Abortion

[leibowde84]

People can have sex every day with zero chance of parenthood.
What you are doing here is called the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a huge area between fertile sex and abstinence. I realize that fertile sex is the big favorite among heteros. But the fact remains that abstinence and fertile sex are not the only options, so your post is quite irrelevant.
Tom

Nope. If you read the comment I responded to, you will see that abstinence is suggested. So, I think it is quite relevant. I never have claimed that it is either abstinence or consent to pregnancy. That would be ridiculous.

 

[SomeRandom]

Y

Is it absolutely certain that it cannot be interviewed somehow in a way we cannot fathom? There are adults who cannot talk, speak or hear, any combination that prevents us from communicating with them tight. That does not mean we do whatever we want with them just because we want to.

Yes it is. Adults who cannot communicate verbally are taught other methods. They are also adults with demonstrated understanding, even if that understanding is limited. A fetus is not the same as a disabled adult or even a child. And frankly it's insulting to disabled people to suggest this.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes it is. Adults who cannot communicate verbally are taught other methods. They are also adults with demonstrated understanding, even if that understanding is limited. A fetus is not the same as a disabled adult or even a child. And frankly it's insulting to disabled people to suggest this.

Ma'am, there is absolutely no way to tell that. I'm not saying no it isn't, I'm saying it is not known for certain. Plants are living beings yet we can't communicate with them. If what I said, which I had to say so people can at least consider the possible murdered life in abortion, is insulting to disabled people, then giving absolutely no regards to the fetus is also a possible insult to the right of a human to choose to live, and a certain insult to it just because it looks what it looks like. When the fetus does become a living being, that has a soul, is something not known yet (with the example of plants above, it is highly possible that it is). Theories could be said, but there is absolutely no way to confirm them. Not knowing a way to communicate with a fetus, or know how it feels, does not mean there is no way to do that.

If the example I said about disabled people is wrong, then I deeply apologize to the disabled community for this grave mistake. I will edit it out.

Disclaimer:
I'm not against abortion. I actually care for the health and welfare of the mother more than that of the baby, since she is the origin (comparatively, not that I don't care for the baby). All my argument suggests is that resorting to abortion is a possible killing of a human being. Again, I'm saying a possible one. I mean, if a thing involves a life, then all possibilities have to be considered so very seriously. Please, let's not give straight statements as facts for things we can't fathom that could be a murder without us knowing.

Edit:
Editing done.

 

[SomeRandom]

Ma'am, there is absolutely no way to tell that. I'm not saying no it isn't, I'm saying it is not known for certain. Plants are living beings yet we can't communicate with them. If what I said, which I had to say so people can at least consider the possible murdered life in abortion, is insulting to disabled people, then giving absolutely no regards to the fetus is also a possible insult to the right of a human to choose to live, and a certain insult to it just because it looks what it looks like. When the fetus does become a living being, that has a soul, is something not known yet (with the example of plants above, it is highly possible that it is). Theories could be said, but there is absolutely no way to confirm them. Not knowing a way to communicate with a fetus, or know how it feels, does not mean there is no way to do that.

If the example I said about disabled people is wrong, which also seems like an argument to make me and my post look bad, then I deeply apologize to disabled people for this grave mistake. I will edit it out.

Disclaimer:
I'm not against abortion. I actually care for the health and welfare of the mother more than that of the baby, since she is the origin (comparatively, not that I don't care for the baby). All my argument suggests is that resorting to abortion is a possible killing of a human being. Again, I'm saying a possible one. I mean, if a thing involves a life, then all possibilities have to be considered so very seriously. Please, let's not give straight statements as facts for things we can't fathom that could be a murder without us knowing.

Uhh you do realize that plants do communicate, right? Albeit in their own way.
Not saying we can "talk to the trees" but we are able to identify ways that plants "talk to one and other."
The more we study them the more their potential surprises us (at least us laymen, can't speak for actual legitimate experts.) Apparently fungi can do some pretty impressive ****.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/05/20/4236600.htm
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden-internet

A fetus is still not equal to a disabled person. A disabled person is already born, that person does have wants, is self aware, is sentient, does have choices (albeit limited ones.) We have identified that based on biology among other things. To use them as a "ha see we don't treat them as bad as a fetus" is to say they are the equivalent of a potential human which can spontaneously stop living at any time without warning (miscarriage.) Is this accurate for disabled people? No, they are a person just as important as every other person. Whereas even many pro lifers can concede that "life" of a fetus is not more important than that of it's mother's.

Edit, I realized I was speaking of a zygote not a fetus so I have edited my statements. Haha Mind fart.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Uhh you do realize that plants do communicate, right? Albeit in their own way.
Not saying we can "talk to the trees" but we are able to identify ways that plants "talk to one and other."
The more we study them the more their potential surprises us (at least us laymen, can't speak for actual legitimate experts.) Apparently fungi can do some pretty impressive ****.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/05/20/4236600.htm
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden-internet

A fetus is still not equal to a disabled person. A disabled person is already born, that person does have wants, is self aware, is sentient, does have choices (albeit limited ones.) We have identified that based on biology among other things. To use them as a "ha see we don't treat them as bad as a fetus" is to say they are the equivalent of a potential human which can spontaneously stop living at any time without warning (miscarriage.) Is this accurate for disabled people? No, they are a person just as important as every other person. Whereas even many pro lifers can concede that "life" of a fetus is not more important than that of it's mother's.

Edit, I realized I was speaking of a zygote not a fetus so I have edited my statements. Haha Mind fart.

Yes, plants do communicate with each other, but not with us, as you did mention, in the way that concerns us regarding the growing being in the womb. The communication argument I started was simply to bring the high possibility if the growing being in the womb can possibly have feelings.

Allow me to give a remark about the red phrase above. This one only proves that there were things we didn't know and came to know later. This applies to the growing being in the womb too. This means one day we might find out that it has feelings and a life from day one. But this time it concerns a possible life, so even early precautions should be considered because life is precious.

Also, the existence of feelings is what I'm worried about way before being able to know them. Not being able to communicate is one thing, and if they are there in the first place is another.

Please know that I'm not simply arguing against you, I'm only considering the highly possible feelings the incomplete and unborn being in the womb has. What if those really had feelings just like we did? I can't even imagine the horrors they had to go thru specially in some unnecessary abortion. I'm also considering the feelings and life of that being which is not related to whither they are born already or not. It is like the difference between the just-delivered baby and the same person just seconds before the delivery.

Note:
I apologize for what I said about your comment to me about the disabled. It was a reminder that I should pick up my examples carefully and I thank you for such a reminder. Please forgive my rudeness.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, plants do communicate with each other, but not with us, as you did mention, in the way that concerns us regarding the growing being in the womb. The communication argument I started was simply to bring the high possibility if the growing being in the womb can possibly have feelings.

Allow me to give a remark about the red phrase above. This one only proves that there were things we didn't know and came to know later. This applies to the growing being in the womb too. This means one day we might find out that it has feelings and a life from day one. But this time it concerns a possible life, so even early precautions should be considered because life is precious.

Also, the existence of feelings is what I'm worried about way before being able to know them. Not being able to communicate is one thing, and if they are there in the first place is another.

Please know that I'm not simply arguing against you, I'm only considering the highly possible feelings the incomplete and unborn being in the womb has. What if those really had feelings just like we did? I can't even imagine the horrors they had to go thru specially in some unnecessary abortion. I'm also considering the feelings and life of that being which is not related to whither they are born already or not. It is like the difference between the just-delivered baby and the same person just seconds before the delivery.

Note:
I apologize for what I said about your comment to me about the disabled. It was a reminder that I should pick up my examples carefully and I thank you for such a reminder. Please forgive my rudeness.

I propose that plants are different to fetuses. Because......well for all intents and purposes a plant is fully formed already. It's not a seed or a sapling, it's in it's adult form already. And we know if we cut grass that it will release chemicals in a sort of "cry for help." So depending on how you define communicate, maybe we already do.
Although it would be rather darkly funny if it's later discovered that a fetus is a "lesser" being than a plant.

But what if we later learn that there is literally no difference in a fetus before viability and bacteria? What then? What if later we found out that a fetus is a genius which regresses in intelligence after birth? What then? What if we learn that there's nothing more to learn about it? What then?
The problem with relying on what ifs is that.......it's just potential, not certainty. You can't live life like that. You'd live like a shut in. So why would we apply the same to prebirth life?
And seriously the entire proposal is nothing but an appeal to emotions anyway. Potential (as maybe maybe not) emotions even. So no, I do not consider the line of thinking to contain logic validity. Not until it can back it up with legitimate proof. Potential for feelings or none. Sorry.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I propose that plants are different to fetuses. Because......well for all intents and purposes a plant is fully formed already. It's not a seed or a sapling, it's in it's adult form already. And we know if we cut grass that it will release chemicals in a sort of "cry for help." So depending on how you define communicate, maybe we already do.
Although it would be rather darkly funny if it's later discovered that a fetus is a "lesser" being than a plant.

But what if we later learn that there is literally no difference in a fetus before viability and bacteria? What then? What if later we found out that a fetus is a genius which regresses in intelligence after birth? What then? What if we learn that there's nothing more to learn about it? What then?
The problem with relying on what ifs is that.......it's just potential, not certainty. You can't live life like that. You'd live like a shut in. So why would we apply the same to prebirth life?
And seriously the entire proposal is nothing but an appeal to emotions anyway. Potential (as maybe maybe not) emotions even. So no, I do not consider the line of thinking to contain logic validity. Not until it can back it up with legitimate proof. Potential for feelings or none. Sorry.

My point exactly. It is about "if" and "maybe" and similar. Seeds are known as not living things as a fact, unlike the growing being in the womb. I don't think it matters what that being is going to be after birth.

The "what if" in my case is about a possible living being with feelings. I wouldn't risk anything or put theories when it concerns life. Life is precious and not comparable to a choice that could be unnecessary.

Also, emotions is part of what distinguish us humans from inanimate objects. If we don't care about feelings, we are nothing but inhumane. Proof or not, the subject is about knowing anything at all here. As much as that growing being in the womb is possible to be not alive and with feeling, it is the same possible that it has them. Wanting proof is a good thing, but not on the expense of the life and feelings of cases we still don't know enough of.

 

[SomeRandom]

My point exactly. It is about "if" and "maybe" and similar. Seeds are known as not living things as a fact, unlike the growing being in the womb. I don't think it matters what that being is going to be after birth..

When does a planted seed become alive? If a tree is alive when is a planted tree seed?

The "what if" in my case is about a possible living being with feelings. I wouldn't risk anything or put theories when it concerns life. Life is precious and not comparable to a choice that could be unnecessary.

Why not? We risk lives every day. Doctors risk the lives of most of their patients and they must try not to make emotional decisions at the same time. Sometimes they have to allow people to die. Sometimes they have to make a call based on nothing but logic at the expense of someone's life. That's just how reality is. And call me inhumane, but I would gladly discount the feelings potential or not of a fetus to save the mother, or allow a rape victim to abort.

Also, emotions is part of what distinguish us humans from inanimate objects. If we don't care about feelings, we are nothing but inhumane. Proof or not, the subject is about knowing anything at all here. As much as that growing being in the womb is possible to be not alive and with feeling, it is the same possible that it has them. Wanting proof is a good thing, but not on the expense of the life and feelings of cases we still don't know enough of.

In a debate logic is what rules (my rather hyperbolic posts notwithstanding.) Emotions are discounted, as harsh as that sounds. Otherwise you get knee jerk reactions. The ability to think logically is also rather valued as a bastion of our species.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I personally think only cruel people can be fully against abortion. If people don't agree with abortion, but accept it in certain cases, that's different. But genuinely wanting a child to be born in horrible circumstances (ie, severe defects, family that doesn't accept him, abandonment, abuse, starvation, etc) I can't even begin to wrap my head around, no matter what the excuses are.

Sounds good if you can demonstrate where you come by this foreknowledge that a particular child WILL be abused horribly. A millionaire or king cannot guarantee a pain-free experience to their children because life includes suffering for all persons.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because, once the subject (fetus, person, human, or whatever you wanna call it) is viable, they have their own bodily autonomy protected by law. But, even if in some weird situation where I was made to be hooked up to another person surgically, depending on them for survival, I would still not be able to force that person (legally) to provide their body to stay alive.

Long story short, no one can force a person to give up the use of their body (directly and physically - pregnancy, slavery, hostage taking, coersion, etc.) against their will.

But most people believe in a right to life, not a "right to life once it's viable". Can we kill lion fetuses but not lions? If I tweet I've just killed a rare lion fetus because it wasn't viable... It is an artificial argument you're making.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because generally they murder themselves before we get to.

No, really. Sometimes they escape and become something great. That's not usual though. They usually die suffering and mentally disturbed. I used to be one of those children and I just barely survived against myself.

Are you saying your preference is not to exist/was not to exist/was to experience pain and a traumatic death pre-birth?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope. If you read the comment I responded to, you will see that abstinence is suggested. So, I think it is quite relevant. I never have claimed that it is either abstinence or consent to pregnancy. That would be ridiculous.

Yes, but if one has not had an operation to be sterilized, it is either abstinence or consent to the possibility of pregnancy. Do you disagree?

 

[columbus]

Yes, but if one has not had an operation to be sterilized, it is either abstinence or consent to the possibility of pregnancy. Do you disagree?

I certainly disagree.
It is entirely possible to have lots of sex with zero chance of pregnancy. Oral sex, for example, is an option. The only kind that carries the risk is PiV.

And even then, the risks can be reduced so close to zero it almost counts. If the woman is on the Pill and has a diaphragm, and the man is wearing a condom and sticks strictly to the least fertile two weeks of her monthly cycle, the odds of a pregnancy approach nil.

I understand that this is all a bit restrictive. But if getting pregnant would be such a disaster you would have a kill your progeny then I don't think it unreasonable.
Tom

 

[Smart_Guy]

Why not? We risk lives every day. Doctors risk the lives of most of their patients and they must try not to make emotional decisions at the same time. Sometimes they have to allow people to die. Sometimes they have to make a call based on nothing but logic at the expense of someone's life. That's just how reality is. And call me inhumane, but I would gladly discount the feelings potential or not of a fetus to save the mother, or allow a rape victim to abort.

That's completely different. Those examples above are based on having no many options and after doing whatever can be done for a human being. Doctors are imperfect humans too. Our discussion here, as I said before, is about some cases of abortion based on a careless whim, not all cases of abortion.

When does a planted seed become alive? If a tree is alive when is a planted tree seed?

Please forgive my ignorance, but I hope I understood correctly and my answer to the first part is I don't know. My point anyways was in the state of the seed not being in a growing condition, in our hands for example, and the full state of being grown with all its running biological erm parts!

In a debate logic is what rules (my rather hyperbolic posts notwithstanding.) Emotions are discounted, as harsh as that sounds. Otherwise you get knee jerk reactions. The ability to think logically is also rather valued as a bastion of our species.

Um, this is what I'm doing, I'm using logic! Emotions are not always subjective, sometimes they are objectives, like the ones concerning possibly hurting others. In such cases one should think twice.

Generally speaking tho, everything you're saying makes sense and is within possibilities too, but not absolute regarding my original point that I hope you understood in full. I'm all about possibilities and I believe it is not fair to ignore possibilities concerning hurting others. If there is a slight possibility that the being growing in the womb is alive and has feelings, then an abortion based on an irresponsible whim is not fair against it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[columbus]

And even then, the risks can be reduced so close to zero it almost counts. If the woman is on the Pill and has a diaphragm, and the man is wearing a condom and sticks strictly to the least fertile two weeks of her monthly cycle, the odds of a pregnancy approach nil.

Here is why I am so supportive of Planned Parenthood.
They will get you this stuff and the information needed to use it without regard for your ability to pay. It is not all that they do, but it is a big part of it.
So when someone wants to cut funding for PP, thinking that it will reduce abortion, I get a little angry.
No, let me be more honest. I get furious and want to break things! PP stops abortion! Sermons and "purity rings" and ignorance don't!
Tom

 

[Cephus]

Is it absolutely certain that it cannot be interviewed somehow, or known how it feels, in a way we cannot fathom? There are other cases in life in which we cannot communicate with or know how it feels for them. That does not mean we do whatever we want to them just because we want to or without giving considerations of how they feel.

Yes, "interview" here clearly relates to know if it is alive or has feelings.

Edit:
I deeply apologize to the concerned people for what I said. I edited it out.

You're the one asserting that they feel a certain way. Prove it. Let us know when you can. Until then, it is an empty assertion and can be ignored.

 

[leibowde84]

But most people believe in a right to life, not a "right to life once it's viable". Can we kill lion fetuses but not lions? If I tweet I've just killed a rare lion fetus because it wasn't viable... It is an artificial argument you're making.

I don't get what lions have to do with any of this. Human life is not treated the same as any other life.

And, my right to life does not extend so far as to require another to give up the use of their body under penalty of law. So, no, it is not an artificial argument (whatever that means). It is both valid and vital to our right to dominion over our own physical bodies.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but if one has not had an operation to be sterilized, it is either abstinence or consent to the possibility of pregnancy. Do you disagree?

Yes, I do. There is no recognized "consent to pregnancy" recognized by the court due to voluntary intercourse. I don't think you can get any further with your argument until you provide a reasoned legal argument that validates your stance on this specific issue.

 

[Emi]

But most people believe in a right to life, not a "right to life once it's viable". Can we kill lion fetuses but not lions? If I tweet I've just killed a rare lion fetus because it wasn't viable... It is an artificial argument you're making.

Of course we can kill a lion fetus! We do it all the time! Have you ever eaten veal? That's a fetus that wasn't given the "choice" to live. Humans eat animal fetuses all the time, but when it is a human suddenly we take a defensive position.

 

[Emi]

Sounds good if you can demonstrate where you come by this foreknowledge that a particular child WILL be abused horribly. A millionaire or king cannot guarantee a pain-free experience to their children because life includes suffering for all persons.

Of course I can't confirm individual experiences. However, just take a look at the statistics of those children that live fulfilling lives. It's so low it's almost guaranteed. That means you are willing to allow thousands of people to suffer horribly for the benefit of one. That sort of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.