Abortion

[steve_bank]

Does anyone think the woman has the right to abort even if the father wnts to raise the baby without the woman?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does anyone think the woman has the right to abort even if the father wnts to raise the baby without the woman?

Yes. He can't force her to carry it. I have no problem with him offering her basically a surrogacy contract to carry it, but he can't require it.

 

[Elixir]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

 

[steve_bank]

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]

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]

Does anyone think the woman has the right to abort even if the father wnts to raise the baby without the woman?

Until such time as the sperm donor can transpant the fetus into his own body, and give birth , then yes.

 

[ramoss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.