Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×
Assume Nothing

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Yes it is, for one thing because even a normal pregnancy poses much larger health risks than getting an abortion.

http://afterabortion.org/2004/death-rate-of-abortion-three-times-higher-than-childbirth/

 

There are many things wrong with your statement. Firstly, all statistics for abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. Secondly, all women with previous abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. The risk for complications in the pregnancy after an abortion greatly increase due to scarring.

Also, post-abortion complications are under reported due to the secret nature of the procedure itself. About 10% of women have complications after abortion, with about 2% being major.

 

Also lumped into pregnancy statistics are the conditions of the babies themselves, a premature baby might not pose much of a risk to its mother but the complication is certainly life threatening to the baby.

 

 

Basically anything saying otherwise and NOT reporting/removing these factors is likely to have a serious flaw in its statistic, and quite probably a biased source.


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 ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is, for one thing because even a normal pregnancy poses much larger health risks than getting an abortion.

http://afterabortion.org/2004/death-rate-of-abortion-three-times-higher-than-childbirth/

 

There are many things wrong with your statement. Firstly, all statistics for abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. Secondly, all women with previous abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. The risk for complications in the pregnancy after an abortion greatly increase due to scarring.

Also, post-abortion complications are under reported due to the secret nature of the procedure itself. About 10% of women have complications after abortion, with about 2% being major.

 

Also lumped into pregnancy statistics are the conditions of the babiesfetuses themselves, a premature babyfetus might not pose much of a risk to its mother but the complication is certainly life threatening to the babyfetus.

 

 

Basically anything saying otherwise and NOT reporting/removing these factors is likely to have a serious flaw in its statistic, and quite probably a biased source.

 

HA, you're telling me about biased sources? The links you posted were from the Elliot Foundation, which is trying to, "prove how abortion hurts so many women [...] end the scourge of abortion."

 

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.

 

More scientific information:

 

Research has shown that very few serious complications result from medical abortions in comparison to the number of women who experience successful medical abortions. 16 17 20 21 22 In the few cases that a surgical intervention such as a curettage (vacuum aspiration) is needed, this can be managed by the same health care facilities that care for women who have had miscarriages.

Source.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for any digression, but has this been proposed in this thread? (the Violinist argument)

 

The Violinist

 

In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:

 

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [if he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

 

Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of somethingthe use of your bodyto which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]

 

For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of somethingthe use of the pregnant woman's bodyto which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.[6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is, for one thing because even a normal pregnancy poses much larger health risks than getting an abortion.

 

Irrelevant to the question asked, which I'm sure you know.

 

And also because it threatens her personal and financial dependance, often the structure of her already existing family (A majority of women who have abortions already have children Source), and they were often doing the most to prevent pregnancy (Source).

 

Oh, boy. Here goes a doozy of a response.

 

1.) So a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because not doing so affects her personal and financial dependence? That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever read. If you haven't figured out by now, I'm a male. If I were to impregnate some chick and tried to go before a court and argue that I should have no responsibility for that child, because doing so would negatively affect my personal and financial dependence or even affect my ability to provide for any other children I might already have, I would be laughed straight out of court, be called a deadbeat and be told that I should have kept it in my pants or that I shouldn't have done the deed if I was unprepared for a child. Point being, if the argument isn't going to fly for a man, it most certainly shouldn't fly for a woman.

 

2.) The fact that the woman in question has preexisting children is irrelevant to the morality of abortion. I'm going to assume you're not going to argue that infanticide is justifiable if the mother is killing one child to better the lives of the her other children.

 

3.) Perhaps you should learn to fully read what you post. A simple fact of the matter is that the majority of women who obtain abortions absolutely were not doing "the most" to prevent pregnancy.

 

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the three most used contraceptive methods for people obtaining abortions are the male condom, the pill and the withdrawal method (lol). Also according to the Guttmacher Institute, 46.3% of women who obtain an abortion were using no contraceptive method at all. However, it's important to note that 53.7% of women who obtain abortion don't become pregnant despite using contraceptives. In fact, a large portion of that 53.7% weren't using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant. For example, 75.9% of pill users reported inconsistent use at the time they got pregnant:

 

-45.1% simply forgot to take pills

-15.9% were away from home and didn't have pills

-10.3% ran out of supplies

-7.7% were sick

-2.1% didn't think they would have sex again

-1.6% didn't feel like taking pills

-0.3% reported their partner didn't want them to take any pill

-0.2% thought they might have wanted to get pregnant

-3.6% report some other, undisclosed reason

 

On the other hand, 49.3% of condom users reported inconsistent use at the time they got pregnant:

 

-20.4% didn't use because they didn't think they'd get pregnant

-14.3% didn't have one

-12.8% didn't expect to have sex

-7.1% simply forgot about it

-5.6% didn't feel like using one

-3.5% reported their partner didn't feel like using one

-1.0% reported that their partner was supposed to bring one, though they still had sex

-1.0% said their partner wanted them to get pregnant

-0.5% were forced to have sex

-0.5% thought they wanted to get pregnant

-0.5% didn't care if they got pregnant

 

Linky linky

 

So stop and think about that for a second. Close to a full 76% of pill users who were on the pill and obtained an abortion and a full 50% of women using condoms who are included in the "were-using-contraceptive" category weren't using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant. If you were to add them to the "not-using-contraceptives" category, along with those women who obtain abortions while using the withdrawal method (which is pretty much not a contraceptive method as fas as I'm concerned), you'd get something like 80%+ of women obtaining abortions not using contraceptives at the time they got pregnant. That's a staggering number, and completely cuts at the BS rhetoric thrown out by pro-choicers.

 

And get writing, I'd be interested what your retorts are.

 

Yes, I'll wait.

 

As to what makes something human, it is DNA. My liver is no less alive nor less human than a fetus, a child, or an adult.

 

Adjective versus noun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is, for one thing because even a normal pregnancy poses much larger health risks than getting an abortion.

 

Irrelevant to the question asked, which I'm sure you know.

 

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.

 

And also because it threatens her personal and financial dependance, often the structure of her already existing family (A majority of women who have abortions already have children Source), and they were often doing the most to prevent pregnancy (Source).

 

Oh, boy. Here goes a doozy of a response.

Bring it, my 2AC is ready.

 

1.) So a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because not doing so affects her personal and financial dependence? That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever read. If you haven't figured out by now, I'm a male. If I were to impregnate some chick and tried to go before a court and argue that I should have no responsibility for that child, because doing so would negatively affect my personal and financial dependence or even affect my ability to provide for any other children I might already have, I would be laughed straight out of court, be called a deadbeat and be told that I should have kept it in my pants or that I shouldn't have done the deed if I was unprepared for a child. Point being, if the argument isn't going to fly for a man, it most certainly shouldn't fly for a woman.

 

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. And for the record I don't buy the argument of "You should have kept it in your pants." It's [bleep]-shaming plain and simple, and using against either gender is not ok.

 

2.) The fact that the woman in question has preexisting children is irrelevant to the morality of abortion. I'm going to assume you're not going to argue that infanticide is justifiable if the mother is killing one child to better the lives of the her other children.

 

Ok, first off you're derailing trying to swap children with a fetus and by using the extreme term of infanticide which is not the same as abortion. 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. 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).

 

3.) Perhaps you should learn to fully read what you post. A simple fact of the matter is that the majority of women who obtain abortions absolutely were not doing "the most" to prevent pregnancy.

 

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the three most used contraceptive methods for people obtaining abortions are the male condom, the pill and the withdrawal method (lol). Also according to the Guttmacher Institute, 46.3% of women who obtain an abortion were using no contraceptive method at all. However, it's important to note that 53.7% of women who obtain abortion don't become pregnant despite using contraceptives. In fact, a large portion of that 53.7% weren't using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant. For example, 75.9% of pill users reported inconsistent use at the time they got pregnant:

 

[spoiler=Data]-45.1% simply forgot to take pills

-15.9% were away from home and didn't have pills

-10.3% ran out of supplies

-7.7% were sick

-2.1% didn't think they would have sex again

-1.6% didn't feel like taking pills

-0.3% reported their partner didn't want them to take any pill

-0.2% thought they might have wanted to get pregnant

-3.6% report some other, undisclosed reason

 

 

On the other hand, 49.3% of condom users reported inconsistent use at the time they got pregnant:

 

[spoiler=Data]-20.4% didn't use because they didn't think they'd get pregnant

-14.3% didn't have one

-12.8% didn't expect to have sex

-7.1% simply forgot about it

-5.6% didn't feel like using one

-3.5% reported their partner didn't feel like using one

-1.0% reported that their partner was supposed to bring one, though they still had sex

-1.0% said their partner wanted them to get pregnant

-0.5% were forced to have sex

-0.5% thought they wanted to get pregnant

-0.5% didn't care if they got pregnant

 

 

Linky linky

 

So stop and think about that for a second. Close to a full 76% of pill users who were on the pill and obtained an abortion and a full 50% of women using condoms who are included in the "were-using-contraceptive" category weren't using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant. If you were to add them to the "not-using-contraceptives" category, along with those women who obtain abortions while using the withdrawal method (which is pretty much not a contraceptive method as far as I'm concerned), you'd get something like 80%+ of women obtaining abortions not using contraceptives at the time they got pregnant. That's a staggering number, and completely cuts at the BS rhetoric thrown out by pro-choicers.

 

 

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. 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.

Side note: I do agree that pulling out isn't a proper contraceptive method, mostly due to the fact that it's unreliable and pre-[bleep] before the orgasm also contains sperm, but that's often due to disinformation spread by various pro-abstinence groups and lack of proper sex education.

 

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.

 

As to what makes something human, it is DNA. My liver is no less alive nor less human than a fetus, a child, or an adult.

 

Adjective versus noun.

You mean as to what makes something human versus what makes something a human? Like I've posted many times before in this thread to be recognized as "a human" requires personhood which means self-awareness.


Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

[spoiler=Link Text]4. Is it physically independent?

 

No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.

 

Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

 

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

 

Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.

 

Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?

 

This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.

 

This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.

 

To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

 

Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

 

Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.

 

 

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

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?).

[spoiler=Slight disgression]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk

Sorry, it had to be done :P

 

 

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

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

child noun, often attributive \ˈchī(-ə)ld\

 

1a: an unborn or recently born person

 

 

Definition of child #2

 

 

child   [chahyld] Show IPA

noun, plural chil·dren.

1.

a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

2.

a son or daughter: All my children are married.

3.

a baby or infant.

4.

a human fetus.

5.

a childish person: He's such a child about money.

 

 

Definition of child #3

 

 

child (chld)

n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)

1.

a. A person between birth and puberty.

b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2.

a. An unborn infant; a fetus.

b. An infant; a baby.

 

 

...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

child noun, often attributive \ˈchī(-ə)ld\

 

1a: an unborn or recently born person

 

 

Definition of child #2

 

 

child   [chahyld] Show IPA

noun, plural chil·dren.

1.

a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

2.

a son or daughter: All my children are married.

3.

a baby or infant.

4.

a human fetus.

5.

a childish person: He's such a child about money.

 

 

Definition of child #3

 

 

child (chld)

n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)

1.

a. A person between birth and puberty.

b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2.

a. An unborn infant; a fetus.

b. An infant; a baby.

 

 

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

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.thefreelibrary.com/Abortion+Increases+Risk+of+Ectopic+Pregnancy+by+50%25.-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 ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10

99 Defense since 3/14/11 99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11

99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11 99 Prayer since 11/15/11

99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14

99 Fishing since 2/4/14 99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14

99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14 99 Fletching since 11/11/14

99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.