Abortion

[Thanda]

Nope, according to your own ridiculous sophistry, women getting medical abortions would rather survive than giving the fetus the chance to survive without them, even if it means dying. Therefore they want the fetus to die. If they didn't, they would sacrifice themselves so that the fetus can live*.

Of course she wants to survive, hence she is having an abortion. And the fetus has no greater right to life than the mother. Therefore she is well within her rights to act to preserve her own life even if it means ending the baby's. They want the fetus to die because they want to live. Like I said it is the totally legitimate argument of self defense. A person who shoots another in self defense totally intends to kill the person they are shooting. They are doing this in order to preserve their own life and thus they are justified.

This has no relation to a woman who intends to kill a baby that is only threatening her lifestyle and not her life.

 

[dianaiad]

And my point is, that when people start treating zygote and fetuses as humans in death rites, thenergized they will have removed an internal inconsistency if they wish to argue that they see them equal.

Circular.

Your argument is that zygotes and fetuses are not human and worthy of protection BECAUSE society doesn't give them elaborate death rites such as it allows adult humans (of course, even this falls short when you look at how society has dealt with adult human corpses in the past...check out what was done with plague victims, for instance, or the dead in concentration camps; they were, quite literally, treated like garbage that needed disposing of, without any remotest hint of 'death rites' such as you mention)

However, society doesn't give them (the unborn) proper death rites because people don't want to consider them human and worth those rites.

and they aren't human because society doesn't give them those death rites.
and they aren't given the rites because they aren't humans.



Circular. The problem, of course, is that the women who lose wanted pregnancies absolutely see those zygotes and fetuses as human and worth mourning, but they can't HAVE the official death rites because society simply doesn't 'do' that.

Such mourning, then, is very private.

.................and what society thinks about the death rites alloted to a dead human has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether that human was ever actually alive.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not necessarily - some will do a cost benefit analysis and determine that they are better of carrying the child to term

This makes zero sense, especially considering the example that I gave. Pregnancy is also very expensive, the birth itself ranging anywhere from $3,300 to $71,000. Abortion, on the other hand, ranges from $300 to $1,700. I seriously doubt that a "cost analysis" would come out in favor of carrying to term.

It's also none of your business what happens in another man's house. I am certain then that you won't demand he stop beating his wife.

An entirely uneven example, as diana tried many times before you. That wife is a developed human being with legal rights and autonomy of her own that is being infringed. Furthermore a woman's body is not comparable to property. That's a disgusting comparison.

There are also no scientific grounds to denying people the right to kill their dog.

Yes there are. It's a living being with developed neural patterns and awareness. "Oh, but so is a fetus!" Not until 24 weeks.

And my point is, our current internal inconsistency in which we treat a fetus differently from a new born when they die is what adds to the heartache women feel during a miscarriage .

Not everyone. I personally know two women that felt nothing at their miscarriages.

 

[Curious George]

Circular.

Your argument is that zygotes and fetuses are not human and worthy of protection BECAUSE society doesn't give them elaborate death rites such as it allows adult humans (of course, even this falls short when you look at how society has dealt with adult human corpses in the past...check out what was done with plague victims, for instance, or the dead in concentration camps; they were, quite literally, treated like garbage that needed disposing of, without any remotest hint of 'death rites' such as you mention)

However, society doesn't give them (the unborn) proper death rites because people don't want to consider them human and worth those rites.

and they aren't human because society doesn't give them those death rites.
and they aren't given the rites because they aren't humans.



Circular. The problem, of course, is that the women who lose wanted pregnancies absolutely see those zygotes and fetuses as human and worth mourning, but they can't HAVE the official death rites because society simply doesn't 'do' that.

Such mourning, then, is very private.

.................and what society thinks about the death rites alloted to a dead human has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether that human was ever actually alive.

You are mistaken. The argument is much more nuanced than you understand. The treatment of remains in the instances you have given clearly depict what those dealing with the remains thought of the remains: that they were a burden, they were not human, and we're not deserving of respect.

Again, my argument in this specific instance (not my argument for or against abortion) is that people cannot claim equality and then treat them unequal. This argument that you are trying to attack is not about how society treats fetuses but how individuals in society choose to treat fetuses. People have a choice. They choose to treat the remains as they do. And given that choice they do not treat the remains with respect or dignity that they other remains. So, they do not view them as equal. Regardless of how much they may say they do, actions speak louder than words.

Again, this is not an argument about whether a zygote is alive or whether abortion is or is not okay, this is an argument about whether people really believe the equality argument they espouse.

 

[Thanda]

This makes zero sense, especially considering the example that I gave. Pregnancy is also very expensive, the birth itself ranging anywhere from $3,300 to $71,000. Abortion, on the other hand, ranges from $300 to $1,700. I seriously doubt that a "cost analysis" would come out in favor of carrying to term.

That is the cost of abortion now that it is legal. If it were illegal, the costs could have included death (from failed abortions) and or imprisonment. Furthermore don't assume everything is as it is in the US. It is absolutely free to give birth in here in South Africa

An entirely uneven example, as diana tried many times before you. That wife is a developed human being with legal rights and autonomy of her own that is being infringed. Furthermore a woman's body is not comparable to property. That's a disgusting comparison.

You forget that women once were property (or so the femenists tell us) and there the example aptly applies. The argument once was that since the man owned the house he had complete power and control over those who lived in it. Today we call it abuse but in yesteryear the arguments you put forward now for allowing a woman to kill an unborn child were the same as those advanced to allow a man to abuse his family.

Interestingly, women being treated badly was justified by their being some sort of deficient man, whose brain did not work as well as it should. Similar arguments were used to justify slavery and other forms of oppression of black people .

Yes there are. It's a living being with developed neural patterns and awareness. "Oh, but so is a fetus!" Not until 24 weeks.

That's not a scientific reason not to kill a dog. A cow is also a "developed" being but we kill them. And before you say you can eat a cow, you can also eat a dog.

Not everyone. I personally know two women that felt nothing at their miscarriages.

The exception that proves the rule

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That is the cost of abortion now that it is legal.

And if it's made illegal, women can get misoprostol for around $100 to $200. Still much less than a pregnancy. Furthermore we're speaking in reference to US law, not South Africa.

You forget that women once were property

I don't forget, but that was way back when, and this is now. Your parallel is uneven and non-applicable.

the arguments you put forward now for allowing a woman to kill an unborn child were the same as those advanced to allow a man to abuse his family.

No... see, I've recognized that according to the law, the abortion of an "unborn child" is illegal save when the life of the mother is at risk. The problem is that people in your camp extend "unborn child" to a cellular and embryonic organism that will become an "unborn child", should it survive to term.

That's not a scientific reason not to kill a dog.

If that is the case, then there's not a scientific reason to kill or spare anything.

The exception that proves the rule

No, it just proves (more shows) that you don't speak for all women.

 

[Thanda]

You are mistaken. The argument is much more nuanced than you understand. The treatment of remains in the instances you have given clearly depict what those dealing with the remains thought of the remains: that they were a burden, they were not human, and we're not deserving of respect.

You are correct - it demonstrates what people thought of the remains. It does not demonstrate what people thought of the people while they were still alive - not in the black plague example at least - this clearly shows then that how people treat the remains is a red herring. I have already argued that the likely reason women don't hold a burial service (as a rule, I'm sure some do) for their unborn children is because society at large doesn't think they should - and this is often what adds more to their pain.
I have also shown the unequal treatment of the remains of people who are out of the womb by, for example, funeral insurances. Does this in anyway point to the life of the child being unequal to the life of an adult? Maybe, but we still recognize the child's right to life and defend it vigorously. More likely though this is merely a convention for how the remains of a child are treated and buried differently from the remains of an adult. The clue to this is the fact that medical insurance will pay the same amount for the treatment of a child as they will an adult. Meaning the life really is valued equally. So clearly there isn't this direct correlation between the way a life is valued and the way the remains are valued as you have attempted to posit.

 

[Thanda]

And if it's made illegal, women can get misoprostol for around $100 to $200. Still much less than a pregnancy. Furthermore we're speaking in reference to US law, not South Africa.

Abortion is also legal here and so I am discussing both, thank you very much.

don't forget, but that was way back when, and this is now. Your parallel is uneven and non-applicable.

You admit then that you would not have cared what happened in another man's house if you lived 300 years ago?

No... see, I've recognized that according to the law, the abortion of an "unborn child" is illegal save when the life of the mother is at risk. The problem is that people in your camp extend "unborn child" to a cellular and embryonic organism that will become an "unborn child", should it survive to term.

Appealing to the law is an appeal to authority when we are having a discussion about what is moral and how the law SHOULD be.

If that is the case, then there's not a scientific reason to kill or spare anything.

I'm glad we agree - this is a moral discussion not a scientific one, mainly

No, it just proves (more shows) that you don't speak for all women.

Sure, but I didn't know that was a criteria - that I must speak for every single woman. I thought speaking for the overwhelming majority was sufficient .

 

[Curious George]

You are correct - it demonstrates what people thought of the remains. It does not demonstrate what people thought of the people while they were still alive - .

Stopped reading right there because I am pretty sure they thought "holy sh*t you have the plague stay the $#@* away!"

But seriousness aside, they thought the people with the plague were dead men walking, untouchables, disgusting... yet they were still buried. Mass graves, but they were still buried. Where else were they going to put the bodies? So many bodies. And so mamy more too sick to dig. And the poor. Well, many do consider them less than, expendable, not human.

So yes, my statement holds.

 

[Curious George]

You are correct - it demonstrates what people thought of the remains. It does not demonstrate what people thought of the people while they were still alive - not in the black plague example at least - this clearly shows then that how people treat the remains is a red herring. I have already argued that the likely reason women don't hold a burial service (as a rule, I'm sure some do) for their unborn children is because society at large doesn't think they should - and this is often what adds more to their pain.
I have also shown the unequal treatment of the remains of people who are out of the womb by, for example, funeral insurances. Does this in anyway point to the life of the child being unequal to the life of an adult? Maybe, but we still recognize the child's right to life and defend it vigorously. More likely though this is merely a convention for how the remains of a child are treated and buried differently from the remains of an adult. The clue to this is the fact that medical insurance will pay the same amount for the treatment of a child as they will an adult. Meaning the life really is valued equally. So clearly there isn't this direct correlation between the way a life is valued and the way the remains are valued as you have attempted to posit.

I think your claim of no direct correlation is premature at best. You have thus far offered examples of epidemics and instances where the living were clearly treated as less than human. Your insurance bit really falls into the same category. Insurance doesn't view them as people, insurance views them as costs.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You admit then that you would not have cared what happened in another man's house if you lived 300 years ago?

I don't live in the world 300 years ago, so explain how it's relevant at all to today.

I'm glad we agree - this is a moral discussion not a scientific one, mainly

No, we far from agree, nor does my statement that you quoted mean what you've taken it for. I said there is no "scientific reason" to kill or spare anything. That does not mean that science cannot be used to dispel fanciful claims that a zygote or embryo is equivalent to a developed human life. Crushing an acorn is not cutting down a sapling, and there is nothing that scientifically denotes either pre-fetal stage as equivalent to human life.

Fetuses do not have regular brain activity until 25 weeks - a process begun at 24 weeks. With the knowledge of what classifies as death - all brain activity ceasing - a fetus isn't "alive" until around 24-25 weeks. Even when a person's heart stops beating, they are not considered dead; scientifically and clinically, a heartbeat does not denote "life". How can you kill that which is not alive to begin with?

I didn't know that was a criteria - that I must speak for every single woman. I thought speaking for the overwhelming majority was sufficient.

The point is that you don't speak for anyone but yourself. You cannot know the experiences or thoughts of an "overwhelming majority" of women.

 

[Thanda]

Stopped reading right there because I am pretty sure they thought "holy sh*t you have the plague stay the $#@* away!"

But seriousness aside, they thought the people with the plague were dead men walking, untouchables, disgusting... yet they were still buried. Mass graves, but they were still buried. Where else were they going to put the bodies? So many bodies. And so mamy more too sick to dig. And the poor. Well, many do consider them less than, expendable, not human.

So yes, my statement holds.

Do you have evidence that mothers thought their children were disgusting and that they had no desire to save their lives if they could? Well luckily we don't have to go too far back to find out. We have HIV with us today and in the early years (when it was little understood) there were all kinds of phobias around it. But those whose had family members who were affected (like myself) loved they family members no less and cared for their lives no less even if we were worried about how we might also get infected. So we cared for the life. But when the family members die how the remains are treated would largely depend on how the disease is perceived to transmit itself - i.e. there is no correlation between how the life was viewed and how the remains are treated.

 

[Curious George]

Do you have evidence that mothers thought their children were disgusting and that they had no desire to save their lives if they could? Well luckily we don't have to go too far back to find out. We have HIV with us today and in the early years (when it was little understood) there were all kinds of phobias around it. But those whose had family members who were affected (like myself) loved they family members no less and cared for their lives no less even if we were worried about how we might also get infected. So we cared for the life. But when the family members die how the remains are treated would largely depend on how the disease is perceived to transmit itself - i.e. there is no correlation between how the life was viewed and how the remains are treated.

Wait, I'm sorry...are you suggesting that peoples remains were treated with disregard because they had aids. I had not heard of people not being buried or cremated because of aids.

 

[Thanda]

Wait, I'm sorry...are you suggesting that peoples remains were treated with disregard because they had aids. I had not heard of people not being buried or cremated because of aids.

Here, in your own back yard (assuming you're American)

"Mr. O'Brien, the owner of New York Mortuary Service Inc. at 349 East 116th Street, said he had embalmed the body for one of the 20 funeral directors elsewhere in the city who call on him because they ''refuse to touch'' people who die of AIDS."​

 

[Curious George]

Here, in your own back yard (assuming you're American)

"Mr. O'Brien, the owner of New York Mortuary Service Inc. at 349 East 116th Street, said he had embalmed the body for one of the 20 funeral directors elsewhere in the city who call on him because they ''refuse to touch'' people who die of AIDS."​

I'm sorry do you think that proves he wasn't buried or cremated?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, why is it, do you think, that many expectant mothers do things like stop drinking alcohol, lay off of shellfish, avoid smoking, etc.? Could it be that there is some anticipated value associated with the fetus? I mean... it's obviously a stretch considering all of the buttoned up logic and reasoning you have presented so far. Maybe it's just their morning sickness that makes those things unappealing. Certainly couldn't be because those un-living cells multiplying and commandeering their wombs are important to them. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

You know how some women try to get in shape or change their diet before they try to get pregnant? That must mean that they think the fetus is a person before it's even conceived!

 

[Curious George]

You know how some women try to get in shape or change their diet before they try to get pregnant? That must mean that they think the fetus is a person before it's even conceived!

Inconceivable!

 

[metis]

It's also none of your business what happens in another man's house. I am certain then that you won't demand he stop beating his wife.

What are you talking about??? Let me recommend you go back and read what I actually wrote because the above makes literally no sense in the context of what I actually posted.

 

[dianaiad]

You are mistaken. The argument is much more nuanced than you understand. The treatment of remains in the instances you have given clearly depict what those dealing with the remains thought of the remains: that they were a burden, they were not human, and we're not deserving of respect.

Again, my argument in this specific instance (not my argument for or against abortion) is that people cannot claim equality and then treat them unequal. This argument that you are trying to attack is not about how society treats fetuses but how individuals in society choose to treat fetuses. People have a choice. They choose to treat the remains as they do. And given that choice they do not treat the remains with respect or dignity that they other remains. So, they do not view them as equal. Regardless of how much they may say they do, actions speak louder than words.

Again, this is not an argument about whether a zygote is alive or whether abortion is or is not okay, this is an argument about whether people really believe the equality argument they espouse.

One would not expect that the pro-abortion faction to treat the not yet born with any respect that might indicate an acceptance of equality in any measure.

Have you read my signature? I figure this is simply another example of that. In fact, viewing this thread, almost every argument FOR abortion I've seen uses that 'first must be made other' principle to justify it.

The point is, that the attitude of society has absolutely nothing to do with medical fact; the attitude of the early European settlers of the Americas was that the indigenous population was very much 'lesser.' It allowed them to rationalize the whole sale rolling over of the people whose land they wanted. This is a habit long used in human kind. Those of darker skin (African or Indian...both sorts....aboriginal peoples of pretty much everywhere) were viewed as 'lesser,' and treated as such. THEIR burial rites reflected that opinion, but that didn't mean they were correct in their assessment, does it?

Those the invaders thought of as 'lesser,' or 'not quite human enough,' were very much human and equal in their humanity with the invaders.

So.....the question isn't whether abortion is OK BECAUSE of the way society views and treats the unborn. It's whether society is correct to do so.

I think it's not.

 

[dianaiad]

Inconceivable!

.....'I don't think [that word] means what you think it means..' (grin)