Life At Conception

[Gameface]

Life is not fair. However, this is a false equivalence. Do you support that wages are garnishable to pay off debts? Would you support a law that put a person into indentured servitude to pay off debts? Assuming the answer to the first is "yes" and the second is "no", you are making a distinction between the level of legal auythority over a person's property and over their body. That same distinction applies here.

I think you're missing the point, sort of. If a man and woman have unprotected sex and conception results the woman has a full array of options. She can chose any of them, only the man who she conceived with can be hugely impacted by the decision she makes while having no authority over his own course of action.

If I accrue debts then I am obligated to pay them off, one way or another. How would you feel if when a married couple accrued debts the woman could decide to cancel the debts if she felt like it but if she didn't cancel the debts the man would be obligated to pay them. Also, if the man wanted to keep the debts, because he wanted to keep the stuff he acquired through that debt, but the woman decided to cancel the debts and have all the stuff repoe'd even though the man was willing to pay for it all.

Yeah, life's not fair, but it makes sense to look at it and ask why it's not fair and if maybe it could be made fair, right?

 

[One Brow]

One main difference is the viability of the child outside the womb. (early term v. late term abortions)

I would support a law where, if the child is viable, it would be removed without killing it.

ALso partial birth abortions (IDX) are just that partial birth. In my opinion that is murder.

Again, why is that medical procedure worse than some other medical procedure resulting in death for the fetus?

 

[Stoked]

I would support a law where, if the child is viable, it would be removed without killing it.



Again, why is that medical procedure worse than some other medical procedure resulting in death for the fetus?

I answered that. If you do not wish to accept my answer than that is fine. However, I do not feel compled to answer it again.

 

[One Brow]

I think you're missing the point, sort of. If a man and woman have unprotected sex and conception results the woman has a full array of options. She can chose any of them, only the man who she conceived with can be hugely impacted by the decision she makes while having no authority over his own course of action.

I understand and agree with this point. It is unfair.

If I accrue debts then I am obligated to pay them off, one way or another. How would you feel if when a married couple accrued debts the woman could decide to cancel the debts if she felt like it but if she didn't cancel the debts the man would be obligated to pay them. Also, if the man wanted to keep the debts, because he wanted to keep the stuff he acquired through that debt, but the woman decided to cancel the debts and have all the stuff repoe'd even though the man was willing to pay for it all.

Yeah, life's not fair, but it makes sense to look at it and ask why it's not fair and if maybe it could be made fair, right?

To make this analogy apt, the wife has to have the option of either cancelling the debt or going into indentured servitude for several months. As long as you bring up analogies where the burdens on future mother and future father are the same, pre-birth, you are distorting the picture.

 

[One Brow]

I answered that. If you do not wish to accept my answer than that is fine. However, I do not feel compled to answer it again.

ALso partial birth abortions (IDX) are just that partial birth. In my opinion that is murder.

That's a tautology followed by a fiat statement. At some point, all morals come down to that, I suppose, but I was curious if there were more behind this one.

 

[Stoked]

That's a tautology followed by a fiat statement. At some point, all morals come down to that, I suppose, but I was curious if there were more behind this one.

Just my personal opinion from what I have seen and read. I am undecided on when exactly a fetus is its own life but once it is viable outside the womb that is off limits to me as far as termination.

 

[Hartsock]

You know what? This should absolutely be taught in "sex ed" classes in school. It certainly wasn't in my school, though (in Maryland), and I bet the same is true for most schools. But the legal responsibility of the father to pay child support, and the amount of $$ that takes, is certainly something that kids need to know.

My wifes ex husband has to pay $600 a month, even though I make way way more than him. I mean technically she is not my daughter, because I have no parental rights, but I would be ok paying for everything for her. I feel kind of bad for the guy no matter how much of a dick head he is. 15 more years for him.

 

[Hartsock]

From what I understand, and I could be completely wrong, with partial birth the doctor takes the baby partially out, head first. (note that for a partial birth to be possible the baby has to have developed; has nerve endings; feels pain) cuts its head open and removes the brain and spine, then puts it back in the womb to dissolve.

Yeah, that seems beyond unnecessary.

 

[Tony]

Yeah it turns out I was wrong. -_- I swear I saw that somewhere as a type of abortion however.

 

[Stoked]

Yeah it turns out I was wrong. -_- I swear I saw that somewhere as a type of abortion however.

The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula

So basically they don't let it take a breath and suck the brain out.

 

[Tony]

The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula

So basically they don't let it take a breath and suck the brain out.

Oh yeah that's how that works. I wonder what kind of abortion I just read up on then... It sounds a lot more humane than that though.

 

[Stoked]

Oh yeah that's how that works. I wonder what kind of abortion I just read up on then... It sounds a lot more humane than that though.

For me it is that in these cases the baby is usually far enough along to be viable.

 

[Hartsock]

The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula

So basically they don't let it take a breath and suck the brain out.

Reading this will give me nightmares for a week.

 

[PearlWatson]

Here's something that is just right.

https://nationalprolifealliance.com/rlacw_petition.aspx?pid=sb21&npla=I1AAAB13I

the only viable scientific definition of life. . . . .a lot of people just don't want to recognize, because there is just no excuse for killing.

I'd be surprised if this Act gets traction right now, but it is the way to effectively overturn Roe. v. Wade.

 

[Siro]

Interesting discussion. I personally don't get the liberal acceptance of abortion. I don't understand how "my body my choice" became a mainstream sentiment that people freely advocate as if it's common sense. I agree that abortion is a necessary evil when the pregnancy presents a health risk to the mother. And I understand the practical side of making abortion available as to avoid dangerous underground procedures. But I do not understand the cultural acceptance. I have yet to hear a morally consistent defense of abortion on demand, and I think allowing it to become a social norm is surely a net negative for society.

 

[One Brow]

And I understand the practical side of making abortion available as to avoid dangerous underground procedures. But I do not understand the cultural acceptance.

Making abortion illegal does not reduce the incidence rate of abortion.

I have yet to hear a morally consistent defense of abortion on demand, and I think allowing it to become a social norm is surely a net negative for society.

You don't think the moral argument behind the famous violinist case is consistent?

 

[Hartsock]

Interesting discussion. I personally don't get the liberal acceptance of abortion. I don't understand how "my body my choice" became a mainstream sentiment that people freely advocate as if it's common sense. I agree that abortion is a necessary evil when the pregnancy presents a health risk to the mother. And I understand the practical side of making abortion available as to avoid dangerous underground procedures. But I do not understand the cultural acceptance. I have yet to hear a morally consistent defense of abortion on demand, and I think allowing it to become a social norm is surely a net negative for society.

I dont think people should have abortions, I dont think it is a good or healthy thing to do. I think if you get pregnant you should have the kid, love it, raise it, do the best you can. But, I also think it is immoral to bring a child in to this world if you won't love it or will just pass it on to the government to worry about. If you aren't going to be responsible for your child and you are going to **** up its life, dont get pregnant, but if you do either carry it and find an adoptive family, or have an early term abortion, the earlier the better. I think abortion should be an option. I would never do it, but who am I to tell someone else they cant?

 

[Siro]

Making abortion illegal does not reduce the incidence rate of abortion.



You don't think the moral argument behind the famous violinist case is consistent?

I agree with your first statement. It is what I meant when I said that I understood the practical reasons of providing legal abortion.

The violinist argument is completely artificial. The protagonist finds herself in a situation where her life is completely taken over by strangers using her against her will to help someone she's never met. I don't see how that relates to abortion at all? It is an artificial and somewhat farcical scenario that bares no relation to the subject. I can create a similar scenario, but with the hero finding the violinist passed out in his vomit after drinking too much of her home brewed alcohol, and her deciding not to flip him over because it is her body, and thus her choice. The scenario is artificially constructed to reach a certain conclusion.

 

[Gameface]

I actually think this is a complicated question, no matter your religion or spiritual believes. I'm an atheist who certainly supports birth-control--I think a person should only have two kids--but the idea of abortion still makes me a bit queasy. I'm not sure there is a right answer. In my mind you can't force a woman to carry a baby. With how expensive it is to raise a kid these days--when in the past it was an economic asset--it's just not a possibility for some people. The only thing you can do is not put yourself, or your woman, in this moral quagmire and make sure you don't cause any unplanned pregnancies.

And that's why you should always do it standing up; they can't get pregnant that way.

I was certainly raised to be a good pro-choice atheist, but I too have a hard time getting it to completely jive with my overall philosophical outlook. There are many moral(philosophical) inconsistencies and even more arbitrary distinctions. I don't like that and to me it is an indication that we're all operating under some false premise that we are taking for granted.

 

[babe]

Making abortion illegal does not reduce the incidence rate of abortion.



You don't think the moral argument behind the famous violinist case is consistent?

In a lot of ways, I sorta think the government's business ends at my skin, and there is absolutely no legal jurisdiction by the government or anyone else over what goes on inside me. A pregnancy, and the reality that this is another human being inside a woman is just the kind of thing to prove man's incompetence to logically and consistently apply any of our notions about wrong or right. I think it is an excellent example for refuting the whole concept of elitists with their fascist models of governance imposing their views on mankind.

there just isn't any natural authority for doing so.

And if the "Right to Life" folks win this political battle and force their view on the nation, I believe there will just be millions upon millions of women not telling anybody their pregnacy test was positive, which they did in their bathroom, or what they did about it. There will be a huge "black market" for abortifacients, maybe big enough and profitable enough to make drugs like heroin and meth small change.