When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

[thaiboxerken]

I am not blaming the fetus. I think it is a right thing to do for the sake of the woman.

You are saying it's ok to kill a fetus, as long as it's a bastard. Nice.

She didn't willingly participate in the creation. I would hope she would chose another method.

It doesn't matter, if you think a fetus deserves a right to life, you are really just being inconsistent with which fetus' do deserve this right based on how it was concieved. That's just illogical and silly.

[quote}
For you and thaiboxerken there is no grey area. You are saying you are either for it or against it. So all abortions should be allowed in any circumstance.[/quote]

I don't know about the CFL, but that's how I feel.

Would the same apply to adults? Do you support the death penalty? If so, why does one person deserve death and others don't? Why don't we execute people for any crime committed?

The death penalty isn't even close to being a similar issue, let's stick to the topic of a fetus. Adults are established as individual persons, a fetus is not.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I really hate those arguments where people say "you had sex, you know the risks." They seem to think that having a baby is a punishment for the evil naughty sex.

It is rather strange that anti-abortionists want people to birth babies as punishment for having sex. Where do they come up with such silly ideas? (church)

 

[merphie]

My opinion is that it's weird. It is a fact that you are inconsistent. You want us to believe that a fetus is a baby and that killing babies concieved of rape is ok.

That is you opinion on the matter.

I'm saying that a fetus is not a baby, so it's not infanticide at all. However, if I did think a fetus was a baby, I would think killing it would be wrong regardless of how the baby was concieved.

What makes a baby so special? They can not survive outside alone. Why draw the line there?

You haven't explained WHY you feel this way, only that you do.

Yes I have. We are discussing it at the top of this post.

 

[merphie]

You are saying it's ok to kill a fetus, as long as it's a bastard. Nice.

I never gave that general of a description. It can't be any worse than sanctioning the death of any fetus because it's an inconvenience.

It doesn't matter, if you think a fetus deserves a right to life, you are really just being inconsistent with which fetus' do deserve this right based on how it was concieved. That's just illogical and silly.

If you want to use that logic then you have been inconsistent as well. You believe a human has no right to life based on how old it is.

I don't know about the CFL, but that's how I feel.

And you put me down because I have a different opinion.

The death penalty isn't even close to being a similar issue, let's stick to the topic of a fetus. Adults are established as individual persons, a fetus is not.

Think outside the box. I am trying to establish where you draw the lines.

 

[merphie]

It is rather strange that anti-abortionists want people to birth babies as punishment for having sex. Where do they come up with such silly ideas? (church)

It's really strange when people who call themselves skeptics resort to name calling and assuming unsupported ideas about other people.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That is you opinion on the matter.

It's a fact that your logic is flawed.

What makes a baby so special? They can not survive outside alone. Why draw the line there?

A baby is an individual, it no longer directly depends on the mother to survive.

Yes I have. We are discussing it at the top of this post.

Ad-nauseum is not discussion.

I never gave that general of a description. It can't be any worse than sanctioning the death of any fetus because it's an inconvenience.

A fetus is not an individual or a person. If it was, I wouldn't support abortion. I wouldn't make exceptions just because of the nature of the conception.

If you want to use that logic then you have been inconsistent as well. You believe a human has no right to life based on how old it is.

Strawman. I believe individual persons have rights. A fetus is not an individual or a person.

And you put me down because I have a different opinion.

Because your opinion is based on emotion and woo-woo nonsense.

Think outside the box. I am trying to establish where you draw the lines.

Think rationally and use relevant analogies.

It's really strange when people who call themselves skeptics resort to name calling and assuming unsupported ideas about other people.

Weirdo.

 

[cajela]

So someone else should be given the responsibility past 3 months?

So you are saying infantcide is ok as long as everyone agrees and there is no brain activity?

I hate those arguments where people say you waited too long and should have thought about it ealier. [/B]

Well, there's a complete failure to comprehend the point. You cunningly snipped out the part where I remark that fetal development is just that, DEVELOPMENT. There are no clear lines between a blob of cells, which are not remotely people, infant or otherwise, and an actual baby. However, the law makes us have clear lines, so I choose an arbitrary 6 months.

No, I don't approve of infanticide. Abortion up to three months is not remotely like infanticide. Between 3 and 6 months it's still not infanticide, but the process is a bit of a way along and I think it's a good idea to have some counselling and medical advice required. I don't think this is too onerous. Abortion after 6 months is skating very close to the edge, so there needs to be a decent evaluation, and a good reason.


As for that quip where you "hate those arguments where people say you waited too long and should have thought about it ealier (sic)", I imagine that's supposed to be a parody of my claim to hate the arguments where people see a baby as a punishment for sex. Now, it's not a very good parody, is it? Because the ickiness of seeing a baby as a punishment pretty much speaks for itself. Whereas "it's too late now" is a very common human experience. Not to mention that it seems to be mostly *your* argument anyway. "She should have thought about it before having sex, it's too late now..."

 

[merphie]

It's a fact that your logic is flawed.

From your perspective because you refuse to accept any opinion other than your own.

A baby is an individual, it no longer directly depends on the mother to survive.

Really? Do you have kids? A baby or child would not survive on it's own till 1 or 2 years of age. So by your definition it should be allowed to kill off the kids younger than 2. If a baby is premature and requires great medical assistance to live then it should be OK to pull the plug.

Ad-nauseum is not discussion.

I understand If you can't defend your opinion. You are the one who keeps repeating the same thing.

A fetus is not an individual or a person. If it was, I wouldn't support abortion. I wouldn't make exceptions just because of the nature of the conception.

Spoken like a true man.

Strawman. I believe individual persons have rights. A fetus is not an individual or a person.

So it takes 9 months to be an individual? Your definition is fuzzy at best. What about 8 months? What about 6 Months? What defines an individual?

Because your opinion is based on emotion and woo-woo nonsense.

Only because you don't agree with it.

Think rationally and use relevant analogies.

I did. Are you refusing to answer? Where do you draw the line and why?

Weirdo.

Ad-Hominem is not a discussion either.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?

A pregnancy due to rape was forced on the woman against her free will. Anything else is a product of her actions and free will. People must take responsibility for their actions. It is well known a condom is not 100%. People must realize there is an effect from their action.

I'm trying to get this straight here. What difference does the woman's conduct make?

If we're endowing the fetus with moral value, I do not see how that value could possibly depend on whether it was conceived by accident or by force. There is no way of physically differentiating a fetus that is the product of rape from a fetus that is the product of consensual sex. If one fetus is an individual human with moral value then so is the other fetus.

On the other hand, if the fetus isn't the locus of moral value then I don't see how it makes any sense to say that a women is obliged to carry it around because she had sex. That would be like saying I'm not entitled to trauma care because I voluntarily got into my car, knowing that car accidents happen despite the best precautions. If the fetus is not a person, and pregnancy is just a medical condition, then we should be able to treat it like any other medical condition.

Should people be allowed to drink an drive? Is emotional stress a good reason for doing it? At this point I feel it's all about responsibility for one's actions. [/B]

If you were in a car accident on your way to the shops for ice cream, I don't think you would refuse medical assistance on the grounds that you knew car accidents happened and you should have exercised self-control. Even if the accident was clearly your fault you would presumably accept responsibility and get medical help. We usually do not consider that accepting medical help is incompatible with taking responsibility for one's actions.

What about this specific case makes it impossible to take responsibility and simultaneously get medical help?

You really have to grasp one of these two nettles. Either the fetus has value in and of itself and your stance on pregnancy due to rape is incoherent, or the fetus has no value in and of itself and your stance on accidental pregnancy is incompatible with everyday morals.

Edited for typos

 

[merphie]

Well, there's a complete failure to comprehend the point. You cunningly snipped out the part where I remark that fetal development is just that, DEVELOPMENT. There are no clear lines between a blob of cells, which are not remotely people, infant or otherwise, and an actual baby. However, the law makes us have clear lines, so I choose an arbitrary 6 months.

it was not my intention to leave out important parts of anything. A human develops for long period of times. If you want to say because the law defines it as such I will accept that answer.

No, I don't approve of infanticide. Abortion up to three months is not remotely like infanticide. Between 3 and 6 months it's still not infanticide, but the process is a bit of a way along and I think it's a good idea to have some counselling and medical advice required. I don't think this is too onerous. Abortion after 6 months is skating very close to the edge, so there needs to be a decent evaluation, and a good reason.

Good reason like what? Drop the labels for a minute. Let's call it a human. From conception to adulthood. Explain you position with no labels other than "human"

As for that quip where you "hate those arguments where people say you waited too long and should have thought about it ealier (sic)", I imagine that's supposed to be a parody of my claim to hate the arguments where people see a baby as a punishment for sex. Now, it's not a very good parody, is it? Because the ickiness of seeing a baby as a punishment pretty much speaks for itself. Whereas "it's too late now" is a very common human experience. Not to mention that it seems to be mostly *your* argument anyway. "She should have thought about it before having sex, it's too late now..."

I never said a baby should be punishment. How about adoption for unwanted pregnancies? Yes it was a parody of your comment because I don't appreciate the labels.

So it's not ok to think about what will happen if you have sex. It is ok to not think about it until after 6 months unless you have a green light from medical doctors.

According to thaiboxerken the baby/fetus is not an individual and has not right to life until the baby is born.

I think people should take responsibility for their actions.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?

I'm trying to get this straight here. What difference does the woman's conduct make?

If we're endowing the fetus with moral value, I do not see how that value could possibly depend on whether it was conceived by accident or by force. There is no way of physically differentiating a fetus that is the product of rape from a fetus that is the product of consensual sex. If one fetus is an individual human with moral value then so is the other fetus.

On the other hand, if the fetus isn't the locus of moral value then I don't see how it makes any sense to say that a women is obliged to carry it around because she had sex. That would be like saying I'm not entitled to trauma care because I voluntarily got into my car, knowing that car accidents happen despite the best precautions. If the fetus is not a person, and pregnancy is just a medical condition, then we should be able to treat it like any other medical condition.

The dispute we seem to have is when a baby becomes a person. It's like Poof! It's a person! Before then it's benign tumor.

If you were in a car accident on your way to the shops for ice cream, I don't think you would refuse medical assistance on the grounds that you knew car accidents happened and you should have exercised self-control. Even if the accident was clearly your fault you would presumably accept responsibility and get medical help. We usually do not consider that accepting medical help is incompatible with taking responsibility for one's actions.

What if you were drinking and killed someone as a result of your car crash?

What about this specific case makes it impossible to take responsibility and simultaneously get medical help?

I define a human a little more important than just a medical condition.

You really have to grasp one of these two nettles. Either the fetus has value in and of itself and your stance on pregnancy due to rape is incoherent, or the fetus has no value in and of itself and your stance on accidental pregnancy is incompatible with everyday morals.

No I don't. You are telling me I have to accept your opinion because you don't agree with my position. I don't expect you to understand. You are answering the abortion rape idea from a man's perspective. A product of a rape could have serious consequences on a woman's health as a result of the trama. Therefor falling under my exception for medical issues.

Would it be ok for a woman to abort every baby she didn't like? Like if she didn't want a boy? In that example what if there was 10 or 20 abortions?

 

[CFLarsen]

I never said a baby should be punishment. How about adoption for unwanted pregnancies?

Why should a woman be forced to carry the child of her rapist? Why should she be punished (even more)?

You put the "life" of a blob above the life of a grown woman.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?

The dispute we seem to have is when a baby becomes a person. It's like Poof! It's a person! Before then it's benign tumor.

I'll go along with this for a bit and assume it's not just a non sequitur. What opinion do you hold on this issue, and how is it relevant to what I just said?

What if you were drinking and killed someone as a result of your car crash?

What if you discussed what I said?

I define a human a little more important than just a medical condition.

Okay. Is it correct to say that you define a fetus to be more important than mild emotional trauma but less important than serious emotional trauma?

No I don't. You are telling me I have to accept your opinion because you don't agree with my position. I don't expect you to understand. You are answering the abortion rape idea from a man's perspective. A product of a rape could have serious consequences on a woman's health as a result of the trama. Therefor falling under my exception for medical issues.

I'm the one in favour of giving women an abortion on request no matter what, but I'm also looking at it from a man's perspective? I don't think that makes sense.

Is it correct to say that you think a fetus' continued existence has moral value, but that avoiding serious emotional pain has greater value? If so, does the emotional pain have to have a serious impact on a woman's health before it's more important than the continued existence of a fetus or not?

Second question. I assume that you probably aren't in favour of killing babies or adults to avoid emotional pain. Am I correct in inferring this means that to you fetuses are a kind of second-class human being, more important than warts but less important than babies or adults?

Would it be ok for a woman to abort every baby she didn't like? Like if she didn't want a boy? In that example what if there was 10 or 20 abortions?

As far as I'm concerned yes, yes and it makes no difference. I place roughly zero value on fetuses, and considerable value on the woman's right to decide whether or not to bear a fetus.

 

[thaiboxerken]

From your perspective because you refuse to accept any opinion other than your own.

False, I have changed my opinions based on logic, reason and evidence plenty of times. I used to be of similar opinion to yours about abortion, I've grown up since then.

Really? Do you have kids? A baby or child would not survive on it's own till 1 or 2 years of age. So by your definition it should be allowed to kill off the kids younger than 2. If a baby is premature and requires great medical assistance to live then it should be OK to pull the plug.

The key word here is "directly". Your children and baby are indirectly dependant on you to feed them, clothe them and safekeep their well being. A fetus is directly dependant on the mother to digest food for it, breath oxygen for it and keep it warm within her body. A fetus is not an individual, it is part of the mother.

I understand If you can't defend your opinion. You are the one who keeps repeating the same thing.

Pot-kettle-black.

Spoken like a true man.

Ad-hom based on gender. My gender doesn't play any role on the validity of my arguments.

So it takes 9 months to be an individual? Your definition is fuzzy at best. What about 8 months? What about 6 Months? What defines an individual?

It takes a seperation from the mother to be an individual, a physical seperation.

Only because you don't agree with it.

No, because it is a fact. You obviously invest alot of emotion into this.

I did. Are you refusing to answer? Where do you draw the line and why?

You did not, and reasons were listed.

Ad-Hominem is not a discussion either.

That's not ad-hom, it's just an insult.

I never said a baby should be punishment. How about adoption for unwanted pregnancies? Yes it was a parody of your comment because I don't appreciate the labels.

So you don't want to punish them with babies, just with the burden of birth?

So it's not ok to think about what will happen if you have sex. It is ok to not think about it until after 6 months unless you have a green light from medical doctors.

No one is making this argument at all, dumbass.

I think people should take responsibility for their actions.

Abortion is a responsible choice.

I define a human a little more important than just a medical condition.

So now you want to call it a human and not a fetus? Ok, you think it's ok to kill a human as long as it's the product of rape?!

 

[jj]

Abortion is OK until one justice retires and we get a new Roe V. Wade.

That's the fact, jack.

 

[merphie]

Why should a woman be forced to carry the child of her rapist? Why should she be punished (even more)?

You put the "life" of a blob above the life of a grown woman.

You never read anything do you?

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?

I'll go along with this for a bit and assume it's not just a non sequitur. What opinion do you hold on this issue, and how is it relevant to what I just said?

It's the difference we have in opinion on the matter. You definitionseems to be that a fetus doesn't become a person until a certain point. I don't have a time table.

What if you discussed what I said?

I am. I see you logic as falwed because no one died in your example.

Okay. Is it correct to say that you define a fetus to be more important than mild emotional trauma but less important than serious emotional trauma?

For the health of the woman. I feel an allowance must be made.

I'm the one in favour of giving women an abortion on request no matter what, but I'm also looking at it from a man's perspective? I don't think that makes sense.

Sure it does. In the case of rape I don't think men would have the same perspective on the issue. Of course, we can have an opinion on the matter, but I disagree with the automatic dismissal of the idea that rape is no different than "normal" conception.

Is it correct to say that you think a fetus' continued existence has moral value, but that avoiding serious emotional pain has greater value? If so, does the emotional pain have to have a serious impact on a woman's health before it's more important than the continued existence of a fetus or not?

Emotional trauma can have disasterous effects on a person's health. I think in case of rape the suffering of the woman is a big issue. So for the health of the woman an allowance should be made.

Second question. I assume that you probably aren't in favour of killing babies or adults to avoid emotional pain. Am I correct in inferring this means that to you fetuses are a kind of second-class human being, more important than warts but less important than babies or adults?

Killing babies and adults? In what circumstances? I don't understand what you are talking about.

I don't see fetus as a second class anything. They are human.

As far as I'm concerned yes, yes and it makes no difference. I place roughly zero value on fetuses, and considerable value on the woman's right to decide whether or not to bear a fetus.

I understand your position.

 

[merphie]

False, I have changed my opinions based on logic, reason and evidence plenty of times. I used to be of similar opinion to yours about abortion, I've grown up since then.

You put down anything that doesn't agree with your reason. I will also change my opinion based on facts, but I don't agree with your logic.

The key word here is "directly". Your children and baby are indirectly dependant on you to feed them, clothe them and safekeep their well being. A fetus is directly dependant on the mother to digest food for it, breath oxygen for it and keep it warm within her body. A fetus is not an individual, it is part of the mother.

Without the mother a baby would die unable to survive on it's own. A baby only understands the very basics and it not a productive member of society and can be a terrible burden. Part of your definition earlier was that a fetus was not important because it could survive on it's own. I maintain a baby could not survive on it's own either. So killing this baby would be acceptible.

The fetus is in no way part of the mother. The fetus is in a cavity of the mother with a small cord that supplies oxygen, food, and water.

Pot-kettle-black.

Ad-hom based on gender. My gender doesn't play any role on the validity of my arguments.

It wasn't meant as any attack. You deny there is a difference between a man and woman and their view on rape.

It takes a seperation from the mother to be an individual, a physical seperation.

Why is a physical attatchment so important? What difference does it make? So the fetus becomes a baby the moment the cord is cut?

No, because it is a fact. You obviously invest alot of emotion into this.

No it's your opinion. You are making assumptions about me without knowing the first thing about me.

You did not, and reasons were listed.

You just dismissed the question.

That's not ad-hom, it's just an insult.

Yes, "Against the man" It's ad-hominem plan and simple.

So you don't want to punish them with babies, just with the burden of birth?

You want to punish the fetus?

No one is making this argument at all, dumbass.

Ad-Hominem. Perhaps you should read what other people are saying.

Abortion is a responsible choice.

Not if it is used irresponsibly.

So now you want to call it a human and not a fetus? Ok, you think it's ok to kill a human as long as it's the product of rape?!

I think human is a good term. Is it not? Fetus is a stage in development. I've already defined my stance on the issue. My view can't be any worse than you thinking it is ok to kill a human because someone has a "responsible choice"

 

[CFLarsen]

You never read anything do you?

You have a funny way of debating. Not a very convincing way, but still....funny.

 

[merphie]

You have a funny way of debating. Not a very convincing way, but still....funny.

So do you. You apparently haven't read anything. You have no idea who is supporting what.