Quote :

"If you debase your mind enough into dehumanizing any set of humans (Tutsis, Jews, babies) it's a lot easier to suppress your conscience when you condone the murder of innocents. Now we have an entire culture that embraces infanticide, tells us we're the same as animals, and then screams about human rights. Contradict much?"

Are you seriously comparing people who support abortion rights to genocidal regimes? That's a great way to change peoples' minds. Also, infanticide? Abortion involves fetuses, not infants.

Likewise, when you anthropomorphize and ascribe a soul to clumps of cells, it's lot easier on your conscience when you force a thinking, feeling woman to have an unwanted baby against her will, and perhaps against sound medical advice.

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 2:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2013 2:31:46 AM

Quote :

"Are you seriously comparing people who support abortion rights to genocidal regimes?"

Are you demonizing the humans who support genocidal regimes? You do know nearly all of Germany- one of the most culturally enlightened nations in history- supported the Nazis, either passively or actively. They were real people with families, and kids, wives, and husbands, not monsters. They felt they had all sorts of science to back up their claims too, and thought they were doing the right thing.

There's more and more science coming out every day that shows us how amazing and advanced the early development of the baby is....I mean of the fetus...er...clump of cells, rather (we'll make it easier for your conscience).

I think in 100 years, people will look back on our generation with disdain, much like we do to the Nazis, especially now that overpopulation's being exposed as a myth, science is beginning to prove early consciousness, and even the postmodern relativists, secular humanists, and materialist atheists are realizing they have no logical, philosophical grounds to espouse human rights for any clump of cells, full-grown or otherwise. Sounds radical, I know, but 70 years ago it wouldn't have. And 70 years after the Holocaust we don't excuse the Nazis for their attempt to bring about their very narrow and arrogant definition of progress either.

Quote :

"Abortion involves fetuses, not infants. "

And the difference being the distance of a few inches? Did the Kermit Gosnell case teach us nothing? He went to prison for style points? If he had scrambled the brains of those cell-clumps inside the womb, instead of outside, he would have been a champion of women's rights! Had he not induced birth first, he'd have done nothing illegal. (Even if he didn't incite harm to women, people would be appalled by his style, wanting a prosecution...on what basis besides the conscience they try to suppress I don't know though)

Federal legislation calls it the murder of an unborn baby if someone besides the mother kills it. But when the mother chooses...to murder...they are exercising personal liberty! to....murder! But let's change the nouns and verbs, even though it is the exact same act, because we need to be able to sleep better at night.

And one last note, it's absolutely morally reprehensible to approve of killing kids with Down syndrome or another disability, or to think sex-selective abortion is ok. Or to even kill a kid because he might be born into poverty. You don't get to determine the quality of life for everyone else from your very narrow-minded secularist, materialist Western point of view. Not everyone measures life the same way you do.

If you want to talk about self-appointed euthanasia, that's another issue, as is abortion when there is a viable threat to the mother. Yes, there are shades of grey, but to apply your own rigid definition of a life worth living to others is arrogant, and for the mother to take that license to kill for her own inconvenience is selfish.

10/31/2013 10:36:45 AM

ohmy

10/31/2013 11:01:19 AM

Overpopulation is a myth?

10/31/2013 11:07:38 AM

Quote :

"There's more and more science coming out every day that shows us how amazing and advanced the early development of the baby is"

that's nice. are they conscious?

10/31/2013 11:08:21 AM

^^poorly worded. my bad. the myth of the great threat everyone thought overpopulation would be. now it's the opposite in most countries.

and I do realize how "radical" I sound. Dietrich Bonhoeffer sounded like a radical in Nazi Germany too. Ha jk. I mean he did, but I'm not comparing myself to him. Just saying, in the span of only 30 years our culture has been so conditioned into thinking, into "knowing" beyond a shadow of a doubt, that fetuses can't be humans, that anything suggesting otherwise, especially emphatically declaring otherwise like I did, sounds radical.

And I also realize there is little evidence to PROVE when life begins. But if you are to detonate a building and you don't know if there are people in it or not, you wouldn't be so quick to press the button. If there's just a chance, we'd do our due diligence. And if we didn't know for sure, we wouldn't do anything.

10/31/2013 11:20:38 AM

life begins at conception, clearly

the important question is when does conscious life begin

10/31/2013 11:22:33 AM

^^How old are you?

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:22 AM. Reason : -]

10/31/2013 11:22:38 AM

Quote :

"? If he had scrambled the brains of those cell-clumps inside the womb, instead of outside, he would have been a champion of women's rights!"

in what world would using untrained teenagers as medical assistants be heralded as a champion of women's rights? no world. what that guy did is clearly illegal in many different ways, its so different that its not even worth mentioning in a discussion about abortion.

10/31/2013 11:23:35 AM

He was convicted of three accounts of murder. Guess how many of those victims were an adult.

10/31/2013 11:25:39 AM

and its not the only thing he did that was illegal, if he was only killing fetuses he would still have been operating very illegally. in no world would anyone be holding him up as a triumph of women's rights.

10/31/2013 11:29:16 AM

Quote :

"life begins at conception, clearly the important question is when does conscious life begin"

Clearly.

and when does it end?

Is it impossible to murder someone in a constant vegetative state?

10/31/2013 11:30:29 AM

that person was once conscious

a fetus was not

10/31/2013 11:34:36 AM

but will be.

10/31/2013 11:38:22 AM

^^^^you're right. I hyperbolized. But let's say he hadn't hired untrained medical assistants, and instead was just killing newborns in the ridiculous manner he was, inducing birth, then severing their spinal cords. And keeping some of these cell clumps in jars. He would still be prosecuted, and people would still be appalled. But by their own reasoning they have no right to be.

It's like the outcry against making women have ultrasounds before they undergo an abortion. If we can turn a blind eye to what really goes on, we can move forward. Ignorance is bliss.

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2013 11:38:48 AM

^^^I see, so your life experiences must accumulate (or attain some kind of value), before you can be called human.

That way when the switch is turned off you're still human right?

We should definitely quantify this, what a terrific idea, and exterminate those who don't make the grade.

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:40 AM. Reason : -]

10/31/2013 11:40:18 AM

^^So your position is that because Kermit Gosnell was doing something illegal, if he was instead doing something else that is illegal, then he would have been prosecuted and people would be appalled.

But then you conclude that by people's own reasoning they would have had no right to be appalled.

That doesn't make any sense, your conclusion in no way follows your argument.

10/31/2013 11:42:18 AM

Quote :

"but will be."

so what? that can go pretty deep. every time you use birth control you're robbing a potential person of their chance at life. why draw the line in the sand at conception?

Quote :

"^^^I see, so your life experiences must accumulate (or attain some kind of value), before you can be called human. That way when the switch is turned off you're still human right? We should definitely quantify this, what a terrific idea, and exterminate those who don't make the grade."

what? a zygote is human. but it isn't a conscious human so it doesn't matter if you kill it. it never knew it existed, who cares

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2013 11:49:29 AM

That human vegetable doesn't know it ever existed either.

Quote :

"why draw the line in the sand at conception?"

Idk, chances of becoming a viable person just went up dramatically without your interference.

I don't think my jerk-off sock is going to sprout an infant anytime soon-

10/31/2013 11:52:04 AM

Quote :

"That human vegetable doesn't know it ever existed either."

doesn't currently know. but did at one point, and therefore attained certain rights, for lack of a better word.

Quote :

"Idk, chances of becoming a viable person just went up dramatically without your interference. I don't think my jerk-off sock is going to sprout an infant anytime soon-"

but how is a condom that much different than abortion, philosophically? in both cases, a human could have come into existence. you can argue that it's more likely in the case of conception, but that's really not relevant.

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2013 11:57:50 AM

Quote :

"^^So your position is that because Kermit Gosnell was doing something illegal, if he was instead doing something else that is illegal, then he would have been prosecuted and people would be appalled. But then you conclude that by people's own reasoning they would have had no right to be appalled. That doesn't make any sense, your conclusion in no way follows your argument."

No. People aren't appalled because it is illegal. They might say, sure, take him to court, he broke the law. But it wouldn't make headlines like it did. People are appalled because it breaks some sort of moral law that is behind the judicial law. The laws of a country aren't arbitrarily assigned. So I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the legal system more than people's reactions. (The law that is in place because "OMG he killed a baby!" but how the law says it would be legal if only he hadn't induced birth first, and then it'd be all good and well, and we wouldn't even call it a baby).

10/31/2013 12:06:40 PM

so then your argument is equating post-birth termination with abortion? i'm sure there are some people advocating for post-birth terminations, but its not a lot and its not at all what the pro-choice movement is about. so again, your argument doesn't make any sense at all.

10/31/2013 12:08:55 PM

so willy, you're against abortion, but hope for a world-cleansing plague?

I think when the abortion occurs makes a pretty big deal, and that's one of the reasons that what Gosnell was doing was appalling.

10/31/2013 12:13:50 PM

What's the difference between post-birth termination and abortion? Why is one legal (specifically later-term abortions) and one not?

I'm asking this in light of the moral/philosophical grounds that inform our laws

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2013 12:20:35 PM

one is icky. obviously there is an undefined gray area.

10/31/2013 12:23:01 PM

late-term abortions are pretty rare and illegal in many developed countries

Quote :

" In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year."

10/31/2013 12:23:29 PM

Once the fetus is removed from the parent it is a person and no longer a part of the parent.

10/31/2013 12:24:57 PM

If there were consensus that late-term abortions were so icky that they should be illegal, not just rare, that would be awesome.

But where do we draw the line? Maybe it's a flimsy, grey line depending on the circumstances, but still what are the criteria? I think most of us agree it has to be drawn somewhere, and because we are unsure, pro-lifers choose conception. But where is the line for pro-choicers and why? (probably been discussed in this thread, but I'm late to the party, sorry)

^ lots of prematurely birthed babies end up surviving, even though many medical experts would have said they couldn't. So a baby isn't a person until birth? Why is that the determinant for personhood? They still can't survive on their own.

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2013 12:27:44 PM

ohmy, is abortion ever morally allowed? are there any exceptions for when it is okay? (rape, danger to mother, etc...)

10/31/2013 12:27:44 PM

Well we can murder people if they are "coming right for us" so I see no difference offing a baby who may kill a mother with that logic

10/31/2013 12:31:42 PM

All right, I've got to get work done. I'll revisit this later perhaps, but I definitely don't think rape is justifiable for abortion. Few people would justify punishing a child with the death penalty for the acts of their father.

Danger to mother is definitely within the realm of possibility, and is in those grey areas of ethics and laws that medical professionals always have to negotiate, along with the patients and the families. No easy answers for that one for sure.

And I do want to put it out there, because I've seen it mentioned in this thread a lot, that I'm not sure the religious right has helped the cause of abortion much because they've turned into political gaming more than genuine concern, as evidenced by their concern often ending once the baby's born. Most of the passionate pro-lifers in my experience, though, are some of the most altruistic people I know supporting or involved in all sorts of causes defending the sanctity of human life at every level (war, death penalty, anti-poverty initiatives, etc)

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2013 12:34:00 PM

So you would force a rape victim to carry the baby of their attacker for 9 months????

Uuuuuhhhhh

10/31/2013 12:37:57 PM

Quote :

"Danger to mother is definitely within the realm of possibility, and is in those grey areas of ethics and laws that medical professionals always have to negotiate, along with the patients and the families. No easy answers for that one for sure."

so then the answer is yes, there are exceptions when the mothers life is in danger

is this because of the self-defense argument made above?

10/31/2013 12:38:51 PM

Quote :

"doesn't currently know. but did at one point, and therefore attained certain rights, for lack of a better word."

Oh ok, well I guess losing consciousness, losing those rights, would explain cases like Terri Shiavo. I still like the idea of quantifying consciousness and saying that a fetus hasn't experienced enough to be categorized with human vegetables; that is fantastic. I would use such a metric to exterminate useless/poor/stupid people in droves.

Quote :

"in both cases, a human could have come into existence. "

Not really. Semen doesn't do anything on its own.

Quote :

"so willy, you're against abortion, but hope for a world-cleansing plague? "

I'm not against abortion; I just think adultswim has a poor argument and/or can't communicate his thoughts well.

10/31/2013 12:43:17 PM

Quote :

"Not really. Semen doesn't do anything on its own."

you're not following

Condoms:

Timeline 1: You use a condom. Person is not born.
Timeline 2: You don't use a condom. Person is born.

Abortion:

Timeline 1: You abort. Person is not born.
Timeline 2: You don't abort. Person is born.

Quote :

"I still like the idea of quantifying consciousness and saying that a fetus hasn't experienced enough to be categorized with human vegetables; that is fantastic. I would use such a metric to exterminate useless/poor/stupid people in droves."

the metric is awareness of one's own existence, imo

Quote :

"I'm not against abortion; I just think adultswim has a poor argument and/or can't communicate his thoughts well."

i think you don't like me and thus don't make a true attempt to understand my arguments

i'd love for you tell me why i'm wrong, but you seem to be more interested in making sarcastic jabs, which tend to make people look like bumbling idiots

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2013 12:53:55 PM

Oh I see; you're right I wasn't following you.

It's so simple!

If only more people would equate rubbers and surgery.

I like your timelines as well; another marvelous exercise in simplicity. I suggest we dedicate the new few pages to situations that lead to a person being born versus not born.

There are SO MANY besides condoms and abortions. Where to begin?

Ah, I just saw your edit. Nope, I don't like you; you're a simpleton. At least we're both pro-choice though!

Oh multiple edits; I can do that too! How many times are you going to change that last sentence in an effort to monologue?

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 1:02 PM. Reason : -]

10/31/2013 1:00:51 PM

Quote :

"There are SO MANY besides condoms and abortions. Where to begin?"

exactly

10/31/2013 1:03:02 PM

Quote :

"I'll revisit this later perhaps, but I definitely don't think rape is justifiable for abortion. Few people would justify punishing a child with the death penalty for the acts of their father."

you're insane

because:

Quote :

"So you would force a rape victim to carry the baby of their attacker for 9 months???? Uuuuuhhhhh"

not just that, but the kid is a constant reminder of the event

aside from the fact that one random act of rape would force a different life on this unsuspecting woman

What if a girl is raped when she's just 13? You'd seriously force her to carry this unwanted child?

10/31/2013 1:41:53 PM

the issue is that ohmy seriously believes you're stealing someone's life when you abort a fetus. it's somewhat equivocable to murder

if you believe abortion is wrong, but it's okay in instances of rape, you're morally inconsistent

you have to get to the root of why they think it's murder

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2013 1:44:19 PM

Id rather not know and stay in my glass tower in new york city.

10/31/2013 1:47:25 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/31/federal-appeals-court-reinstates-most-texas-abortion-restrictions/

10/31/2013 11:09:25 PM

Quote :

"but how is a condom that much different than abortion, philosophically? in both cases, a human could have come into existence. you can argue that it's more likely in the case of conception, but that's really not relevant. "

If you want to go down this absurd path, you should be asking why we don't require everyone to have sex every single day, unprotected. It's patently absurd. Philosophically, how is a "maybe there's a life" different from "there's definitely a life"? I think the answer is obvious. That's why many pro-murderers push the discussion past the obvious fact that human life is being destroyed and instead question the "value" of whatever is being killed. Frankly, ohmy, is right to point out that it takes a bit of dehumanizing and devaluing of human life to get to the point where it's OK to kill unborn human life, no matter how much you like or dislike the rest of his points (or trolls)

Quote :

"Once the fetus is removed from the parent it is a person and no longer a part of the parent."

BULLSHIT. It was NEVER a "part" of the parent.

Quote :

"Condoms: Timeline 1: You use a condom. Person is not born. Timeline 2: You don't use a condom. Person is born. Abortion: Timeline 1: You abort. Person is not born. Timeline 2: You don't abort. Person is born."

One might suggest that simply emerging from a vagina is not the best dividing line for this thought experiment. Otherwise, you would be suggesting that abortion the day before birth is no different than 6 months before birth

Quote :

"if you believe abortion is wrong, but it's okay in instances of rape, you're morally inconsistent "

If you go with a black and white analysis in a vacuum like that, sure. However, one might also ascribe some weight of immorality towards forcing a woman to carry a child of rape to term, thereby continuing the rape for at least another 9months. Really, you're dealing with shitty choices all around in that case.

10/31/2013 11:27:31 PM

A fetus inside a women is not a person. It's an entity inside of that women which will grow and possibly exit.

If I'm having a moral issue with removing this possible life I might as well become a vegan.

Edit to address edit: how is something attached by a chord which feeds off the host and grew out of it not part of the host?

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:34 PM. Reason : Atown ]

10/31/2013 11:32:12 PM

^ can you point to an anatomy chart and show where the "fetus" part of the human body is?
Calling it a "body part" is salisburyboy levels of stupid. There are zero other human body parts that break off and form a new, fully reproducing and self-sustaining entity. That suggests that this is not a body part, but a wholly separate entity.

And "how is something that grew out of the host not a part of the host"? Maybe because it didn't actually "grow out of the host." it didn't just magically "emerge" from the host's own cells spontaneously, considering the fact that it took cells from another human to even begin the process. It has DNA that is, meaningfully different from the host's (as in, not just a random mutation or two different). Again, I'd ask you to find me any other human body part that behaves in such a way.

10/31/2013 11:36:24 PM

A chart showing a fetus attached by a chord which feeds it and it removed would kill it?

Edit: The fact that some dudes presious spermies had to facilitate has nothing to do with it. Ohmy thinks a rape victim should carry and birth the baby caused by rape. How is that rational?

How can you legally tell a human what to do with an entity growing inside them? That is the highest form of government interference into someone's person space.

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:50 PM. Reason : Oh man so many aboro edits. ]

10/31/2013 11:46:11 PM

OK. Now, point to any other body parts that have meaningfully different DNA, eventually fall off, and turn into a self-sustaining and reproducing organism. I'll wait while you check. Hell, show me any other "body part" against which the body actively develops antibodies, absent a disease or syndrome.



And how can I legally tell a human what to do with an entity growing inside them? Let me turn the question around: how can you legally tell a woman she can't pull an unborn child out of her womb two days before birth and bash its head in with a shovel? After all, it's just "an entity growing inside of her", right? That is the highest form of government interference into someone's person space.

The answer is simple: you are grossly oversimplifying what is going on here. I would hope that you can see a difference between a tapeworm, or a tumor, and an unborn child. I sure as hell do. We can reasonably differ on many things in the abortion discussion, but surely you can agree that there is a marked difference between these basic things, right?

10/31/2013 11:48:52 PM

While I'm not a huge fan of late term abortion I see no issue with a women aborting a baby which is still attached to her.

We legally murder fully grown adults for way stupider shit.

But what's your control issue here? Are you really concerned about unborn baby's bc I really don't see you caring about anyone in general let alone those not fully formed.

Aboro edit: of course there is a difference between a tapeworm and a fetus. One comes out and it's maybe dead and the other comes out and i get to read you bitching about it taking government assistance. Serious you suck. A women has control until the fetus comes out and the chord is cut

[Edited on October 31, 2013 at 11:58 PM. Reason : Jesus dude so many edits. ]

10/31/2013 11:55:02 PM

So, if a woman gives birth, but doesn't cut the umbilical cord, it's OK to bash the newborn's skull in with a shovel? That's honestly your argument? I think we need to go into THIS discussion before we ask why I'm not generally OK with killing an innocent human life simply because it's not wanted or your attempt to divert the discussion into unrelated discussions of what you think I think about other issues...



Look, stop trying to divert away from your lack of an argument by pointing to your strawman of my positions on other issues. This is now three times that you have said "if it has any attachments, it's a part of the body, and I can bash it with a shovel". You need to go back to biology class if you think that.

10/31/2013 11:56:56 PM

What's your argument?

When are abortions ok for you?

I'm fine with the "no bashing fetuses right when they come out the womb bc that's gross". But I'd the mother is going to die or Satan comes I have no issue with offing it.

11/1/2013 12:02:09 AM

I'd like to know YOUR argument for why a fetus is a body part. You have yet to provide anything coherent beyond "it's attached to the body." So is a tapeworm.

11/1/2013 12:04:27 AM