40

1/7/2014 11:02:12 PM

so 38 to 42 weeks, no problem with terminating it?

just want to make sure i know TSB's timeline and thinking here.

1/7/2014 11:29:05 PM

^
inside the mom = her decision

1/8/2014 8:36:33 AM

Quote :

"so you are asking about a magical case where the fetus can be magically transplanted out of her body without any impact to her physically or mentally? yeah, in that case a utilitarian argument could easily made to support #1"

Well, yes. The difficulty of saving the fetus in the removal process is a question for the doctors.

^ was that sarcastic? I really can't tell.

1/8/2014 9:32:00 AM

not at all sarcastic. what's your issue with late-term abortions?

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM. Reason : wrong word]

1/8/2014 9:37:06 AM

would you also support a mother giving birth and just before the doctor cuts the umbilical cord, the mother can say "fuck that thing is ugly, kill it immediately"?

I mean it's still attached to her, right?

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 10:17 AM. Reason : we're giving a lot of importance on what side of a vaginal wall a thing is on.]

1/8/2014 10:16:35 AM

What exactly are we talking about for these late term abortions?

Inducing premature birth, and then... putting the fetus in the medical waste bin?

1/8/2014 10:22:26 AM

why should viability be the turning point? either way, a potential life was taken. it's the same thing, in the end.

is it this?

Quote :

"because somebody wants that baby!"

1/8/2014 10:44:04 AM

no, it wasn't a potential life. It's a life. period. Perhaps the bigger issue here is that you place very little value on human life. If that's the case, then there's no point in having this discussion.

peace.

1/8/2014 11:26:24 AM

adultswim is really derping it up on this page.

I want him to respond to the baby outside the mother still attached to the umbilical (and ugly) question.

Fuck it?

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM. Reason : -]

1/8/2014 11:35:58 AM

^^^ You seemed to have consistently dodged any case where the preservation of the fetus would not interfere with the mother's bodily autonomy.

Both adultswim and dtownral seem to be invoking a form of bodily autonomy where the mother has discretion over what to do with the fetus. Unless that discretion results in her caring for it and fulfilling the minimum standards of a parent, that's plainly untrue. After the fetus has literally left her body, these bodily autonomy arguments are laughably inept when compared to an ethical right to life, no matter how primitive that form of life is.

If the question is who will benefit from the harvesting of its stem cells, there is some valid parental primacy. However, if the mother wants to abandon it and is battling a 3rd party who wants to care for it, then the ethics of the situation obviously favor the 3rd party.

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 11:36 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2014 11:36:38 AM

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2014 11:38:12 AM

Quote :

"no, it wasn't a potential life. It's a life. period. Perhaps the bigger issue here is that you place very little value on human life. If that's the case, then there's no point in having this discussion. "

learn to separate your emotions from philosophical discussion

Quote :

"I want him to respond to the baby outside the mother still attached to the umbilical (and ugly)."

clipping a cord has no chance of causing any distress to the mother, so it's an absurd question

Quote :

"^^^ You seemed to have consistently dodged any case where the preservation of the fetus would not interfere with the mother's bodily autonomy. Both adultswim and dtownral seem to be invoking a form of bodily autonomy where the mother has discretion over what to do with the fetus. Unless that discretion results in her caring for it and fulfilling the minimum standards of a parent, that's plainly untrue. After the fetus has literally left her body, these bodily autonomy arguments are laughably inept when compared to an ethical right to life, no matter how primitive that form of life is. If the question is who will benefit from the harvesting of its stem cells, there is some valid parental primacy. However, if the mother wants to abandon it and is battling a 3rd party who wants to care for it, then the ethics of the situation obviously favor the 3rd party."

Who has the right to decide what interferes? As dtownral mentioned earlier, mental distress is as valid as physical distress.

In the case that there is no extra distress to the mother, there is no serious potential for birth defects, and someone wants to care for it, obviously the ideal outcome is to preserve the fetus.

1/8/2014 12:02:55 PM

Quote :

"Well, yes. The difficulty of saving the fetus in the removal process is a question for the doctors."

its a question they can offer input about, but the moral determination is not based on what they say. the mother has a say about the impact of medical procedures on her own body, and in utilitarian argument would be the only one who could weigh in on her own mental suffering.

Quote :

"I want him to respond to the baby outside the mother still attached to the umbilical (and ugly)."

you are starting to describe the famous pianist example. if you woke up with a famous living pianist attached to your body, you would not have a moral obligation to allow them to be connected to you. doing so would be a service to them (and in the example also humanity, because their music is that moving) but would not be morally required to.


[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2014 1:49:25 PM

You are falling back to that ridiculous straw man argument?

1/8/2014 3:59:27 PM

Go back to Rock Hill, y0willy0

1/8/2014 4:12:12 PM

Quote :

"the mother has a say about the impact of medical procedures on her own body, and in utilitarian argument would be the only one who could weigh in on her own mental suffering."

I flatly don't understand what this argument is. Are you starting with the assumption that the procedure of removing the fetus would have less physical impact on the mother if the fetus is terminated?

Because that is not established at all.

1/8/2014 5:06:06 PM

you seemed to be dancing around making a utilitarian argument

i was pointing out that if you are making a utilitarian argument (i.e. your goal is to reduce suffering), you can not ignore the suffering of the mother and the mother is the only one who can accurately decide her level of suffering. because of this, even if you postulated that she could magically not suffer any more physically, an external party would still not be able to decide her mental suffering and thus would not be able to and should not conclude that requiring her to give up the fetus is the moral choice.

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 5:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2014 5:52:04 PM

Why would she experience more suffering (mental, physical, or whatever) if the fetus she's having ripped from her body anyway is handed off to a party that wants to care for it?

You must be assuming something that's not obvious to me. For utilitarianism, you can get any given conclusion depending on the weightings placed on the happiness or misery of the parties involved. Here, I don't see a difference in the happiness/misery of the mother between the two options. She asks to have the pregnancy stopped, and that's what she's getting...

1/8/2014 6:21:32 PM

Quote :

"For utilitarianism, you can get any given conclusion depending on the weightings placed on the happiness or misery of the parties involved."

right, but you are trivializing the very difficult task of determining the level of happiness of misery of the things you are comparing.

and in this example the only person able to determine the mother's level of happiness or misery is the mother, no external parties

Quote :

"She asks to have the pregnancy stopped, and that's what she's getting..."

and i suspect that most women would choose to give the child away at that point, but that's just a guess since I can't know how she feels. Because of this, it would need to remain her choice.

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2014 6:29:53 PM

If preserving the premature baby's life doesn't cause a negative physical effect on the mother, then I don't see why it should matter. Maybe she feels guilty about someone taking the fetus and raising it. I mean, having it removed prematurely is possibly saddling the kid with disabilities, so the mother might justifiably feel like a bad person here.

I thought you might be talking about when the destructive procedure is easier.

Imagine procedure A where the baby is killed. Maybe the doctor takes apart its limbs and removes them with tools and a small amount of dilation. Compare this to procedure B (for the same point in pregnancy) where a full c-section has to be preformed, and she'll have the scar from that, as well as the medical risks that go along with it, which are worse than procedure A.

Even if a 3rd party was screaming to keep the fetus in tact, it's a lot less relevant in that case. There's a much greater amount of bodily intrusion necessary to keep it alive, and in procedure B, it's dead as a doornail. But this is also clearly beyond the bounds of the hypothetical I was bringing up. Maybe that hypothetical can never apply in the real world.

If her only reason for terminating the fetus is that the knowledge of it living bothers her, then that's not very defensible.

1/8/2014 8:51:20 PM

Quote :

"If her only reason for terminating the fetus is that the knowledge of it living bothers her, then that's not very defensible."

but that's only a situation that you created by ignoring any mental suffering

[Edited on January 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2014 9:08:40 PM

1/9/2014 4:12:43 AM

^
in the situation being discussed, it would be peter singer destroying his own pipes

1/9/2014 8:03:37 AM

i feel like now is a great time to bring up routine male circumcision.

any pro-lifers want to explain their pro-mutilation stance?

1/9/2014 8:27:02 AM

^
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=613183

1/9/2014 8:43:04 AM

so let me make sure i have this correct:

it's NOT ok to kill a fetus because it can 'feel pain', but it IS ok to surgically remove part of a conscious, screaming infant's penis for religious/cosmetic reasons?

wow. it's almost as if pro-lifers just want to keep babies around to punish them for things they didn't do their entire lives. lol just brutal.

1/9/2014 8:55:40 AM

somewhere disco_stu's circumcision alarm is going off

1/9/2014 10:43:41 AM

55 million babies legally murdered since Roe v Wade

[Edited on January 22, 2014 at 11:12 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/22/2014 11:12:14 AM

Cool. How many appendectomies and tonsillectomies have been done?

1/22/2014 11:28:21 AM

Look, I get it. You equate the value of life to a vestigial organ that should be removed. Good for you. A lot of other people don't.

1/22/2014 11:31:52 AM

i'm about to murder some pad thai for lunch

1/22/2014 11:32:34 AM

oh, i thought you were giving medical procedure factoids

1/22/2014 11:48:23 AM

Quote :

"55 million babies legally murdered"

This is extremist-talk , a gross mischaracterization, and really not worth addressing.

1/22/2014 11:50:50 AM

23% of raw US farm products are exported. So in a simple analysis, we'll take this to support 71 million people. We are supporting that many people abroad with our farms.

So we could have let those 55 million babies live and still be food self-sufficient... and let the rest of the world starve? Perhaps the draconian anti-abortion laws in the developing world are what the conservatives are so envious of in the first place.

1/22/2014 11:51:29 AM

ok, 55 million fetuses removed from wombs since Roe v Wade.

That better? What is extremist about that comment? The number? I mean a number is a number.

1/22/2014 11:54:37 AM

Cool. How many appendectomies and tonsillectomies have been done?

1/22/2014 11:55:21 AM

It's extremists because you intentionally use the phrase "babies legally murdered", which is disingenuous propaganda.

1/22/2014 11:56:00 AM

To me, IMHO, that's what it is.

I just wonder how much potential was sucked out of vaginas in pieces. A president? A cure for some kind of awful cancer? We'll never know.

1/22/2014 11:59:40 AM

We should all care more about the numbers than the word selection

1/22/2014 12:00:03 PM

i wonder how many Hitler's and serial killers and pedophiles have been sucked out of vaginas

1/22/2014 12:03:34 PM

there could have been a unicorn sucked out

we'll never know

1/22/2014 12:05:27 PM

If the virgin Mary had lived in modern times...

1/22/2014 12:13:09 PM

1% 0.5% of US births are to virgin moms
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/24/science/la-sci-sn-virgin-births-pregnancy-study-20131223

[Edited on January 22, 2014 at 12:17 PM. Reason : virgin mary is still alive!!]

1/22/2014 12:14:10 PM

Quote :

"I just wonder how much potential was sucked out of vaginas in pieces. A president? A cure for some kind of awful cancer? We'll never know."

Sure, maybe a president. But more than likely, a lot more kids who wouldn't have a proper upbringing who would grow into criminals and/or bums relying on government assistance, your tax dollars! We'll never know.

[Edited on January 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2014 12:15:49 PM

its really irreverent what they could become in regard to a person's right to make medical decisions about their own body

1/22/2014 12:18:35 PM

except that decision kills a human being.

1/22/2014 1:47:16 PM

it wouldn't matter if the fetus was a full grown human attached to the outside of someone else's body, its still irrelevant in regard to a person's right to make medical decisions about their own body

1/22/2014 1:49:46 PM

^^
as does wearing a condom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_Actuality

[Edited on January 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2014 1:50:48 PM

birth control pills are basically Zyklon B

1/22/2014 1:52:17 PM