• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Abortion

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,785
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
He will claim that this isn’t a current element of his position; And I have no doubt that he honestly believes that.
Back in early 2003 the Pope declared Bush's Invasion of Iraq a crime against humanity. I agreed with him.

Do you think that's because I was brainwashed by the RCC?
Tom
No.

Do you think that’s remotely relevant to the current discussion? It’s not about you. It’s about your irrational but strongly held nonsensical beliefs.

Belief in some specific nonsense doesn’t imply that everything else you believe must also be nonsense.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
990
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
When I first read TomC’s stuff, I began to wonder whether this was a thread devoted to the discussion of whether it’s OK for a woman to kill her one-month old child, maybe cuz he/she cries too much or shits too much is otherwise an inconvenience.

But no, it’s about first-trimester abortion, when more than 90 percent of abortions occur, and the first eight weeks of that trimester the subject is called an embryo and before that a zygote, and only at the end of the first trimester is it considered a fetus.

But a fetus at the end of the first trimester is a child, we are invited to believe.

Fetal children, TomC calls them.

If you want to believe such crap, go right ahead, but please think twice before comparing those who are pro-choice to Putin or the Uvalde killer or Idi Amin or Hitler or whatever your preferred bogey is. Because obviously if a first-trimester fetus were identical to a post-natal child you’d have a point. But it isn’t and you don’t.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,785
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
that you find human life transcendent
You could stop right there.

Because I do.

Young or old, male or female, rich or poor, useful or not, American or not, white or not,

Yeah. I value human individuals. All of them. More than I value people's rights to do whatever they want to do.

To me, this is the grand sweep of moral improvement and sophistication. Leaving people out of the Human Family is the old, primitive, ethics and moral principles. Including everyone, including fetal children, is better. Same as including women and black people improved the USA. The more people we include in the Family of Humanity the better off we are as a whole.

Like the genocidal slavers of yore, you might disagree.

So, it's not that fertilization is sacrosanct. It's that human beings are. And while you might think that fetal children are unimportant, like 18th century Christians thought that indigenous people were unimportant, I disagree.
I probably won't change my mind.
Tom
Of course you won’t change your mind.

It’s an emotional response that was beaten into you as a child, and you don’t have (and never had) a reason for it, beyond the fact that it feels to you like a fundamental truth of reality.

You can’t reason yourself out of an error you never reasoned yourself into. And changing your mind would feel like changing who you are, at the most fundamental level.

You should be angry at the people who did that to you, but the wounds they inflicted on your mind are too well established for you to even see that they’re not part of yourself.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
It’s an emotional response that was beaten into you as a child, and you don’t have (and never had) a reason for it, beyond the fact that it feels to you like a fundamental truth of reality.
Why do you believe this?

I'm being as nice as I can at this moment. It's a struggle. You are making assertions about me. Utterly false assertions.

You don't know what you're talking about. You know almost nothing about me. But you think you know more about me than I do. It's extremely insulting.
Extremely.
 

ramoss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Northeast USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Jewish
Technically you'd be the one sounding like a slaver because you are going on about your rights to inhibit the rights of another living / breathing human being.

So, we're back to the question of whether or not a fetal child is living?
Tom
It's not a 'fetal child'. It is a fetus. The question is 'not if it's living'.. but 'if it is a person'. I figure, by the time it potentially will be viable, then the woman who is pregnant wants a child. If they , for what ever reason, decided to get an abortion at that point, there will have to be strong extenuating circumstances. So, those circumsances are none of my business, and I would leave it up to that woman and her doctor.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,785
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It’s an emotional response that was beaten into you as a child, and you don’t have (and never had) a reason for it, beyond the fact that it feels to you like a fundamental truth of reality.
Why do you believe this?
Experience.
I'm being as nice as I can at this moment. It's a struggle. You are making assertions about me. Utterly false assertions.
Am I? I see no reason to think that you are an exception to the very well established trend that people who had Catholic upbringings make the exact arguments you make, and people who didn’t, don’t.
You don't know what you're talking about. You know almost nothing about me. But you think you know more about me than I do. It's extremely insulting.
Extremely.
I am sorry you feel insulted.

But regardless of your feelings, I remain right as regards the facts. You don’t have any obligation to like reality, but you also don’t get to exempt yourself from it because you find it insulting.

“I feel insulted” isn’t a logical reason to accept or reject an argument.

Perhaps you arrived at the exact same arguments about the ‘sanctity of life’ used by all the Catholics and ex-Catholics, (and almost never used by anyone else) completely independently, by pure chance. I see no reason to accept this hugely improbable possibility, though.

Is it possible that your feeling of being insulted is a defensive response to having people challenge beliefs that you refuse to examine? You said yourself that you don’t actually know what the “reason” you give for one of your core beliefs even means.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,111
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Why do you believe this?

I'm being as nice as I can at this moment. It's a struggle. You are making assertions about me. Utterly false assertions.

You don't know what you're talking about. You know almost nothing about me. But you think you know more about me than I do. It's extremely insulting.
Extremely.
huh... so you're saying that when you don't understand why someone believes something, and all you're getting out of them is personal insults and wild assertions about your own character just because you hold a point of different from them, you find that insulting?

fancy fucking that.

i wonder if there's maybe some kind of teachable moment here where you could reflect on your own behavior towards others and maybe realize something about how you.... nnnnnnaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh nevermind i'm sure there's nothing to that.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,734
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Of course you won’t change your mind.

It’s an emotional response that was beaten into you as a child, and you don’t have (and never had) a reason for it, beyond the fact that it feels to you like a fundamental truth of reality.

You can’t reason yourself out of an error you never reasoned yourself into. And changing your mind would feel like changing who you are, at the most fundamental level.

You should be angry at the people who did that to you, but the wounds they inflicted on your mind are too well established for you to even see that they’re not part of yourself.
Thank you!!

I have long been unable to comprehend the mindset of many "pro-life" people and finally I see something that makes sense--that it doesn't make sense, it's rationalizing a point of faith.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,828
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
that you find human life transcendent
You could stop right there.

Because I do.

Young or old, male or female, rich or poor, useful or not, American or not, white or not,

Yeah. I value human individuals. All of them. More than I value people's rights to do whatever they want to do.

To me, this is the grand sweep of moral improvement and sophistication. Leaving people out of the Human Family is the old, primitive, ethics and moral principles. Including everyone, including fetal children, is better. Same as including women and black people improved the USA. The more people we include in the Family of Humanity the better off we are as a whole.

Like the genocidal slavers of yore, you might disagree.

So, it's not that fertilization is sacrosanct. It's that human beings are. And while you might think that fetal children are unimportant, like 18th century Christians thought that indigenous people were unimportant, I disagree.
I probably won't change my mind.
Tom
Of course you won’t change your mind.

It’s an emotional response that was beaten into you as a child, and you don’t have (and never had) a reason for it, beyond the fact that it feels to you like a fundamental truth of reality.

You can’t reason yourself out of an error you never reasoned yourself into. And changing your mind would feel like changing who you are, at the most fundamental level.

You should be angry at the people who did that to you, but the wounds they inflicted on your mind are too well established for you to even see that they’re not part of yourself.
You can always reason yourself out of things you didn't reason yourself into. It's other folks who can't. The problem is that most people lack the power to or understanding that they may reason with themselves in such a way, as to reflect doubt inward.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,064
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Does anyone think the woman has the right to abort even if the father wnts to raise the baby without the woman?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,064
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,754
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I find the analogy both scientifically inaccurate and intensely distasteful. Arguing that a person should regard their potential offspring as nothing more than a virus to be exterminated does not convince me that they will then treat the decision with the serious and sober-minded consideration that they should. You can justify ending the life of anyone by simply defining them as subhumans and thus below your consideration. That does not mean that you are making a good and just decision. Euthanasia can be the right choice but it should never be a glib or thoughtless one.
 

ramoss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Northeast USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Jewish
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Why can that be stated with clarity?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,946
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that.

That may well be.
But an appearance of ugliness is insufficient reason to impinge upon a woman’s dominion over her body.

A fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Who “equates” a zygote or blastocyst with what, is nobody else’s business. In some cases a pregnancy can be very much like a fast-growing tumor, but that is a subjective and irrelevant rendering. As is any opinion that the group of cells has rights that supersede those of the woman.

Oh wait, that seems to no longer be the case, with our Supreme Court Of Taliban United States.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,360
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
You say that as if there is not “an ugliness” to the idea that women have less right to their own bodies than a corpse. As if there’s not “an ugliness” to a bunch of men declaring her a vessel without rights on their whim.

You’re damn right there “an ugliness” to a bunch of men having a discussion about forcing women to donate blood and organs against her will. Something the bunch of men will NEVER EVER have to face themselves. Ever. They have made the laws so that no man EVER has to give up any part of his body, even when he’s the cause of someone needing it.

Yes it’s ugly that sometimes one human relies on the organs of another for life. And has to hope that person is available and willing. But the alternative is uglier - that they get to just TAKE someone else’s organs without permission.


It’s pretty ugly to claim that a person is EVER a vessel for another human against their will and has no rights of their own.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,360
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Think about this:

If I get pregnant, and due to the pregancy I develop diabetes, and after the pregancy it becomes complicated and I need a pancreas transplant to not die…

And if the father of the child is a compatible donor…


THE LAW SAYS HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DONATE, AND CANNOT BE FORCED TO DONATE, EVEN IF HIS REFUSAL MEANS THAT I DIE.



Long live the patriarchy.
There’s an ugliness tto that, isn’t there.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,785
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
Biology is icky and gross. I am amazed that it’s taken you so long to notice.

You finding something ugly isn’t an argument for or against it’s continuation.

The description is apt. If it’s also ugly, then so be it.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,502
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Why can that be stated with clarity?
Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.
 

ramoss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Northeast USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Jewish
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Why can that be stated with clarity?
Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.
Do you declare something true because you say it is?

Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.

Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
you have this belief that you use to verbally crucify anyone you disagree with,

It is:
"I value human individuals."

Humans have never been very good at that. We've gotten a little better over the last few centuries. But we're still not great at it.
Tom
no, it is:
"i claim to value human individuals. i can't or won't explain what 'value' means, nor how it applies to the real world. however, the fact that i have this random and ill-defined zeal means you must instantly capitulate to whatever judgment i have about a given situation or else i'll just resort to throwing out childish insults"
pretty big difference there.

Got it.
You don't value humans. You don't even know what value means.
Your argument has instilled no sense of value for the woman. You Loving v Virginia it by saying you think the guy should be responsible too, but ultimately, you feel the woman has no rights to her self-autonomy after she has sex... of which then said autonomy becomes yours (or the state's).

This is a slaver's argument. You can try to sweep your immoral position under the rug, but you are saying your feeling on what the woman can or can't do (post sex) is up to you, not her. That she becomes less a person after having sex.

I'm curious whether we need Pregger Police. Anyone in a sexual relationship (or one-timers need to report to the hospital after two weeks) needs to file a permit with the Pregger Police, and that makes them susceptible to random pregger testing. Yes, this sounds extreme, but really, isn't the whole eight more months, forced birthing, and then all the baggage that comes with the physical and psychological aspects of normal pregnancy on top of who knows what when it is forced a tad extreme as well? Pregger Police would only be a little bit more invasive.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,502
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Why can that be stated with clarity?
Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.
Do you declare something true because you say it is?

Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.

Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.
The clarity is in the statement. You do not seem to have trouble understanding it, so it must be clear enough.

Your statement equivocates "life" and "a life". This discussion is about human life, so we can disregard asexual reproduction.

We were all once zygotes and before that, we did not exist. As for the zygotes who did not manage to grab hold, they died very young. The question for discussion is, "When is it okay to kill someone?" Since we can't kill a person who does not exist, we need a starting time. Conception is a defined point in a person's life, so it's as good as to start the clock.

I've met people who claim a clump of cells is not a life and use this to justify destroying them. When pressed, none of them had a clear demarcation between lifeless clump and living thing, so I choose conception, just for the clarity of it.

So, when is it okay to kill someone?
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
990
Basic Beliefs
agnostic

So, when is it okay to kill someone?

IMO it is never OK to kill somone except in self-defense.

Note that the meaning of “someone” is a person. A zygote, an embryo and a first-trimenster fetus are not “persons” under any reasonable defintion of the word.
 

ramoss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Northeast USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Jewish
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Why can that be stated with clarity?
Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.
Do you declare something true because you say it is?

Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.

Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.
The clarity is in the statement. You do not seem to have trouble understanding it, so it must be clear enough.

Your statement equivocates "life" and "a life". This discussion is about human life, so we can disregard asexual reproduction.

We were all once zygotes and before that, we did not exist. As for the zygotes who did not manage to grab hold, they died very young. The question for discussion is, "When is it okay to kill someone?" Since we can't kill a person who does not exist, we need a starting time. Conception is a defined point in a person's life, so it's as good as to start the clock.

I've met people who claim a clump of cells is not a life and use this to justify destroying them. When pressed, none of them had a clear demarcation between lifeless clump and living thing, so I choose conception, just for the clarity of it.

So, when is it okay to kill someone?
And, what do you mean by 'a life'. Give a better definition. A fetus is alive, but it is not 'a life'. yet. The earliest that happens is viability, about 24 weeks.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Why can that be stated with clarity?
Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.
Do you declare something true because you say it is?

Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.

Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.
The clarity is in the statement. You do not seem to have trouble understanding it, so it must be clear enough.

Your statement equivocates "life" and "a life". This discussion is about human life, so we can disregard asexual reproduction.

We were all once zygotes and before that, we did not exist. As for the zygotes who did not manage to grab hold, they died very young. The question for discussion is, "When is it okay to kill someone?" Since we can't kill a person who does not exist, we need a starting time. Conception is a defined point in a person's life, so it's as good as to start the clock.

I've met people who claim a clump of cells is not a life and use this to justify destroying them. When pressed, none of them had a clear demarcation between lifeless clump and living thing, so I choose conception, just for the clarity of it.
Viability, and viability unfortunately isn't a very dichotomous term. I really don't care what people believe, as long as the woman gets to make her choice.

I and no other person hold the rights to autonomy of a woman because they are pregnant.
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,997
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
I have not heard of forced organ donation.
Every woman who is forced to give birth agains her will is being forced to donate her uterus, her blood, her immune system and more to the fetus.

You have never heard of a woman being denied an abortion against her will?
That would certainly go to the Supreme Court.
It did, it has. Roe v Wade decided she should not be forced to donate her organs against her will to a fetus.
s/donate/loan/
Really? I'm going to get everything back after delivery?
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,997
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,828
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.
My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.
If you caused Bob's catastrophic kidney failure and you were the sole possible donor I'd expect the government to require you to either donate one or get life in prison.
Tom
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,997
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.
My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon
Oh I suspect you are correct on that. Starting with white babies women will be forced to carry.
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,997
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.
If you caused Bob's catastrophic kidney failure and you were the sole possible donor I'd expect the government to require you to either donate one or get life in prison.
Tom
What difference does it make who caused the kidney failure? What difference does it make if you are or aren't the only compatible match. Neither are relevant.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,828
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.
My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon
Oh I suspect you are correct on that. Starting with white babies women will be forced to carry.
I mean, stepping off from there towards kidney thefts.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.
If you caused Bob's catastrophic kidney failure and you were the sole possible donor I'd expect the government to require you to either donate one or get life in prison.
Tom
What difference does it make who caused the kidney failure? What difference does it make if you are or aren't the only compatible match. Neither are relevant.
It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff. If you get pregnant from sex, you are responsible for at least a 9 month commitment. Guys... well, that'll depend.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon

And if we let the DNC and the libruls take our guns you know what will happen. It's right there on the horizon.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,828
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.
Let's imagine I grew a tumor with eyes, ears, a mouth, a brain, just a disgusting face and CNS suddenly attached to my body. Let's imagine for a moment that this thing is somehow, absurdly, a faithful reproduction of TomC.

Am I under an obligation to let this thing grow until it metastasizes and kills me?

NO!

I am not under an obligation to allow this thinking and feeling cancer tumor to kill me, even if it would take 4 years for it to kill me otherwise, even as it begs me "not to kill it".

I'm just under no obligation to share my body with anyone ever.

I have been pretty clear insofar as usually there is a "banana peel of evil" somewhere on the cliff.

Usually it's pretty clear where it is. Here, it is a precedent that exactly allows an unwilling human to be coopted into the donation of their body, blood, organs, time, health to another.

It is exactly precedent that the ethical taboo has  already been broken against forced organ use "to save a life".

There is the misstep against good ethics. That is the step too far, beyond which the evil is already starting.

Invalid slippery slopes say "this ethical step leads to that unethical one". This is not the case here. This is already an unethical step, in and of itself.

@TomC: yes, we know where that leads: fewer dead previously living, wanted, cared-for children.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.
Let's imagine I grew a tumor with eyes, ears, a mouth, a brain, just a disgusting face and CNS suddenly attached to my body. Let's imagine for a moment that this thing is somehow, absurdly, a faithful reproduction of TomC.

Am I under an obligation to let this thing grow until it metastasizes and kills me?

NO!

I am not under an obligation to allow this thinking and feeling cancer tumor to kill me, even if it would take 4 years for it to kill me otherwise, even as it begs me "not to kill it".

I'm just under no obligation to share my body with anyone ever.

I have been pretty clear insofar as usually there is a "banana peel of evil" somewhere on the cliff.

Usually it's pretty clear where it is. Here, it is a precedent that exactly allows an unwilling human to be coopted into the donation of their body, blood, organs, time, health to another.

It is exactly precedent that the ethical taboo has  already been broken against forced organ use "to save a life".

There is the misstep against good ethics. That is the step too far, beyond which the evil is already starting.

Invalid slippery slopes say "this ethical step leads to that unethical one". This is not the case here. This is already an unethical step, in and of itself.

@TomC: yes, we know where that leads: fewer dead previously living, wanted, cared-for children.

Thank you!!

I have long been unable to comprehend the mindset of many "pro-death" people and finally I see something that makes sense--that it doesn't make sense, it's rationalizing a point of faith.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.
This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom
Self-autonomy isn't entitlement. Slavers felt as you do.

Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either.

Slavers did, however, decide for themselves which human beings were persons and which were not. Didn't bother with science or such nonsense, it was all about their rights. They decided which human beings mattered, and which were dispensable.
Like you do.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,828
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.
Let's imagine I grew a tumor with eyes, ears, a mouth, a brain, just a disgusting face and CNS suddenly attached to my body. Let's imagine for a moment that this thing is somehow, absurdly, a faithful reproduction of TomC.

Am I under an obligation to let this thing grow until it metastasizes and kills me?

NO!

I am not under an obligation to allow this thinking and feeling cancer tumor to kill me, even if it would take 4 years for it to kill me otherwise, even as it begs me "not to kill it".

I'm just under no obligation to share my body with anyone ever.

I have been pretty clear insofar as usually there is a "banana peel of evil" somewhere on the cliff.

Usually it's pretty clear where it is. Here, it is a precedent that exactly allows an unwilling human to be coopted into the donation of their body, blood, organs, time, health to another.

It is exactly precedent that the ethical taboo has  already been broken against forced organ use "to save a life".

There is the misstep against good ethics. That is the step too far, beyond which the evil is already starting.

Invalid slippery slopes say "this ethical step leads to that unethical one". This is not the case here. This is already an unethical step, in and of itself.

@TomC: yes, we know where that leads: fewer dead previously living, wanted, cared-for children.

Thank you!!

I have long been unable to comprehend the mindset of many "pro-death" people and finally I see something that makes sense--that it doesn't make sense, it's rationalizing a point of faith.
No, it's simply that there is a recognition of a limit, a breaking point wherein if you and your neighbor are ostensibly ethical equals, and I very much accept this is true, it is our right as human beings to decide for ourselves what we will give of ourselves to others, and that determines in some ways what we should expect others to give to us.

It means I can't expect, if I were to arise as magical tumor clone or whatever, to be allowed to survive.

Not that I'd want to. I'd be like "naw, cut me off and, well, if you can, I'd prefer to be frozen and studied and have my brain scanned destructively shortly afterwards."

It's a fairly well established boundary we all generally have, and which few people other than pregnancy-theoretic-females have to deal with.

It just happens that most people who don't have to worry about it generally don't think about it often.

At any rate, I aim to make anyone who tries to steal my organs need some new ones of their own.

We need this freedom to revoke our mercy, as cold and apathetic and unappealing a freedom as it may be, to the extent that we do not recognize that we today might be entitled to such a mercy.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
We need this freedom to revoke our mercy,
You keep using the word mercy.

Could you explain what you mean when you use it?

I'm not looking for a dictionary definition. I'm asking you to explain what you mean by it in this context.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,828
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
We need this freedom to revoke our mercy,
You keep using the word mercy.

Could you explain what you mean when you use it?

I'm not looking for a dictionary definition. I'm asking you to explain what you mean by it in this context.
Tom
Please see... My first post in the thread. The second post of the thread. Post #2.

I believe all the context and explanation of the idea is there, in the second post.

In general, however, it is 'that which someone asks for, but which you have no obligation to provide for them.'
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,946
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either
How many bales of straw does it take for you to hide your religious superstitions?
NOBODY here has ever expressed any “pro-death” sentiments, or endorsed killing human beings.

A zygote is no more a human being than my fingernails are human beings. “Convenience” is your flippant term for considered choices that are not yours to make or judge.

Abortion is serious business for those who could invoke the option - those are human beings, unlike my fingernail or a zygote. Your attempt to belittle people for making choices you would have no idea how to face yourself, is … really ugly.

JH is correct; yours is the attitude of the slaver, trying to exercise control over other people’s bodies.

Being gay and exempting yourself from the possibility of ever facing such choices, is not any moral elevation “above” the problem. It is safe perch from which a coward can preach a superstitious, cavalier and uninformed opinion.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.
This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom
Self-autonomy isn't entitlement. Slavers felt as you do.
Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either.
Inconvenient... sounds like a great title to a Mansplain' book, "The Inconvenient Pregnancy"... could become a movie.

Teen 1: *sobs*
Teen 2: What is wrong?
Teen 1: I'm pregnant.
Teen 2: How inconvenient.

It is incredible that a man can so easily show how utterly apathetic they are to women to consider pregnancy and birth a mere "inconvenience". No wonder you have no trouble convincing yourself forcing women to go through pregnancy and birth isn't a gross violation of their rights as a human being... as in present tense of being a human being.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,754
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.
It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science. But when science interferes with somebody's world view they don't understand it. Talking to feticide rights people about science is like talking to YEC people about science.

As long as science supports their opinions it's fine. When it doesn't it becomes incomprehensible. Suddenly, they don't understand the difference between "life", "being alive", "an individual live", and "a human life".

Really. It's right there in this thread.
Tom
 
Top Bottom