Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 84 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 273 Goods vs 209 No Goods

1. Economist
   eec3
   

   Fb8f, please study a bit of biology. An embryo and a fetus are different concepts from a baby.
   Also, the aim of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Please try to understand this. If there was a way to terminate the pregnancy without negative consequences for the embryo/fetus, this is what people would do. Please do not assume that women who go for an abortion want harm for the embryo/fetus. Their decision is about their own body. What happens to the embryo or fetus is an unfortunate consequence.

   Please look up the definition of murder. You will see that it is very different from an abortion in many regards. Let me just explain two differences here. In case of abortion, a non-viable fetus dies outside the uterus. Letting an organism die is very different from murder. First, murder requires killing, while abortion does not (letting something die is not the same as killing). Second, murder is about another person. When you look at those who are considered a person, you will notice that none of them have to live inside someone else's uterus in order to survive. So how can you call an organism that can only live in someone else's uterus a person? It seems that non-viable fetuses differ from persons in this important regard.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 5 No Jab !

2. Economist
   6deb
   

   If it's before 12 weeks then the fetus cannot feel pain and no one wants it anyway, so I'm ok with it being aborted.

   This is a fine rule. Those who say "It a women's body", are you ok with 9 month abortions.

   I actually believe no one would be for 9 month abortions.
   It's also very unlikely that a pregnant woman decides on abortion so late.
   Why would she?

   I agree with you but you would have to be in favour if the main criteria is "It's my body"

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !

3. Economist
   e8d4
   

   LOL this thread is hilarious

   - eu bro

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 3 No Jab !

4. Economist
   e29b
   

   Fb8f, please study a bit of biology. An embryo and a fetus are different concepts from a baby.
   Also, the aim of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Please try to understand this. If there was a way to terminate the pregnancy without negative consequences for the embryo/fetus, this is what people would do. Please do not assume that women who go for an abortion want harm for the embryo/fetus. Their decision is about their own body. What happens to the embryo or fetus is an unfortunate consequence.

   My 1 year old baby is creating a lot of trouble for my family. We don't want to harm it, but we decided that killing is best for us. Would you be OK with this unfortunate consequence?

   Please look up the definition of murder. You will see that it is very different from an abortion in many regards. Let me just explain two differences here. In case of abortion, a non-viable fetus dies outside the uterus. Letting an organism die is very different from murder. First, murder requires killing, while abortion does not (letting something die is not the same as killing).

   That 1 year baby is actually on life support now. The doctors guarantee he will fully recover without any harm. But we decide to pull the plug, as letting something die is not the same as killing. Are you OK with that?

   Second, murder is about another person. When you look at those who are considered a person, you will notice that none of them have to live inside someone else's uterus in order to survive. So how can you call an organism that can only live in someone else's uterus a person? It seems that non-viable fetuses differ from persons in this important regard.

   Your definition of a person is based on the ability to survive outside the uterus. My wife is 24 weeks pregnant now. She does not want the baby anymore. Should she request a C-section, even if that means harm to the baby? 24 week babies usually survive.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 5 No Jab !

5. Economist
   e813
   

   E29b, no to the first question, obviously.
   About life support, I am not familiar with this situation and I find it difficult to judge. Here (in Europe) we have health insurance and the decision depends mainly on future prospects, so if the child is likely to recover, pulling the plug would be unacceptable. I hear that in the US people without health care may have to pay so much that it is simply unaffordable, so you may have to pull the plug for such reasons. It is difficult for me to judge this, if you are from the US perhaps you could explain to me how this actually goes there. For example, do the "pro-life" activists organize donations in such cases, so are all these lives saved?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 3 No Jab !

6. Economist
   e813
   

   About the last case: at 24 weeks there is indeed some chance of survival. But if your wife had a C section, the newborn would have various health problems. If your wife's life is in danger, it may still be justified to do this. But if your wife is not in danger, the health of the newborn is more important and hence the C section would not be acceptable.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

7. Economist
   3c18
   

   Those who say "It a women's body", are you ok with 9 month abortions.

   I would think that a 9 month abortion would be a terrible tragedy. At the same time, I think this situation would be so extremely rare that a pragmatic solution would just be to have no regulation on abortion. Up to the woman and her doctor.

   For those next asking if I would be ok with young babies being murdered by their mom after birth: No I am not, and using the slippery slope argument means you lost the discussion.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

8. Economist
   4fd6
   

   Those who say "It a women's body", are you ok with 9 month abortions.

   I would think that a 9 month abortion would be a terrible tragedy. At the same time, I think this situation would be so extremely rare that a pragmatic solution would just be to have no regulation on abortion. Up to the woman and her doctor.
   For those next asking if I would be ok with young babies being murdered by their mom after birth: No I am not, and using the slippery slope argument means you lost the discussion.

   Just curious - what is the big difference in you mind between a recent born and a 9 month? Not slippery slope argument - serious question.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Jab 1 No Jab !

9. Economist
   e29b
   

   About the last case: at 24 weeks there is indeed some chance of survival. But if your wife had a C section, the newborn would have various health problems. If your wife's life is in danger, it may still be justified to do this. But if your wife is not in danger, the health of the newborn is more important and hence the C section would not be acceptable.

   So there are some cases where the mother should keep the pregnancy agaisnt her will. I thought you were for "my body my rules". My bad.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Jab 1 No Jab !

10. Economist
    3c18
    

    Those who say "It a women's body", are you ok with 9 month abortions.

    I would think that a 9 month abortion would be a terrible tragedy. At the same time, I think this situation would be so extremely rare that a pragmatic solution would just be to have no regulation on abortion. Up to the woman and her doctor.
    For those next asking if I would be ok with young babies being murdered by their mom after birth: No I am not, and using the slippery slope argument means you lost the discussion.

    Just curious - what is the big difference in you mind between a recent born and a 9 month? Not slippery slope argument - serious question.

    9 month fetus lives inside another person. Recent born does not.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

11. Economist
    e813
    

    E29b, I never said "my body, my rule", so I have no idea where you got that from. What I said was that restrictions on abortion are restricting women's choices about their own bodies. So you need to build a very strong case to justify such restrictions. Confusing embryos, fetuses and babies is not a strong argument, it is plain stupidity. Same holds for other misunderstandings about basic biology, e.g. for not understanding that fetuses are not able to survive outside the uterus before 20 weeks.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 2 No Jab !

12. Economist
    7c0c
    

    Murder is murder. You can make murder legal because you are lazy to sustain a dependent life. It's a discussion that doesn't challenge the premise.

    Every sperm is sacred // Every sperm is great // If a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate!

    1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 1 No Jab !

13. Economist
    1ffe
    

    Of course it's a f**king human being.

    What logically defensible line are you possibly going to draw that makes it otherwise? Sentience? Ability to take care of itself/live without "life support"? Well then I guess the severely retarded aren't human beings either, seeing as how they fail both of those tests. Neither are the comatose. (NOTE: It's still murder if you kill any of those people in almost every circumstance, though. Gee, sounds like maybe they are human beings after all.)

    Or maybe the old "it's just a mass of cells" trope. Newsflash: you're "just a mass of cells" too. Hardly a good logical distinction to make, but thanks for playing--sure makes a great soundbite.

    Intelligent and thoughtful people who hold a liberal position on this issue are intellectually honest enough to admit that any way we're cutting it, we're talking about a human life. They just don't think it should get to matter as much as the life of the mother in the final equation. Which is fine, and not even necessarily hypocritical: the concept of justifiable homocide has been around for a long time now.

    But let's cut the s**t here.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 2 No Jab !

14. Economist
    9425
    

    - It's OK to use a condom
    - It's not OK to kill a baby
    - Disregard religious stuff, assume OKness is continuous and monotonic in between
    -> Arrive at some gestational age cutoff for abortion

    1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Jab 1 No Jab !

15. Economist
    c32d
    

    Those who say "It a women's body", are you ok with 9 month abortions.

    I would think that a 9 month abortion would be a terrible tragedy. At the same time, I think this situation would be so extremely rare that a pragmatic solution would just be to have no regulation on abortion. Up to the woman and her doctor.
    For those next asking if I would be ok with young babies being murdered by their mom after birth: No I am not, and using the slippery slope argument means you lost the discussion.

    "This would be a great tragedy, but I am going to assume it will basically never happen and advocate not putting any restrictions on it for basically no reason."

    200 IQ position

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

16. Economist
    1ed9
    

    You can't use the "unfortunate consequence" argument here. Even though we accept that the woman final AIM is to terminate the pregnancy and not to kill the baby, killing the baby is the MEAN to terminate the pregnancy. It is not just an unwanted consequence, it is the MEAN to reach the AIM, given the current state of technology.

    If you justify abortion by the unwanted consequence argument, then you can also justify any murder, e.g. "I do not want to kill X, I just want to terminate the emotional and ultimately physical damage that X is causing me with their very existence. X's death is just an unwanted consequence. Maybe in the future people will invent a way for me to live like X didn't exist, but with the current state of technology X's death is the only unfortunate way to reach my goal."

    Fb8f, please study a bit of biology. An embryo and a fetus are different concepts from a baby.
    Also, the aim of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Please try to understand this. If there was a way to terminate the pregnancy without negative consequences for the embryo/fetus, this is what people would do. Please do not assume that women who go for an abortion want harm for the embryo/fetus. Their decision is about their own body. What happens to the embryo or fetus is an unfortunate consequence.
    Please look up the definition of murder. You will see that it is very different from an abortion in many regards. Let me just explain two differences here. In case of abortion, a non-viable fetus dies outside the uterus. Letting an organism die is very different from murder. First, murder requires killing, while abortion does not (letting something die is not the same as killing). Second, murder is about another person. When you look at those who are considered a person, you will notice that none of them have to live inside someone else's uterus in order to survive. So how can you call an organism that can only live in someone else's uterus a person? It seems that non-viable fetuses differ from persons in this important regard.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 1 No Jab !

17. Economist
    1ed9
    

    Moreover, the "unwanted consequnce" argument requires the unwanted consequences to be proportional to the good you are aiming for. If the unwanted consequences are worse than the aimed good, then you can't appeal to them being unwanted. The death of a human being is a very negative "unwanted" consequence.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 1 No Jab !

18. Economist
    f95f
    

    Don't know why people keep picking on "my body my rules".

    It is a slogan which aims to raise awareness that by restricting abortion people restrict women's rights.

    It does not mean that women want 9th month abortions.

    Just as "make love not war" does not mean that soldiers should have seks with each other.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 2 No Jab !

19. Economist
    fc11
    

    1ed9, no, it is not the mean. You do not seem to understand the technology. In fact, you confuse feticide with abortion. Feticide is killing a fetus inside someone's body, whereas abortion is removing the fetus from the woman's body. Thus, feticide is completely different from abortion. Further, feticide is neither necessary, nor sufficient for abortion. Please, read up some basic literature on this if you do not understand it. Death of the fetus is not the means to do an abortion. It is simply a consequence of abortion.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 2 No Jab !

20. Economist
    e29b
    

    - It's OK to use a condom
    - It's not OK to kill a baby
    - Disregard religious stuff, assume OKness is continuous and monotonic in between
    -> Arrive at some gestational age cutoff for abortion

    The key issue here is that the OKness is *not* continuous. There are some clear landmarks during a pregnancy which make people change their beliefs about abortion. It goes back to one’s definition of when a human life starts.

    The options we discussed so far: conception (0 weeks), central nervous system formation (6 weeks), ability to live outside the woman’s body (22 weeks), and just before birth (40 weeks).

    My beef with the 22 weeks argument is that it assumes that a mother could request an early C-section, even if that means harming the baby. The 40 weeks is just insane, because it assumes that there is no life in a baby within seconds of birth.

    The 6-week mark is the one I can live with. I’m a non-religious left leaning person - to the point that I think no civilian should be able to bear arms. I just cannot get my head around the argument that there is no life on a 3-month baby (or fetus, or whether you want to call) – as he or she has more brain activity than someone in a coma.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply »