This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The latest trend in pro-abortion thinking

#131RedcountPosted 2/20/2013 12:27:16 PM
And my thinking is "maybe".

What if it weren't injury, but simply freezing to death? What if he just sat on their lawn and turned into a popsicle?

As always, cases are distinguishable, and in addition to that, the law does change.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#132IvashankoPosted 2/20/2013 12:28:41 PM
2. In Canada (ref. Dobson v. Dobson), a mother will never be liable to her child for injuries sustained in utero, even if it is born alive.

I hate this rule. If you are going to drink an excessive amount during a pregnancy, please just abort the fetus early in its growth. Letting a human being be born in those conditions is torture, plain and simple, and people who let another go through that are as evil as those who torture others for a living.

As for the overall trend, I believe that early on abortions are acceptable, while latter abortions are not. Like what RedCount said, I suppose.
#133JIC XPosted 2/20/2013 12:46:08 PM
What if it weren't injury, but simply freezing to death? What if he just sat on their lawn and turned into a popsicle?

Again, we can only speculate.

I'm just going to fall back on general principle here.
It doesn't mean much to own a house if you can't control who's allowed to be in it.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#134JIC XPosted 2/20/2013 12:58:20 PM
And that's really where we should be starting the debate. Sure, we can't get legislation to prevent all abortions, but the later in gestation, the more people will agree that it should be prevented. So maybe we draw a line in the sand at eight months, or seven. That would be a hell of a lot better than the current vacuum.

Are we experiencing a rash of ultra late-term abortions that would warrant that?

Personally, I think the moment of birth is one of the few non-arbitrary lines you can draw on this issue. It's at that moment that the conflict of rights between mother and child ceases, for all practical purposes, to exist.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#135RedcountPosted 2/20/2013 1:16:47 PM
Are we experiencing a rash of ultra late-term abortions that would warrant that?

Some are performed. Probably much less than 1%. So why not throw a bone and agree that late-term abortions where the life of the mother is not in serious and immanent danger should not be permitted?

We shouldn't wait until there's a problem to put legislation in place. But yes, if there is one elective late-term abortion happening in this country, I'd say we have a prolem.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#136RedcountPosted 2/20/2013 1:19:51 PM
Ivashanko posted...

As for the overall trend, I believe that early on abortions are acceptable, while latter abortions are not. Like what RedCount said, I suppose.


Well, that's not what I said; I don't think elective abortions are okay at 8 months or 8 weeks. What I said is that we should try to reach common ground where we can, and that the lack of abortion law in Canada is so ridiculous that even allowing abortions in the first and second trimesters (still maintaining very liberal abortion legislation, compared to most of the world) would still be a step in the right direction. It would be a foot in the door, a beachhead to work from.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#137JIC XPosted 2/20/2013 1:25:22 PM
Some are performed. Probably much less than 1%. So why not throw a bone and agree that late-term abortions where the life of the mother is not in serious and immanent danger should not be permitted?

Well, it's in no small part because I don't think it'd be worth it to open that can of worms to address something that, if it's even a problem at all, is a very minor one.

Obviously, our Prime Minister feels the same way.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#138hunter_gohanPosted 2/20/2013 6:13:22 PM
Redcount posted...
So your counter to "I'm not religious, but I don't support is abortion" is "no, you really are religious!"

Religion deals with the supernatural. To have any belief in the rights of man requires religious belief?

It seems that you think anything other than nihilism is "religion".


It's a religious like belief to say that a fertilized egg requires special protections and privileges while sperm and unfertilized eggs don't. I see you didn't even attempt to show why a fertilized egg should receive these rights(that real actual sapient people don't even get) while sperm and unfertilized eggs don't. Literally the only thing to defend it is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Yes, it's called "duty of care". This can be established in many cases - such as for parents for their children.


You mean parents of children who can drop off their baby at a hospital or fire station with no repercussion? The parents that can put their kid up for adoption? Sure when you can teleport a fertilized egg out of an unwilling host and implant it into a willing or artificial one then go ahead and make abortion illegal. Until then you don't get to take rights over their own body away from women because you drew an arbitrary line in the sand.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#139Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/20/2013 6:51:55 PM
We're sapient. The great Athe, FSM, and IPU(PBUHHH) all agreed and told me that was wrong.

Do you not know what is wrong with killing humans?

No I'm showing you how "unique DNA" does not make a person. You recognize this the second you recognize identical twins are two different people. You recognize this the second you recognize a Chimera is only one person. Hint: The twins each have their own working brain; the Chimera has just one. Calling it up is merely an ad hoc bull excuse to defend your arbitrary line in the sand.

Being able to distinguish between one twin and the other merely by observation does not admit a recognition of unique DNA not being a person. It is supposed to be a fundamental way to display that the one human exists and another human exists. To be more fundamental you could examine the womb and discover two individual embryos. Or in the case of conjoined twins a partially split embryo.

You still have not explained why a brain denotes personhood.

Well I'd say it's assumed usually, but that's probably your passive. The existence of a person sure, but no a human at any stage of development does not have a desire to live. Sperm does not have a desire to live. That is as much a stage of human development as a fertilized egg no matter how much your side wishes to ignore that.

You have arbitrarily drawn the line between human and person; your person is capable of having passive preference to live. He or she is a person because they have a brain, but you don’t know why a brain denotes personhood. How could you even begin to draw this conclusion unless you could at least try to explain why the brain is important?

A sperm and an ovum of a human separately is no more a human than the sperm and ovum of bovine are cows in an early stage of development. A zygote is a determinate being, the big difference between them and the sperm/egg is that they will (without intervention) become almost exactly like us. A sperm alone does not become like us, an egg alone does not become like us no matter how long you wait around for it to happen. That is, essentially, how you tell the difference.

“but each sperm or egg might join therefore it is a human at an early stage of development”. The big difference between might be and is. It is like saying a hospice patient might be dead in a few weeks therefore we should treat him as such.

They're of the species human. Just like my hair is human, my fingers are human, my arm is human, my sperm is human etc. Absolutely none of those(including fertilized eggs) are people or human beings though.

You are saying that a fetus is another organ in a woman’s body before they have a brain?

To clarify a bit I don't actually know when a person is truly made. It's not some binary operation where it's "Not a person, not a person, not a person, bam a person." It's a continuous buildup. It's more like the color spectrum.

So… not a person, 1/8 a person, ¼ a person, 3/8 a person, ½ a person, 5/8 a person, ¾ a person, 1/1 A PERSON. Please explain what features leading up to thalamic brain activity add to the container to make a person. There are a few notable additions to speak of: heart, brain, limbs, fingers, brain waves, four appendages etc etc. Now according to you thalamic brain activity is not the end all be all for denoting personhood but that it is a “process”. Let’s find a veteran missing all of his limbs and is currently on bypass. Without these necessary additions to the human container does that mean the veteran is not a person? Is your theory seeming more arbitrary or is it just me?
#140Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/20/2013 6:56:23 PM
It's a religious like belief to say that a fertilized egg requires special protections and privileges while sperm and unfertilized eggs don't. I see you didn't even attempt to show why a fertilized egg should receive these rights(that real actual sapient people don't even get) while sperm and unfertilized eggs don't. Literally the only thing to defend it is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

If a beliefs ground is secular than it is not religious.

@Red Count: You know you have put Gohan in a corner when he starts throwing out unwarranted and misplaced informal fallacy accusations. The best thing to do is ignore it and drive on with his babble.