Conquer Club

Frigidus wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

... I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies in the thinking. At 13 weeks you can still chop it up and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner type aparatus, by law.

... But then, in another instance, you can be charged with murder.

... Am I the only here who finds this troubling?

...

I think that the idea is that it should be up to the potential mother. While I feel that up to a certain point it is not a human life, if the mother feels that the organism leeching off her is not something she wants she has the right to remove it. If she feels that it is something she does want she has the right to keep it. It is not up to someone else to make the decision. I'm not sure what crime the guy should be charged with, but it is definitely a crime.

So the mother decides whether the unborn child in her womb is human or not?? If she wants it, then it's a human and a guy can be charged with murder for killing it. But if she doesn't want it, you can cut it up in pieces and suck it out because it's not human? I mean, you can get serious charges for destroying an eagle egg because it's recognized to be an unformed, immature eagle. But a fertilized human egg? "Oh no, it's not human yet. You can do whatever you want with it." Anyway, this is totally off of the original topic...although I guess most of the original people debating in this topic aren't around anymore, anyway.

An eagle egg is much, much more self-sustaining than a human egg.

If the mother does not keep it warm by not going to get food, water, and exercise, it will die. The one eagle has to rely on the otherfor such things. In that aspect, it could be considered even more of a leech as it keeps the one sitting on it from getting any nourishment itself. And if I remember correctly, that would affect both parents.

john9blue wrote:Assuming the baby and mother are healthy, what are the odds that the fertilized egg at any stage of development will someday form a human life? Very very high, say 90% for example, although it is probably higher. So doesn't destroying the egg (and future human life) have a 90% chance of being murder? And if a judge was 90% sure of a murder suspect being guilty, wouldn't they be charged and sentenced?

How is this relevant?

We are assuming the baby and the mother are healthy and actually that the child has a 100% chance of being born without problems. The first post argues that even if that were the case it wouldn't be unlawfull to abort the fetus.

I believe, morally, that abortion should not be permissible. In other words, if I were a woman I would not have an abortion and I find women who have abortions immoral.

Legally, the US Supreme Court has determined that a woman has a right to privacy with respect to her body and that this right includes the right to have an abortion up to a certain stage of fetal development. I find that reasoning to be flawed on at least two levels. The first level is that there's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that there is a right to an abortion (I know, I'm one of those crazy people who thinks the Constitution should be changed by amendment rather than by a panel of unelected old people). The second level is that if there is a right to privacy with respect to a woman's body, why does that right stop at a certain stage of fetal development. Why can't the woman have an abortion up to the moment she gives birth? I suspect the Supreme Court would answer that question by saying there is no "rational basis" (legal term) to have said abortion (or something along those lines).

In any event, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey aren't going to be overturned anytime soon. And even if they were overturned, women could still get abortions, just not in places like Texas or Alabama.

thegreekdog wrote:I believe, morally, that abortion should not be permissible. In other words, if I were a woman I would not have an abortion and I find women who have abortions immoral.

I think there's a sizeable portion of the world population who agrees with you. Hell, despite my beliefs on the subject I'm not sure whether I would ever want a girl to have an abortion. But it's her choice and even when I'm against it I would very much not call it immoral.

Immoral implies some very heavy things. There's a difference between saying that she shouldn't have an abortion and calling her abortion an immoral choice.

Legally, the US Supreme Court has determined that a woman has a right to privacy with respect to her body and that this right includes the right to have an abortion up to a certain stage of fetal development. I find that reasoning to be flawed on at least two levels. The first level is that there's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that there is a right to an abortion (I know, I'm one of those crazy people who thinks the Constitution should be changed by amendment rather than by a panel of unelected old people). The second level is that if there is a right to privacy with respect to a woman's body, why does that right stop at a certain stage of fetal development. Why can't the woman have an abortion up to the moment she gives birth? I suspect the Supreme Court would answer that question by saying there is no "rational basis" (legal term) to have said abortion (or something along those lines).

Hilariously enough this thing was already answered in this very thread. If the child can survive on it's own it has the right to a life, like the Supreme court says.

The difference is that prior to it the fetus is solely dependent on the mother and afterwards it's merely co-dependent on the mother. The fetus can survive without the mother (although not awesomely) so abortion would be killing the fetus.

I'd advise you to read the entire thread though. It's very interesting (if you ignore the posts by people who don't understand the OP). It's a take on the subject that hasn't been explored before and it does bring up good questions.

Snorri1234 wrote:How is this relevant?

We are assuming the baby and the mother are healthy and actually that the child has a 100% chance of being born without problems. The first post argues that even if that were the case it wouldn't be unlawfull to abort the fetus.

You mean where the burglar breaks in? There are laws against that too. Trespassing...

Also, having sex is an action. Forgetting to close your window is an inaction. You can't punish for inaction (since the government shouldn't force you to do anything) but you can punish for action (murder and such).

The person who broke in violated the law. The unborn fetus did nothing wrong. Two totally different cases.

AlgyTaylor wrote:I think it's the woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

That's something often forgotten in these debates, I think.

Twice truthful. It's a point that is usually ignored and, unfortunately, your point was left by the wayside in this debate. It's a pretty simple point, and it's difficult to argue against. So yeah- in several pages worth of hypotheticals and hyperbole, I reckon you've got ot right in fewer sentences than it took me to say so.

AlgyTaylor wrote:I think it's the woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

That's something often forgotten in these debates, I think.

So you're saying that the father has no right to the child until it is born?

john9blue wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:I think it's the woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

That's something often forgotten in these debates, I think.

So you're saying that the father has no right to the child until it is born?

I (to interject) do find it a bit objectionable that most decisions on abortion have been decided by men. Also, saying that most candidates for abortion have a "father" is stretching the definition of the word.

spurgistan wrote:I (to interject) do find it a bit objectionable that most decisions on abortion have been decided by men. Also, saying that most candidates for abortion have a "father" is stretching the definition of the word.

But to say that it's the "woman's right to her body" means that you're excluding all outside influences, including the father, even in a stable relationship.

Outlawing abortion wouldn't be the first time that we are denied control over what we create (bombs and illegal drugs come to mind).

Also, regarding the violinist analogy, that's completely different because you don't need to cancel your travel/marriage/etc. plane when you're pregnant. It doesn't have nearly as much of an effect on your life.

john9blue wrote: It doesn't have nearly as much of an effect on your life.

Symmetry wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:I think it's the woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

That's something often forgotten in these debates, I think.

Twice truthful. It's a point that is usually ignored and, unfortunately, your point was left by the wayside in this debate. It's a pretty simple point, and it's difficult to argue against. So yeah- in several pages worth of hypotheticals and hyperbole, I reckon you've got ot right in fewer sentences than it took me to say so.

And yet suicide and assisted suicide remain illegal. As do the use or consumpation of certain drugs. As do the use or consumption of alcohol and tobacco by persons under the ages of 21 and 18 respectively. People are discouraged from eating a lot (and encouraged to exercise) and we're a few years away from penalizing taxes on the consumption of certain food.

And the point is hardly ever ignored; in fact, I still find it amazing that pro-choice supporters continue to bang the drum even though they won over 30 years ago. I think it has something to do with pro-choice individuals wanting everyone else to be pro-choice. That's simply not going to happen because abortion, to many people (including me) is immoral.

snorri, Hopefully I'll get to reading this thread today.

Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring that point (I am ignoring it, but I will get to it).

Snorri1234 wrote:

So you can't refute what I say with an actual argument? I figured as much.

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

So you can't refute what I say with an actual argument? I figured as much.

You just completely miss the point of the analogy. Talking about how the violinist affects your day to day life has no bearing on the ramifications of abortion unless you feel that it is more or less all right depending on how inconvenienced you are.

thegreekdog wrote:snorri, Hopefully I'll get to reading this thread today.

Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring that point (I am ignoring it, but I will get to it).

No sweat, only reason I bothered to read the whole thread was because I was bored. I just figured you would find it interesting.

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

So you can't refute what I say with an actual argument? I figured as much.

Nah, I was just laughing at your ridiculous claim that getting pregnant doesn't have as much as an impact on your life like keeping a violinist alive for 9 months.

thegreekdog wrote:And the point is hardly ever ignored; in fact, I still find it amazing that pro-choice supporters continue to bang the drum even though they won over 30 years ago. I think it has something to do with pro-choice individuals wanting everyone else to be pro-choice. That's simply not going to happen because abortion, to many people (including me) is immoral.

I think you're forgetting you're in the USA. The fight was never over because people aren't willing to admit defeat and actually still want the law to change. It's like the evolution thing, some groups just didn't get the message and think they can change the country with their small group.

I know peeps in the Netherlands who don't believe in evolution nor abortion, but there is almost no debate about whether it should be taught or legal.

john9blue wrote:

spurgistan wrote:I (to interject) do find it a bit objectionable that most decisions on abortion have been decided by men. Also, saying that most candidates for abortion have a "father" is stretching the definition of the word.

But to say that it's the "woman's right to her body" means that you're excluding all outside influences, including the father, even in a stable relationship.

Outlawing abortion wouldn't be the first time that we are denied control over what we create (bombs and illegal drugs come to mind).

Also, regarding the violinist analogy, that's completely different because you don't need to cancel your travel/marriage/etc. plane when you're pregnant. It doesn't have nearly as much of an effect on your life.

I didn't mention a violinist. I actually just had to go look that up. After looking it up, I'm pretty sure my logic goes a different way. But, while I'm not saying that only women's opinion should be heard on abortion, to say that "the father" should be given equal standing, I don't see how the effort and risk undertaken by "the father" is anywhere near what a mother undergoes.

john9blue wrote:You can't punish for inaction (since the government shouldn't force you to do anything) but you can punish for action (murder and such).

So, neglect is never a punishable offense?

You sir, are either grossly ignorant, or a liar. I would guess both.

spurgistan wrote: I don't see how the effort and risk undertaken by "the father" is anywhere near what a mother undergoes.

I'm trying to find that Family Guy clip where Lois is puking into the toilet and Peter has to turn the sound up!

thegreekdog wrote:And the point is hardly ever ignored; in fact, I still find it amazing that pro-choice supporters continue to bang the drum even though they won over 30 years ago. I think it has something to do with pro-choice individuals wanting everyone else to be pro-choice. That's simply not going to happen because abortion, to many people (including me) is immoral.

/looks at the Supreme Court
// wonders how you can know that Roe v Wade will survive a rather conservative Supreme Court
///hell, if McCain had gotten elected, the Court would have dodged even further to the right. then it's almost a anti-climactic review of an admittedly dodgy law
////you're not trying to lull us into a false sense of security, are ya?
/////death by slashies

Frigidus wrote:You just completely miss the point of the analogy. Talking about how the violinist affects your day to day life has no bearing on the ramifications of abortion unless you feel that it is more or less all right depending on how inconvenienced you are.

I suppose it could be. I'm still on the fence about rape cases, but I tend to take a sort of "suck it up cupcake" stance and disparage abortions even in such situations.

There's a real difference between having to slightly modify your diet/exercise and go for some checkups and eventually give birth, as opposed to literally being enslaved for nine months (as in the violinist analogy). Obviously I'm simplifying things so don't give me any "being pregnant is a huger deal than you can imagine" crap. The argument still holds.

Timminz wrote:So, neglect is never a punishable offense?

You sir, are either grossly ignorant, or a liar. I would guess both.

Neglecting to show up for court, maybe. Also taking up a responsibility (such as having/raising kids) and failing to carry through with that responsibility. Which is how I see this issue, really. If you decide to be unprotected then you need to be responsible for the outcome, and not just decide to kill your living, breathing problem child.

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:And the point is hardly ever ignored; in fact, I still find it amazing that pro-choice supporters continue to bang the drum even though they won over 30 years ago. I think it has something to do with pro-choice individuals wanting everyone else to be pro-choice. That's simply not going to happen because abortion, to many people (including me) is immoral.

/looks at the Supreme Court
// wonders how you can know that Roe v Wade will survive a rather conservative Supreme Court
///hell, if McCain had gotten elected, the Court would have dodged even further to the right. then it's almost a anti-climactic review of an admittedly dodgy law
////you're not trying to lull us into a false sense of security, are ya?
/////death by slashies

I would agree with you except that the Supreme Court doesn't like to overturn decisions, much less 30 year old decisions. If the Supreme Court was packed with Scalias, they wouldn't overturn it. And like I said, in the extremely unlikely event that they do, that 15 year old girl in Alabama whose cousin banged her can go get her abortion in Florida no sweat.

Snorri1234 wrote:I think you're forgetting you're in the USA. The fight was never over because people aren't willing to admit defeat and actually still want the law to change. It's like the evolution thing, some groups just didn't get the message and think they can change the country with their small group.

The evolution thing is totally blown out of proportion, but that's neither here nor there. Apart from Catholics (me) and crazy Christian conservatives, most people have changed their minds. Like I've said before, if you overturned Roe v. Wade right now, I bet there are 12 states that would make abortion illegal (Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah).

Just to throw a little factoid or two into the arena...

...there were no laws in the United States against abortion until the 1820's. And for many years after that, most states permitted abortions in the first four months of pregnancy. Abortion began to be generally outlawed only in the mid-nineteenth century...believed that life began at about four months, when the mother felt the baby move in her stomach (a moment known as quickening)

From Legends lies and Cherished Myths of American history by Richard Shenkman

It continues

Another common error about abortions is that they were uncommon until recently. Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but one researcher has estimated that in the second half of the nineteenth century there was one abortion for every half dozen or so births. In the 1920's it 's reported, about one in four pregnancies ended in an abortion.