Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Abortion


  • Please log in to reply
696 replies to this topic

#681
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
And what you've consistently failed to explain is why murdering non-conscious humans is wrong if the only qualification for personhood is self-awareness.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#682
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts

And what you've consistently failed to explain is why murdering non-conscious humans is wrong if the only qualification for personhood is self-awareness.

The link I've posted MANY TIMES explains many times that the absolute physical dependance of the fetus to the mother's body, and the inhabitants of 2 living organisms in the same body makes it a different situation to, say, people in a coma.
Link Text


Is there something else I have to explain to make this argument clear?

EDIT: Here's another way to put it: I think about "fetus rights" in the same way as "animal rights." I'm all for the welfare of these beings, it's not like they should be subject to cruel treatment unnecessarily. But since they do not have sentience they do not have rights, because rights require both reciprocation/understanding of the rights of others and responsibilities that come with them. In the same way that animals attack each other in outright cruel ways in the wild the fetus makes the mother go through periods of suffering, through no fault of their own; they can't know any better. But in the same way that a dog that is doing much harm to people can be put down morally, a fetus that is doing much harm can be aborted morally. The fact that it's abiding in a full person's body only makes the situation more clear.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#683
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
So then you'd agree that killing a fetus is wrong if it was self-aware?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#684
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts

So then you'd agree that killing a fetus is wrong if it was self-aware?

1. Considering such a scenario is beyond banal, not even babies have self awareness. Most humans achieve self-awareness around age 2.

2. The point that it's totally physically dependent on the mother makes the situation a bit more morally grey, consider the violinist argument posted in the link.

3. It's the combination of lack of physical awareness, complete physical dependence, and the effects it has on the women that makes abortion moral.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#685
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired


So then you'd agree that killing a fetus is wrong if it was self-aware?

1. Considering such a scenario is beyond banal, not even babies have self awareness. Most humans achieve self-awareness around age 2.

2. The point that it's totally physically dependent on the mother makes the situation a bit more morally grey, consider the violinist argument posted in the link.

3. It's the combination of lack of physical awareness, complete physical dependence, and the effects it has on the women that makes abortion moral.

A lot of people don't have self awareness.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find physical dependence to be an acceptable reason to murder...well, ridiculous.

Once again - I agree with the stipulation that when two entities share a body, the rights of the host must supersede the rights of the parasite, or leech, or whatever you want to call it. But only if the rights are greater or equal in the first place.

I've used this example before - would you say it is moral for a mother to drink and do hard drugs while expecting? I don't think so, society generally disproves of it....

Yet this is a clear example of a mothers' right not superseding a right of the unborn child - precisely because the right of the child that would be infringed upon is so much greater than the right of the mother's (right to life/health vs right to...party?).

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#686
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts



So then you'd agree that killing a fetus is wrong if it was self-aware?

1. Considering such a scenario is beyond banal, not even babies have self awareness. Most humans achieve self-awareness around age 2.

2. The point that it's totally physically dependent on the mother makes the situation a bit more morally grey, consider the violinist argument posted in the link.

3. It's the combination of lack of physical awareness, complete physical dependence, and the effects it has on the women that makes abortion moral.

A lot of people don't have self awareness.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find physical dependence to be an acceptable reason to murder...well, ridiculous.

Easy to say when there's .00000001% chance of anything ever being physically dependent on you. And it's not murder since it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness. Like with animals, killing of those without it shouldn't be taken lightly or with little care, but those who are/have the capacity for self-awareness should be placed above.

Once again - I agree with the stipulation that when two entities share a body, the rights of the host must supersede the rights of the parasite, or leech, or whatever you want to call it. But only if the rights are greater or equal in the first place.

I've used this example before - would you say it is moral for a mother to drink and do hard drugs while expecting? I don't think so, society generally disproves of it....

Yet this is a clear example of a mothers' right not superseding a right of the unborn child - precisely because the right of the child that would be infringed upon is so much greater than the right of the mother's (right to life/health vs right to...party?).

Slight disgression


And I'd say that the mother doesn't have a right to drink/do drugs. The rights of the mother to abort a fetus fall under the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person. All of those things have legal foundations. However, there is no Beastie Boys precedent in our legal system.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#687
Sly_Wizard
[ Display Name History ]

Sly_Wizard

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined:29 June 2004

I was emphasizing the point that even discounting extenuating circumstances pregnancy is a dubious prospect. But sure, taking your hypothetical example of a pregnancy made of sunshine, sparkles, and rainbows it would be irrelevant.


You're not emphasizing anything so much as you're being disingenuous. Your argument has very little-- nothing, in fact-- to do with whether or not pregnancy is, as you put it, a "dubious prospect", for both you and I know (as you've stated) that you would not disallow a woman from having an abortion even if we know with absolute certainty that the pregnancy poses absolutely no risks to the mother's health or life. Of course, you ignored this point earlier, and I doubt you'll respond to it this time, but it's worth rementioning.

The party paying the child support isn't the only one paying for the child. Both of the parents in the situation are contributing to the child's upbringing, so the mother wouldn't just be doing it to drain money away from the father and just have no adverse effects to her own independence. If she keeps the child it's still a lot of work on her end, assuming she's not being abusive, which is different from pregnancy which is often exclusively a drain on the women's resources and opportunities. They are different situations completely, you're just trying to derail this argument; try again. And yeah I can tell you're a male, so am I.


You do realize that the majority of women obtain an abortion for reasons which can and do affect men equally, correct? I figured this was pretty much well known but, apparently, it's not. I suppose I shouldn't assume things in the future. Anyway, just to reiterate, the majority of women obtain an abortion for reason which can and do affect men equally. Before you tell someone to mistakenly "try again", you should at the very least come to understand what it is you're trying to argue against.

Ok, first off you're derailing trying to swap children with a fetus...


False. Perhaps you should open up a dictionary at some point in time. Just because you want to play the "It's not a child game!" doesn't mean it's not. Words have meaning and, no matter how much some people wish to believe differently, the concept of an unborn child has meaning within society as a whole.

Definition of child #1



Definition of child #2



Definition of child #3



...and by using the extreme term of infanticide which is not the same as abortion.


False. Reread what I wrote and you'll find that I didn't compare the two. What I said, and the point you seemingly missed, is that the morality, or justifiability, of an action is not dictated by the number of children a woman has prior.

And while I wouldn't necessarily agree with what you said due to the extreme and slanted nature of the statement you cannot argue that the morality of a given action changes based on the circumstances. Is it ok to kill? No. What about in self-defense? That changes the answers of many people.


So you believe abortion is a matter of self-defense?

I'd argue that absolutely it'd be moral of a mother to get an abortion in order to avoid a further drain on her resources and ensure a more stable and invested upbringing of her current child(ren).


And explain to me again why you don't rationalize infanticide under the same rationale? Thus far, you've provided no reasoning as to why it cannot be applied as equally to infanticide as you have applied it to abortion.

Ok, yes, they weren't on the pill, using condoms, using spermicidal lube, and using a diaphragm. But, even according to the evidence (Which was also the evidence I sourced) you posted a majority of women were using contraceptives on a regular basis. And your "full 76%" is largely comprised of those who forgot to take them. Do you know how easy it is to miss a pill, especially in social situations away from normal routines? But even with all of that the point was that most of the women cared about using contraceptives and circumstances, whether their own fault or not, worked against their desires. Mistakes happen, and they happen easily; maybe not all of the women are being 100% responsible 100% of the time, but NO ONE IS.


You said, and I quote, "[women] were often doing the most to prevent pregnancy". No matter what way you slice it or how much you obfuscate, it's simply untrue.

I'm sorry, but months of having your body hijacked, the myriad health risks, the risk of postpartum depression, and having your future/career/family/dreams put in danger is not the proper consequence of a mistake that anyone can make and only 50% of us have to deal with.


Number one, the overwhelming majority of women don't have abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because pregnancy would affect their body in some way, but because they don't want to or don't feel as if they can take care of a child. The only part "her body" plays into the decision to abort is that she can abort because it's "her body". Number two, and probably more importantly, this is precisely the point I was making above which you missed. If I were to impregnate some chick, no court of law would give two [cabbages] about whether or not taking care of a child would affect my ability to go to college, or to have a certain career, or to travel abroad or even whether or not paying for a child would affect my current livelihood or even negatively impact my ability to provide for any other children I have. All of these are common reasons women have abortions, however.

In essence, you're arguing a double standard in which a man is held to a higher standard than is the woman, and where his "hopes and dreams" are considered to be immaterial while the woman's important, all under the basis that a woman shouldn't have to subject herself to "the physical demands of pregnancy" if she doesn't want to, which isn't even the reason she's probably having an abortion in the first place (the reason she's having an abortion is probably the same reason why the man wouldn't want to care for a child). It's nonsensical and quite laughable if you think about it. But I doubt you will.

And you know what the crazy part is? If women become pregnant and didn't want to, but safe and legal abortions aren't available, they're still going to try and get an abortion. But it will be unsafe, and in fact 68,000 women die per year of unsafe abortions because of pro-life restrictions. These deaths are completely avoidable.


A legal abortion in a country without access to the latest in medical technology will be as safe or unsafe as an illegal abortion in that same country. Conversely, an illegal abortion in a country with access to the latest in medical technology will be as safe or unsafe as a legal abortion in that same country. Just look at the U.S. for example. Abortions "safety" was directly tied to advancements in medical technology, not it's legal status. As it is, I'd bet that, if you were a woman, you'd rather have an illegal abortion in the U.S. than a legal abortion in, say, Ghana.

You mean as to what makes something human versus what makes something a human?


No, I mean like those things which are part of a human versus those things which are a human.

Like I've posted many times before in this thread to be recognized as "a human" requires personhood which means self-awareness.


And yet, it's not true. Who doesn't recognize a newborn as "a human"? I'd be interested to know.

#688
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Easy to say when there's .00000001% chance of anything ever being physically dependent on you. And it's not murder since it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness. Like with animals, killing of those without it shouldn't be taken lightly or with little care, but those who are/have the capacity for self-awareness should be placed above.


Ahh, of course, the "it doesn't apply to you so you can't have an opinion" argument.

We don't have self-awareness until we're two, right? So once again - we should be able to murder or young children since "it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness".

And I'd say that the mother doesn't have a right to drink/do drugs. The rights of the mother to abort a fetus fall under the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person. All of those things have legal foundations. However, there is no Beastie Boys precedent in our legal system.


Okay, hold on there a moment. Those rights are not one giant right, they're separate.

The right of a mother to abort a fetus falls under the rights to

-Life
-Liberty
-Pursuit of Happiness
-Security of person.

I've arranged them in the order of importance. This is quite straightforward - abortion takes a life. You can argue about a human life, or life of a person, but what you can't deny is that something living is being killed. So what you're arguing is that the mothers' rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person all supersede the fetus' right to life (as that is always what is being infringed upon by abortion).

I agree with you that the mothers' right to life supersedes the fetus' right to life. If these rights happen to be in direct conflict, one must supersede the other, and it stands to reason that the right of the host must supersede the right of the "parasite". Granted.

But it's easy to make an argument that a woman's right to drink and do drugs fall directly under her right to pursuit of happiness! (a rather sad attempt at happiness, I admit, but to each their own....). Yet you just said (and I agree) that a mother does not have the right to exercise a right that is trivial in comparison to our primary right - life.

Life is greater than liberty. Life is greater than pursuit of happiness. Life is greater than security of person. Which is why whenever a conflict of rights involves the right to life it must always supersede.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#689
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts

You're not emphasizing anything so much as you're being disingenuous. Your argument has very little-- nothing, in fact-- to do with whether or not pregnancy is, as you put it, a "dubious prospect", for both you and I know (as you've stated) that you would not disallow a woman from having an abortion even if we know with absolute certainty that the pregnancy poses absolutely no risks to the mother's health or life. Of course, you ignored this point earlier, and I doubt you'll respond to it this time, but it's worth rementioning.


I didn't address it because it's not particularly worth addressing, pregnancies are unsafe. And yes, as you stated earlier I wouldn't disallow it either way but you're creating an abstract world that has no reflection to the realities of millions of women.

You do realize that the majority of women obtain an abortion for reasons which can and do affect men equally, correct? I figured this was pretty much well known but, apparently, it's not. I suppose I shouldn't assume things in the future. Anyway, just to reiterate, the majority of women obtain an abortion for reason which can and do affect men equally. Before you tell someone to mistakenly "try again", you should at the very least come to understand what it is you're trying to argue against.


I doubt very much that the decision to have an abortion for not equally effects both partners. And just so we're very clear, please tell me all those reasons that affect the men equally. I'm not saying that abortions have no impact upon male parties whatsoever, but to say it's equal is like saying prostate cancer affects women equally to men.

False. Perhaps you should open up a dictionary at some point in time. Just because you want to play the "It's not a child game!" doesn't mean it's not. Words have meaning and, no matter how much some people wish to believe differently, the concept of an unborn child has meaning within society as a whole.

Definition of child #1



Definition of child #2



Definition of child #3



Perhaps you should try counting sometimes, the majority of those definitions pointed to born persons, not fetuses. Not to mention the fact that Wikipedia states that in the cases that it's referring to an unborn fetus is generally a vernacular sense. You're, intentionally or not, using ambiguous and unsound terms to support your argument.

False. Reread what I wrote and you'll find that I didn't compare the two. What I said, and the point you seemingly missed, is that the morality, or justifiability, of an action is not dictated by the number of children a woman has prior.


And you seem to miss the point I stated both here and below. Intent and circumstances can change change whether or not an action is justifiable. So if she was having an abortion to help her family that does make it "more" moral.

So you believe abortion is a matter of self-defense?


Missing the point, I'm saying that the circumstances of an action CAN AND OFTEN DO change whether or not an action is moral. Nothing is totally absolute.

And explain to me again why you don't rationalize infanticide under the same rationale? Thus far, you've provided no reasoning as to why it cannot be applied as equally to infanticide as you have applied it to abortion.


Because in the case of an infant you could, assuming no strange circumstances, give the baby up for adoption. With a fetus there is no option like that, except carrying it to term which can still cause massive damage to a woman's life.

You said, and I quote, "[women] were often doing the most to prevent pregnancy". No matter what way you slice it or how much you obfuscate, it's simply untrue.


As I tried to correct in my earlier quote, they weren't doing everything under the sun to ever prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in their uterus. But they were, even according to the statistics you provided, using birth control on a somewhat regular basis to avoid pregnancy.

Number one, the overwhelming majority of women don't have abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because pregnancy would affect their body in some way, but because they don't want to or don't feel as if they can take care of a child. The only part "her body" plays into the decision to abort is that she can abort because it's "her body". Number two, and probably more importantly, this is precisely the point I was making above which you missed. If I were to impregnate some chick, no court of law would give two [cabbages] about whether or not taking care of a child would affect my ability to go to college, or to have a certain career, or to travel abroad or even whether or not paying for a child would affect my current livelihood or even negatively impact my ability to provide for any other children I have. All of these are common reasons women have abortions, however.


But my point, which you also passed over, was that in the case of childcare BOTH parties need to take roughly equal responsibility, whereas pregnancy significantly affects women more than men. And it's also not about not "wanting to" or "feeling like it," it can also be not able to period.

In essence, you're arguing a double standard in which a man is held to a higher standard than is the woman, and where his "hopes and dreams" are considered to be immaterial while the woman's important, all under the basis that a woman shouldn't have to subject herself to "the physical demands of pregnancy" if she doesn't want to, which isn't even the reason she's probably having an abortion in the first place (the reason she's having an abortion is probably the same reason why the man wouldn't want to care for a child). It's nonsensical and quite laughable if you think about it. But I doubt you will.


Both of their hopes and dreams are dashed when it comes to childcare, but pregnancies reduce the ability for women to successfully operate in the world at a greater level than men. You seem to have some deep-seated resentment of women and child-care payments clouding your arguments, but no matter how many times you bring it up the case remains that the two simply are not equivalent or comparable.

A legal abortion in a country without access to the latest in medical technology will be as safe or unsafe as an illegal abortion in that same country. Conversely, an illegal abortion in a country with access to the latest in medical technology will be as safe or unsafe as a legal abortion in that same country. Just look at the U.S. for example. Abortions "safety" was directly tied to advancements in medical technology, not it's legal status. As it is, I'd bet that, if you were a woman, you'd rather have an illegal abortion in the U.S. than a legal abortion in, say, Ghana.


That'd be true if everyone had similar access. And it is true, when abortion was illegal many women did have safe but illegal abortions in the US. The problem is that most of those women were rich/lived in rich families, and many of the problems that adversely affect women during pregnancy are exacerbated by low income. I would rather get a legal abortion from the best hospital in Ghana than an illegal abortion in the US where I could barely afford food.

And yet, it's not true. Who doesn't recognize a newborn as "a human"? I'd be interested to know.

A newborn is not a fetus, nor do abortions usually take place that freaking late in the pregnancy. Tell me who would call this "a person?"





Easy to say when there's .00000001% chance of anything ever being physically dependent on you. And it's not murder since it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness. Like with animals, killing of those without it shouldn't be taken lightly or with little care, but those who are/have the capacity for self-awareness should be placed above.


Ahh, of course, the "it doesn't apply to you so you can't have an opinion" argument.

We don't have self-awareness until we're two, right? So once again - we should be able to murder or young children since "it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness".


Once again look to my welfare vs. rights argument earlier.



And I'd say that the mother doesn't have a right to drink/do drugs. The rights of the mother to abort a fetus fall under the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person. All of those things have legal foundations. However, there is no Beastie Boys precedent in our legal system.


-Life
-Liberty
-Pursuit of Happiness
-Security of Person (I'd rearrange the last two, but whatever)

I've arranged them in the order of importance. This is quite straightforward - abortion takes a life. You can argue about a human life, or life of a person, but what you can't deny is that something living is being killed. So what you're arguing is that the mothers' rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person all supersede the fetus' right to life (as that is always what is being infringed upon by abortion).

But it's easy to make an argument that a woman's right to drink and do drugs fall directly under her right to pursuit of happiness! (a rather sad attempt at happiness, I admit, but to each their own....). Yet you just said (and I agree) that a mother does not have the right to exercise a right that is trivial in comparison to our primary right - life.

Life is greater than liberty. Life is greater than pursuit of happiness. Life is greater than security of person. Which is why whenever a conflict of rights involves the right to life it must always supersede.

So is my right to kill a mosquito not greater than the mosquito's right to life? ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS[/sarcasm]. That's what I'm arguing with the fetus being not a person, it does not have equal measure of rights compared to full humans. If an animal, say a puppy, created as much problems for a woman as a pregnancy would I'd absolutely defend her right to put it down. And drinking isn't happiness, it's elation. Happiness=/=Joy/Fun.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#690
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

So is my right to kill a mosquito not greater than the mosquito's right to life? ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS[/sarcasm]. That's what I'm arguing with the fetus being not a person, it does not have equal measure of rights compared to full humans. If an animal, say a puppy, created as much problems for a woman as a pregnancy would I'd absolutely defend her right to put it down. And drinking isn't happiness, it's elation. Happiness=/=Joy/Fun.


In your opinion drinking isn't happiness. It's quite easy for someone else to claim differently as happiness is subjective.

Once again, your definition of what a person makes is nonsensical, that's the problem.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#691
sees_all1
[ Display Name History ]

sees_all1

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,961 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:26 June 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None

And no, I'm talking about Maternal Death. And according to more unbiased sources, like the World Health Organization:
Country; Deaths caused by miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, abortion; Pregnancy-related deaths, excluding abortion
France; 2; 48
Australia; 0; 12
Canada; 1; 10

Furthermore,

Medical abortions performed in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy have a very low risk of complications. This risk is the same as when a woman has a natural miscarriage. These problems can easily be treated by a doctor. Out of of every 100 women that do medical abortions, 2 or 3 women have to go to a doctor, first aid center, or hospital to receive further medical care. In countries where childbirth is safe, 1 in every 10.000 women dies during childbirth. Less than 1 in every 100,000 women who use a medical abortion die, making medical abortions safer than childbirth and about as safe as naturally occurring miscarriages. This means that a safe abortion with Mifespristone and Misoprostol is always lifesaving.


Women who have abortions are 50% more likely to have ectopic pregnancy in the future than women who don't. That study doesn't differentiate the two, and not separating the two groups adds a confounding factor to your carry to term vs abortion statistic.
http://www.thefreeli...50%.-a055354985

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪


#692
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts
@obfuscator: I suppose, but I think most people would agree that keeping one's bodily rights is more important that their right to recreation. Some'd argue that use of drugs is a part of bodily freedom, but I don't really agree with that viewpoint. I guess that by wanting her pregnancy and forgoing her rights. the woman would also be gaining certain responsibilities to the fetus. Also what's confusing about my definition? I get that it's very precise and not really a lay definition, but what's tripping you up?

@ sees_all: really? Even with those two causes combined the maternal deathrate is far higher than abortion. I'd look at the source but I'm on mobile atm (Sorry about any typos while I'm at it).

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#693
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
Well, you flip flop between "one requires consciousness to be a person", and then "well here's why someone without consciousness is a person". Either those not self-aware are people, or they aren't. Their location changes nothing as to their personhood.

Now, if you want to agree that abortion is acceptable despite the fetus' personhood simply due to its location, then I understand where you're coming from. But changing the definition at will to suit whatever example is thrown at you isn't good proof.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#694
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts

Well, you flip flop between "one requires consciousness to be a person", and then "well here's why someone without consciousness is a person". Either those not self-aware are people, or they aren't. Their location changes nothing as to their personhood.


Ah, I can see that I haven't been very clear with that. With respect to someone in a coma or something they have the physical ability to be self-conscious but they are just not in the right state. Fetuses and babies are physically unable to be self-conscious because they lack the brain capacity at that point in their development. And the reason I don't just randomly assault or kill babies before they're self-aware is because I promote their welfare as long as that does not infringe on the rights of a full person.

Now, if you want to agree that abortion is acceptable despite the fetus' personhood simply due to its location, then I understand where you're coming from. But changing the definition at will to suit whatever example is thrown at you isn't good proof.


It's kinda the opposite, neither babies or fetuses are really people to me, it's just that if it's not physically dependent on the mother and causing her harm it's fine to exist.

Hope that clears that up? If that's not what I stated earlier, or not how you interpreted it earlier I apologize, but this is my thoughts on the matter.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#695
Furah
[ Display Name History ]

Furah

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,081 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia, mining some Australium.
  • Joined:31 May 2007
  • RuneScape Status:P2P
  • RSN:Emp Midget
  • Clan:Reddit


Just wondering, does anyone else here think that a lot of people who say they're 'pro-life' seem to be anti-life once the foetus is born? I've seen one-too-many people protest against allowing women the right to chose, and then go around and protest against vaccinations for kids, support the death sentence for criminals, and not care when the mother-to-be dies during pregnancy.

I'm sure there are some people like that. But saying there's any frequent connection is nothing more than generalization and stereotyping.

I didn't say there was, it just seems like that. That's why I asked if it seemed like that to anyone else.

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!


#696
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Ah, I can see that I haven't been very clear with that. With respect to someone in a coma or something they have the physical ability to be self-conscious but they are just not in the right state. Fetuses and babies are physically unable to be self-conscious because they lack the brain capacity at that point in their development. And the reason I don't just randomly assault or kill babies before they're self-aware is because I promote their welfare as long as that does not infringe on the rights of a full person.


Okay, that makes more sense. I still disagree, because babies certainly do infringe upon the rights of a full person. Here's the thing - you say you treat them the same - so abortion is acceptable when a right less than life is being infringed upon. Yet you don't support this once the child is born...yet you say they're the same?

It's kinda the opposite, neither babies or fetuses are really people to me, it's just that if it's not physically dependent on the mother and causing her harm it's fine to exist.

Hope that clears that up? If that's not what I stated earlier, or not how you interpreted it earlier I apologize, but this is my thoughts on the matter.


Yes, it does clear it up.

Once again - a normal pregnancy does not infringe upon rights a young baby does not as well. It's arguable in fact, that pregnancy is more convenient than actually having to feed, change, clothe, bathe, etc a baby, but I'll differ as I've yet to experience either.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#697
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts

Okay, that makes more sense. I still disagree, because babies certainly do infringe upon the rights of a full person. Here's the thing - you say you treat them the same - so abortion is acceptable when a right less than life is being infringed upon. Yet you don't support this once the child is born...yet you say they're the same?


Because babies have more biological independence they can be put up for adoption if they are infringing on the rights of the parent more than they want, with pregnancy it's either keep being violated or abortion. You also have to remember that most abortions don't take place when it's a fetus, usually the egg has only progressed to a zygote stage which has faaaaaar less biological independence and mental capacity than even a preemie.

Once again - a normal pregnancy does not infringe upon rights a young baby does not as well. It's arguable in fact, that pregnancy is more convenient than actually having to feed, change, clothe, bathe, etc a baby, but I'll differ as I've yet to experience either.


It'd depend on the person I suppose, but even besides the immediate inconvenience of all the physical needs being pregnant can mean having to delay grad school, decline a job offer, it can change where you decide to live and you might be forced to stay with a partner you wouldn't have otherwise, not to mention the social stigma that often comes with unplanned pregnancies. Babies are more voluntary due to the fact that they are only socially dependent. Also when you say a "normal" pregnancy, their rights are still being violated it's just that the mother is voluntarily choosing to forgo her rights in order to allow the fetus to develop.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users