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

[Mithea III]

Can someone break down the bodily sovereignty argument? I know what it means but I find it unconvincing.

At it's core it's the argument that your right to control what happens to your body trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive.

Is there more nuance? For example, does it require the definition of the unborn being requiring sustenance from the mother for survival, and in turn being seeing as a negative that can be rectified by the mother, because without that distinction I can relate your definition to real world examples that would nullify it.

[Nyameow]

Here's a simple argument to shut you all up.
Do you call games in alpha-stage development "released"?
If not, why are you calling Fetuses "alive".

I think it tells a lot either regarding how much you value human life or how disconnected you are to reality that you compare fetuses to unreleased video games.

I value videogames a lot, you probably value unborn beings that have a giant pair of dark voids instead of eyes.

I don't like children, despite being a child (13 turning 14 this month).

I can barely look after myself, I don't believe I should look after anyone else.

I'd actually like to disconnect from reality considering how much of a bitch nature, physics and people are.

Advocate advancement, not rerolling.

[Vojelneit]

I think it tells a lot either regarding how much you value human life or how disconnected you are to reality that you compare fetuses to unreleased video games.

That tends to be how analogies work. It's typically understood that they aren't 1 to 1 comparisons.

It's a bad analogy. Those two things aren't comparable. Determining whether a fetus is alive or not is a matter of science and moral perspective and what's at stake is the life (or the potential life thereof) of a future human being. Determining whether an game in development is "released" is a question of very basic word interpretation (i.e. "does 'released' mean 'finished') and what's at stake are lines of code on a computer.

[Alvecia]

At it's core it's the argument that your right to control what happens to your body trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive.

Is there more nuance? For example, does it require the definition of the unborn being requiring sustenance from the mother for survival, and in turn being seeing as a negative that can be rectified by the mother, because without that distinction I can relate your definition to real world examples that would nullify it.

I don't think so. That rule tends to be pretty much applicable in all cases. Though I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?

[The New California Republic]

I feel like there is an argument for that definition of person being compatible at conception.

Is there indeed? What properties associated with personhood does a fused egg and sperm have that a person has?

[Alvecia]

That tends to be how analogies work. It's typically understood that they aren't 1 to 1 comparisons.

It's a bad analogy. Those two things aren't comparable. Determining whether a fetus is alive or not is a matter of science and moral perspective and what's at stake is the life (or the potential life thereof) of a future human being. Determining whether an game in development is "released" is a question of very basic word interpretation (i.e. "does 'released' mean 'finished') and what's at stake are lines of code on a computer.

I made no comment on the quality of the analogy, just that you probably shouldn't assume just because they're using video games as a comparison to real life, that they think video games are the same as real life.

[Great eddy]

"Child"? I thought child referred to a born being? Also, I am confused about your definition of person. A person is defined as "a human being regarded as an individual". I feel like there is an argument for that definition of person being compatible at conception.

Here's a simple argument to shut you all up.
Do you call games in alpha-stage development "released"?
If not, why are you calling Fetuses "alive".

Frankenstein didn't say "it's alive" while he was still working on his monster. (Yes, I'm using that as an example.)

A Fetus is developing. It will become a human, LATER.


And it's also pretty unnecessary to remove this Right in the first place.

Some people seriously cannot have children, like their life depends on not having any children.

Alpha games are released to testers, being partially released; just like a fetus is partially alive, they may not be smart enough to be aware of themselves and so they are partially conscious but their heart is pumping. With the Frankenstein analogy, the heart of the monster wasn't beating until he sparked life into them. A fetus's heart is beating and so that's the analogy deconstructed. Besides, know the consequences before doing the action, know the many risks before having sex.

In addition, even if the fetus isn't considered alive, it will be in the future and that isn't murder. It's the absolute deletion of what could've been a successful happy person, the absolute deletion of a human being, the destruction of someone who didn't have a chance to even be born, if that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I have no idea what will...

[Vojelneit]

I think it tells a lot either regarding how much you value human life or how disconnected you are to reality that you compare fetuses to unreleased video games.

I value videogames a lot,

Alright. That's cool. Now if you value them as much as human beings to the point of comparing human life to lines of code, I think there's something quite negative in your mindset, no offense.

you probably value unborn beings that have a giant pair of dark voids instead of eyes.

You have obviously never seen an abortion. It's quite a nasty process. And just because their body isn't fully developed doesn't mean they're not human beings.

I don't like children, despite being a child (13 turning 14 this month).

Alright? So you don't like children and that's why you support abortion? You support unborn babies being killed in the womb of their mother because you don't like children? Lol. Is that what I'm supposed to understand, or am I missing your point?

I can barely look after myself, I don't believe I should look after anyone else.

Then use contraceptives. And learn to look after yourself, you're almost 14 buddy.

I'd actually like to disconnect from reality considering how much of a bitch nature, physics and people are.

I didn't need this information but ok.

[Mithea III]

Is there more nuance? For example, does it require the definition of the unborn being requiring sustenance from the mother for survival, and in turn being seeing as a negative that can be rectified by the mother, because without that distinction I can relate your definition to real world examples that would nullify it.

I don't think so. That rule tends to be pretty much applicable in all cases. Though I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?

"At it's core it's the argument that your right to control what happens to your body trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff and letting go.
"your right to control what happens to your body"
Letting go. My hands, my control.
"trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff. Needs my body to stay alive.
Not discrediting bodily sovereignty, only saying that your definition requires more detail.

"For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?"
Comparing intervening action to non action. I am not actively killing the dying man by not giving him my kidney, his kidney failure is. In abortion, an action is taken to end a life that would not have died if left to natural processes.

[Alvecia]

I don't think so. That rule tends to be pretty much applicable in all cases. Though I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?

"At it's core it's the argument that your right to control what happens to your body trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff and letting go.
"your right to control what happens to your body"
Letting go. My hands, my control.
"trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff. Needs my body to stay alive.
Not discrediting bodily sovereignty, only saying that your definition requires more detail.

"For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?"
Comparing intervening action to non action. I am not actively killing the dying man by not giving him my kidney, his kidney failure is. In abortion, an action is taken to end a life that would not have died if left to natural processes.

I'd argue that holding someone's hand doesn't fit the definition of "using someone else's body" except in only the most literal, definitional sense, which is not what I was using in my initial statement.

If it helps the hypothetical, imagine you are already acting as a dialysis machine to the man in question. Should you have the right to disconnect from him, knowing it will kill him, or should you be forced to continue acting as his kidney?

[Mithea III]

I feel like there is an argument for that definition of person being compatible at conception.

Is there indeed? What properties associated with personhood does a fused egg and sperm have that a person has?

Well, to start, I have to point out that your use of person is different from the definition I pointed out. I am not arguing that there is a difference between a zygote and you and me. I simply alluded to the definition of person provided with a google search, "a human being regarded as an individual." A zygote, from conception, carries human DNA that differs from her mother as it is combined with the father. In my view, it is individual as a human as it has that human DNA and that DNA is individual from all others. Of course, you can argue against that definition of person, I am not claiming that it is absolute or even my reasoning for personhood in the unborn is absolute, I was just pointing out the person whose post I quoted's usage of person could be contested.

[Mithea III]

"At it's core it's the argument that your right to control what happens to your body trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff and letting go.
"your right to control what happens to your body"
Letting go. My hands, my control.
"trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff. Needs my body to stay alive.
Not discrediting bodily sovereignty, only saying that your definition requires more detail.

"For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?"
Comparing intervening action to non action. I am not actively killing the dying man by not giving him my kidney, his kidney failure is. In abortion, an action is taken to end a life that would not have died if left to natural processes.

I'd argue that holding someone's hand doesn't fit the definition of "using someone else's body" except in only the most literal, definitional sense, which is not what I was using in my initial statement.

If it helps the hypothetical, imagine you are already acting as a dialysis machine to the man in question. Should you have the right to disconnect from him, knowing it will kill him, or should you be forced to continue acting as his kidney?

"I'd argue that holding someone's hand doesn't fit the definition of "using someone else's body" except in only the most literal, definitional sense, which is not what I was using in my initial statement."
Well, you kind of defeat your own argument. How else am I supposed to read your definition other than the DEFINITIONAL sense? Especially when bodily sovereignty is the majority argument used on this thread, I belief there should be some concrete restrictions to what that does and doesn't entail, otherwise these scenarios occur.

"If it helps the hypothetical, imagine you are already acting as a dialysis machine to the man in question. Should you have the right to disconnect from him, knowing it will kill him, or should you be forced to continue acting as his kidney?"
I'm confused, am I a LITERAL dialysis machine? I might be lacking the required information to answer this analogy, so I'll wait for further clarification.

[The New California Republic]

Is there indeed? What properties associated with personhood does a fused egg and sperm have that a person has?

Well, to start, I have to point out that your use of person is different from the definition I pointed out. I am not arguing that there is a difference between a zygote and you and me. I simply alluded to the definition of person provided with a google search, "a human being regarded as an individual." A zygote, from conception, carries human DNA that differs from her mother as it is combined with the father. In my view, it is individual as a human as it has that human DNA and that DNA is individual from all others. Of course, you can argue against that definition of person, I am not claiming that it is absolute or even my reasoning for personhood in the unborn is absolute, I was just pointing out the person whose post I quoted's usage of person could be contested.

I should point out that the DNA argument doesn't hold water when you consider that tumours also have human DNA, DNA that is different from the person afflicted by it. Hence why that argument related to personhood would lead us to some absolutely fucking ridiculous conclusions...

[Alvecia]

I'd argue that holding someone's hand doesn't fit the definition of "using someone else's body" except in only the most literal, definitional sense, which is not what I was using in my initial statement.

If it helps the hypothetical, imagine you are already acting as a dialysis machine to the man in question. Should you have the right to disconnect from him, knowing it will kill him, or should you be forced to continue acting as his kidney?

"I'd argue that holding someone's hand doesn't fit the definition of "using someone else's body" except in only the most literal, definitional sense, which is not what I was using in my initial statement." Well, you kind of defeat your own argument. How else am I supposed to read your definition other than the DEFINITIONAL sense? Especially when bodily sovereignty is the majority argument used on this thread, I belief there should be some concrete restrictions to what that does and doesn't entail, otherwise these scenarios occur.

"If it helps the hypothetical, imagine you are already acting as a dialysis machine to the man in question. Should you have the right to disconnect from him, knowing it will kill him, or should you be forced to continue acting as his kidney?" I'm confused, am I a LITERAL dialysis machine? I might be lacking the required information to answer this analogy, so I'll wait for further clarification.

The statement was a broad one, never intended to be taken highly literally. I can revise it if you would like?

Dialysis is the practice of cycling a person's blood out of their body through a machine which cleans it, acting as an artificial kidney, before the blood is returned.
Imagine instead that the blood is cycled out of said person into you to be cleaned by your kidneys before cycling back out into the man in question.
You aren't the actual machine, you're just acting in it's stead.

[Mithea III]

Well, to start, I have to point out that your use of person is different from the definition I pointed out. I am not arguing that there is a difference between a zygote and you and me. I simply alluded to the definition of person provided with a google search, "a human being regarded as an individual." A zygote, from conception, carries human DNA that differs from her mother as it is combined with the father. In my view, it is individual as a human as it has that human DNA and that DNA is individual from all others. Of course, you can argue against that definition of person, I am not claiming that it is absolute or even my reasoning for personhood in the unborn is absolute, I was just pointing out the person whose post I quoted's usage of person could be contested.

I should point out that the DNA argument doesn't hold water when you consider that tumours also have human DNA, DNA that is different from the person afflicted by it. Hence why that argument related to personhood would lead us to some absolutely fucking ridiculous conclusions...

I am not aware of the details around dna in tumors, and I'm not going to pretend to. Could you give me some links that might help me? It sounds interesting and I want to be more aware when I give an argument. I looked it up on google and found tDNA, is that what you were referring to?

[Mithea III]

"I'd argue that holding someone's hand doesn't fit the definition of "using someone else's body" except in only the most literal, definitional sense, which is not what I was using in my initial statement." Well, you kind of defeat your own argument. How else am I supposed to read your definition other than the DEFINITIONAL sense? Especially when bodily sovereignty is the majority argument used on this thread, I belief there should be some concrete restrictions to what that does and doesn't entail, otherwise these scenarios occur.

"If it helps the hypothetical, imagine you are already acting as a dialysis machine to the man in question. Should you have the right to disconnect from him, knowing it will kill him, or should you be forced to continue acting as his kidney?" I'm confused, am I a LITERAL dialysis machine? I might be lacking the required information to answer this analogy, so I'll wait for further clarification.

The statement was a broad one, never intended to be taken highly literally. I can revise it if you would like?

Dialysis is the practice of cycling a person's blood out of their body through a machine which cleans it, acting as an artificial kidney, before the blood is returned.
Imagine instead that the blood is cycled out of said person into you to be cleaned by your kidneys before cycling back out into the man in question.
You aren't the actual machine, you're just acting in it's stead.

Could you please revise it?

"Imagine instead that the blood is cycled out of said person into you to be cleaned by your kidneys before cycling back out into the man in question.
You aren't the actual machine, you're just acting in it's stead."
Is this possible? I'm sorry for asking so many questions, but I don't have any knowledge of this, and thankfully so.

[The New California Republic]

I should point out that the DNA argument doesn't hold water when you consider that tumours also have human DNA, DNA that is different from the person afflicted by it. Hence why that argument related to personhood would lead us to some absolutely fucking ridiculous conclusions...

I am not aware of the details around dna in tumors, and I'm not going to pretend to. Could you give me some links that might help me? It sounds interesting and I want to be more aware when I give an argument. I looked it up on google and found tDNA, is that what you were referring to?

Not on my computer at the moment, so finding links is difficult, but suffice it to say that tumours have DNA that is different from the host, giving it the property of being "individual".

[Alvecia]

The statement was a broad one, never intended to be taken highly literally. I can revise it if you would like?

Dialysis is the practice of cycling a person's blood out of their body through a machine which cleans it, acting as an artificial kidney, before the blood is returned.
Imagine instead that the blood is cycled out of said person into you to be cleaned by your kidneys before cycling back out into the man in question.
You aren't the actual machine, you're just acting in it's stead.

Could you please revise it?

"Imagine instead that the blood is cycled out of said person into you to be cleaned by your kidneys before cycling back out into the man in question.
You aren't the actual machine, you're just acting in it's stead."
Is this possible? I'm sorry for asking so many questions, but I don't have any knowledge of this, and thankfully so.

I'll give it some thought.

Hypothetically. It certainly not likely to occur, particularly in this day and age, but then is that not the point of hypotheticals?

[Mithea III]

I am not aware of the details around dna in tumors, and I'm not going to pretend to. Could you give me some links that might help me? It sounds interesting and I want to be more aware when I give an argument. I looked it up on google and found tDNA, is that what you were referring to?

Not on my computer at the moment, so finding links is difficult, but suffice it to say that tumours have DNA that is different from the host, giving it the property of being "individual".

Its fine, ill dig deeper myself.

[Nyameow]

Is there more nuance? For example, does it require the definition of the unborn being requiring sustenance from the mother for survival, and in turn being seeing as a negative that can be rectified by the mother, because without that distinction I can relate your definition to real world examples that would nullify it.

I don't think so. That rule tends to be pretty much applicable in all cases. Though I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?

Nobody should be forced.
Nobody.
Just like how nobody should be forced to have a child.

[Mithea III]

Could you please revise it?

"Imagine instead that the blood is cycled out of said person into you to be cleaned by your kidneys before cycling back out into the man in question.
You aren't the actual machine, you're just acting in it's stead."
Is this possible? I'm sorry for asking so many questions, but I don't have any knowledge of this, and thankfully so.

I'll give it some thought.

Hypothetically. It certainly not likely to occur, particularly in this day and age, but then is that not the point of hypotheticals?

"Hypothetically. It certainly not likely to occur, particularly in this day and age, but then is that not the point of hypotheticals?"
Well, not if you are asking me to compare child bearing to something that doesn't exist. Anyways, the logic I used before doesn't change. My kidneys or not, I'm not causing his death, his own kidney failure is. Whether I choose to help and then decide against it later doesn't change that point.

[The New California Republic]

Not on my computer at the moment, so finding links is difficult, but suffice it to say that tumours have DNA that is different from the host, giving it the property of being "individual".

Its fine, ill dig deeper myself.

Here is a good primer though, that I remembered off the top of my head, as well as a diagram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenesis



EDIT: Back on my computer now. Come to think of it, having looked at that wiki page on a bigger screen, it gives a great overview of what I was talking about. But here are some more:
https://www.cancer.net/navigating-cance ... ics-cancer

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about- ... cancer#dna

[Alvecia]

I'll give it some thought.

Hypothetically. It certainly not likely to occur, particularly in this day and age, but then is that not the point of hypotheticals?

Hypothetically. It certainly not likely to occur, particularly in this day and age, but then is that not the point of hypotheticals?
Well, not if you are asking me to compare child bearing to something that doesn't exist. Anyways, the logic I used before doesn't change. My kidneys or not, I'm not causing his death, his own kidney failure is. Whether I choose to help and then decide against it later doesn't change that point.

Eh, hypotheticals never really exist. They're used to create a specific circumstance. How likely said circumstance actually is is rather irrelevant.

You previous point was that there is a difference between action and inaction, so I modify the hypothetical so that you have to take action to cause this person's death (disconnecting).
Using your logic here, then "actively" aborting a foetus is not actually action, just inaction. It isn't you that is killing them, simply their inability to survive outside of the womb.

[Estanglia]

Here's a simple argument to shut you all up.
Do you call games in alpha-stage development "released"?
If not, why are you calling Fetuses "alive".

Frankenstein didn't say "it's alive" while he was still working on his monster. (Yes, I'm using that as an example.)

A Fetus is developing. It will become a human, LATER.


And it's also pretty unnecessary to remove this Right in the first place.

Some people seriously cannot have children, like their life depends on not having any children.

Alpha games are released to testers, being partially released; just like a fetus is partially alive, they may not be smart enough to be aware of themselves and so they are partially conscious but their heart is pumping. With the Frankenstein analogy, the heart of the monster wasn't beating until he sparked life into them. A fetus's heart is beating and so that's the analogy deconstructed. Besides, know the consequences before doing the action, know the many risks before having sex.

In addition, even if the fetus isn't considered alive, it will be in the future and that isn't murder. It's the absolute deletion of what could've been a successful happy person, the absolute deletion of a human being, the destruction of someone who didn't have a chance to even be born, if that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I have no idea what will...

It could also have been a serial killer.

[Jebslund]

Here's a simple argument to shut you all up.
Do you call games in alpha-stage development "released"?
If not, why are you calling Fetuses "alive".

Frankenstein didn't say "it's alive" while he was still working on his monster. (Yes, I'm using that as an example.)

A Fetus is developing. It will become a human, LATER.


And it's also pretty unnecessary to remove this Right in the first place.

Some people seriously cannot have children, like their life depends on not having any children.

Alpha games are released to testers, being partially released; just like a fetus is partially alive, they may not be smart enough to be aware of themselves and so they are partially conscious but their heart is pumping. With the Frankenstein analogy, the heart of the monster wasn't beating until he sparked life into them. A fetus's heart is beating and so that's the analogy deconstructed. Besides, know the consequences before doing the action, know the many risks before having sex.

In addition, even if the fetus isn't considered alive, it will be in the future and that isn't murder. It's the absolute deletion of what could've been a successful happy person, the absolute deletion of a human being, the destruction of someone who didn't have a chance to even be born, if that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I have no idea what will...

Forcing a woman to be essentially enslaved to a nonsapient being based solely on the argument that "Well, what if they become a successful, happy person in the future but you just prevented that!" being presented as if the nonsapient clump of cells has any way of knowing the difference. Seeing women as incubators that exist solely to have children, with no inherent value or rights. A child being forced to go through the traumatic experience of a pregnancy her body isn't ready for because some self-righteous "protector of life" decided that her getting an abortion was the greater evil, and possibly dying horrifically as a result so said self-righteous moral guardian can pat him or herself on the back and say, "Well, at least the sanctity of life was preserved!" and then ignore the deaths of sapient children who never found a home and starved or dehydrated or were passed around from house to house and then promptly abandoned at age 18 with no support network, no livelihood, and no hope.