Abortion

[Rhea]

We are limited in time & space as to what we can provide.
And yes getting funding to do more is difficult to impossible. We will do what we can.

Which is why it is wrong of you or anyone to take away a woman’s choice when you can’t even provide for her.

If she has to choose between abject poverty and abortion, you want to take away her choice and force abject poverty because you can’t provide for her either.

Do you now see the flaw in your argument, Tiger?

Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

Indeed, Learner.
And since when did a gamete develop into a fetus (and thence a baby) all by itself?
(hint - it requires implantation in a woman’s uterus, Then it requires her blood and the use of her organs. It cannot do anything by itself - no more and no less than a sperm)


Do you now see the flaw in your argument, Leaner?

 

[Tigers!]

We are limited in time & space as to what we can provide.
And yes getting funding to do more is difficult to impossible. We will do what we can.

Which is why it is wrong of you or anyone to take away a woman’s choice when you can’t even provide for her.

If she has to choose between abject poverty and abortion, you want to take away her choice and force abject poverty because you can’t provide for her either.

Do you now see the flaw in your argument, Tiger?

These young mothers are referred to us, we do not go out looking for them. Until they contact us we do not know of their existence. We talk to them, tell them what services we can offer to them and their new born (or very young). They are free to take our offer. If they do not then we part company and will most probably never see each other again.
I (we) cannot see the flaw you can. Perhaps you could point out to us poor, benighted people the flaw to which you refer?

 

[bilby]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.

I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since the exact same moment that a fertilised ovum developed into a full human by itself.

Your abject disregard for the role, opinion, or even existence of the woman involved in the process is showing again.

Why is she required to assist the ovum in developing, when you refuse to assist your sperm in the exact same process?

 

[Learner]

Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

Indeed, Learner.
And since when did a gamete develop into a fetus (and thence a baby) all by itself?
(hint - it requires implantation in a woman’s uterus, Then it requires her blood and the use of her organs. It cannot do anything by itself - no more and no less than a sperm)


Do you now see the flaw in your argument, Leaner?

Erm.. I didn''t think there could be an abortion without there being fertilization and the developement taking place i.e., requires a mummy and daddy, If you get my logic.

 

[Learner]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.

I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since the exact same moment that a fertilised ovum developed into a full human by itself.

We have no lone-rangers in this scenario. Love the technicality, adjust context to suit "developing into a full human by itself."

Your abject disregard for the role, opinion, or even existence of the woman involved in the process is showing again.

Why is she required to assist the ovum in developing, when you refuse to assist your sperm in the exact same process?

No not quite I would be very concerned for the woman involved, what ridiculousness. Strange as it may seem, but I personally wouldn't take part in the legal aspects of making abortion illegal. From a Christian perspective, the not taking part IOW, the church being seperate from politics. Like the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also... there's going to be conflict within the nation, in this case not all people are religious, for example. Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.

 

[Elixir]

We have no lone-rangers in this scenario.

So what is your complaint about my request to take up your case with my sperm?
As usual you want it both ways. You deny the potential humanity of my sperm because it cannot become a human all by itself, but you make an exception for a zygote, which also cannot become a human all by itself.

Religious hypocrisy is all that drives your entire superstitious rubric.

 

[Elixir]

Perhaps you could point out to us poor, benighted people the flaw to which you refer?

Opposing abortion rights aggravates the very problem you are already struggling so hard to mitigate.
It's not complicated.
The problem itself is the lifeblood of an establishment that relies on said problem to elicit resources from the rest of society.
That "help" establishment therefore adopts a stance that will perpetuate and exacerbate the problem it exists to address.
That is a major flaw.

 

[Learner]

We have no lone-rangers in this scenario.

So what is your complaint about my request to take up your case with my sperm?
As usual you want it both ways. You deny the potential humanity of my sperm because it cannot become a human all by itself, but you make an exception for a zygote, which also cannot become a human all by itself.

Oh dear more technical speak. It takes two to tango, a mother and father. After fertilization, ONLY then there's developement of a human being! Your lonesome sperm has NO signicance, just like loosing the hairs from your head that even has human dna in it.

Religious hypocrisy is all that drives your entire superstitious rubric.

I think hypocrisy is not unique to the reliigious, each to his own excuse for a response.

 

[Elixir]

I think hypocrisy is not unique to the reliigious, each to his own excuse for a response.

So what?
Do you think that is good rationale for continuing to consciously indulge in the cruel and inhumane religious hypocrisy that drives your superstitious rubric?
No wonder people think religion is sickness.

After fertilization, ONLY then there's developement of a human being!

Why then?
Fertilization can't develop without gametes. ONLY THEN can fertilization enable the development of a zygote. A zygote can't develop without a uterus. ONLY THEN can it takes months of biological symbiosis to become viable fetus. And ONLY THEN can it exist autonomously rather than parasitically, and develop into a human being.
Your insistence upon designating a single point of potentiation among many that are equally essential, is another irrational outgrowth of religious indoctrination, nothing more.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one has a “right to come into existence.” Before your existence, you have no rights. Before you become a person, you do not have the rights of personhood.

Men do not have a right to impregnate women so that something with the “right to exist” gets created.


Before personhood - before the advent of cognition - no being has a right to something it does not yet have.
And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.

Exactly my point with regards the Benderpocalypse.

Before I make them exist they have no rights to exist. By all means I don't have the right to make them exist in the first place in fact. I think rather people would fight me pretty hard against polluting the world in such a way with people it has no right to destroy once they are here.

See, this is why bringing up other seemingly unrelated situations is so important to moral reasoning -- it's how we test moral principles to find out if they're right. Otherwise Learner argues from one principle, you two argue from a different principle, and in a situation where the principles conflict both sides judge their own principle by how pretty it looks to them, so they just shout at each other. "NOT EVER.", the lady says. Good argument.

No, "even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER." is not a correct principle. Sometimes a person does have a right to the use of other people's bodies against their will. We have a constitutional right to the use of other people's bodies. It's right there in the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, ..."​

In the U.S. we have the right to drag an unwilling witness into court and put him on the stand, and we have the right to use his mouth and his brain to tell the jury what he knows.

I agree that using body against one's will is a weak argument. About as weak as suggesting the Sixth Amendment conflicts with that argument.

The state needs a warrant to get a blood sample. Now this SCOTUS could over-rule that, but until then, SCOTUS has been clear that the body belongs to the person, and there is a substantial right to personal privacy.

Which does actually bring up a remarkable consideration. The state shortly will be able to force a pregnant woman to remain pregnant and give birth via simple legislation, but can not force a pregnant woman to provide a blood sample without a warrant. Dude, WTF?!?

I would say that the argument that the state has a right to compel "use of the body" is not being faithfully treated here. Taking something out of the body, expecting a song and dance under penalty for noncompliance is a different matter than taking some physical element of their bodily structure away, particularly to give to someone else.

We recognize the difference between compulsion to speak, and give true information about some event or situation as ones morals allow them to give (and the easy and oft acceptable lie that one knows nothing).

To that end these situations as compulsion of testimony and removal, by compulsion, of bodily structures is different.

They aren't the exact same, but they share a lot of similarities, and those similarities imply a gross

The state is required by the Constitution, as stated by SCOTUS, to put into writing, in front of a judge, why they have the right to sample the blood of a person. Taking blood from an average adult (who isn't elderly), is a very simple process, includes virtually no discomfort, and comes at almost no cost to the person. But the state must prove to the court that they have reasonable concern to invade that person's privacy. The state can not pass a law that says the police can get a blood sample without a warrant.

The destruction of Roe v Wade would merely require the state to pass legislation, and the police could arrest whomever the state legislature wanted to make criminally liable for an abortion (likely doctors, nurses, staff) to make accessing an abortion impossible, forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

Which then provides us the peculiar situation of the state forcing a pregnant woman to give birth (a remarkable invasion of her privacy), but being required to seek a Judge's approval to obtain a blood sample from her (a much smaller invasion of her privacy).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous. The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is.

Here we have the word exist, given the context impression of an object of 'little or no significant value', like presenting with a mindset view that "large rocks, and umbrellas exist". The expression "what does it mean to exist?", followed by, "It just means to be alive", seems to imply the contrary to his post quoted above, in which it suggests instead, that it is Mr. Higgins who's actually disregarding people in general. So I guess I'd wonder, what does Mr. Higgins think it means 'to be alive'?

It means nothing without freedoms. The tale of the zombie came from observations of brutally treated slaves in Haiti, to the point where they just appeared lifeless. Going to tell them, 'ain't it good to be alive'?

It isn't enough to merely exist! One needs freedoms and rights. Our country was founded on this principle, which has thankfully been extended to more than just white property owners.

Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

The line "The entire goal is simply existence" sounds so,so devaluatingly wrong.

It isn't, I explained why.

Existence i.e.,context to be alive, should obviously be regarded for both the mother and the child; emphasizing that it's their well being combined that is to be the main goal. AND of course, if it should come to politics, and political descisions where a state decides to make abortion illegal. The state should in turn with the same clout, and duty make the provisons and funds to support those mothers and child.

And yet, none of this is ever included in these bills. Massive pro-life networks don't exist to assist pregnant women. Your movement is a fraud.

It isn't a moral movement seeking to support life, it is an authoritarian movement to punish sex. This is demonstrated in the legislation anti-abortion acts that never include what is needed to support pregnant women who are enduring an unwanted pregnancy. All the legislation does is see to the breaching of the baby. After that, the baby and woman are on their own. It is quite disgusting how morally high the pro-life movement likes to pretend it is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh gosh... I can't wait for all that support to come flushing out of the woodwork for those pregnant 14, 15, and 16 year olds, also known as teenaged daughters. You a psychologist? You could help with the teenagers suffering from depression, and you could explain to them how their lives are naturally forfeited for a period of time because you feel the fetus's right to be born supersedes any rights they have. It'd be comforting.

It is curious how all anti-abortion legislation never seems to include funding for these types of supports... or pro-life groups rallying together to create many support clinics that'll have people ready at a moments notice to assist, even at two in the morning. Of course, the answer at that point from the likes of the "pro-life" movement would be the family should help assist. Because no right is more important than one that can be instilled on others that doesn't impact them.

My church is part of a small local church network who attempts to help, usually, but not exclusively, teenage girls who need help with their new born or very young children. We are given leads and ask the mothers if they need help. No coercion or forced measures. We provide advice, mentoring and some supplies. These young mothers are shown skills such as washing their babies, help with breastfeeding, help with sleeping patterns, getting to see doctors etc. With such help many of these young mothers will do a fine job.
We are limited in time & space as to what we can provide.

I find it amazing that you admittedly state "we are limited in time & space as to what we can provide"... yet you seem to be entirely unlimited in time & space with what you DEMAND.

 

[Jarhyn]

...

Your issue here is that you fail to understand that your limited understanding of the concept "consciousness", so far from semantic completeness that I laugh at it, prevents you from understanding that you cannot describe from what phenomena it emerges; you do not understand it on that level.

As such, you cannot claim in any reasonable respect what does or does not possess it.

Rather, "sapience", "consciousness" and other such words are generally as ill-defined as to their material nature as the words "religion" and "god", generally speaking.

Even so, it is not the case of these words for everyone. Apparently, between us, it is only the case for you.

This is because I actually have a model for it:

Consciousness is a subsystem having a dependent reaction on the output state of another subsystem.

"Switch A is conscious of the output of switch B".

The language, eventually, allows the concept to be pulled through all the scale of neurons to the concept of "this group of neurons is conscious of the observation, through the eyes, of the 'door' signal."

And then I can just drop/substitute a bunch of equivalent words and treat some operators as implicit to get:

"The person was conscious of the door".

And I can apply such, by assembling switches such that they satisfy the definitions of the template created in the statement "the dwarf was conscious that the goblin could kill him, and he did not want to die, so he ran", at least within context of the objects referenced by 'dwarf', 'goblin', 'him', and 'ran'. 'kill' and 'die' also have semantic completion in the context, but I exclude them because they are not merely parallels but directly the same insofar as they relate to the dissociation of the elements which create the consciousness being referenced as 'dying' or 'being killed'.

I would imagine you can try pulling a few more No-True-Scotsman fallacies on "consciousness", and I accept that perhaps "this is not what you mean by consciousness" but again you will find yourself specially-pleading away humans for no rational reason.

You want to proclaim we are in some way special. Or at least some part of your subconscious does, because that is the thing that describes what you are doing. You are proclaiming humans 'special'. We are not.

There is nothing about humans or organic neurons that make them special in particular.

What makes us different in apparent character is that we have a whole lot of neurons, and so  more of the same thing everything else has, alongside clever hands that let us make things, and clever mouths which allow the complexity of sounds to symbolize and communicate what we learn.

A transistor is like a... Less interesting neuron. To get the kinds of things neurons do in one object, you need to put together a good number of transistors and neurons can rewire much more elegantly than transistors.

But one can do the extent of the things done by the other.

There is no specialness across this boundary either.

 

[Toni]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.

I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since the exact same moment that a fertilised ovum developed into a full human by itself.

We have no lone-rangers in this scenario. Love the technicality, adjust context to suit "developing into a full human by itself."

Your abject disregard for the role, opinion, or even existence of the woman involved in the process is showing again.

Why is she required to assist the ovum in developing, when you refuse to assist your sperm in the exact same process?

No not quite I would be very concerned for the woman involved, what ridiculousness. Strange as it may seem, but I personally wouldn't take part in the legal aspects of making abortion illegal. From a Christian perspective, the not taking part IOW, the church being seperate from politics. Like the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also... there's going to be conflict within the nation, in this case not all people are religious, for example. Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.

What do you mean by ‘educating them about abortions?’

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.

Available funding? It doesn't cost a dime to go to a woman's house at 2 AM. I think the term you are looking for is "fully commit to their moral code".

 

[bilby]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.

I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since the exact same moment that a fertilised ovum developed into a full human by itself.

We have no lone-rangers in this scenario. Love the technicality, adjust context to suit "developing into a full human by itself."

Your abject disregard for the role, opinion, or even existence of the woman involved in the process is showing again.

Why is she required to assist the ovum in developing, when you refuse to assist your sperm in the exact same process?

No not quite I would be very concerned for the woman involved, what ridiculousness. Strange as it may seem, but I personally wouldn't take part in the legal aspects of making abortion illegal. From a Christian perspective, the not taking part IOW, the church being seperate from politics. Like the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also... there's going to be conflict within the nation, in this case not all people are religious, for example. Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.

Have you noticed that your responses get longer, more rambling, and less specific, the more you realise just how stupid your previous comment was?

I note that you have made no attempt, despite using a LOT of words, to justify or to humbly retract and apologise for, your gross error in claiming that fertilised ova can become fully developed human beings by themselves.

And an apology is assuredly in order. You hand-waved away the role of the woman in the process of turning ‘potential humans’ into actual humans, while making it quite clear that you feel taking a proactive role in the EXACT SAME process yourself (by saving your sperm for future use) is absurd, and that it would be ridiculous to expect you to go to such inconvenience and effort.

Do you believe that people have the right to refuse to assist ‘potential people’ to actualise that potential, or not? If you do, you are remiss in failing to save your sperm. If you do not, you are vile for failing to recognise that women have that right, just as much as you do.

 

[bilby]

I think hypocrisy is not unique to the reliigious, each to his own excuse for a response.

So what?
Do you think that is good rationale for continuing to consciously indulge in the cruel and inhumane religious hypocrisy that drives your superstitious rubric?
No wonder people think religion is sickness.

After fertilization, ONLY then there's developement of a human being!

Why then?
Fertilization can't develop without gametes. ONLY THEN can fertilization enable the development of a zygote. A zygote can't develop without a uterus. ONLY THEN can it takes months of biological symbiosis to become viable fetus. And ONLY THEN can it exist autonomously rather than parasitically, and develop into a human being.
Your insistence upon designating a single point of potentiation among many that are equally essential, is another irrational outgrowth of religious indoctrination, nothing more.

Why then? Because that choice of decision point means he has no responsibility whatsoever, but women (who are of so little importance to him that he can totally disregard their existence without embarrassment or apology) have complete and total responsibility, and must act according to his wishes whether they like it or not.

 

[Elixir]

After fertilization, ONLY then there's developement of a human being!

Why then?
Fertilization can't develop without gametes. ONLY THEN can fertilization enable the development of a zygote. A zygote can't develop without a uterus. ONLY THEN can it takes months of biological symbiosis to become viable fetus. And ONLY THEN can it exist autonomously rather than parasitically, and develop into a human being.
Your insistence upon designating a single point of potentiation among many that are equally essential, is another irrational outgrowth of religious indoctrination, nothing more.

Why then? Because that choice of decision point means he has no responsibility whatsoever, but women (who are of so little importance to him that he can totally disregard their existence without embarrassment or apology) have complete and total responsibility, and must act according to his wishes whether they like it or not.

Indeed. It becomes tempting to vilify each of the individuals who are conditioned to that view. But freedom from culpability really is worth sacrificing rigid adherence to rational thought, and once that trade off is made there’s usually no going back. That’s what religions are there to ensure.

 

[Tigers!]

Oh gosh... I can't wait for all that support to come flushing out of the woodwork for those pregnant 14, 15, and 16 year olds, also known as teenaged daughters. You a psychologist? You could help with the teenagers suffering from depression, and you could explain to them how their lives are naturally forfeited for a period of time because you feel the fetus's right to be born supersedes any rights they have. It'd be comforting.

It is curious how all anti-abortion legislation never seems to include funding for these types of supports... or pro-life groups rallying together to create many support clinics that'll have people ready at a moments notice to assist, even at two in the morning. Of course, the answer at that point from the likes of the "pro-life" movement would be the family should help assist. Because no right is more important than one that can be instilled on others that doesn't impact them.

My church is part of a small local church network who attempts to help, usually, but not exclusively, teenage girls who need help with their new born or very young children. We are given leads and ask the mothers if they need help. No coercion or forced measures. We provide advice, mentoring and some supplies. These young mothers are shown skills such as washing their babies, help with breastfeeding, help with sleeping patterns, getting to see doctors etc. With such help many of these young mothers will do a fine job.
We are limited in time & space as to what we can provide.

I find it amazing that you admittedly state "we are limited in time & space as to what we can provide"... yet you seem to be entirely unlimited in time & space with what you DEMAND.

We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.

 

[Tigers!]

Perhaps you could point out to us poor, benighted people the flaw to which you refer?

Opposing abortion rights aggravates the very problem you are already struggling so hard to mitigate.
It's not complicated.
The problem itself is the lifeblood of an establishment that relies on said problem to elicit resources from the rest of society.
That "help" establishment therefore adopts a stance that will perpetuate and exacerbate the problem it exists to address.
That is a major flaw.

Yet the abortion lobby has no trouble in eliciting resources from the rest of society. You do not seem concerned about that.
What then will you do with those ungrateful women who turn down your gracious offer of an abortion?