Abortion

[Marisa]

No you aren't.
When else can someone involve a person in their life and then kill them because they wish they had not chosen that?
I understand that pregnant mothers are in a unique situation. But so are fetal children. As a result, the rules that apply to other situations don't necessarily apply to reproduction.
You cannot be expected to personally support other people when there are other options. Hence, bodily autonomy is generally the rule. But a fetal human has no other options, so bodily autonomy stops being a right once you choose to involve one in your life.
Tom

And we're back to consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood.

 

[columbus]

And we're back to consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood.

That is an emotive and untrue assertion.
Nobody ever said it did.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

You mean that such people don't hold to the conveniently altered views of modern religions to avoid outrage and criticism from all quarters. There is no archaic theology, it is what it is: either the Bible/Quran/Torahy are right, or they worthless. It's an all-in-all-out kind of thing, not something you can cherry pick the most convenient parts from and forget the rest.

That is the craziest thing I've ever heard. Whether or not the Bible, Quran or Torahy are 100% true, 50% true, or even 0% true historically, they all have value, as they all contain extremely valuable lessons. They all have valid instruction regarding living a good life. Some more than others, imho, but none are "worthless". And, it certainly is not an "all-or-nothing" type of thing. I am a Christian, and after many years of historical research, there are parts of the Bible that I trust as accurate, and other parts (like Paul's letters) that I question the validity of. Not only is there nothing wrong with that (assuming you are reasoning with clear, honorable intentions ... not just trying to make things easier on yourself), but I take pride in my reluctance to take anyone's word for anything on face value, but, instead, study the subject matter and history to come to my own conclusion.

 

[Marisa]

That is an emotive and untrue assertion.
Nobody ever said it did.
Tom

The fact that you believe that consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood yet say

And that one person is also the person who chose to put the fetus in the position of being dependent.

and do not understand how this constitutes competing positions is, frankly, ferhoodling to me. They are opposing statements.

Nevertheless, I'm sure it's become apparent that we are making no headway in this conversation.

 

[viole]

That is the craziest thing I've ever heard. Whether or not the Bible, Quran or Torahy are 100% true, 50% true, or even 0% true historically, they all have value, as they all contain extremely valuable lessons. They all have valid instruction regarding living a good life. Some more than others, imho, but none are "worthless". And, it certainly is not an "all-or-nothing" type of thing. I am a Christian, and after many years of historical research, there are parts of the Bible that I trust as accurate, and other parts (like Paul's letters) that I question the validity of. Not only is there nothing wrong with that (assuming you are reasoning with clear, honorable intentions ... not just trying to make things easier on yourself), but I take pride in my reluctance to take anyone's word for anything on face value, but, instead, study the subject matter and history to come to my own conclusion.

Let's take two lessons out of the Bible:

1) love you enemies
2) rip their women apart

How do you know which one of the two is a valid instruction regarding living a good life, if you do not know that already in advance?

Ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There's an obvious element missing in Tyson's statement - and that being the CHOICE of the mother to instigate the abortion. Quite different than having no choice - for instance, "God did it", or someone literally held you down against your will and performed some horrific act, etc.

I would say that the most compelling argument against the decision to have an abortion is that it flies in the face of the single greatest purpose any beast on this Earth has ever been given - that being the advancement of its own kind. There is no higher "calling", period. All of the other animals on Earth seem to get this, with perhaps a few exceptions under particular circumstances - we humans are just a bit behind the curve on this one, I think.

 

[Nakosis]

Don't really care about God. God has to deal with his/her own morals.

I'm against abortion because I think life is cool. I'm against preventing anything myself of having a chance at life. I know it's a sacrifice, but I think it is a cool sacrifice to give something else a chance at life. Everyone has to choose whether to make that sacrifice to have children for themselves. I have to respect those folks who choose to make the sacrifice to bring new life into the world.

 

[roger1440]

The same genes that give us cancer? The ones that carry crippling and even terminal genetic disorders? The ones that often are so degraded even at the early embryonic stage that the whole thing spontaneously aborts?

Genes code for the reproduction of specific sequences of proteins. That is literally all they do. In the macrocosmic sense that can be beneficial or harmful, depending on how that protein chain interacts with the rest, and on how many errors have crept in during the duplication process.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Mycroft]

I'll at least admit I'm selfish.

So you've never had an omelette, or a custard tart, or a cake, or, well, anything with eggs in?

 

[columbus]

The fact that you believe that consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood yet say and do not understand how this constitutes competing positions is, frankly, ferhoodling to me. They are opposing statements.

.

They are not opposing statements. I don't think all sex is consenting to pregnancy, and I never said I did. I carefully discriminated between sex that does and sex that doesn't.


It's like going to the grocery store. If you walk or take a bus, you are not consenting to pay someone else's medical bills. But if you choose to drive your car you are consenting to pay damages to someone if you hit them. Doesn't matter what your intention was, or how closely you were following the law and being careful. You owe them if you hit them.
You are not expected to personally build them a new car, or stitch up their wounds, because other people can do better. So you just have to pay. But you chose to drive and that is consenting to take responsibility for the outcome.
The difference with pregnancy is that nobody can handle the responsibility for you. Only one person can provide that basic human right, a gestation period. This is well known. So the rules are different.

Tom

 

[roger1440]

So you've never had an omelette, or a custard tart, or a cake, or, well, anything with eggs in?

To the best of my knowledge not with human eggs.

 

[Mycroft]

To the best of my knowledge not with human eggs.

So what makes human embryos abortions, but chicken embryos omelettes?

...And don't say a whisk and 2 minutes on a medium heat!

 

[Marisa]

They are not opposing statements. I don't think all sex is consenting to pregnancy, and I never said I did. I carefully discriminated between sex that does and sex that doesn't.


It's like going to the grocery store. If you walk or take a bus, you are not consenting to pay someone else's medical bills. But if you choose to drive your car you are consenting to pay damages to someone if you hit them. Doesn't matter what your intention was, or how closely you were following the law and being careful. You owe them if you hit them.
You are not expected to personally build them a new car, or stitch up their wounds, because other people can do better. So you just have to pay. But you chose to drive and that is consenting to take responsibility for the outcome.
The difference with pregnancy is that nobody can handle the responsibility for you. Only one person can provide that basic human right, a gestation period. This is well known. So the rules are different.

Tom

The ability to conceive does not constitute consent.

 

[roger1440]

So what makes human embryos abortions, but chicken embryos omelettes?

...And don't say a whisk and 2 minutes on a medium heat!

We don't eat our own kind. If you don't believe me, go to the local market and order a leg of fat chick.

 

[Mycroft]

We don't eat our own kind. If you don't believe me, go to the local market and order a leg of fat chick.

But surely abortion is abortion is abortion, right? Or is it only abortion when you say so?

 

[JoStories]

You had conveniently left out the unborn child from the equation. A woman can physically do whatever she wants with her body. She is capable of jumping off a bridge or walking in front of a moving train, but when it involves an unborn child she sacrifices much more than her own life.

Sorry, no. The woman, up to the first tremester will retain control of her body and you get no say in that whatsoever. I was impregnated by rape. Do you really think I was about to carry that abomination to term? If you do, you are beyond delusional.

 

[JoStories]

No, actually it is not. Not all sex carries the same responsibility. Not all pregnancies are viable. What I'm talking about here is when two people choose behavior that they know might result in another human being, and it does result in a healthy pregnancy.

Tom

It does not matter. The woman still has the right to terminate if that is her choice and have not one whit of a right to intervene. THAT is the law.

 

[JoStories]

No you aren't.
When else can someone involve a person in their life and then kill them because they wish they had not chosen that?
I understand that pregnant mothers are in a unique situation. But so are fetal children. As a result, the rules that apply to other situations don't necessarily apply to reproduction.
You cannot be expected to personally support other people when there are other options. Hence, bodily autonomy is generally the rule. But a fetal human has no other options, so bodily autonomy stops being a right once you choose to involve one in your life.
Tom

Well, Tom, when you can carry the fetus to term you get a say, until then, it's none of your business in the rights of the woman.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Sorry, no. The woman, up to the first tremester will retain control of her body and you get no say in that whatsoever. I was impregnated by rape. Do you really think I was about to carry that abomination to term? If you do, you are beyond delusional.

For some people, the love of God in Christ only extends to abstract concepts, not to actual sentient beings. Ergo a collection of cells without a functioning brain is more important to them than a woman, not because it can feel (it can't), but because of what it represents.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The ability to conceive does not constitute consent.

As far as some people are concerned, being born a woman constitutes consent. One thing that doesn't get enough attention is the strong correlation between the hard-line anti-abortion stance and rape culture. There's a disturbing amount of similarity in the arguments and assumptions.