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

[Akrisen]

Abortion for pure hedonism(I cant get no man if Im a single mom!) is morally wrong and psychopathic, but ones done for medical or rape reasons is perfectly neutral.

[Crysuko]

Abortion for pure hedonism(I cant get no man if Im a single mom!) is morally wrong and psychopathic, but ones done for medical or rape reasons is perfectly neutral.

as usual, the only """""argument""""" against is bleeding heart emotional appeals

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Abortion for pure hedonism(I cant get no man if Im a single mom!) is morally wrong and psychopathic, but ones done for medical or rape reasons is perfectly neutral.

This is such an insulting view of women. You actually think that there is any sort of significant demographic that goes and gets abortions simply to appeal to men? Not to mention you view not forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy conceived by rape as just "neutral" or "meh".

[San Lumen]

Abortion for pure hedonism(I cant get no man if Im a single mom!) is morally wrong and psychopathic, but ones done for medical or rape reasons is perfectly neutral.

Who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body?

[San Lumen]

A rape or incest victim should be be forced to carry to term a child they didn’t want?

First off, I want to point out that this case scenario is very rare. Secondly, no present-day law has been enacted to punish the child for the crimes of the father, it's illogical. It is a similar scenario here, the child should not be put to death because of the crimes of the father.

If a fetus is person why doesn’t the census count them? If a fetus is a person why don’t we give pregnant women two votes in an election?

Like I said before. A fetus is not legally a person, that is why the census doesn't count pregnant women twice, despite that, however, a fetus is still human.

1. By your logic, killing bacteria is a cardinal sin.

What I meant by making this point is intentionally killing human life is wrong.

3. The fetus cannot feel pain, it cannot suffer as the procedure is impalpable. Therefore it is merely in one minute, and out another.

That's like saying poisoning somebody in their sleep is justifiable because they can't feel it. That doesn't make any sense.

Irrelevant and incorrect. The fetus cannot breathe until such time as it is born. The fetus can neither respond to the environment nor move in any sort of meaningful fashion until the 24th-ish week at which point its brain has begun to exhibit coherent synaptic patterns.

Actually, fetal blood is exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen through the umbilical cord, respiration. The fetus grows and developes as a result of the environment.

Also irrelevant. Killing in self-Defense is perfectly justified, and a woman's body being used without her consent rather immediately qualifies as such.

If the fetus is not intentionally causing harm, then it isn't self defense.

And why should someone be forced to have child they dont want?

If a fetus legally is a person perhaps we should consider counting them in the census and allowing pregnant woman to vote twice.

You do not have a right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body. If a fetus is a person and they dont want to be pregnant they are using their body without their consent.

[Godular]

Abortion for pure hedonism(I cant get no man if Im a single mom!) is morally wrong and psychopathic, but ones done for medical or rape reasons is perfectly neutral.

That you think women actually use that as a reason to seek out abortion services says a lot more about you than it does about anything else.

[Runtopia]

That is not breathing, nor does it address the fact that this portion of your argument is functionally irrelevant.

Breathing in mammals involves providing oxygen to blood cells and then removing carbon dioxide from the cells. A developed human does this with their lungs. An embryo does it with the umbilical cord. It's still breathing, just not what we first think of breathing.

Incorrect again.
It is inhabiting the woman's body without her consent, contributing to a situation in which any number of life-threatening complications can take place at any time with zero warning, and taking resources from her body. All three of these are harms. Whether it intends such harm or not is similarly irrelevant. So long as the harmful situation exists, the woman retains (and very much SHOULD retain) the right to rectify the situation with immediacy and effect.

There are other alternatives to save a woman's life that isn't abortion if her life were to be endangered. Instead of abortion, you can treat the problem. Such as if there is a cancerous uterus, instead of aborting the fetus, you can treat the cancer with chemotherapy. Yes, the embryo might die, but you are not purposely killing it. It's like if their is two people drowning in the ocean, you are not going to purposely drown one person to save the other. That doesn't make any sense. Yes one person would die but you didn't kill that person.

And why should someone be forced to have child they dont want?

This is the most unjustifiable reason for abortion. That is like shooting someone because you don't like them. It's inhumane and morally wrong.

If a fetus legally is a person perhaps we should consider counting them in the census and allowing pregnant woman to vote twice.

Like I said twice before, they are not legally people but they are still human.

You do not have a right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body. If a fetus is a person and they dont want to be pregnant they are using their body without their consent.

A lot of things happen without your consent. An employer doesn't ask for the employee's consent to get fired. If everything happened based off of your consent, society would not be functional.

[Northern Davincia]

First off, I want to point out that this case scenario is very rare. Secondly, no present-day law has been enacted to punish the child for the crimes of the father, it's illogical. It is a similar scenario here, the child should not be put to death because of the crimes of the father.

Like I said before. A fetus is not legally a person, that is why the census doesn't count pregnant women twice, despite that, however, a fetus is still human.

What I meant by making this point is intentionally killing human life is wrong.

That's like saying poisoning somebody in their sleep is justifiable because they can't feel it. That doesn't make any sense.

Actually, fetal blood is exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen through the umbilical cord, respiration. The fetus grows and developes as a result of the environment.

If the fetus is not intentionally causing harm, then it isn't self defense.

1. And why should someone be forced to have child they dont want?

2. If a fetus legally is a person perhaps we should consider counting them in the census and allowing pregnant woman to vote twice.

3. You do not have a right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body. If a fetus is a person and they dont want to be pregnant they are using their body without their consent.

1. Because killing children is wrong.
2. Why would pregnant women vote twice? The fetus, obviously, isn't 18.
3. I see you wish to repeal all drug/alcohol laws. Going beyond that, telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies has existed in every government ever.

[Kowani]

1. Because killing children is wrong.

Illogical statements are not valid for policy building in a secular society.

[Northern Davincia]

1. Because killing children is wrong.

Illogical statements are not valid for policy building in a secular society.

You actually have to explain why it's illogical.

[Akrisen]

Abortion for pure hedonism(I cant get no man if Im a single mom!) is morally wrong and psychopathic, but ones done for medical or rape reasons is perfectly neutral.

This is such an insulting view of women. You actually think that there is any sort of significant demographic that goes and gets abortions simply to appeal to men? Not to mention you view not forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy conceived by rape as just "neutral" or "meh".

Its neutral because I cannot in anyway call the killing of unborn humans as morally good in any manner.

Who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body?

Just a guy concerned about the rationalization of killing unborn children for selfish purposes.

[Kowani]

Illogical statements are not valid for policy building in a secular society.

You actually have to explain why it's illogical.

Unless you start speaking of mathematics or events that actually happened, something is not “wrong.”

[Northern Davincia]

You actually have to explain why it's illogical.

Unless you start speaking of mathematics or events that actually happened, something is not “wrong.”

Mathematics and events do not dictate morality. They can be contributing factors, certainly, but they are not the root of morality.

[Akrisen]

1. Because killing children is wrong.

Illogical statements are not valid for policy building in a secular society.

Ok dude lets say I killed your little sister with a hammer, would you consider me an evil monster? Of course you would if you arent a sociopath that feels nothing for her, so when humans say killing children is wrong then it is correct. It doesnt matter if the killing of the child is logical or not, why if we based things on pure logic alot of the so called human rights we have right now would never exist because human rights are not logical. Who cares if you die in factory as long as you can work to create the resource, who cares if a woman dies in a childbirth she made a human a logical purpose. Therefore to those who admire logic realize you are advocating for a world devoid of freedom, emotion, expression, and above all else humanity.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

This is such an insulting view of women. You actually think that there is any sort of significant demographic that goes and gets abortions simply to appeal to men? Not to mention you view not forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy conceived by rape as just "neutral" or "meh".

Its neutral because I cannot in anyway call the killing of unborn humans as morally good in any manner.

Who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body?

Just a guy concerned about the rationalization of killing unborn children for selfish purposes.

Not forcing a woman to carry her rapists child is a selfish purpose? The fuck? It's good to know that you hold the supposed rights if a fetus over those of actual women.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Abortion for pure hedonism(I cant get no man if Im a single mom!) is morally wrong and psychopathic, but ones done for medical or rape reasons is perfectly neutral.

That you think women actually use that as a reason to seek out abortion services says a lot more about you than it does about anything else.

Ah yes. The hedonism argument. I guess he thinks women like to get abortions like they like to get manicures.

[Kowani]

Unless you start speaking of mathematics or events that actually happened, something is not “wrong.”

Mathematics and events do not dictate morality. They can be contributing factors, certainly, but they are not the root of morality.

That wasn’t what I was saying, but okay.

Illogical statements are not valid for policy building in a secular society.

Ok dude lets say I killed your little sister with a hammer, would you consider me an evil monster?

…You have a lot to learn about Nihilism, huh?

Of course you would if you arent a sociopath that feels nothing for her, so when humans say killing children is wrong then it is correct.

This is a non sequitor.

It doesnt matter if the killing of the child is logical or not,

No, it very much does matter. If something is illogical, there is no reason to do it.

why if we based things on pure logic alot of the so called human rights we have right now would never exist because human rights are not logical.

Yeah, that’s untrue.

Who cares if you die in factory as long as you can work to create the resource,

A society where the majority of the workers continuously die in factories will not long last in that form. It is both economically inefficient on a societal scale, as well as unworkable in the long term.

who cares if a woman dies in a childbirth she made a human a logical purpose.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Therefore to those who admire logic realize you are advocating for a world devoid of freedom, emotion, expression, and above all else humanity.

Fearmongering and scare tactics. Got anything based on reality?

[Akrisen]

Its neutral because I cannot in anyway call the killing of unborn humans as morally good in any manner.



Just a guy concerned about the rationalization of killing unborn children for selfish purposes.

Not forcing a woman to carry her rapists child is a selfish purpose? The fuck? It's good to know that you hold the supposed rights if a fetus over those of actual women.

I said that if the baby was created by rape then its fine to abort it.

[Highever]

Not forcing a woman to carry her rapists child is a selfish purpose? The fuck? It's good to know that you hold the supposed rights if a fetus over those of actual women.

I said that if the baby was created by rape then its fine to abort it.

Albeit begrudgingly and reluctantly it would appear. It's pretty startling you have any sort of reservations about it at all to be honest. Doesnt change the fact you still have a pretty wretched misconception of why women get abortions, thinking that a major reason is to appeal to men.

[Godular]

Illogical statements are not valid for policy building in a secular society.

You actually have to explain why it's illogical.

They are not children, and 'wrong' is a subjective value judgement.

Unless you start speaking of mathematics or events that actually happened, something is not “wrong.”

Mathematics and events do not dictate morality. They can be contributing factors, certainly, but they are not the root of morality.

One thing that it is the heart of is logic. Which is really the point here.

[Akrisen]

Mathematics and events do not dictate morality. They can be contributing factors, certainly, but they are not the root of morality.

That wasn’t what I was saying, but okay.

Ok dude lets say I killed your little sister with a hammer, would you consider me an evil monster?

…You have a lot to learn about Nihilism, huh?

Of course you would if you arent a sociopath that feels nothing for her, so when humans say killing children is wrong then it is correct.

This is a non sequitor.

It doesnt matter if the killing of the child is logical or not,

No, it very much does matter. If something is illogical, there is no reason to do it.

why if we based things on pure logic alot of the so called human rights we have right now would never exist because human rights are not logical.

Yeah, that’s untrue.

Who cares if you die in factory as long as you can work to create the resource,

A society where the majority of the workers continuously die in factories will not long last in that form. It is both economically inefficient on a societal scale, as well as unworkable in the long term.

who cares if a woman dies in a childbirth she made a human a logical purpose.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Therefore to those who admire logic realize you are advocating for a world devoid of freedom, emotion, expression, and above all else humanity.

Fearmongering and scare tactics. Got anything based on reality?

Tell me whats most logical rehabilitating criminals, killing criminals, or inserting brain control devices to prevent any criminal behavior?
The brain control device of course all humans are potential workers to support the nation so killing them is a lost, now it doesnt matter if they consent to the brain control chip because again this about logic not stupid emotions so only this would be used as it eliminates the issue of crime altogether. Ask an A.I how to create world peace it would probably respond with killing all humans because logically speaking no humans means no more wars so world peace as there is no longer a world to speak of.

[Kowani]

Tell me whats most logical rehabilitating criminals, killing criminals, or inserting brain control devices to prevent any criminal behavior?

Ignoring that we don’t have those for a second, rehabilitation.

The brain control device of course all humans are potential workers to support the nation so killing them is a lost,

Another reason to be against the death penalty.

now it doesnt matter if they consent to the brain control chip because again this about logic not stupid emotions

Actually, that’s not the reason for my opposition.

so only this would be used as it eliminates the issue of crime altogether.

Not in the slightest, mate.

Ask an A.I how to create world peace it would probably respond with killing all humans because logically speaking no humans means no more wars so world peace as there is no longer a world to speak of.

…No? You’d have to wage a war to do that, and the majority of the population isn’t on the kill everybody side. In attempting to do that (and ignoring evolution once more), you’d kick off another world war.

[Northern Davincia]

Mathematics and events do not dictate morality. They can be contributing factors, certainly, but they are not the root of morality.

That wasn’t what I was saying, but okay.

If you're referring solely to statistical/historical wrongness, it does not make moral wrongness illogical.

You actually have to explain why it's illogical.

They are not children, and 'wrong' is a subjective value judgement.

The phrases "unborn child" or "she is with child" would not exist centuries before the abortion debate if they weren't children.

[Godular]

That wasn’t what I was saying, but okay.

…You have a lot to learn about Nihilism, huh?
This is a non sequitor.
No, it very much does matter. If something is illogical, there is no reason to do it.
Yeah, that’s untrue.

A society where the majority of the workers continuously die in factories will not long last in that form. It is both economically inefficient on a societal scale, as well as unworkable in the long term.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Fearmongering and scare tactics. Got anything based on reality?

Tell me whats most logical rehabilitating criminals, killing criminals, or inserting brain control devices to prevent any criminal behavior?

Rehabilitation is the most cost effective, and actually exists.

The brain control device of course all humans are potential workers to support the nation so killing them is a lost, now it doesnt matter if they consent to the brain control chip because again this about logic not stupid emotions so only this would be used as it eliminates the issue of crime altogether.

Basing your counterpoint on a thing-that-doesn't-exist only serves to reinforce the point you're arguing against. Further case in point:

Ask an A.I how to create world peace it would probably respond with killing all humans because logically speaking no humans means no more wars so world peace as there is no longer a world to speak of.

This is like the exact opposite of the appeal to ignorance fallacy... while still remaining a fallacy. I wonder if it has a name... the appeal to dystopia? Appeal to talking out of your ass? Hmm...

[Kowani]

That wasn’t what I was saying, but okay.

If you're referring solely to statistical/historical wrongness, it does not make moral wrongness illogical.

No, I was just pointing them out as examples of things that can be objectively wrong, such as saying “the Holocaust didn’t happen!”, or “2+2= |5|

Moral wrongness in and of itself is still illogical.