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

Peter Heck video - "The Sound of Abortion"

#71TheRealJiraiyaPosted 1/30/2013 11:33:40 PM
lasthero posted...
kts123 posted...
I dunno, I'd rather you call me a misogynist than a genocidal baby killer. I feel one carries a little more weight than the other. I've known misogynists. My father's a misogynist. I've never met someone who gets pleasure from killing babies, but I imagine such a person would be noticeably less pleasant.


Hey now, I feel ya. But take a look at this (I snagged this from the Politics board.)

"pro-'lifers' are scum who only pretend to care about abortion as an excuse to punish women who fail in their duty as docile obedient babymakers"

Both sides manage to piss pretty good, if you ask me. I think this contest is a neck and neck race!


There is a considerable difference between implying that someone has a negative view towards women and implying that someone takes pleasure in the unmitigated slaughter of countless babies. I'm not saying either are justified, but one is a bit more extreme than the other.

Unless, of course, the subject in question actually is a misogynist or a baby mass murderer. I've seen a few on the pro-life that I would definitely call misogynists - not many at all, of course, but a small few. How many on the pro-choice side have you seen that are actual, real baby slaughtering psychopaths?


http://www.jillstanek.com/cartoon%20obama%20no%20survivors.gif
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#72JonWood007Posted 1/31/2013 12:06:54 AM
It can feel pain, yes, but I'm not sure how meaningful that is. Animals we slaughter for food can feel pain too. That (at least alone) doesn't seem to determine whether or not it is acceptable to terminate a life. Especially if we end the life in a painless way.


Fair enough, still leery because we're talking about a human fetus though.

And the ability to live outside the womb isn't the best metric for personhood either, IMO. It seems attractive at first because it doesn't seem like an arbitrary thing, but it kinda is arbitrary. How do premature babies survive outside the womb? With the help of modern medicine. And we're able to save younger and younger fetuses all the time. It's not a terribly big assumption the think that eventually we'll be able to grow humans ex utero at any stage of development. So "surviving outside the womb" is simply determined by how good our technology is. That doesn't seem to be a good marker for personhood.


True, but removing it from the womb kind of negates the need for abortion. Remove it, put it up for adoption. Problem solved.

My argument is pretty simple. If a newborn is a person, then a full-term fetus is a person because there's no appreciable difference in them other than location, one in a womb and one not. That's the basis for pre-birth personhood.


At what point would you say abortion is unacceptable though, and what criteria? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to be the "life begins at conception" type.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#73AynRandySavagePosted 1/31/2013 12:28:45 AM(edited)
Why can't the line between person and non-person be arbitrary? And why must the decision on whether something merits "personhood" rest solely on the properties of the thing itself?

Here's a pretty simple way of looking at it:

There is a Philosophical person, and a legal Person.

The former is a conscious, thinking being, which knows that it is a person.

the latter is whatever the law treats like the former.

In the interest of having laws that fit society, it's logical to treat all philosophical persons as legal persons.

In the interests of satisfying our own personal whims, its logical to treat babies as legal persons, despite the fact that they are not philosophical persons

Treating fetuses as people, however, is problematic. If we treat a fetus as a person, as we may personally desire to do, it conflicts with a the rights this society confers upon people. Thus we must either diminish or dismiss the personhood of women, or we must diminish and dismiss the personhood of fetuses. As much as I'd like everyone to make the choice to respect the rights of women of their own volition, it's not really necessary, as there's not really a choice. Women, being philosophical people, have to be treated as actual people, so the personhood of fetuses doesn't stand a chance.


The only possible way around to make fetuses and women both people is to take away the right of people to sovereignty over their bodies.
#74IamvegitoPosted 1/31/2013 12:34:51 AM
Aww... if only they cared about fetuses after they were born, or their mothers, I'd let them take the label "pro life."
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#75AynRandySavagePosted 1/31/2013 12:37:16 AM
Iamvegito posted...
Aww... if only they cared about fetuses after they were born, or their mothers, I'd let them take the label "pro life."


There really are a lot of pro-life people who are in favor of social safety nets and ways of helping children and their families. I was one of them years ago.
#76PatriotwolfPosted 1/31/2013 2:01:09 AM
BFaust_8 posted...
Or maybe we find it more emotionally distressing to take away reproductive rights and demote women to walking uteri than it is it to terminate non-sentient dividing cells.

We don't lack feeling about it. Many of us aren't even sure we could get an abortion ourselves. But we know it's wrong to deny that right.

I think furries are weird, that doesn't stop me from saying they should be free to do it. I don't like the idea of abortion either, but it's not something you can just take away and pretend everything will be fine.

Also, animals can suffer. Animals can feel pain and loss and fear. Early fetuses cannot. So you can't equate the two or point out a hypocrisy, there is none.


I believe, with certain exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother etc...) That anything that can become life deserves to have that chance. Abortion has been made into a political issue, a moral one, and a religious one. However, I think it is none of those, I believe it is ethical, and aside from certain situations, an act of cowardice by.people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Don't want to risk having a kid? Then don't have sex or at least double up on protection.

To be honest, the question shouldnt be when you think life begins, but rather, what is your definition of something that is alive.

---
"You're just one big headache, and I got a pistol full of aspirin"
"Who cares if you screw others?"-1337toothbrush
#77dkcprjePosted 1/31/2013 2:05:42 AM
How about the birth of consciousness? First couple of terms, the fetus experiences nothing. It's not that there is a temporary absence of consciousness, either. It hasn't been established yet. So why does having an abortion have greater implications than choosing not to have the child I daydreamt of having with my sexy sixth grade English teacher?
---
"...says the guy who thinks a woman consents if she doesn't scream." "In that context, yes. It was consent. Get over it." - Numba1linesmen
#78LastManStandingPosted 1/31/2013 6:11:33 AM
Abortion is a pre-meditated murder, involving not only the mother but all people who support the process. Repent.
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#79lastheroPosted 1/31/2013 7:07:35 AM(edited)
That anything that can become life deserves to have that chance.


Every sperm cell is potentially a human life. Do you save your sperm?

I believe it is ethical, and aside from certain situations, an act of cowardice by.people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Don't want to risk having a kid? Then don't have sex or at least double up on protection.


Once again, society doesn't work that way. We don't punish people who make mistakes by refusing to give them them help after the fact. We give unemployment to people who lose their jobs, we give treatments to smokers who get lung cancer, we offer programs to people who get hooked on drugs, et cetera. We could and do encourage people not to fall into such problems in the first place, but we also look for way to deal with the problem after the damage has been done, too. The whole 'you should have to live with the consequences of your actions' things doesn't hold much water - humans, as a whole, spend a lot of effort trying to find ways to lessen the consequences of our actions. Abortion is just another such way.

And if you're going from the whole 'it's an act of cowardice' route, how is wearing a condom or 'doubling up' or taking pills any less of an 'act of cowardice'? The whole point of contraceptives is to avoid the unwanted consequences of sex (disease, children) What does it matter when you try to avoid the consequence of your action?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#80Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/31/2013 7:22:22 AM
Sperm on its own can become a human?!?

Mind. Blown.

Imagine how many babies get washed down the shower each day!!

I seem to remember from school that an egg was required too. But I graduated 15 years ago... Things must have changed a lot since then.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14