|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Cognitive Dissonance in Action! Anti-Abortion activists speak!
Posted on: January 22, 2009 - 4:42pm
     Offline
Cognitive Dissonance in Action! Anti-Abortion activists speak!
This video speaks for itself.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
The special plead that a blastocyst is a "potential life" and special makes no sense to me. Most pregnancies are aborted without medical intervention. I don't see anyone mourning those "potential lives". I also can't see how running roughshod over children's mental health is any sort of preferable solution.
I'm curious if you're aware of how many abortions are performed in any given day, and just what sort of resources would be nessesary to care for all those unwanted children, especially given the nature of being unwanted makes for extra mental health issues.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
If everyone had an abortion, we wouldn't be having this argument. We also wouldn't have industrial pollution, racism, over fishing, deforestation, landfills, warfare, and a host of other ills. World peace and a clean environment would be the outcome. So it seems to me that anyone that is anti-abortion is a pro-pollution, pro-war, anti-environmental racist. Now I'll sit smugly back and gloat with misanthropic satisfaction. Take that, humanity!
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
She ducks, she dodges!
I'm saying society can influence people. What's "unreasonable" in one society is common practice in another.
The mother who had the misscarrage wouldn't be doing cart wheels.
So a woman comes up to you and tells you she had a misscarrage, would you feel sympathy for her? After all, all that happened is a "lump of cells" naturally got flushed out.
Which is why I advocate for birth control techniques as well. That way unwanted pregnancies will drop.
But if the child later becomes unwanted, what should happen then? I mean if she has the kid because she wants the kid, but then gets overwhelmed by the burden of caring for it, what should happen?
I'd argue that no country has the resources to properly care for all the abandoned children it produces. It seems to follow from the most cursory research that foster kids in the wealthiest nation in the world fail to match up to their peers academically and are more likely to exhibit behavioral and disciplinary problems and ultimately hold back the progress of the rest of the students. Three hots and a cot aren't enough to produce a functioning citizen in the western world. Adding textbooks and babysitters and standardized testing doesn't raise the bar by all that much. Resources aren't the answer to the problem.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
I don’t get what you’re saying here. We are all going to die someday does that mean all suffering is meaningless? If you had a choice between dying a painful death or a painless death which one would you choose? Would you think that this question doesn’t really matter because you just going to die in a few seconds?
If I felt sorry for her it would be because I assumed she wanted a baby and couldn’t have it. I wouldn’t feel sorry for the fetus.
If you need a direct and clear answer you can understand: The rapist isn't engaging in consensual activities - there's no defense even if it can be prooved that he was acting only on natural urges (which is not the case for rape, mind you). It is society's moral duty to prevent further suffering by isolating the rapist from itself.
Those having consensual straight sex are taking a risk of pregnancy - regardless of the contraception used, they all have significant rates of failure - and have the moral duty to prevent suffering when possible. As unwanted children run a very high risk of suffering for being unwanted, the option of preventing that pregnancy from coming to term must remain open right along with adoption, foster care, familial care, etc. It's up to those involved to decide the moral course of action.
On the other hand, if she didn't want the pregnancy and was aware of the miscarriage, I'd celebrate with her.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
These are the only two questions I have found adressed to me.
As for these questions, their answers are simple;
It is anti-women because all it ends up being is punishing women for having sex for fun. Furthermore, it doesn't save lives, it destroys them.
And if someone called it 'anti-child' I would call them retarded, because the fetus(*1) is not a child. Deal with it. And for the last time drop this 'potential life' bullshit you keep spouting. The Fetus is just as much a potential life as every sperm, and by your own logic right here;
the individual sperm are apparently not deserving of protection.
Since having a 0% chance of producing a child on its own disqualifies the sperm from being worthy of protection, then the fact that on its own a fertilized egg or even a moderately developped fetus has a 0% chance of producing a child, this thus disqualifies the fetus from being worthy of protection.
While the fetus is incapable of surviving without the womb to support it, it is nothing more than a cancerous growth, and subject to the whims of the woman carrying it.
On the smoking and drinking while pregnant thing, once the mother has decided the have the child that renders its existence far more probable, and yet I wouldn't force women to change their lifestyle, although I would look into having the child seized upon birth as the woman is clearly demonstrating a lack of concern for its well being.
On that note however, having accepted the task of bearing a child, they are given more responsibilities. Most mothers understand and accept this voluntarily.
You cannot be this stupid Pineapple. Rape shows definite psychological and physiological damage to a conscious victim, the fetus is incapable of experiencing pain, and incapable of experiencing anything really. It does not think, it doesn't get happy it doesn't get sad, it doesn't even run program(*2). It just exists, quietly sucking energy and nutrients, essentially life, from its mother until its brain becomes active, and then it is no longer a fetus.
Once again, the cutoff for abortion;
No longer dependent on the womb for life or higher brain functioning begins, whichever one comes first.
Abortion is a victimless crime, the closest thing to a victim you have is a hypothetical person, and if you are going to start championing their rights than when are you also going to start trying to get Masturbation made illegal, because that kills several million times as many potential lives as abortion ever will.
Oh, and the whole, 'its okay if the woman was raped' line, that pretty much just proves that you really don't give two hoots in hell about the 'potential child', you just want to see women who have sex for fun suffer. If you actually cared about the 'potential life' you wouldn't give a damn under what circumstances it was conceived.
Yeah, the walking around outside thing was kind of an example in the extreme, the example presented by Jill is far superior, but you still blatantly ignored the question that it in reality was little more than a lead up to;
We can lower or eliminate the negative side effects of having sex, why shouldn't we? And if you are going to keep parotting your 'end a potential life' bullshit then I want a decent explanation of why the fetus deserves protection but not sperm.
(1) I do not know off hand exactly when the brain begins functioning or the actual names of the stages of development, I guess we could get into a semantics argument over what it is called, whether blastocyst, embryo, zygote, or fetus is more appropriate, however this would be nothing more than a red herring (hence the footnote). I don't care what you call it, I am referring to a developping human child before the brain begins functioning or it becomes independent of the womb.
(2) Yes I went there.
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
I'm going to repeat what I've already said.
Please answer these questions:
Is a fetus a human being with all of the basic rights that come with being human?
If you're answer is yes then act like it. If a fetus is a human being abortions is murder, and even in the case of rape it should not be allowed.
If you're answer is no, if a fetus isn't a human being then what is it? What rights should it have, and why should it have them?
I don't really see why a fetus should have any rights at all. I don't understand why you think abortion is wrong. Will you please explain your reasoning in a clear and concise manner.
Whatever, far too many people are bombarding me and then whining when I don't address every single point.
I'm still pro-life, I guess I just can't get over the urge to be concerned about human life, irregardless of what stage of development it's in so I obviously can't be critized for it since it's part of my nature.
I see. I think I understand your position now. I also understand why I believe differently. To me all life is equally valuable. I don't feel that I am inherently more valuable then the chicken I had for dinner, yet even if me and the chicken are equally valuable I value myself more then I valued the chicken. I also value other human being more then I value chickens. I value humans more, but I do not feel that humans are inherently better then animals. At certain stages of development fetuses do not seem human to me, so I have no reason to value them more then I value chickens or other things that I don't see as human. I suppose if I felt that the human species was somehow inherently more valuable then other species then I would probably value fetuses more regardless of what stage of development they were in. I still would not value them the same way I value fully developed humans. This seems to be the position you are taking. Well whatever, I guess we can agree to disagree. Have fun
.
There are times when I have a lot of hope for you, and then you say things like this. Either admit that by your reasoning anyone who does anything at all can't be criticized (because everything we do is by definition part of our nature) or take this back, or submit some sort of objective criteria by which that which may be criticized is judged.
Sheesh.
Oh, and "irregardless" is not a word. You meant "regardless," unless Canada has staged some kind of Grammar Revolt.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, 'irreglardless' is a common variant of 'regardless' here. As far as I can tell the Baby Boomers started it and it's carried forward. So, as annoying as it is, from a Canadian, you're bound to find 'irregardless' used instead of 'regardless'.
What you won't find is me using the word.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
This is the only point I really want answered by you, and I have asked it 4 times now, the first two times I posted an exceedingly low amount of text with the hopes that this would make you more likely to answer the question. I see that was asking too much.
Oh, and its not whining. Your answer to this single question will determine why you are supporting anti-women initiative. And you are still 'pro-life' only because you have hid in a corner, ignoring every comment that so beautifully demonstrates that the only reason you want abortion banned is so women who have sex for fun get punished. This is clearly evident by your allowance of Rape victims to still be allowed to get abortions, as if you actually gave a damn about the 'potential-child' you wouldn't care under what circumstances it was conceived. The 'potential-child' bullshit you keep yelling about is nothing more than a smokescreen built of you screaming self righteous moral indignation to try and distract everyone, including yourself, from the fact that in reality you just don't like it that women have sex for fun.
Prove me wrong.
In other news, I want to ride my Bicycle.
In other other news, I am now a Spartan Army.
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
I was being a bitch. My point was that Jill said it is unreasonable to control sexual desires because it was part of our nature so why punish people for having it?, so I just threw in there that concern for human life was part of my nature so why rag on me for having it?
If that makes me a "self-righteous anti-woman special snowflake prude" whatever......
I've already stated that we should promote the use of birth control.
EDIT: Also, is saying "concern for human life was part of my nature" a way of suggesting that concern for human life is something pro-choice folks do not have?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Not really.
Would saying "pro-choice" mean that "pro-lifers" don't think women deserve rights?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
It depends. If the woman knows she can have the baby healthy and knows that a family member or foster family will be willing to care for it for example, then yes, I think she is neglecting concern for human life.
So I don't think I deserve rights?
That being said, it would mean, that women don't deserve some rights, Captain. Surely that's obvious? A right is being denied on the grounds that you wish to protect what may become a baby that is properly cared for.
Arguably, however, in the cases where women do choose to abort, the likihood of the baby being properly cared for during pregnancy and after birth would necessarily be low. After all, the women are having abortions for particular reasons.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Which is just dodging the question. We do everything we can to eliminate the possible negative side effects of damn near everything else, why should we put less effort into eliminating the negative side effects of having sex? According to that logic, since we already encourage the use of safe skiing practices, we should make it illegal for people who break their legs skiing to seek medical aid.
Because you aren't concerned for human life. If you were actually concerned for human life than the issue of how the child was conceived would not matter to you, all pregnant women would be prevented from having an abortion, no matter what the circumstances of the pregnancy, possibly baring health issues in the woman.
But you don't give a damn about the potential child, you just want to see women who have consensual sex bear some pain to keep them from doing it.
If you really are concerned with the potential life, then explain to me why being the child of rape suddenly makes the fetus lose its rights, and why sperm do not have rights considering on their own they have just as much chance of growing into a child as a fetus without the womb, ie; 0.
And if that isn't the case, explain why you brought up consensual sex in the first place.
And also explain why preserving the potential life of an unsure and barely alive cancerous growth is more important than preserving the life of the woman carrying it. Do this without bringing up 'consensual sex' or you are back to square one of being pissed that women have sex for fun.
As for you thinking you don't have rights, since you are trying to restrict your right to do something to your own body, yes, yes you are saying you don't deserve rights, or at least not this right.
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Correction, Sinphanius, Foetuses are not cancerous growths and it's not necessary for you to compare developing humans to cancerous growths for your argument. Neither can you equate it to being 'barely alive' or 'unsure'. I mean, what's that supposed to mean? Anyhow, emotional (an incorrect) rhetoric like that is unhelpful. There's a better way to explain your position that's not so loaded.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I don't think women have the right to kill their child.
If a women has the right to decide to terminate the fetus, I don't see it as any different than her right to kill her two year old child since she is the legal guardian of said child after all a two year old child can't make rational decisions, nor can a fetus, and as I've said there are ways to kill a child without making it suffer.
And yes abortion is an option, but only as an absolute last resort such as danger to the mother, severe genetic disorder etc...
I never said we shouldn't
rape is different because the woman is most likely experiencing enough shock already.
I brought up consenual sex because it could lead to pregnancy
So if the fetus is 'cancerous' than shouldn't we get rid of all fetuses?
Also if someone hits a pregnant woman and the fetus is destroyed, what should happen to that person? If he did it to kill the fetus, than isn't that murder?
Why would doctors go through so much trouble to save a fetus of an injured pregnant woman? If the woman will recover, should they not bother trying to save the fetus?
And BTW, you're solution to the drinking/smoke fails. The damage is already done when social services confiscate the child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_vXqCY_6f8
If you're protecting the life, Captain, and ostensibly you are protecting the life (excepting life that may have severe genetic disorder or will hurt the mother), then why would it be okay for the rape victim to terminate the pregnancy? If the mother is otherwise capable of bearing the child to birth and putting it up for adoption and baring your exceptional cases, why is her emotional distress reason enough to abort the foetus?
I agree that a rape victim should have the right to abort a pregnancy. Because it's a child she may not wish to bear. It is the exact same reason I support the right of every woman to abort a pregnancy.
You are creating special cases based on a mixture of emotion and real concern for the quality of life for the mother and the child. Why can you not extend that reasoning to other abortions?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
In Cpt's defence there is some double talk on the other side of this argument, some are arguing abortion as a women's right, some as a social necessity and some are just switching from one to the other as convenient. I think these terms need to be clarified.
My personal opinion is that abortion isn't a "right" of anyone, and I don't believe it an be argued as such with any impact, but it is a necessity-- safe, clean and accessible abortion, albeit that it might be painful and disturbing to some of us, is absolutely necessary to the general well-being of our present society. That may change in the distant future, we will change in the future and our need for population control/management may change along with it, but now, as we are, we have no choice but to provide safe intervention on our biological proliferation for the sake of a healthy and inclusive society.
Ergo, I am pro-choice in the sense that given the necessity for intervention our only consequent need is to arbitrate when, where and how, obviously this should fall to the women whose lives are involved, to protect their human rights they should be entitled to make an educated and fair choice to have or not have an abortion.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
The responses to my snarky comment was also double talk.
Hamby called me on that just because something is within nature doesn't mean it's above critisicim, but then when I critizice people engaging in excessive sexual activity, knowing that they could get pregnant, but refuse to take responsibility for it, I'm called 'anti-women', because "oh it's unreasonable because sex is in our nature."
Not to be critical, but what exactly is ' excessive sexual activity '? Do you have some formula for how often a person should engage in sexual activity? Does this mean that one can have too little sexual activity? Who determines what is excessive? Is it based on daily, weekly, monthly, or annual sexual activity? Does sexual activity that can not result in little people larvae ( E.g. oral, anal, masturbation ) count toward excessive sexual activity?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Or, perhaps it's all those people who are garish enough to use their above average ability to attract mates to their advantage and have lots of sexual partners? (Sometimes all at the same time?)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Levity break:
Ok, I though I finally understood your position but I was completely wrong. First you say this.
So you don't see abortion as different then killing a two year old child? This is a very strong statement, if you believe this then you should at least use this analogy consistently. Now let’s see what you say next.
Abortion is still an option? Remember you just said that abortion was the same as killing a two year old child. Are you really telling me that there are situations were it would alright to kill a two year old child? You said that if the child had a server genetic disorder it would be alright to have an abortion. You've said that abortion is the same as killing a two year old child. Are you implying that it would be alright to kill a two year old child if they had a serious genetic disorder? You've said that if the mother was in danger abortion is all alright. If the life of a two year old child put some one else’s life in danger would you feel that it would be alright to kill that child?
Are you serious telling me avoiding a stressful situation is an adequate reason to kill a two year old child?
If your answer to any of these questions is yes then I've lost some of my respect for you. Quite frankly I'm somewhat angry at you right now. Given your comments I can only think that either you hate children, or you don't really think of fetuses the same way you think of two year old children. I think you would benefit from really considering the situations you've put forward, and trying to see things from other people’s perspective. Whatever you decide in the end please at least make your logic consistent.
I mean being promiscuous
If a child had severe genetic disorder, than it would probably have a short life span anyway.
If the mother is in danger than it comes on to: Abort the fetus and let the mother live, or keep the fetus and run the risk of both the mother and fetus dying. The abortion is the lesser of the two evils, since one life is saved as opposed to two dying.
So my position is thus: Every reasonable effort should be done to save the fetus, just like a two year old child. However, since the fetus is confined to the womb, the options are limited compared to a two year old child. It is much easier to treat a two year old child than a fetus. If a two year old put somebody's life in danger, it is much easier to resolve without killing the child than if a fetus puts the mother's life in danger, since the fetus is confined to the womb and relies directly on the health of the mother for nutrients etc....
I see, thank you. I believe then that your intended meaning was ' unsafe sexual activity ', as one can be both excessive in their appetite and undiscriminating while still practicing safe sex that will not result in pregnancy.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
yeah, unsafe, maybe I got the definition of promiscuous wrong. I just looked at a better definition, and I thought it was indiscrimintory in terms of protection also, but now know it's just indiscriminating with regards to partners.
But still even with protection, doing it in excess increases the odds.
A Hypothetical scenario and question to Cpt
A married women is raped a few hours after having sex with her husband. For whatever reason (shame for example) she initially decides not to report the rape. 9 months later the child is born and is mixed/different race. The women explains the rape and a blood test confirms that the husband is not the father. Should they now be able to kill the baby?
If not then please explain why you think it's alright to abort a rape victims fetus, but also consider a fetus to have equal rights as a baby.
No she shouldn't.
Because it was forced in there. She did nothing to get it.
I still think the fetus is potiental life, but given the circumstances I think that aborting the fetus would be "better" in the way a 10 car collision is "better" than a 15 car collision.
Just like if the mother's life is in danger, the abortion is better than 15 car collision.
Jeez, I'm busy for two days and the topic ends up way down the recent posts HIGH SPEED page. I guess I'm the life of the party huh?
I agree, there is a vast difference between an embryo or human in another stage of development and a cancerous growth, about as big of a difference as there is between a developping human embryo and an actual human child. Frankly, I would have kept to simple logical proofs, however every anti-abortion person I have met has ignored all of these in favor of emotional pleas. I will admit that my immediately reaching to this because of past experiences was most unfair towards Cpt_Pineapple, and little more than a knee-jerk reaction, and I appologize for that.
To qualify, I said 'barely alive' because it is not currently sentient, which I personally consider to be the largest and most important requirement for a living creature to be considered 'alive' and deserving of life (I have other requirements, however they generally require sentience as well). Of course a non-sentient creature, such as plant life, is still alive, but I consider it to be only barely so. You are correct though, the proper terminology would be 'non-sentient' however 'barely alive' carried more shock to it. Likewise, 'clump of cells' is the more appropriate term for the embryo (rather than cancerous tumor), however as I said that doesn't carry as much shock value. Unsure was simply my way of reminding people that a fetus does not equal 'will always become a healthy human child.'
I am willing to concede that, but ultimately, I would argue that the statement that aborting a non-sentient fetus is the same as killing a 2 year old child is vastly more emotionally loaded than me renaming said fetus, however to be fair, foul behavior of one does not justify like in return.
I appologize for my emotional rhetoric, let's move on.
True, women don't have the right to kill their children. Funny thing though, a fetus is not a child, so I don't see the connection between women wanting to rid themselves of an embryo that is completely dependent upon their body for its survival and incapable of thinking, and women wanting to kill another sentient and independently functioning human being.
Ultimately, there are ways a parent can get rid of an unwanted child without killing it, namely adoption and foster care. There is only one way a woman can get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, and you are arbitrarily restricting their access to that. Eventually, medical technology will likely progress to the point that we can succesfully transplant a fetus from one woman to another, or into an artificial womb. At this point I find it likely, and would have little problem morally, with abortion becoming illegal, as there would be some accessible alternative. Essentially in this case, the child would simply be removed from the woman (aborted after a fashion), put in stasis or another woman who wants a child but is incapable of becoming pregnant for whatever reason, or simply a donor, and no one loses. Just like in an abortion, no one loses.
As for painlessly killing the children, that isn't the problem. The child is now a thinking human being (no matter how limited their thinking ability is, they are still a thinking human being), the only person I feel should be allowed to kill the child is the child itself. Before you ask (I'm not sure if you would have, but some people have asked me this when I come to this point) No, this would not prevent the parents from protecting the child from harmful behavior, as the child does not want to die (or at least most likely does not) it merely does not understand what it is doing is dangerous.
(in regards to why we shouldn't put as much effort as possible into eliminating the negative side effects of sex)
But you are, by insisting that elliminating the biggest negative side effect of sex, namely an unwanted pregnancy, should be illegal, and all because the woman 'knew what she was getting into' or some such.
This doesn't answer my question. If the fetus is a human life and has every right that goes with it, then why does rape remove those rights? I'm pretty sure emotional instability does not allow a person to kill another person simply because they think doing so will cause their emotional trauma or what have you to lessen.
My problem with you bringing up consensual sex is the inclusion of consensual. Sex, both consensual and unconsensual may lead to pregnancy. I don't see how rape suddenly invalidates the fetus' supposed rights, while normal sex doesn't.
I also don't see why consensual sex should have to bear any negative side effects when most if not all of them can be removed.
Yes, unless the woman wants to keep it, in which case since it is a part of her body she gets to decide what happens to it.
No, it is not murder. It is however Assault upon the woman if done intentionally, and an unfortunate accident if done unintentionally.
If you are going to ask, I would say that any person who says they have an emotional bond with their embryo and is claiming mental trauma is doing little more than bullshitting, or in need of serious counselling because they clearly don't understand what an emotional bond is.
Generally because the woman wants to keep the fetus. If she is injured and planning an abortion, I doubt the doctors will try to save the fetus. Furthermore, if the woman is injured and the only way to save her is to kill the fetus, I doubt the doctors will spend time agonizing over it. No hesitation, because a sentient living human has rights, while a non-sentient embryo does not.
Well personally, the conscious choice of the woman to have the child endows the fetus with temporary and provisional human rights. But ultimately your entire comment about a woman smoking or drinking seemed like little more than a false dichotomy combined with a slippery slope argument, so I didn't really put much thought into my rebuttal.
But they are trying to take responsibility for it, by having an abortion and not bringing another unwanted child into a world already struggling to provide for the ones we have.
Furthermore, who are you to decide what 'excessive' sexual activity is? This comment just further reinforces my belief that you just don't like it when people have sex for fun.
I called you anti women, and not because of anything dealing with nature, but because you insist that women who have sex for fun should have to suffer and lose control of a part of their body. As you do not, or at least have not here, prescribed any such punishment for men, It seems pretty clear cut that there is something about women having sex that you don't like.
Now if you don't mind, I would like you to answer these questions. Feel free to ask questions of me in the same format.
1: Why does the Fetus have rights?
2: If the answer to 1 is that it will eventually be a human child, then why don't sperm have those same rights?
3: If the answer to 2 is that on their own sperm will not form a human child, then why does the fetus deserve rights as on its own (ie; without the womb to support it) it will not form a human child?
4: Do you think sex should be something done only to produce a child?
5: If so, why?
6: Out of curiosity, I'm not sure if you said it during the course of the thread before I got involved, but what do you think shoud happen to women who have illegal abortions?
P.S. New Avatar = Funny
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Yes, because it will become a child, and yes because a lone sperm can't form a human.
As for the last one, if the fetus was out of the womb or is in the womb and for some reason won't develop into a child, than I don't think it should have rights. Why? If it won't develop into a human, than human rights don't apply. But if it will develop into a human, then they do, but basic rights.
I know some people use it for pleasure or whatever, but I personally don't think it as for pleasure because sex is supposed to make sure the genes spread [ie produce children]
Before people rag on me, if you want to use it for pleasure whatever, just make sure you know what can come out of it and take the apprioate steps so you wouldn't have to consider abortion.
I don't know either really. I guess the best I can do is support it as a legal option, but strongly discourage it unless it's absolutly necessary.
This is Bob Barker reminding you to have your spouse spayed or neutered.
Now serously, I absolutely agree with this. Take precautions to prevent all STD's, including preganancy. If you think you are mature enough to bump ugly, prove it by accepting the responsibility that goes with maturity.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Whoops, missed this.
1) Unless the mother is in danger, I don't see how carying a fetus to term is taking it's importance over the mother's
2) I'm not suggesting a chasity belts here, use your sexuality as you see fit, just be aware of what could come of it.
3) We should encourage the use of protection or absitence to prevent babies from being born into overpopulation
4) I'm not encouraging that.
I still don't get this. How is it 'better'? Better for who? Certainly not for the unborn fetus that you say has equal rights to a baby.
If the women was to talk about her rape when 6 months pregnant would it then be ok for an abortion? What about 5 months or 7 months etc?
What if it wasn't rape. What if she had consenting sex while intoxicated but instantly regretted it on sobering up? Would it be 'better' for an abortion then?
You seem to have double standards. You support abortion when it's 'better' in your opinion but oppose it when it's not.
There are several issues here. First would be what goes into the creation of a child. I've been around people who had to go off their needed psychiatric medication because they were pregnant. Now, if this is a trade off a particular person wants to make, they absolutely have the right. However, it is not responsible as a community to encourage women who need psychiatric medication to go off their meds. Now, your first response to this is probably along the lines of "Yeah, but that's a small portion of women." I would agree, but remind you that such women do exist and you are advocating a position that very much affects their lives.
Second, there are physical consequences. Women do die from child birth. Fortunately, this doesn't occur much in the U.S. (side note - unless you're really poor, which does intersect with women seeking abortions often) or Canada, however, it is a real consequence of deciding to carry a child to term. If a woman does not wish to take the risk she should not be forced to. You have also pointed out that some women to experience psychological issues from having abortions they later have regretted. Women who have had children - whether keeping them or giving them away- have also experienced such issues. You are saying that the possibility of life in that fetus is of more importance than any physical or psychological issue that may negatively affect the woman who is being stripped of the right to direct how her body is used.
There is also often an economic effect from pregnancy. Many women have complications that make them unable to work for significant periods of time. Since many women who seek abortions often already have economic issues to worry about, you are advocating that some women lose housing, have utilities turned off, have credit problems for years, etc. in order to give birth to a child they do not want. Furthermore, since some women who do decide to get abortions already have children, you are advocating harming existing children.
You are saying that the right to existence of the fetus overrides any other concern the woman carrying it may have. The woman must put her life on hold or completely rearrange it in order to give birth to an unwanted child. The fetus absolutely trumps the grown woman in your position.
No one is advocating ignorance here. I have yet to see anyone say that abortion should replace birth control. Accidents happen and people always have and always will gamble with the consequences of their actions. The only way to make 100% I don't ever get pregnant again is to be abstinant and never enjoy sex until menopause. So you are telling me to either not have sex if I am not prepared to have my life (and that of my family) turned upside-down by pregnancy. I cannot use my sexuality as I see fit if the community decides it owns my uterus and that the value of what can come out of my uterus is greater than the value of my self-determination.
Yes. And what do you do when that fails? Again accidents and people who will ignore your encouragement.
Ah, but that is a real consequence of the position you are advocating. Just because you don't want the consequence of forcing women to carry to term to be children born into very bad circumstances doesn't mean that consequence does not exist.
I understand that what you are advocating is a respect for life in general and the possibilities of human life contained within a fetus. However, you are failing to grasp the real world consequences to women, children already born, and the lives those fetuses will likely have if allowed to become children. When working towards creating whatever utopia a person envisions they cannot live in a fantasyland wherein that utopia already exists. You have to work with the world around you if you expect anyone to take you seriously as you try to move towards your model world. The position you are advocating has far too many negative consequences for those already living to be taken seriously at this point in time as anything more than a theoretical way of living that maybe people should strive for but that is completely disconnected from the reality of the here and now.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
That's exactly right. The child is already alive. (And not just alive, but already a person).
Let's add another constraint and say that these embryos are in magic incubators, where, if they were to sit for 9 more months, they would all (hopefully) grow into babies. (We must also say that these embryos exist merely for the sake of science, cost nothing, are easily reproducable at no cost, and have no parents. They can and will be adopted into loving families if they emerge, though). I could imagine that your choice would still be the same.
the law!=suggestion.
The point I'm trying to make is that the DNA in your cells is not what makes you human. Even if you were to indeed remove ALL of your cells, and sustained your thought process through other means (like, say, your mind were simulated perfectly on a computer immediatley at the time of your death), the thing that makes you "you" would still exist, but in the computer. What makes something human is not the cells themselves, but the specific pattern of INTERACTION between those cells. An embryo, skin cells, heart cells, or indeed a foetus lack these specific, secondary traits that we associate with personhood. We call this intrinsic value human dignity, which all things have that posses a conscious mind.
There is no intrinsic value in the child becoming an adult if that is what you mean. The only value in the child's life is what the child (and his loved ones) place on it. It is unethical to harm a child ONLY because the child CARES that you are harming it. "Interfering" with the child becoming an adult is such a vague, meaningless term that it can't be expressed in ethical language. You have no idea what kind of adult the child will become (if it even lives that long). Anything could influence it's development. However, it is certainly the child's WILL to live and live happily, and interfering with that will is the unethical part of an action you take which you know will probably harm the child's prospects of becoming a happy and healthy adult. If you take these actions out of malice, then they are unethical.
Placing your will above the child's is unethical, because this hierarchy is arbitrary. The child's will is no less valuable than yours, and he has just as much (if not more) stake in his life than you do. Some paternalism, of course, is necessary in directing and teaching children, but making every decision for the child, and attempting to shape the child to your exact standards, can be considered unethical if only because of the arbitrary placement of your will above the child's.
A foetus, on the other hand, has no will to live. It is arguable whether it can even experience or understand anything. A child, at least, knows when its hungry, tired, in pain, and it has a limited understanding of the world, who its family and friends are, what it means to be human, what it means to live and love. A foetus does not know these things. Since it has no will, anyone can impose their will upon it to no ethical effect.
Ah. So you're just being an idiot, then.
See, sweetycakes, 'pro-life' is bracketed in a condescending manner becuase fetusus aren't actually living human beings, so entitling yourself 'pro-life' is retarded. Pro choice, on the other hand, rather accurately describes the opinion of someone of the other persuasion.
This, like your comment on developing nations, remains a special plea. If the 'potential lifez!' actually was your prime concern, neither the state of the country it was being born into nor the means by which it was conceived would be relevant.
See how the above also ties into 'pro life' being written in quotations?
And there it is. Right there. Living on the Cpt_Pineapple side of life.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Are you kidding me? Have you read Alison's posts here, Eloise? They're borderline retarded. We're easily drifting into the sovereignty of Shizzle Country. According to Alison's supporting argument, one should never do anything that entails any extra risk. Just keep that helmet securely fastened, stick to green runs and watch PG movies.
We'd never have had Darwin voyage out on the beagle bagging birds in the Galapagos with that zeitgeist, nor likely had Einstein venturing out of the patent office, nor ever put reflectors on the moon by hand.
I'd also just like to personally note that I find it hilarious that the only two voices dissenting from the one that offers the widest range of rights to a particular demograph are the ones who believe in a magical special friend.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Nothing like the word abortion to start a never ending argument...