care is better than them never being born.

They might go to a foster home, better kill em instead.
~Katganistan

Apparently tossing straw everywhere is your only argument.