Anti-abortionists don't believe that life begins at conception.

[HoreTore]

Those heavily opposed to abortion will always claim that life begins at conception, and that a fetus is entitled to the same rights and protections as a human.

This is a lie, they do not believe this.

If we are to take their claim to be true, the US government kills 1.2 million humans every single year. And their response? Wave a couple of banners and write some angry letters. Is that anywhere near a reasonable response to the yearly murder of so many human beings? No, it is not. We invade entire countries for the deaths of a couple of thousands. If the belief of the anti-abortionists were genuine, they would be going mental.

Their fight is not for the sanctity of life. It is simply good old misogyny. They desire to keep young women in their place.

Let's illustrate this with an example:

Say a fertilization clinic is on fire. An anti-abortionist runs into the building to save as many lives as he can. He runs through the corridor and faces two glass doors. One door leads into a room filled with newborns. The other room is filled with tubes of inseminated eggs. He knows he will only have the time to go into one of the rooms. If his beliefs are genuine, that all life is worthy of the same protection and that life begins at conception, he will run to save the tubes as he will be able to carry more tubes than babies. However, barring severe mental illness, he will run for the babies.

Liar.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I would save the newborns. It would be better to reduce suffering as well as life-loss. Life does begin at conception, but there are shades. I would run into a building to save women and children, but not men, because I believe that some lives have a greater value than others - but all have value.

So, life clearly does begin at conception - but the life and health of the mother takes presidence

[Brenus]

An amoeba, a cell are lives. However we don't really care or their protection. Anti-abortionists are just bench of people wanting to impose their "moral" system on others.
Most of the time, their concern about the sanctity of Human Life stops right at the door of Death Chamber for Criminals.

[HoreTore]

but all have value.

Judging by your inaction, clearly a fetus has next to no value.

You desired to invade a country and kill everyone responsible for the deaths of around 3500 of your countrymen(and rightfully so, I might add). If we say that the threshold for this action is at 3000, and that in the event of the deaths of 2999 people on 9/11 would have triggered the same response as the 1.2 million 'killed' by abortion doctors yearly, we end up with the value of a fetus being equal to 1/400th of the value of a grown human.

I can agree with that.

[Fragony]

Tell my mate who's girlfriend is 3 months pregnant that it's is not his daughter but a lump of cells.

[Montmorency]

Well, yeah, it simply comes down to the fact that some life has less value than other life, as tacitly proven by the sentiments of millions of pet owners everywhere. Just because some life is human life doesn't suddenly make it more valuable than any other life except in the specific case of women's comfort and civil autonomy - for anti-abortionists.

Horetore, you do realize these people don't have to be up in arms, right? They're pretty slowly-but-surely winning the 'battle' against abortion rights throughout the United States ATM.

Why get violent when you're already winning and doing so would hinder progress towards that victory?

[Montmorency]

Tell my mate who's girlfriend is 3 months pregnant that it's is not his daughter but a lump of cells.

You're a lump of cells. So what?

[ICantSpellDawg]

We are winning the fight because the unborn are clearly alive and human. Their cognition and sensory perception have always been in dispute, but while this does call into question the order of precedence of lives to be saved in a fire, we as a species tend to save the youngest first. The unborn are the youngest, and many of them feel pain, arguably dream and suck their thumb. It is arbitrary that it might be legal to kill a 7-9 month infant based on their location when the same child unenclosed by womb would be recognized to have human rights.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty except in a case of defensive attempt to stop serious or violent crimes (is shooting an attacker, shooting an arsonist, shooting a burglar, etc). The system of incarceration is both more awful and also offers opportunities for personal fulfillment through education, community - in spite of how clearly broken the existing system is.

[HoreTore]

We are winning the fight because the unborn are clearly alive and human. Their cognition and sensory perception have always been in dispute, but while this does call into question the order of precedence of lives to be saved in a fire, we as a species tend to save the youngest first. The unborn are the youngest, and many of them feel pain, arguably dream and suck their thumb. It is arbitrary that it might be legal to kill a 7-9 month infant based on their location when the same child unenclosed by womb would be recognized to have human rights.

So where is your actions taken to prevent the annual 'deaths' of 1.2 million humans...?

Would you have been so restrained if Obama ordered the deaths of 1.2 actual humans? I think not.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So where is your actions taken to prevent the annual 'deaths' of 1.2 million humans...?

Would you have been so restrained if Obama ordered the deaths of 1.2 actual humans? I think not.

I support organizations that attempt to de-legitimize the the legal acceptance. My parents organize a bus load of people to drive to Washington every year and they have adopted 2 children. Abortion is a travesty and a disgrace, but my money is better off going to CRS to alleviate suffering and death. Either way, abortion is an injustice on the scale of other mass killings. Again, clinal levels of suffering.

[HoreTore]

I support organizations that attempt to de-legitimize the the legal acceptance. My parents organize a bus load of people to drive to Washington every year and they have adopted 2 children. Abortion is a travesty and a disgrace, but my money is better off going to CRS to alleviate suffering and death. Either way, abortion is an injustice on the scale of other mass killings. Again, clinal levels of suffering.

....and yet you do next to nothing about it.

I hardly believe you would have opted for a couple of protest buses if Obama opened a US Auschwitz facility.

Either you are not really that opposed to mass murder in the scale of millions of people, or you don't really believe that fetuses are humans.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the OP was directed at those who equate abortion with murder and the holocaust and such(specifically this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8rre_Knudsen)). You do not seem to be one of those.

[The Lurker Below]

Fertilization clinics have a room full of newborns?

Anti-abortion = life begins at conception. Generalization not accepted.

A court might understand and empathize with your sentiment here, but this case would be thrown out.

[HoreTore]

Fertilization clinics have a room full of newborns?

Anti-abortion = life begins at conception. Generalization not accepted.

A court might understand and empathize with your sentiment here, but this case would be thrown out.

1. Yup, this hypothetical clinic does.

2. I am only dealing with those anti-abortionists who make that claim. For this thread, I don't care about the others. I am not making a general abortion claim here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Those opposed to abortion will always claim that life begins at conception, and that a fetus is entitled to the same rights and protections as a human.

This is a lie, they do not believe this.

If we are to take their claim to be true, the US government kills 1.2 million humans every single year. And their response? Wave a couple of banners and write some angry letters. Is that anywhere near a reasonable response to the yearly murder of so many human beings? No, it is not. We invade entire countries for the deaths of a couple of thousands. If the belief of the anti-abortionists were genuine, they would be going mental.

Their fight is not for the sanctity of life. It is simply good old misogyny. They desire to keep young women in their place.

Let's illustrate this with an example:

Say a fertilization clinic is on fire. An anti-abortionist runs into the building to save as many lives as he can. He runs through the corridor and faces two glass doors. One door leads into a room filled with newborns. The other room is filled with tubes of inseminated eggs. He knows he will only have the time to go into one of the rooms. If his beliefs are genuine, that all life is worthy of the same protection and that life begins at conception, he will run to save the tubes as he will be able to carry more tubes than babies. However, barring severe mental illness, he will run for the babies.

Liar.

Would only be a logical dilemma were the abortion opponent aware of the status of the inseminated eggs. Discerning status by visual inspection would be difficult at best.

Even presuming the knowledge of the status of the tube contents, saving the newborns might be viewed as more practical as they are at a phase of life that might allow them to continue life unassisted for a while which would not be true of the tubed lives. Triage is never fun.


And some of the abortion opponents have gone "mental" as you label it.

[HoreTore]

Would only be a logical dilemma were the abortion opponent aware of the status of the inseminated eggs. Discerning status by visual inspection would be difficult at best.

Even presuming the knowledge of the status of the tube contents, saving the newborns might be viewed as more practical as they are at a phase of life that might allow them to continue life unassisted for a while which would not be true of the tubed lives. Triage is never fun.


And some of the abortion opponents have gone "mental" as you label it.

Let's say there's a huge neon sign above said door saying "ONLY SUCCESSFULLY IMPREGNATED EGGS INSIDE". And he would be able to save 20 tubes at least for every baby he saves. I can't see how a baby being able to survive on its own makes any kind of difference to the anti-abortionist in his propaganda. There, he makes the claim that a baby's ability to survive on its own does NOT make it more valuable than the fetus/egg.

Still, the details are not the point. The point is that even a hardcore anti-abortionist views the living as having a higher value than the unborn, which is the opposite of the 'abortion is murder'-propaganda.

[Husar]

Well, of course a human will regard something that looks like a human as more human than something that doesn't, like an egg.
That's probably more a matter of how our brains work than what people actually believe. To call them liars because of that is quite theatrical.

If there is a fire and your girlfriend and your gay friend are caught in it and you save your girlfriend, does that mean that you think gays do not have the same right to live? And if you save your gay friend, does that mean you are misogynistic?

[ICantSpellDawg]

....and yet you do next to nothing about it.

I hardly believe you would have opted for a couple of protest buses if Obama opened a US Auschwitz facility.

Either you are not really that opposed to mass murder in the scale of millions of people, or you don't really believe that fetuses are humans.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the OP was directed at those who equate abortion with murder and the holocaust and such(specifically this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8rre_Knudsen)). You do not seem to be one of those.

On the contrary. I believe that the modern acceptance of abortion is a shade below the holocaust that will claim dramatically more victims in the long run. It is even more disturbing because it is parents, the medical community, and government who are complicit.

[HoreTore]

On the contrary. I believe that the modern acceptance of abortion is a shade below the holocaust that will claim dramatically more victims in the long run. It is even more disturbing because it is parents, the medical community, and government who are complicit.

You my say so, but your lack of action suggest otherwise.

Care to explain why you can't be bothered to stop the holocaust(-1)? Going by current abortion numbers, the US commits a holocaust every 5th year.

Are you going to sit quietly and watch it happen? Yup.

Would you sit quietly when faced with an actual holocaust? Nope.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You my say so, but your lack of action suggest otherwise.

Care to explain why you can't be bothered to stop the holocaust(-1)? Going by current abortion numbers, the US commits a holocaust every 5th year.

Are you going to sit quietly and watch it happen? Yup.

Would you sit quietly when faced with an actual holocaust? Nope.

What did people do when the actual holocaust was happening? I'm confused by your chain of thought. What would you be doing if you thought that it was actually a terrifying thing?

Lots of crazy and terrible stuff happens all the time. What does anyone do?

[Fragony]

You're a lump of cells. So what?

That is not what he sees, he is all oh and ah about seeing his daughter in his girlfriends womb. In modern western societies there is always an alternative for abortion so I feel we must reconsider our stance on it. There isn't really an excuse to terminate a healthy pregnancy. There is also no excuse for getting pregnant when you don't want to get pregnant, except when raped. Use a condom if you don't want to be a father (or get mystery-meat) or take the pill if you don't want to be pregnant. Accidents can still happen but if you screw up deal with it.

[Brenus]

Abortion is a right. You are not oblige to do it. Freedom. Point.
"Accidents can still happen but if you screw up deal with it." Yes: Abort. Don't screw for/others futures of cells separation and multiplication, which at this stage can be extract and frozen, definite proof that they are closest to an amoeba than to a Sapiens.
And your friend might thing of a lump of cell as a human, that is just an illusion. At this stage it a shape of an orange that can be naturally expelled at any moment.
And his fantasy of a daughter, come-on, at 3 months, (16-20 weeks normally)!!!!

[HoreTore]

What did people do when the actual holocaust was happening? I'm confused by your chain of thought. What would you be doing if you thought that it was actually a terrifying thing?

Lots of crazy and terrible stuff happens all the time. What does anyone do?

So, you would remain calm when your government decides to kill a million a year?

Aren't you supposed to be armed to avoid that from happening? Where's the NRA?

[Fragony]

Abortion is a right. You are not oblige to do it. Freedom. Point.
"Accidents can still happen but if you screw up deal with it." Yes: Abort. Don't screw for/others futures of cells separation and multiplication, which at this stage can be extract and frozen, definite proof that they are closest to an amoeba than to a Sapiens.
And your friend might thing of a lump of cell as a human, that is just an illusion. At this stage it a shape of an orange that can be naturally expelled at any moment.
And his fantasy of a daughter, come-on, at 3 months, (16-20 weeks normally)!!!!

It's not his fantasy, it's his daughter

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So where is your actions taken to prevent the annual 'deaths' of 1.2 million humans...?

Would you have been so restrained if Obama ordered the deaths of 1.2 actual humans? I think not.

Well, some people do blow up abortion clinics.

[HoreTore]

Well, some people do blow up abortion clinics.

Indeed there have been a couple who have done what their propaganda tells them to do, but I would count these as mental cases.

The vast majority of those who claim that abortion is murder/holocaust thankfully do not follow their own logic. Their words may suggest otherwise, but their actions prove that they value actual life above the life of a fetus.

Which is a good thing, honestly.

[Fragony]

Indeed there have been a couple who have done what their propaganda tells them to do, but I would count these as mental cases.

The vast majority of those who claim that abortion is murder/holocaust thankfully do not follow their own logic. Their words may suggest otherwise, but their actions prove that they value actual life above the life of a fetus.

Which is a good thing, honestly.

I would never bomb a clinic but I do have a problem with it. Pregnancy can be prevented if you want to prevent it. If you burn your ass you got to sit on the blisters as we say here. The right on abortion is feminism gone wrong imho, if you can shove something in you can also push something out. You don't have to keep it, but it didn't ask to be here. But it is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, you would remain calm when your government decides to kill a million a year?

Aren't you supposed to be armed to avoid that from happening? Where's the NRA?

Germans largely didn't fight Hitler. Even the ones who had an idea about what was happening. Almost every western government everywhere is complicit.

To add to that, there are issues regarding the health and safety of the mother, which are legitimate. The act is a moral crime, but it is not exactly the same as rounding up undesirables and gassing them to death.

Plus, if you have an issue with killing people I fail to see what armed insurrection will do that doesn't result in death and destruction. Also, it has been said before, we are winning the argument - abortion rates are decreasing and people are beginning to recognize that the unborn occupy a peculiar ethical area - they are alive by every standard, and they are human by every standard. Keep the pressure on, keep talking to people and getting them to abstain, use effective birth control correctly, and not murder their most vulnerable innocent family members.

Explain to people that they have a right to choose when they become parents, but that if they are pregnant they are already parents.

[HoreTore]

.....In other words, abortion is not equal to murder. Which kinda was the point...

When all you want to do is to push some legislation against it, you are showing that it's miles and miles away from murder.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is different from murder - yes. We incarcerate murderers. Abortion is homicide, occupying a strata below murder and less justified than self defense. Less justified than the death penalty. It is somewhere just around a crime of passion, but even more disturbing. I wouldn't advocate jail times for the mother - but is should cause the Dr's medical license to be revoked unless it is to save the mother from death or serious injury.

Our laws do not recognize the act as homicide - until they do we will protest. We are capable of judging lesels of justification on the type of homicides being committed. When we pretend as a society that one type of homicide isn't a homicide at all is where we have a problem. Many European countries have a better balance than the US

[HoreTore]

It is different from murder - yes.

Good to see that you're not one of these (http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00004/00000000126/section/00000000000000053029.png) loonies then.

[Husar]

The pictures in your second link show violently murdered babies, I've added a warning but a Moderator or Admin might remove it.

I'm not even sure how that is supposed to support your point. If they are lunatics for posting such images, then you are one for reposting them here. And either way they do actually show a rather inconvenient truth about late abortions because they look like violently murdered human beings. Most humans aren't really refined or finished at any time during their lives, so why would ripping a slightly unfinished human out of a womb with an adapted vacuum cleaner not be murder?

Please excuse that I haven't murdered anyone over the issue yet, I happen to believe that murder is not a great way to end murder.

[HoreTore]

They're pretty commonly used images among the anti-abortion crowd. There was a bus driving around Norway with such images painted on the sides a few years back.

And the point isn't that the use of such images makes them lunatics, Husar. The point is that they do not follow their own logic, which shows that they do not actually equal abortion with murder.

EDIT: I'll remove the offending linky though. For those who want to find it, it's the first link you get when googling 'abortion is murder'.

EDIT2: Also, I realize I have been rather sloppy in making my point. I had Børre Knudsen and his ilk clearly in mind when writing the OP, but I failed to get that across... Sorry.

[Husar]

They're pretty commonly used images among the anti-abortion crowd. There was a bus driving around Norway with such images painted on the sides a few years back.

And the point isn't that the use of such images makes them lunatics, Husar. The point is that they do not follow their own logic, which shows that they do not actually equal abortion with murder.

EDIT: I'll remove the offending linky though. For those who want to find it, it's the first link you get when googling 'abortion is murder'.

What do you want them to do? Their entire surroundings do not agree with them on the murder thing and they do not like violence in the first place, apart from a few actual lunatics. So they try to change it in a relatively peaceful way. Do you want them to fly planes into buildings and do you think they could make more progress that way?

[HoreTore]

What do you want them to do? Their entire surroundings do not agree with them on the murder thing and they do not like violence in the first place, apart from a few actual lunatics. So they try to change it in a relatively peaceful way. Do you want them to fly planes into buildings and do you think they could make more progress that way?

Is 'peaceful and legal' an appropriate response to the largest massacre in history? Yes, I would expect them to 'fly planes into buildings' if they actually believe what they say they do. Especially when fiery resistance to abortion is usually mixed with an old testament view of justice and punishment, a hawkish approach to foreign relations(hey, let's nuke mecca!) and a desire to own firearms...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, you would remain calm when your government decides to kill a million a year?

Aren't you supposed to be armed to avoid that from happening? Where's the NRA?

Individuals make that decision, Horetore. The government -- following Roe v Wade -- has interpreted the Constitution to mean that the various levels of government cannot unduly curtail a woman's ability to abort her child prior to viability.

Decision Summary:

...the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[3][4] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.



That is a far cry from the government euthanization program your posts so far in this thread have implied. The court ruled that government has a limited say in the matter -- not that the government would hereby be allowed to abort children.

And, as dozens of incidents attest, persons in the "pro-life" cause have adopted violence, including gun violence, to combat abortion.

[Husar]

Is 'peaceful and legal' an appropriate response to the largest massacre in history? Yes, I would expect them to 'fly planes into buildings' if they actually believe what they say they do. Especially when fiery resistance to abortion is usually mixed with an old testament view of justice and punishment, a hawkish approach to foreign relations(hey, let's nuke mecca!) and a desire to own firearms...

I know enough people who are not from the USA, do not want firearms, are against war, prefer the new testament and still think abortion is basically murder. I know that they can easily be mixed and often agree or cooperate in things they have in common, but not every fundamentalist is the same.

I am not arguing that some, especially in the US, have very twisted views which hardly fit what Jesus said, but I pointed that out here before.

[Fragony]

The pictures in your second link show violently murdered babies, I've added a warning but a Moderator or Admin might remove it.

I'm not even sure how that is supposed to support your point. If they are lunatics for posting such images, then you are one for reposting them here. And either way they do actually show a rather inconvenient truth about late abortions because they look like violently murdered human beings. Most humans aren't really refined or finished at any time during their lives, so why would ripping a slightly unfinished human out of a womb with an adapted vacuum cleaner not be murder?

Please excuse that I haven't murdered anyone over the issue yet, I happen to believe that murder is not a great way to end murder.

Please excuse me for being horrified by these images, I am just not looking at tne same thing when looking at it. All I see is a baby that's growing inside it's mothers womb. I assume that's there because I didn't actually watch it. I can't watch it I care too much.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The thought-exercise in the OP is terrible and is basically a cheap trick used to provoke an emotional response, rather than an intellectually robust one. To refresh memories:


Say a fertilization clinic is on fire. An anti-abortionist runs into the building to save as many lives as he can. He runs through the corridor and faces two glass doors. One door leads into a room filled with newborns. The other room is filled with tubes of inseminated eggs. He knows he will only have the time to go into one of the rooms. If his beliefs are genuine, that all life is worthy of the same protection and that life begins at conception, he will run to save the tubes as he will be able to carry more tubes than babies. However, barring severe mental illness, he will run for the babies.

We are biologically wired to react when we see fellow people in distress or danger. Seeing babies crying with their limbs waving about provokes a reaction to protect them. On the other hand, inseminated eggs, stored imperceptibly in a test tube, do not provoke such a visceral reaction. This is why the thought-exercise fails - it leads us into making an emotional or a primitive response, rather than an intellectual one. And it does so on more levels than the one I just mentioned - consider the fact that the babies would feel all the horrific pain of being burned alive, while the inseminated eggs would not yet feel pain in such a way. Of course, that is actually a valid argument to some degree. But you get my point - the scenario is rife with problems if you want to have an intellectual discussion about what constitutes life.

I can invent scenarios that are just as silly that would highlight the hypocrisy of the more hardline pro-choicers, of which HoreTore himself is one. He may correct me if I am wrong, but he has stated in the past that he regards unborn babies of any stage of development as being parasites with no right to life. So I would be interested to hear how HoreTore and those who share his views would answer these scenarios, which are no more ludicrous than those he throws at pro-lifers:

1. A lesbian couple* are trapped in a building. They are both equally helpless to save themselves. Somehow, you know you only have time to save one before the building collapses and kills them. Now, one of these individuals is pregnant (in the early stages), and the other is not. So, who do you save? According to many pro-choicers, the "lump of cells" in the pregnant woman has no human qualities and no right to life, but IMO, you would have to be mentally ill not to prioritise the pregnant woman.

*I have used a lesbian couple over a heterosexual one in this example purely to control for any chivalric sentiments, the old 'women and children first' mentality

2. Two deranged terrorists work in conjunction to plan a bizarre attack. One captures 10 babies born that very day. The other captures twenty women due to give birth within the next 24 hours. The terrorists present a stark choice - they will kill either the 10 newborns, or abort and kill the 20 babies ready to be born that day. We have 1 hour to make the choice. The terrorists and their hostages are unreachable and will not negotiate. They have the technology and the skill to abort the 20 babies without physically harming their mothers in any way. The mothers are unconscious and will remain so throughout these events. Now, I will not ask which option you would choose, since that brings up the muddy waters of whether you should assent to the terrorists at all. So in this case, I will ask, which is the greater tragedy in terms of loss of life? 10 newborn babies? Or 20 babies ready to be born that day? According to hardline pro-choicers, killing the 10 newborns is murder, but the 20 soon-to-be-borns ought to be freely aborted if the mother so wishes. Thus for them, the only issue in the soon-to-be-borns being killed ought to be the violation of the mothers' choice.

I'm interested to see what the answers will be...

[HoreTore]

1. A lesbian couple* are trapped in a building. They are both equally helpless to save themselves. Somehow, you know you only have time to save one before the building collapses and kills them. Now, one of these individuals carries the Mona Lisa in her lap, and the other does not. So, who do you save?

Changed it slightly to answer your question.

The second one actually illustrates the point I'm trying to make in this thread; the dangers of absolutes. To answer it:

20 ready-to-be-born babies? The ready-to-be-born babies, no doubt.
20 babies conceived the day before? The 10 already born ones, without question.

Moving from the point of conception up to the birth, the fetus will demand more and more value. The trouble starts when you try to assert one of the extremes on the entire scale.

[Brenus]

“The right on abortion is feminism gone wrong imho,” So you want to impose on women unwanted children? Doesn’t matter their feeling, will and circumstances, if they want it or not, they have to have the baby…. Err, what about the father? Will he be obliged to pay all his life for a baby he didn’t want… Will he share the night watch, nappies and others mild (hum hum) inconveniences when a baby is born. Will he be forced to assist the mother for the giving birth exercises, and watch the baby poping out (thx Mass Effect 3)?

“Abortion is homicide”: Nope. Abortion is a sane decision when you are not apt to raise a baby for whatever reason. The cells are not baby, they are just cells. Otherwise, why not complain of the holocaust of spermatozoids (they are half humans and alive) that fail to reach the egg (and I don’t even want to think of the one used when the woman/men are not fertile, or without any female involvement except in pictures and imagination), and all these egg unfertilised and wasted…

“It's not his fantasy, it's his daughter” Nope, until the baby is born it is a potential baby. It becomes a foetus at 10 weeks. A foetus is viable (with heavy machinery) at around 7 months. You know the sex of the baby about the 16th to 18th week of pregnancy.
So at 3 months, his baby girl/daughter is a fantasy.
At 2 or 3 month it is an agglomerate of cell, dividing themselves in process called meiosis, and as you know, it is not how human reproduce. So the cells are not human, they are cells.

[Fragony]

If you would see him looking at the pictures of his soon to be daughter,and that is what it is to him. How cynical can you be to consider an unborn child to be just disposable. As far as I am concerned our stance on this should be subject to change. But that is just my opinion,doesn't have to be yours

[Greyblades]

How cynical can you be to consider an unborn child to be just disposable.

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

[Husar]

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

But if you take all of that, we might as well euthanize orphans to relieve them of the horrible mental pain they must be in.
And I'm not sure whether all the bad parents actually go for abortions, in many cases it may be parents who just worry too much and would be really good parents once they have the baby. And then there are probably babies which are never born due to pure financial/convenience reasons. I can somehow see abortions being okay relatively early on, while the lump of cells thing is still relatively valid, but especially late abortions seem unnecessary unless there are serious medical complications.

[HoreTore]

All late term abortions are due to medical reasons, Husar.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.


Grey':

This has been an abortion/morality discussion. Those who oppose abortion do not automatically seek to force parentage (after the act of birthing at least) on others, nor would many of them argue that orphans and broken homes are a desirable outcome. Many (most?) of those opposing abortion are also proponents of birth control and the adoption of children who are born to a parent who does not want and/or cannot effectively parent that child.

The Pro-life crew is adamant against the use of abortion as birth control -- many of them are staunch proponents of other forms of birth control that prevent conception.

The proponents of the "Well, you got yourself knocked up you slut, so now you have to marry the no good jerk you have come to hate and parent this currently bastard child-to-be and your life is now decreed for you" approach to the situation are pretty thin on the ground.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Changed it slightly to answer your question.

The second one actually illustrates the point I'm trying to make in this thread; the dangers of absolutes. To answer it:

20 ready-to-be-born babies? The ready-to-be-born babies, no doubt.
20 babies conceived the day before? The 10 already born ones, without question.

Moving from the point of conception up to the birth, the fetus will demand more and more value. The trouble starts when you try to assert one of the extremes on the entire scale.

OK. I am surprised you give the same answers I would. But I'm not sure your position here is compatible with your comments in the past, where you said that (again, apologies if I'm wrong here) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their baby at any time of the pregnancy. If you say that a soon-to-be-born baby is just as human as a recently born one, how can that baby's humanity and all that comes with that (right to life etc) be less important that the mothers right to choose?


“The right on abortion is feminism gone wrong imho,” So you want to impose on women unwanted children? Doesn’t matter their feeling, will and circumstances, if they want it or not, they have to have the baby…. Err, what about the father? Will he be obliged to pay all his life for a baby he didn’t want… Will he share the night watch, nappies and others mild (hum hum) inconveniences when a baby is born. Will he be forced to assist the mother for the giving birth exercises, and watch the baby poping out (thx Mass Effect 3)?

Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.


“Abortion is homicide”: Nope. Abortion is a sane decision when you are not apt to raise a baby for whatever reason. The cells are not baby, they are just cells. Otherwise, why not complain of the holocaust of spermatozoids (they are half humans and alive) that fail to reach the egg (and I don’t even want to think of the one used when the woman/men are not fertile, or without any female involvement except in pictures and imagination), and all these egg unfertilised and wasted…

The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.

[HoreTore]

OK. I am surprised you give the same answers I would. But I'm not sure your position here is compatible with your comments in the past, where you said that (again, apologies if I'm wrong here) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their baby at any time of the pregnancy. If you say that a soon-to-be-born baby is just as human as a recently born one, how can that baby's humanity and all that comes with that (right to life etc) be less important that the mothers right to choose?

I believe you have missed some nuance here.

I do support abortion right up to the moment of birth. I also support a ban on abortion starting around 3 months, with a hard ban after 4 or so.

The reason is the mothers health. Abortions carried out after week 12 carries substantially increased risk, which gets even higher after 16 and 20 weeks. Drawing a line makes sure that almost all abortions are carried out when the procedure involves little more than taking a pill, with the few stragglers lagging a few weeks behind due to exceptional circumstances covering virtually all of the remained. The very late abortions are all due to severe risk of death to the mother if she gives birth, and when given the choice between the mothers life and the baby, I choose the mother.

EDIT: I realize I may be a little hazy on the exact weeks various stuff happens, but you get the main point nonetheless.

[Greyblades]

But if you take all of that, we might as well euthanize orphans to relieve them of the horrible mental pain they must be in.
Must I clarify every time I make such a statement that I am not taking the imaginings of a SS interrigator into account? Orphans are not in pain but it is sheer ignorance to think that they are as likely to prosper as one in a loving family. You have few options to hamper a child's development further without entering the realms of abuse or neglect.


This has been an abortion/morality discussion. Those who oppose abortion do not automatically seek to force parentage (after the act of birthing at least) on others, nor would many of them argue that orphans and broken homes are a desirable outcome.
Many (most?) of those opposing abortion are also proponents of birth control and the adoption of children who are born to a parent who does not want and/or cannot effectively parent that child.
The Pro-life crew is adamant against the use of abortion as birth control -- many of them are staunch proponents of other forms of birth control that prevent conception.

People are stupid when it comes to sex and unwanted pregancies can only be reduced not eliminated by birthcontrol. Also, society does not need to force parents to keep an unplanned child when their own hormones are very capable of doing that.

Here's the thing: an unplanned child is by its very nature not likely to be born into a family unit capable of caring for it to the extent it deserves and there have never been nor ever will be enough adopting parents for all orphans produced. Now taking the fact that sperm, eggs, fetuses, babies and children on this world are dying left and right without our input I do not see why protecting a mindless lump of cells is a priority soley due to the potential of it becoming a person.

I believe that the priority should not be saving every fetus we can, we are enthusiastically making plenty as it is, but instead expending our efforts in making sure the children that are born are raised with the greatest of care. Thus I say women should be allowed to abort and accept that loss of life for the high probability that many of them will go on to choose to have children, later in life when they are more able of giving thier children the upbringing they deserve.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe you have missed some nuance here.

I do support abortion right up to the moment of birth. I also support a ban on abortion starting around 3 months, with a hard ban after 4 or so.

The reason is the mothers health. Abortions carried out after week 12 carries substantially increased risk, which gets even higher after 16 and 20 weeks. Drawing a line makes sure that almost all abortions are carried out when the procedure involves little more than taking a pill, with the few stragglers lagging a few weeks behind due to exceptional circumstances covering virtually all of the remained. The very late abortions are all due to severe risk of death to the mother if she gives birth, and when given the choice between the mothers life and the baby, I choose the mother.

EDIT: I realize I may be a little hazy on the exact weeks various stuff happens, but you get the main point nonetheless.

If your position were adopted in the US I would rabidly sign a petition to support the limits mentioned

[Brenus]

“an unborn child to be just disposable” Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

“The Pro-life crew” The anti-abortion crew. They are not in favour of life, they are against abortion.

“Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.” Explain how to have the freedom to choose your life becomes a case for infanticide?

“The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.” Anti-abortion argument is not valid as spermatozoids and eggs are alive as well. If a baby is human when the cells start to separate, I don’t see why it can’t be even before, as they are all “unborn (potential) babies”.

[Fragony]

"Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born."

That is where we disagree, it will become a child if you don't terminate the pregnancy, it will become a person if you let it. I can accept that it is sometimes the best thing to do, for very good reasons, but you just don't get accidently pregnant, it's out of your hands when you do imho. If it's bad for your carreer you shouldn't have taken an unprotected meat injection or should have taken other totaly available alternativex, if you just got horney you shouldn't have gotten drunk and be shoved up a dick in a toilet, deal with it. The whole mindset is wrong when it comes to abortion, I blame feminism.

[HoreTore]

If your position were adopted in the US I would rabidly sign a petition to support the limits mentioned

This is the current state of affairs (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) in the US, though.

[Husar]

Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

What exactly changes at birth other than what we call the lump of cells and its relative location to the mother's body?
The brain is already active inside the womb but if it's not developed enough, I might as well mention that it cannot even recognize itself in a mirror until many months after birth, so maybe we can still abort new borns as they are not really developed humans anyway. Hell, they only learn to understand sarcasm around age 12 or so.

That late abortions are 100% for medical reasons was news to me, HoreTore. Are you sure that's the case in all countries?


Must I clarify every time I make such a statement that I am not taking the imaginings of a SS interrigator into account? Orphans are not in pain but it is sheer ignorance to think that they are as likely to prosper as one in a loving family. You have few options to hamper a child's development further without entering the realms of abuse or neglect.

Yes, Dr. Greymengele, but my point was more that they may still be better off alive than if we kill them off before birth. Preventing birth in a very early (actual lump of cells) stage I can somewhat agree with depending on the circumstances, just like I do not mind contraceptives, which often work in a similar way (e.g. prevent lump of egg cell to dock in womb).

Generally our planet would be better off with fewer people though, just imagine how long the oil would last for 7 million instead of 7 billion people. Not that we should reduce ourselves that drastically though.

[HoreTore]

That late abortions are 100% for medical reasons was news to me, HoreTore. Are you sure that's the case in all countries?

If you don't want a baby, would you:

1. Take a small pill and be done with it.
2. Suffer the pains of a long pregnancy before doing an expensive and very dangerous medical procedure that carries a risk of severe health effects or just outright kill you.

I'm pretty sure I'll go with 1...

Late term abortions(late second and all of third trimester) are always done because something has gone terribly wrong, either to the fetus or the mother. There are some anecdotes about a tiny number of abortions being performed where the mother was unaware of her pregnancy for quite a few months, but I am unsure of the truth in that claim.

[Husar]

If you don't want a baby, would you:

1. Take a small pill and be done with it.
2. Suffer the pains of a long pregnancy before doing an expensive and very dangerous medical procedure that carries a risk of severe health effects or just outright kill you.

I'm pretty sure I'll go with 1...

Late term abortions(late second and all of third trimester) are always done because something has gone terribly wrong, either to the fetus or the mother. There are some anecdotes about a tiny number of abortions being performed where the mother was unaware of her pregnancy for quite a few months, but I am unsure of the truth in that claim.

Yes, 1 seems the more logical choice, but I could imagine cases where mothers become anxious and have a late abortion without anyone stopping them even though the anxiety may just be temporary, like some people become anxious before they get married.

I just found a study that even cites financial reasons: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/study-ids-reasons-for-late-term-abortions/?page=all

I don't really agree with ending a life for financial reasons unless it's an animal.

[HoreTore]

Yes, 1 seems the more logical choice, but I could imagine cases where mothers become anxious and have a late abortion without anyone stopping them even though the anxiety may just be temporary, like some people become anxious before they get married.

I just found a study that even cites financial reasons: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/study-ids-reasons-for-late-term-abortions/?page=all

I don't really agree with ending a life for financial reasons unless it's an animal.

There's a whole batch of research on late-term abortions here (http://www.guttmacher.org/gsearch/index.html?q=late%20term%20abortion) if you're interested, including the report brutalized by washington post.

[Fragony]

There's a whole batch of research on late-term abortions here (http://www.guttmacher.org/gsearch/index.html?q=late%20term%20abortion) if you're interested, including the report brutalized by washington post.

Medical reasons are ok, so are mental reasons. But if you are just too lazy to make sure you don't get pregnant you just don't have the right to terminate a life. I am all for letting them watch the beating heart that's growing in their womb, and showing pictures of the fingers that are slowly developing. That is cruel, I know. Will probably traumatise them really bad. Suck it up, already shoved it up.

[HoreTore]

That serves no other purpose than the intentional infliction of pain.

[Fragony]

That serves no other purpose than the intentional infliction of pain.

Or not being very considerate, of course it cruel. But imho the stance on abortion is very old-fashioned, times have changd, more than enough foster-parents. It's a relic out of the sixties.

[HoreTore]

Or not being very considerate, of course it cruel. But imho the stance on abortion is very old-fashioned, times have changd, more than enough foster-parents. It's a relic out of the sixties.

Yeah, I heard there are no more orphanages any more.

[Husar]

Yeah, I heard there are no more orphanages any more.

Why is death preferable to an orphanage?

[Fragony]

Yeah, I heard there are no more orphanages any more.

There probably are, but wouldn't you want to balance things out as a human being, there is no need for abortions, there are waiting lists for parents who want to adopt someone. Why kill anything really.

[HoreTore]

Why is death preferable to an orphanage?

Death assumes life.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“an unborn child to be just disposable” Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

In terms of denotative meaning, you are of course correct. In terms of connotative use of the term "unborn-child" you are quite well aware of the intent of the writer -- no need to parse the individual words to make a counter point. I will note that the Catholic Church tends to refer to them as "The Unborn" in our prayer intentions, in part to avoid just this sort of "hair-splitting."


“The Pro-life crew” The anti-abortion crew. They are not in favour of life, they are against abortion.

True of some. It is somewhat difficult in moral/ethical terms to be an ardent supporter of the judicial use of the death penalty while avidly opposing abortion -- but there are quite a few who take just that stance.

The Catholic Church opposes both, arguing for life to be respected "from conception to natural death."



“Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.” Explain how to have the freedom to choose your life becomes a case for infanticide?

This is a classic differend regarding the issue. If you view the unborn as possessing nothing of the infinite/spiritual, then the termination of an unborn for the health or convenience of the mother is nothing more than another medical decision for her regarding a tissue mass in her body. If you view the unborn as having, from the moment of conception, some spark of the immortal/spiritual, then you start to consider the lives of BOTH persons in the pregnancy to be of innate value and worthy of preservation.

NOTE: With modern medicine, the number of instances where the life of the mother is at stake and the foetus must be terminated to preserve that life is vanishingly small.


“The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.” Anti-abortion argument is not valid as spermatozoids and eggs are alive as well. If a baby is human when the cells start to separate, I don’t see why it can’t be even before, as they are all “unborn (potential) babies”.

The argument is not, ultimately, based on biology. The vast bulk of those who oppose abortion believe that, humans being sentient creatures, conception is not merely the union of chromosomal packages, but that in that instant some spark of the spiritual -- the divine to believers -- makes that life special and unique. This is, of course, not quantifiable by any know measure (I have not seen enough reliable work on the "weight of the soul" experiments to have faith in them, nor are such measures available for the unborn even if they ARE credible).

If you truly do not believe in the spiritual -- that our existence is nothing more nor less than a high end nervous system and whatever we fabricate therewith -- then your views on life would be vastly different.

[Fragony]

Don't claim objejections, I don't need any religion to be against abortion, I just think it's wrong.

[Beskar]

Only a fool doesn't wrap their tool.

[HoreTore]

NOTE: With modern medicine, the number of instances where the life of the mother is at stake and the foetus must be terminated to preserve that life is vanishingly small.

Perhaps that would explain the extremely rare instances of late term abortions, then?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perhaps that would explain the extremely rare instances of late term abortions, then?

Depending on the source you trust, saving the life of the mother is the reason for abortion in between 2.8% and .0004% of abortions. Many of these rare cases ARE late term abortions, notably resulting from preeclampsia that is damaging the worman's internal organs. It is fair to note that this reason for an abortion procedure was rare prior to 1980 and has become steadily rarer since with better maternal nutrition and medical procedures for both mother and unborn. Sadly, it does still happen.

[Brenus]

Don't claim objections, I don't need any religion to be against abortion, I just think it's wrong.” So don’t. You are not obliged, but why to want to impose your point of view on others, as you are not the one who will pay for it?

“The argument is not, ultimately, based on biology.” So, why to forbid an activity, a medical act, on religious or philosophical or whatever reason on others who don’t share your system of belief? I don’t see a foetus until a certain age as a potential baby. I don’t care of the sucking thumb and heart beating: it is for the first a montage, and for the second a manipulation as cells have no heart.

Now, to stay in this kind of story, I invite to read and watch the forensic evidences in a Criminal Court when the young 15 years old mother, her lover and his friend torture the small baby girl someone like you obliged her to keep. You will see the state of the baby’s fingers, the blow of the hammer on a skull, and the multiple bruises on her skin, cigarette burns and so on. And perhaps some will find that life is not the ultimate goal, but a decent with loving parents is. And here I speak of a real case heard in the ********* Crown Court, where the ushers and Court staff had to go for counselling after the case.
So give me a break with moral high grounds, we speak of real life, and it not pretty.
Or do you prefer the kid starve to death? Or the girl of 4 raped by her “step-dad” with the full knowledge of the loving mother? Choose.

"Why is death preferable to an orphanage?" Why torture is better? Of course, a pack of cells are dead, but they were not really alive. The babies I spoke about had a very short, miserable, horrible and painful life because "good" people with "good" intention made all their possible to prevent abortion, And, congratulation, they succeeded.

[Husar]

Death assumes life.

"Why is death preferable to an orphanage?" Why torture is better? Of course, a pack of cells are dead, but they were not really alive. The babies I spoke about had a very short, miserable, horrible and painful life because "good" people with "good" intention made all their possible to prevent abortion, And, congratulation, they succeeded.

Depending on how far the pregnancy is, I would say there is a life. That children get treated badly in orphanages is a different problem.

But if you want to make the argument that such a life is not worth living, I might as well argue that all the lives of the Christians killed by ISIS were not really worth living, because what kind of life could they really have expected in an islamic theocracy? You see, in that case you would probably argue that the islamic state should not exist, which is also true for orphanages that make life hell. Of course that argument is only valid for fetuses you can consider to be alive. If it requires passing the vagina to become alive, then I guess c-section babies are zombies.


Don't claim objections, I don't need any religion to be against abortion, I just think it's wrong.” So don’t. You are not obliged, but why to want to impose your point of view on others, as you are not the one who will pay for it?

What's wrong about his view if he believes the baby is paying for it in case of an abortion and cannot defend itself?


“The argument is not, ultimately, based on biology.” So, why to forbid an activity, a medical act, on religious or philosophical or whatever reason on others who don’t share your system of belief? I don’t see a foetus until a certain age as a potential baby. I don’t care of the sucking thumb and heart beating: it is for the first a montage, and for the second a manipulation as cells have no heart.

As Montmorency already noted so eloquently, that argument can also be applied to grownups, I might as well claim that a homeless man is not really alive even though his heart is beating and he can suckle his thumbs, he is just vegetating along, might as well dispose of him. I won't claim to know at which point a fetus can be considered alive, but it's certainly bfore it leaves the womb. And if we agree that this is the case and that such fetuses should not be aborted, then there is not really a point in arguing much longer except if you want to settle at which point they become alive.

[HoreTore]

Depending on how far the pregnancy is, I would say there is a life.

I have already posted about how the fetus increases in value as time passes, Husar. You butted in to a direct reply to Fragony's usual black and white view on life, where he apparently thinks that any pregnancy is considered just as valuable, and that an abortion after 4 weeks is unacceptable.

The thing on orphanages was a response to the ol' "all women should give birth because there's a bajillion people ready to adopt", which only applies to the world inside frags head. There isn't a ton of people ready to adopt, in fact there are way more kids than adoptive parents already. Telling a woman that she should carry the child "cause adoption" at all times during pregnancy makes no sense at all. Abort it quickly and be done with it. Nothing is lost.

[Brenus]

“But if you want to make the argument that such a life is not worth living” Nope, I was answering to the “force them to hear a baby Heart & sucking his thumb” thing. You want no abortion, face babies mistreated and tortured and take responsibilities in their ordeals…

“What's wrong about his view if he believes the baby is paying for it in case of an abortion and cannot defend itself?” The all sentence? There is no baby when abortion, so there is nothing to defend. You can decide (or have an opinion) that a spot on your skin is alive, so can’t remove, but there are no reasons at all to stop me to use cream to get the nuisance out.

“I might as well claim that a homeless man is not really alive” You might but there is a law you tell you can’t kill a homeless. As it is, abortion is legal; so claiming that it is murder is false.
Now, you might be a Nazi and see the Jews as not-human but we made a war to prove them wrong. It was based on a belief, not on biology, as the belief that cells are babies… Again, nothing wrong if you don’t want to abort, but don’t impose your belief on others. At least, you can’t kill Jews or homeless. Or face the Crown Court.

[Husar]

I have already posted about how the fetus increases in value as time passes, Husar. You butted in to a direct reply to Fragony's usual black and white view on life, where he apparently thinks that any pregnancy is considered just as valuable, and that an abortion after 4 weeks is unacceptable.

I assumed that when he mentioned a beating heart etc., he meant a relatively advanced pregnancy, but maybe I was wrong there.
I'm not an expert on the subject and have never been pregnant myself.

[HoreTore]

I assumed that when he mentioned a beating heart etc., he meant a relatively advanced pregnancy, but maybe I was wrong there.

My impression from Frags post, while acknowledging the fact that Fragolese is a very ambiguous language, was that he is against all abortions where the reason given is 'unwanted pregnancy', with the only exceptions being rape and such. I may be wrong.


I'm not an expert on the subject and have never been pregnant myself.

Oh Husar, it will happen to you one day too... Don't worry :love:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Every abortion thread:

"I consider life begins at conception."

"I don't."

/end thread.

You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Look at it scientifically.
Human life begins at conception.
Human functions grow as the fetus grows. There are a number of steps which bring you to adulthood.
At what stage does a human feel pain?

Beyond that, we deal with the metaphysical
What is "being"?
When does human life have value?
Whose rights trump whose, and at what stage? In what situations? Should ones rights "trump" another's, or should they each be weighed and considered?
What is a person?
Are a person's rights judged on their location; within or without the womb of another?
Are our laws adequately balanced between the rights of all living humans?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Every abortion thread:

"I consider life begins at conception."

"I don't."

/end thread.

You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.

This is not a bad point. That is the core difference between views.

I didn't think I was being pissy and attempting to discredit though -- I do try for reasoned response.

[Fragony]

"So don’t. You are not obliged, but why to want to impose your point of view on others, as you are not the one who will pay for it"

Can I have an opinion on it please? I am not setting anything on fire with it. You disagreeing with me is not the same thing as me imposing my views.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't think I was being pissy and attempting to discredit though -- I do try for reasoned response.

I wasn't actually talking about anyone in particular. I wanted to save this thread from turning into one long series of people half remembering a badly researched news report about a scientific paper which indicated with no statistical significance that a fetus may feel pain approximately X number of weeks in. Because God knows with that kind of knowledge, people love to draw a line in the sand and call it for whatever side they are on.

[Brenus]

“Can I have an opinion on it please?” You have made your opinion clear so stop play victim. You are the one who came up with “force them up watch and hear”.
We are in a forum, and none of us will impose whatsoever on others.

"I consider life begins at conception." "I don't." /end thread. You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.”
Nope. Too easy... Is abortion legal? Yes. Should it become illegal? No. Who want to impose on others their view? Continuation of the thread.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Every abortion thread:

"I consider life begins at conception."

"I don't."

/end thread.

You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.

To be fair HoreTore has adopted a more nuanced position and we were able to have a decent dialogue with each other I think.

But I would say that there are many irrelevant arguments being banded about because they don't get to the core of the matter, which as you said, is about when life begins.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Every argument is a useless revision, until one comes along that shifts sentiment. Peoples minds change on this all the time.

My goal is to convince religious conservatives that birth control arguments need to be separated from abortion arguments.

My goal is to convince Americans that our abortion laws here don't adequately consider the biological and philosophical realities of the stages of life of a child. Even if we were to adopt European abortion standards, we would be better off.

My goal is to convince those who are having sex to use protection or abstain. Then, if they decide to have unprotected sex or they've become pregnant - the choice to become a parent has already been made. Execution of your child in utero, while legally permissible is as ethical as throwing your newborn into the trash.

[Fragony]

“Can I have an opinion on it please?” You have made your opinion clear so stop play victim. You are the one who came up with “force them up watch and hear”.
We are in a forum, and none of us will impose whatsoever on others

You aren't really fair on me, I never impose my views, I just have an opinion on things.

[Husar]

But I would say that there are many irrelevant arguments being banded about because they don't get to the core of the matter, which as you said, is about when life begins.

Yeah, so now that everybody agrees with me, let me start:

Life begins when the baby passes the magical gate we call the vagina.

-> Every man who has passed this gate knows this.
-> All abortions are fine and not murder.
-> Cesarian section babies are zombies and cannot be counted as being alive.

Any arguments or can we all agree on that? Please also state how you were born so we naturally born alive people can rate the validity of your arguments.

[Beskar]

Or not being very considerate, of course it cruel. But imho the stance on abortion is very old-fashioned, times have changd, more than enough foster-parents. It's a relic out of the sixties.

Sorry Fragony, there is a desperate need of Foster-parents here, and the ratio is at an all-time low.

[Fragony]

Sorry Fragony, there is a desperate need of Foster-parents here, and the ratio is at an all-time low.

Could be, I don't how it's in England, here is a waiting list.

[Husar]

With more EU-integration, maybe the English children could get Dutch parents, but then again the English do not want that. :shrug:

[HoreTore]

Could be, I don't how it's in England, here is a waiting list.

The situation is mostly the same in every country: there is both a waiting list and a desperate need for foster/adoptive parents.

I'll leave you to figure out how and why.

[Fragony]

The situation is mostly the same in every country: there is both a waiting list and a desperate need for foster/adoptive parents.

I'll leave you to figure out how and why.

There are too many ugly foster parents?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah, so now that everybody agrees with me, let me start:

Life begins when the baby passes the magical gate we call the vagina.

-> Every man who has passed this gate knows this.
-> All abortions are fine and not murder.
-> Cesarian section babies are zombies and cannot be counted as being alive.

Any arguments or can we all agree on that? Please also state how you were born so we naturally born alive people can rate the validity of your arguments.

I was born by C-section. :uhoh:

[Beskar]

I was born by C-section. :uhoh:

"i will not be killed, for none of woman born, shall harm me!" the tyrant comments.
Rhyfelwyr aligns his blade, striking the fearsome man in his heart.
"How.. can this be?" he mutters in disbelief.
"c-section", Rhyfelwyr replies.

- William Orgspeare

[HoreTore]

To be fair HoreTore has adopted a more nuanced position and we were able to have a decent dialogue with each other I think.

But I would say that there are many irrelevant arguments being banded about because they don't get to the core of the matter, which as you said, is about when life begins.

My original intent with this thread was to argue against absolute positions, not against anti-abortion in general. I went with the anti-abortion absolute because that's what I was raging about at the time. Further, I haven't really seen anyone claiming that abortion one week before birth is okay.

[Fragony]

Absolute positions are always stupid.

Wait, that's an absolute position. Still true though.

[ajaxfetish]

-> Cesarian section babies are zombies and cannot be counted as being alive.


<-- Proud father of 2 lifeless abominations here.

https://i.imgur.com/JrNWb8wl.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

<-- Proud father of 2 lifeless abominations here.

https://i.imgur.com/JrNWb8wl.jpg

The big chap seems to be looking over things calmly...the little tyke is clearly sizing up my brain-pan for a feast.

Or in my case a snack.

[Crandar]

<-- Proud father of 2 lifeless abominations here.
They used Caesarian section for both your kids?!
That's a case of either extreme bad luck or avaricious gynaecologist.
Just a couple of days ago, the media exposed a doctor of a public hospital, who applied the Caesarian section for the 97% of the childbirths he hanlded.

[HoreTore]

They used Caesarian section for both your kids?!
That's a case of either extreme bad luck or avaricious gynaecologist.
Just a couple of days ago, the media exposed a doctor of a public hospital, who applied the Caesarian section for the 97% of the childbirths he hanlded.

C-section often makes it so that every following child also needs a c-section. My sister was born by c-section, and because of that both myself and my brother were born by c-section...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They used Caesarian section for both your kids?!
That's a case of either extreme bad luck or avaricious gynaecologist.
Just a couple of days ago, the media exposed a doctor of a public hospital, who applied the Caesarian section for the 97% of the childbirths he hanlded.

Actually, VBAC is often considered the riskier choice. A caesarian first delivery is often followed with subsequent caesarians for the same woman.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

C-section often makes it so that every following child also needs a c-section. My sister was born by c-section, and because of that both myself and my brother were born by c-section...

Oh, so you are also part of the zombie threat...this explains much.

[HoreTore]

Oh, so you are also part of the zombie threat...this explains much.

Now I know why I enjoyed eating sheeps brain so much...

[ajaxfetish]

They used Caesarian section for both your kids?!
That's a case of either extreme bad luck or avaricious gynaecologist.
Just a couple of days ago, the media exposed a doctor of a public hospital, who applied the Caesarian section for the 97% of the childbirths he hanlded.

Both emergency C-sections when the baby's heart-rate dropped precipitously during labor. From what our doctor told us, there's been a lot of progress such that VBAC is more likely to work than in the past, and we tried going natural for the second, but it didn't work out. If we decide to ever have a third, we'll plan on it being a C-section from the get-go.

[burphat]

I think the belief has something to do with religion. Catholics believes that life begins with conception. Logically, different from murder but with the same intent. That is to get rid of someone/"something".

[Kralizec]

Could be, I don't how it's in England, here is a waiting list.

You might be thinking of adoptive parents. There's no shortage of those. Foster parents = "pleegouders"; this often is a temporary arrangement for kids who need a temporary stay somewhere else, before a permanent solution is reached (either the real parents get their act together or a permanent replacement family is found)


My impression from Frags post, while acknowledging the fact that Fragolese is a very ambiguous language, was that he is against all abortions where the reason given is 'unwanted pregnancy', with the only exceptions being rape and such. I may be wrong.

I thanked this post for coining the term 'Fragolese'.

[Kralizec]

C-section often makes it so that every following child also needs a c-section. My sister was born by c-section, and because of that both myself and my brother were born by c-section...

Same here.

We should invent some sort of Zombie/Abomination handshake...

[HopAlongBunny]

Birth, conception what nonsense.
Really people, there's a pill for that:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2014/10/reducing_the_abortion_rate_long_acting_reversible_contraceptives_beat_abstinence.html

[Vincent Butler]

HoreTore, you have a point in what you say about us not acting like the murder of unborn children is any big deal. The problem is, most people don't see what they can do, especially as the Supreme Court upheld it. It is still preached and taught against in the churches, but as a court has made it legal, what can we do? We would like to see Roe v. Wade reversed, but it is out of our hands. Abortion is not specifically mentioned in our constitution. And the question of when life really starts is still a subject of debate, even in the churches. Really, your logic about not believing applies to Christians as well. We believe that those who reject Christ are going to hell, yet very few Christians really do anything about it. We believe it, but we don't really comprehend the ramifications of it. My church does support around sixty missionaries, both here in America and abroad, including the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Mongolia, and Thailand. Or, Christians are too comfortable here to bother about other people across the world. They don't want to leave their comfort zone. Notice that the underground churches in places like Iran and North Korea grow very well. The church grows under persecution. It grows lackadaisical in the lack of persecution. Sad, but a fact. But I digress. A life is a life. There is brain activity and response to outside influences such as the mother's voice, in an unborn child. And as Reagan said, "I notice that everybody who is for abortion has been born." Your point deals with either apathy on the pro-life crowd, they believe it but don't care enough to do anything, or simply not knowing what they can do. I guess for now, all we can do is educate people on that goes on before birth. Also, several states do pass laws restricting abortions, without actually making the act itself illegal. That is also an option.

[Kadagar_AV]

HoreTore, you have a point in what you say about us not acting like the murder of unborn children is any big deal.

The problem is, most people don't see what they can do, especially as the Supreme Court upheld it.

It is still preached and taught against in the churches, but as a court has made it legal, what can we do? We would like to see Roe v. Wade reversed, but it is out of our hands.

Abortion is not specifically mentioned in our constitution. And the question of when life really starts is still a subject of debate, even in the churches. Really, your logic about not believing applies to Christians as well.

We believe that those who reject Christ are going to hell, yet very few Christians really do anything about it.

We believe it, but we don't really comprehend the ramifications of it. My church does support around sixty missionaries, both here in America and abroad, including the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Mongolia, and Thailand. Or, Christians are too comfortable here to bother about other people across the world. They don't want to leave their comfort zone.

Notice that the underground churches in places like Iran and North Korea grow very well. The church grows under persecution. It grows lackadaisical in the lack of persecution. Sad, but a fact.

But I digress. A life is a life.

There is brain activity and response to outside influences such as the mother's voice, in an unborn child. And as Reagan said, "I notice that everybody who is for abortion has been born."

Your point deals with either apathy on the pro-life crowd, they believe it but don't care enough to do anything, or simply not knowing what they can do. I guess for now, all we can do is educate people on that goes on before birth.

Also, several states do pass laws restricting abortions, without actually making the act itself illegal. That is also an option.


Fixed your block of text.

[Papewaio]

Separation of Church and State.

People should be allowed to chose what happens to their bodies regardless of what beliefs others have.

Until I see Zeus, Thor, or any other diety running around I'm going to park a religious system in the same regard as a sci-Fi convention. Dress up in your costumes and have as much fun as you want; just don't expect me to pay or play your way.

[Brenus]

I will start to listen to believers when they will all agree on the number of god(s), names and how to worship him/her/them/it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Separation of Church and State.

People should be allowed to chose what happens to their bodies regardless of what beliefs others have.

Until I see Zeus, Thor, or any other diety running around I'm going to park a religious system in the same regard as a sci-Fi convention. Dress up in your costumes and have as much fun as you want; just don't expect me to pay or play your way.

This sort of mentality always strikes me as an abuse of what separation of church and state was originally intended for.

Especially in an American context, it meant that there was not be any established national, or federal, church. It was never intended to mean that Christians must abandon their religious beliefs as soon as they go to the ballot box, or engage at all in politics. Why should atheists vote according to their conscience, but not Christians?

The above should be obvious when you consider that many states had their own established churches which citizens were required to pay taxes to and attend if they wanted to hold public office. Connecticut and Massachusetts had established Congregationalist churches. More strangely, some, like Virginia, continued for a short time after the establishment of the constitution to have the Church of England as their established church; which is of course a national church, just not that of their own nation. :dizzy:

[Vincent Butler]

Separation of Church and State.

People should be allowed to chose what happens to their bodies regardless of what beliefs others have.

Until I see Zeus, Thor, or any other diety running around I'm going to park a religious system in the same regard as a sci-Fi convention. Dress up in your costumes and have as much fun as you want; just don't expect me to pay or play your way.

You are welcome to feel the way you feel about religion. The Bible says we walk by faith, not by sight. But the concept of people doing what they want with their own bodies...that baby is a separate person, not just an extension of the woman's body.
Separation of church and state comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Dansbury Baptists, with the context being that the government could not come in and tell the church what to preach. Our founding fathers in no way intended for religious beliefs to be kept out of government, virtually all our founding fathers were deeply religious.

[Brenus]

“But the concept of people doing what they want with their own bodies...that baby is a separate person, not just an extension of the woman's body.” Ahh, you have to know what you want: either baby is separate person (so foetus not be separated is not a person, until birth) or it is a person inside when not separate, so is an extension of the woman’s body.

“Our founding fathers in no way intended for religious beliefs to be kept out of government, virtually all our founding fathers were deeply religious.” Quite difficult to know what they were really as they are all dead. Because all the facts and their acts tend to show they were not.

“It was never intended to mean that Christians must abandon their religious beliefs as soon as they go to the ballot box, or engage at all in politics.” It never meant this. It means you can’t act and impose to others following you belief. You do it following the law that is for the all population. You are a deep whatever that forbids you to wear clothes, well, you can’t do it in public places or offices. You are deep Catholic believing that the Jews killed Christ and make the bread with the blood of Children, well, you can’t kill the Jews. Nor you can nail cats or owls on the door of a barn…

[Rhyfelwyr]

“It was never intended to mean that Christians must abandon their religious beliefs as soon as they go to the ballot box, or engage at all in politics.” It never meant this. It means you can’t act and impose to others following you belief. You do it following the law that is for the all population.

Agreed.

But that "law that is for all the population" brings in a couple of grey areas. You and me can agree that murder is wrong and should be punished by law. The grey area is of course about when life (or more accurately, personhood) begins. In this instance, in being anti-abortion, I do not see myself as forcing religious beliefs upon others... I see myself as supporting one of the most basic secular laws of the land - the law against murder.

What about atheists who oppose abortion? And/or those who oppose it for non-religious philosophical reasons?

[Vincent Butler]

“
“[B]Our founding fathers in no way intended for religious beliefs to be kept out of government, virtually all our founding fathers were deeply religious.” Quite difficult to know what they were really as they are all dead. Because all the facts and their acts tend to show they were not.
Umm...yes, they were religious. Read especially some of the comments by John Adams. If you are referring especially to Jefferson and Franklin, Franklin's comment about an empire not rising without God's aid, and Jefferson's comment about God's justice, make null and void the arguments that those two were not religious, albeit perhaps not like some of the others. I guess it depends on your definition of the word "religious". I mean actively following a religious faith. Washington was Anglican, but his personal chaplain was a Baptist. There was even a Muslim, but by the end of it all, he had become a Christian.

[HoreTore]

How are people who lived 200 years ago even remotely relevant to the current day and age...?


Get with the times, people.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How are people who lived 200 years ago even remotely relevant to the current day and age...?

Er.... isn't that the definition of history?

[Ironside]

Er.... isn't that the definition of history?

History is complex. On one hand it teaches much about human nature, on the other, it's severly underequiped to deal with the consequences of technological and sociological progression. Even the wisest person in history was only wisest at his time. For the rest of time, he might qualify as wise.

[HoreTore]

Er.... isn't that the definition of history?

And why should "history" dictate the present?

[a completely inoffensive name]

History is complex. On one hand it teaches much about human nature, on the other, it's severly underequiped to deal with the consequences of technological and sociological progression. Even the wisest person in history was only wisest at his time. For the rest of time, he might qualify as wise.

Odd how you recognize history is complex, but still subscribe to the idea that history is one long thread of positive progression.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And why should "history" dictate the present?

Would you rather it be the people flying by the seat of their pants?

[HoreTore]

Would you rather it be the people flying by the seat of their pants?

I would rather be ruled by the majority of those knowing the problems of todays world.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would rather be ruled by the majority of those knowing the problems of todays world.

The best experts tend to be very knowledgeable about the history of the problem they are an expert on, funny how that works....

[HoreTore]

The best experts tend to be very knowledgeable about the history of the problem they are an expert on, funny how that works....

Where I have implied that we should disregard our history...?

[Montmorency]

Odd how you recognize history is complex, but still subscribe to the idea that history is one long thread of positive progression.

The positive progressions of technology has so far simply been a fact, and it has created the fact of a break from human history following the 19th century in terms of social organization.

The world bears very little similarity to how it was 200 years ago. In 1800, the world was much more similar to the way it was in ancient times than to the way it is now.

[Montmorency]

Actually, to riff off the Jon Stewart video in the Climate thread:

Those who deny accelerating technological change with concomitant impact on our way of life be like, 'But I can still breathe, so technological growth must be slowing down!!!'.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where I have implied that we should disregard our history...?


And why should "history" dictate the present?



The positive progressions of technology has so far simply been a fact, and it has created the fact of a break from human history following the 19th century in terms of social organization. The world bears very little similarity to how it was 200 years ago. In 1800, the world was much more similar to the way it was in ancient times than to the way it is now.

Technology does not progress towards something. If there were no tin on earth, there would be no bronze. If there was no uranium, any nuclear power technologies would be radically different.

There are only three themes within history, conflict, exchange and extraction/production. The methods are different, but these themes are universal across all time periods. I hold that any view which separates us from those before us simply because we have shinier tools is a blind kind of exceptionalism.

[Ironside]

Odd how you recognize history is complex, but still subscribe to the idea that history is one long thread of positive progression.

You're reading too much into it. Stagnation do occur and so does regression. But technological improvements (progression) forces social changes to move forward, even when the society is kicking and screaming. A regressive social movement moves one step forward and two steps back, which is different from one step back, unless they also reverse the technological improvements as well.

History contains both a cyclical pattern and a path of (almost) irreversable changes. Trying to fit in what someone wise said a long time ago while ignoring the changes is hardly an effective method.

Also, globally and generally, history has been a long thread of positive progression.


Technology does not progress towards something. If there were no tin on earth, there would be no bronze. If there was no uranium, any nuclear power technologies would be radically different.

There are only three themes within history, conflict, exchange and extraction/production. The methods are different, but these themes are universal across all time periods. I hold that any view which separates us from those before us simply because we have shinier tools is a blind kind of exceptionalism.

...To paraphase. Improved communication, transportation, food production, etc has had no impact? Despite changing how conflict, exchange and extraction/production looks like? The ideas behind Communism and Fascism are old, very old. Yet as political systems, they're young. Why is that, according to you?

Technological progression means that the tools used today does a better job than those in the past. That's the reason the old tools are replaced. It doesn't mean moving up through the teach tree of civilization.

[Montmorency]

Technology does not progress towards something. If there were no tin on earth, there would be no bronze. If there was no uranium, any nuclear power technologies would be radically different.

There are only three themes within history, conflict, exchange and extraction/production. The methods are different, but these themes are universal across all time periods. I hold that any view which separates us from those before us simply because we have shinier tools is a blind kind of exceptionalism.

Nonsense. There is no progress towards, but there is progress from. Progress is simply movement, simply change. To deny this is the true exceptionalism.

It's similar to the arguments presented to explain both "behavioral modernity" and the "Neolithic Revolution".

I'm sure this image is familiar to you:

14699

Action potentials operate according to the All-or-Nothing Principle. Below a certain threshold, there is simply stable variation in potassium-ion exchange. Once the threshold is met, however, there is a massive leap in activity producing ever-more leaps in activity. The same is argued here to hold for the activity of living creatures in an ecosystem, including humans - the only real difference being that it should be much harder for an ecological "leap" to contribute inhibitory effects within the system, and no inherent developmental constraints on the sum of "leaps". Without these constraints, we can expect unbounded growth past the point of familiarity. This is assured. You will see it in your lifetime.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're reading too much into it. Stagnation do occur and so does regression. But technological improvements (progression) forces social changes to move forward, even when the society is kicking and screaming. A regressive social movement moves one step forward and two steps back, which is different from one step back, unless they also reverse the technological improvements as well.

History contains both a cyclical pattern and a path of (almost) irreversable changes. Trying to fit in what someone wise said a long time ago while ignoring the changes is hardly an effective method.

Also, globally and generally, history has been a long thread of positive progression.



...To paraphase. Improved communication, transportation, food production, etc has had no impact? Despite changing how conflict, exchange and extraction/production looks like? The ideas behind Communism and Fascism are old, very old. Yet as political systems, they're young. Why is that, according to you?

Technological progression means that the tools used today does a better job than those in the past. That's the reason the old tools are replaced. It doesn't mean moving up through the teach tree of civilization.


Yes, but what is "forward"? We can move "forward" to a number of scenarios with technology. We can move "forward" into a clean society, with tolerance and transparency using the technology that has only emerged in the last twenty years. We can also move "forward" in to 1984, or Brave New World, or Deus Ex.

The hindsight of saying "things are better now then they have ever been" isn't an argument that things will always be getting better. I don't think that the first half of the twentieth century was "two steps forward, one step back" I think it was one big step back. Genocides on scales never seen before, racism, eugenics and anti-semitism present and openly advocated for across all the "liberal democracies". The fact that we did not engage in a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, does not mean that the history of humanity will not end tragically and painfully.

[Montmorency]

Yes, but what is "forward"? We can move "forward" to a number of scenarios with technology. We can move "forward" into a clean society, with tolerance and transparency using the technology that has only emerged in the last twenty years. We can also move "forward" in to 1984, or Brave New World, or Deus Ex.

The hindsight of saying "things are better now then they have ever been" isn't an argument that things will always be getting better. I don't think that the first half of the twentieth century was "two steps forward, one step back" I think it was one big step back. Genocides on scales never seen before, racism, eugenics and anti-semitism present and openly advocated for across all the "liberal democracies". The fact that we did not engage in a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, does not mean that the history of humanity will not end tragically and painfully.

Edit: I'll assume this wasn't directed at me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nonsense. There is no progress towards, but there is progress from. Progress is simply movement, simply change. To deny this is the true exceptionalism.

It's similar to the arguments presented to explain both "behavioral modernity" and the "Neolithic Revolution".

I'm sure this image is familiar to you:

14699

Action potentials operate according to the All-or-Nothing Principle. Below a certain threshold, there is simply stable variation in potassium-ion exchange. Once the threshold is met, however, there is a massive leap in activity producing ever-more leaps in activity. The same is argued here to hold for the activity of living creatures in an ecosystem, including humans - the only real difference being that it should be much harder for an ecological "leap" to contribute inhibitory effects within the system, and no inherent developmental constraints on the sum of "leaps". Without these constraints, we can expect unbounded growth past the point of familiarity. This is assured. You will see it in your lifetime.

Humans are not potassium ions. Of course I am not denying the fact that change occurs. Why bother implying that strawman? It's a bit late (or early depending how you look at it) for me, so I gotta re-read your last paragraph later. But I do not see human progress as being modeled like an "All-or-Nothing" method, because it seems analogous to the whole idea that changes happen in waves of revolution. Most things build on things which came long before it and major events are simply notable for being an arbitrary marking point used for story telling.

EDIT: This one is for you monty. <3

[Montmorency]

Most things build on things which came long before it and major events are simply notable for being an arbitrary marking point used for story telling.

But that's exactly what I'm saying.

Obviously the physical processes underlying "revolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)" will not be exceptional - but from our human perspective they will be. These "major events" will simply signal a profound shift in our way of life, and whether at the core the same processes are evident is just a rather-crude halfway-reductionism that totally misses the point, which is this:

The "human/behavioral" and "Neolithic" revolutions of the prehistoric era and the Industrial Revolution of the modern age are about to be overshadowed and obliterated by a "Post-human" revolution in which we become evolution itself. There will no longer be 'human stories'.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There will no longer be 'human stories'.
But what will I watch on TV then?

[Greyblades]

OK... I have no idea what you people are talking about

[Ironside]

Yes, but what is "forward"? We can move "forward" to a number of scenarios with technology. We can move "forward" into a clean society, with tolerance and transparency using the technology that has only emerged in the last twenty years. We can also move "forward" in to 1984, or Brave New World, or Deus Ex.

The hindsight of saying "things are better now then they have ever been" isn't an argument that things will always be getting better. I don't think that the first half of the twentieth century was "two steps forward, one step back" I think it was one big step back. Genocides on scales never seen before, racism, eugenics and anti-semitism present and openly advocated for across all the "liberal democracies". The fact that we did not engage in a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, does not mean that the history of humanity will not end tragically and painfully.

Things getting better are driven by two things. One, new technology replaces the old one if there's a benefit. Two, people prefer it to have it better, which means that oppression, genocide etc, needs to be imposed. Such imposing can't last for ever.

Nuclear war, massive irrerepairable ecological destruction, genetic manipulation Brave New World style, other things that wipe out humanity or irrevesibly destroys the human abillity or drive to invent are negative end states. And yes I do consider them possible.

[Papewaio]

I would rather be ruled by the majority of those knowing the problems of todays world.

Do you vote your political leaders in only if they are engineers, scientists or in the tech sector... because here we only have a bunch of technically illiterate lawyers chasing sound bites to choose from in 9/10 elections.

[Papewaio]

This sort of mentality always strikes me as an abuse of what separation of church and state was originally intended for.

Especially in an American context, it meant that there was not be any established national, or federal, church. It was never intended to mean that Christians must abandon their religious beliefs as soon as they go to the ballot box, or engage at all in politics. Why should atheists vote according to their conscience, but not Christians?

The above should be obvious when you consider that many states had their own established churches which citizens were required to pay taxes to and attend if they wanted to hold public office. Connecticut and Massachusetts had established Congregationalist churches. More strangely, some, like Virginia, continued for a short time after the establishment of the constitution to have the Church of England as their established church; which is of course a national church, just not that of their own nation. :dizzy:

Individual rights should be protected from abuse by groups including the majority. Democracy isn't just majority rule it is minority consideration. Makes sense as this voting cycle minority might be next ones majority so play nice.

[Papewaio]

You are welcome to feel the way you feel about religion. The Bible says we walk by faith, not by sight. But the concept of people doing what they want with their own bodies...that baby is a separate person, not just an extension of the woman's body.
Separation of church and state comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Dansbury Baptists, with the context being that the government could not come in and tell the church what to preach. Our founding fathers in no way intended for religious beliefs to be kept out of government, virtually all our founding fathers were deeply religious.

Again international board, so it is your founding fathers whose beliefs were heavily based on the European Enlightenment.

When the US can rule out capital punishment it will be in a better state to not hypocritically rally against abortion.

I also believe that abortion should not be decided by men, peer, wise, founding or otherwise. When a committee of men decide what women can do with their bodies then committees of women can decide what happens to men. I, for one, am not going to let a group of women rule that I should get a vasectomy, so I'm not going to decide on a woman getting an abortion.

[rvg]

...I, for one, am not going to let a group of women rule that I should get a vasectomy...

Would you allow a group of men to do so?

[Kadagar_AV]

Would you allow a group of men to do so?

Stupid question disregarding the entire topic.

Did you have a point?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I, for one, am not going to let a group of women rule that I should get a vasectomy, so I'm not going to decide on a woman getting an abortion.

Many governmental heads of health and human services are women, do they refrain from making decisions about mens health?

[Papewaio]

Many governmental heads of health and human services are women, do they refrain from making decisions about mens health?

An expert balancing budgets based on modern science vs a committee of self anointed elders using their version of heavily edited and redacted scifi compendium based on events that may have occurred that none of the editors let alone authors witnessed.

I'll go with the qualified burecrat thanks.

[Papewaio]

Would you allow a group of men to do so?

Well for the greater good they can lead away and I'll check on the data they gather.

[rvg]

Well for the greater good they can lead away and I'll check on the data they gather.

What if the same data is presented by people with vaginas? What would that change?

[HoreTore]

Technology does not progress towards something. If there were no tin on earth, there would be no bronze. If there was no uranium, any nuclear power technologies would be radically different.

There are only three themes within history, conflict, exchange and extraction/production. The methods are different, but these themes are universal across all time periods. I hold that any view which separates us from those before us simply because we have shinier tools is a blind kind of exceptionalism.

Note the quotation marks on "history" in the post you quoted. They are there for a reason.

Learning from history =/= being dictated by some random guys from the past.

[Papewaio]

What if the same data is presented by people with vaginas? What would that change?

Nothing. I am not letting a committee decide if and when I get a vasectomy, so not wishing to be a hypocrite I'm not going to advocate deciding if woman can or cannot get an abortion. That the group think decision is based on a system that has no solid evidence other then collective wishful thinking for a security blanket just reinforces why not to go down that path.

[Beskar]

Now this is a story...
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-26/mother-wins-right-to-end-disabled-daughters-life/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808516/My-daughter-no-longer-daughter-light-eyes-gone-Mother-tells-heartbreak-hardest-decision-parent-make-let-disabled-child-die.html

Mother wins right to end disabled daughter's life:
A mother has made legal history after she won a High Court case to end the life of her severely disabled 12-year-old daughter.