New
Feb 25, 2016 10:48 AM
#1
No matter how I look at it . My religious views overshadow my Logical view on this case . Killing an unborn is equal to killing a grown up . Parents agree for abortion . Abortion happens but Parents and Doctors aren't labelled as Murderers . Couple agree on Killing their young child . They Kill their child and are labelled as Murderers . |
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Feb 25, 2016 10:54 AM
#2
Maybe not the most unbiased source. But it's something to think about: |
Feb 25, 2016 10:56 AM
#3
Yes, because a fetus is not a child. After the point where it develops into an actual baby, then it gets a little more complicated. Sure, you could look at it as preventing a child from being born, but the same could be said for contraception, or not having sex, but it's not murder, because there isn't anything yet to murder. |
blahkabelisonFeb 25, 2016 3:27 PM
Feb 25, 2016 10:57 AM
#4
This is a truly hard question. I mean, if you want to have an abortion, you are obviously not ready for a child. But if you gave a birth to that child, how hard would it's life be? I honestly don't think there is a single good answer to this question. In my eyes, I don't know how to feel because I myself wouldn't be in a situation like this. |
Ad Astra Per Aspera |
Feb 25, 2016 10:57 AM
#5
Abortion isn't the same as murdering a young child. A developing fetus in the early stages can barely be qualified for life, and it hasn't developed a conciousness or a nervous system for the first 10-11 weeks of development, so it's incapable of feeling pain. Abortion is pretty much required in some cases, such as when either the parent or child (or both) are at danger of losing their lives during childbirth. Not to mention contraception isn't always 100% foolproof, condoms break, and the pill doesn't always work even when taken correctly. If someone isn't ready for a child (especially financially), and the pregnancy wasn't planned, there's nothing wrong with terminating the pregnancy. And then of course there's rape... But I'm not going to go down that road. |
Feb 25, 2016 10:59 AM
#6
I don't have any qualms with it as long as it's done pretty early on. Even then there are plenty of good arguments for late term abortions being allowed in individual cases. |
Feb 25, 2016 10:59 AM
#7
As for your understanding of abortion, here is a good analogy. If you knew you could save many people by pulling a lever and killing few of them, would you do it? Now after you decided, if you could save many people by killing one with your own hands, would you do it? Now see how long it took you to answer first and then the second question. This is, in a way, much like abortion. You feel easier because you don't do it directly, and that is the difference. |
Ad Astra Per Aspera |
Feb 25, 2016 11:01 AM
#8
Feb 25, 2016 11:04 AM
#9
There are pregnancies that got started from rape. If the child is unwanted, I see no reason why abortion shouldn't be allowed. |
Feb 25, 2016 11:04 AM
#10
Yes it is. I think it is ok to abort in early stages if you feel you cannot raise the child properly. |
Feb 25, 2016 11:04 AM
#11
SnugglyWhuggly said: Abortion isn't the same as murdering a young child. A developing fetus in the early stages can barely be qualified for life, and it hasn't developed a conciousness or a nervous system for the first 10-11 weeks of development, so it's incapable of feeling pain. Abortion is pretty much required in some cases, such as when either the parent or child (or both) are at danger of losing their lives during childbirth. Not to mention contraception isn't always 100% foolproof, condoms break, and the pill doesn't always work even when taken correctly. If someone isn't ready for a child (especially financially), and the pregnancy wasn't planned, there's nothing wrong with terminating the pregnancy. And then of course there's rape... But I'm not going to go down that road. I may agree with you on some cases we call exception . AsPeeXXXVIII said: There are pregnancies that got started from rape. If the child is unwanted, I see no reason why abortion shouldn't be allowed. I agree with you on this point . |
Feb 25, 2016 11:05 AM
#12
Of course it's okay. In the early stages of pregnancy it isn't even remotely akin to a human baby. |
It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether! It's an entirely different kind of flying. |
Feb 25, 2016 11:08 AM
#13
Only in the case that the woman has been raped or if the child has a fatal disease that it will die eventually. Other than that, taking a life away from someone deserving of it is indeed murder. Life is a privilege, not an option. Abortion in most cases is murder. Why shit like Planned Parenthood exists is mind boggling. |
Feb 25, 2016 11:09 AM
#14
FrozenWhiskers said: Yes it is. You shouldn't be forced to carry a parasite and then waste your life raising it. Is that your final answer? Ot It depends if you care about the sanctity of life I guess, and how far you think that sanctity extends. |
I've been here way too long... |
Feb 25, 2016 11:09 AM
#15
I do agree with abortion, actually. If a parent decides to make an abortion then it's obvious that that child isn't wanted, so in my opinion it'll be better if that child isn't born at all rather than be born and not get the love it deserves. Also, as other people have mentioned, killing a developing fetus isn't the same as killing an actual child. |
EelllOct 9, 2018 3:53 PM
Feb 25, 2016 11:10 AM
#16
I have no intention of changing the current laws in my country regarding this matter. I think it's okey if it's done somewhat early on the pregnancy. |
Feb 25, 2016 11:14 AM
#17
Yes it is. There is nothing wrong with wanting to abort a child that was either unintentional or if the family cannot afford the child. |
Feb 25, 2016 11:15 AM
#18
im all for it Abortion could be a result of rape, incest, not being able to provide a emotionally stable life for child(being abusive or having an abusive spouse, not being able to support your child financially, living in an unsafe environment, being under 18 and pregnant(or simply not ready) are all viable reasons to have an abortion, and are likely the most common ones(this is from my perspective but in any case abortion is the mothers choice and no one should impose on it) If the woman is forced to give birth she should have fully paid leave and can immediately put it up for adoption if she wishes to, at the BARE minimum. |
Feb 25, 2016 11:18 AM
#19
Temmie said: im all for it Abortion could be a result of rape, incest, not being able to provide a emotionally stable life for child(being abusive or having an abusive spouse, not being able to support your child financially, living in an unsafe environment, being under 18 and pregnant(or simply not ready) are all viable reasons to have an abortion, and are likely the most common ones(this is from my perspective but in any case abortion is the mothers choice and no one should impose on it) If the woman is forced to give birth she should have fully paid leave and can immediately put it up for adoption if she wishes to, at the BARE minimum. "Why indulge in unsafe sex in the first place , if your are Economically and Socially poor and can't have Kids . Aborting also needs money . " How much weight this statement hold ? |
Feb 25, 2016 11:27 AM
#20
ashishkaull said: Temmie said: im all for it Abortion could be a result of rape, incest, not being able to provide a emotionally stable life for child(being abusive or having an abusive spouse, not being able to support your child financially, living in an unsafe environment, being under 18 and pregnant(or simply not ready) are all viable reasons to have an abortion, and are likely the most common ones(this is from my perspective but in any case abortion is the mothers choice and no one should impose on it) If the woman is forced to give birth she should have fully paid leave and can immediately put it up for adoption if she wishes to, at the BARE minimum. "Why indulge in unsafe sex in the first place , if your are Economically and Socially poor and can't have Kids . Aborting also needs money . " How much weight this statement hold ? Abortion costs a fraction of what childbirth and raising a child costs If you're just attacking one thing I'll assume you think the rest is okay,which solves this issue |
Feb 25, 2016 11:29 AM
#21
Temmie said: ashishkaull said: Temmie said: im all for it Abortion could be a result of rape, incest, not being able to provide a emotionally stable life for child(being abusive or having an abusive spouse, not being able to support your child financially, living in an unsafe environment, being under 18 and pregnant(or simply not ready) are all viable reasons to have an abortion, and are likely the most common ones(this is from my perspective but in any case abortion is the mothers choice and no one should impose on it) If the woman is forced to give birth she should have fully paid leave and can immediately put it up for adoption if she wishes to, at the BARE minimum. "Why indulge in unsafe sex in the first place , if your are Economically and Socially poor and can't have Kids . Aborting also needs money . " How much weight this statement hold ? Abortion costs a fraction of what childbirth and raising a child costs If you're just attacking one thing I'll assume you think the rest is okay,which solves this issue "If you're just attacking one thing I'll assume you think the rest is okay,which solves this issue" My English is not that good , PLZ Explain ? |
Feb 25, 2016 11:58 AM
#22
I would not consider abortion acceptable if the baby is: 1. Younger than 3 months old minimum. (Unless any of the next 3 requirements are met.) 2. Concieved out of rape. 3. The parent's are completely unable to support the child and give it a proper standard of care. (Though I believe people need to pass some basic standardized testing to recieve a permit to concieve a child.) All these poor people breeding like rats is fucking disgusting and just wrong. People who cant raise a child they willingly gave birth to are fucking scum. 4. The woman or child is in danger of death during birth. I believe that the rights a living thing/robot/anything capable of though deserves is based off of its sentience. A fetus is not a sentient creature. It is just about as intelligent as a worm. Consider this example, you have an advanced robot capable of being programmed into a sapient robot. But at the very moment it is hasnt been programmed. Would it be morally wrong to take destroy this robot? Of course not. Because it doesnt have its programming yet, at the moment it is nothing but a hunk of metal. Likewise, an undeveloped fetus is nothing more than a hunk of flesh. |
Feb 25, 2016 12:02 PM
#23
Only when the partner is in danger of losing her life. |
Feb 25, 2016 12:03 PM
#24
Feb 25, 2016 12:10 PM
#25
I have no problem with it what so ever . If the mother doesn't want the child and can get rid of it without any problems , what's the point of not doing so ? But i can't say i care about that child anyway, as long as it is not mine Also @Dimitrije1606 , your anology doesn't really work as i answered both questions pretty easly: I would save no one.If they can't save themselves, what's the point of me interfiring? |
Feb 25, 2016 12:13 PM
#26
All human beings have a right to life so I don't agree with abortion under any circumstance with the exception of both the mother and child will die no matter what. The only case I see this happening is with ectopic pregnancies. |
Feb 25, 2016 12:15 PM
#27
If you force a woman to bring to term a child she is hugely against having, what on earth makes you think she won't try to get rid of it through inducing a miscarriage (through heavy drinking, smoking, excessive exercise etc)? Desperate times call for desperate measures... And what if said child ends up being born anyway but is now deformed & brain damaged (because of the mothers attempts to get rid of it herself throughout the pregnancy)? What if the mother is now psychologically damaged? What if the mother ends up dying or seriously physically damaged through the labour etc? What if out of desperation the mother attempts an abortion herself and ends up dying? Honestly I can think of few things more inhuman than a forced pregnancy. Its like reducing an intelligent human being into no more than a mere cattle-like incubator. Pregnancy is no walk in the park and it can scar someone for life etc. It can even prove fatal at times (and its hard to predict when a pregnancy may prove fatal- unexpected things can happen like a major vein hemorrhaging and the woman bleeding to death etc). If an abortion is performed within the legal limits, I have no issue with it. Safe legalized abortions have massively reduced the amount of women dying from botched abortions, dying from dangerous pregnancies, ending up mentally or physically scarred through forced pregnancies, reducing the amount of children born into poverty or with terribly inappropriate parents (meth addict prostitutes or underage kids) etc... |
Feb 25, 2016 1:17 PM
#28
ashishkaull said: No matter how I look at it . My religious views overshadow my Logical view on this case . Killing an unborn is equal to killing a grown up . Parents agree for abortion . Abortion happens but Parents and Doctors aren't labelled as Murderers . Couple agree on Killing their young child . They Kill their child and are labelled as Murderers . I think elective abortions ie abortions for what ever someone feels like having them should be banned. I support abortion if carrying the baby to term will result in the mother losing her life and multiple doctors have confirmed this.I do not support abortion for rape and incest because it's not the child's fault one of the parents is a piece of shit. |
Feb 25, 2016 1:20 PM
#29
No, abortion is not okay. But neither is having an unwanted pregnancy. And forcing a woman to carry is even less okay |
Feb 25, 2016 1:20 PM
#30
It's okay. It's a persons body why must you be against what happens to their body? It will in no way affect you. Also think about rape victims who were impregnated. Are you suggesting they live their life raising their abusers child? Take a step in their shoes and then tell me if you still think it's not okay. |
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭ |
Feb 25, 2016 1:48 PM
#31
I think abortions are merciful. Life is horrible and pointless. Forcing people to exist is cruelty. It's better never to have been. |
WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Feb 25, 2016 1:52 PM
#32
I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION BEFORE! OT: I'm just going to leave this here Immahnoob said: It seems that since I’ve stopped debating with my usual fervor, now people seem to think they really have a chance, I find it amusing how the simple fact that I’m known by the community and that this community is slowly getting “used to me”, now my arguments seem to have no merit, bandwagons are now the usual case, as no one seems to even care anymore to argue complete idiocy unlike I do because I do like the endeavor itself, even so, they devolve into a completely erroneous shifting of the burden of proof when I merely want them to show me exactly how they got to such reasoning for the mere purpose of leading them towards the truth or so we can have a proper debate. I merely ask for it because there really is nothing to debate if there is nothing behind the conclusion too. But it seems I’m always forced to take a position of attrition, to have to repeat myself although my points have not been countered in the slightest. To have to explain even the “axioms” we’re depending on for the debate to even function. It’s really pathetic when you want to show your position is better but you really can’t… But let’s change that, shall we? Let’s make this all fun. Let’s take every position that has been claimed and debunk them once more. I’ll make this as exhaustive as my mood can possibly let me. I’ll probably add arguments that haven’t been uttered yet. It seems that now I have to prepare my arguments for each case, no longer can I depend on these to be dynamic and situational. If that’s what you want, then I can help you out. Let’s start with the case of this girl, considering this is the whole reason for the other arguments. We know: - The girl is 10 years old. That means she legally can’t choose, in Paraguay it’s even more true. - She was raped by her stepfather. - Abortion is not completely legal in Paraguay, only if the mother’s life is in danger. So let’s start with the easy part, we know for a fact that girls that give birth have a higher chance of dying, them and the baby, the video even claims it is 5 times higher than an adult woman, although the problem isn’t always biological but socioeconomic, it seems there are even biological issues, (we’re talking about Paraguay, so socioeconomic issues do exist) like low weight births and premature births. So this means her chances of dying and her baby dying are quite high already if you want her to give birth. This should already be conclusive enough for her case, considering that in Paraguay, 1 in 270 to 1 in 500 women die from child birth, that’s also because a lot of these pregnancies are teens in Paraguay, around 20%. The rate of infant deaths seems to be from 21:1000 to 32:1000. Quite fucking high if you ask me. I don’t know the reason for why Paraguay illegalized abortion except for special cases. The OP presumes “religion”, so I will go with that, considering Paraguay is a third-world country and 88% of the populace is catholic. YES, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE REASON AFTER ALL. Anyway, if abortion is permitted only in these special cases, legal wise, she fits every criteria, but for some reason, the video claims that the medics do not want to make a claim on how dangerous this will be to her and the video also claims that there is no legal action because she’s underage, as I’ve proven above, the chances of death exist always, but her chances are increased exponentially, even so more if she lives in a third world country. It’s funny that abortion is only legal when someone’s life is in danger though, I’ll talk about abortion itself in a bit, when we’re concerned with the “ethical” argument. I’m not here to shit on Paraguay though, I’m here to destroy your arguments, so I’m going to talk about the matter of keeping the child. Let’s start with the concluding argument. We know for a fact that this was rape. So she had no choice in the conception of this being. Keeping it is retarded starting from that. Now with the least concluding argument. The other issue is the socioeconomic issue, we can guess that she is in a bad situation, and child labor is illegal, but it happens, and presuming from all the statistics that exist, they get paid shit. So she really won’t be able to properly raise it, she’d have to raise it with the help of her family which is already in a shitty situation most likely. Keeping it will only damage her situation and her families situation, to her because it seems high fertility rates are correlated to low education, in the case of teenagers and children., and because of the above, the lack of money will not be a good thing to her family. Then, to conclude: TL;DR: - The girl and her baby can easily die from this. - She had no choice in the matter because she was raped. - If she keeps the child, her situation and the child’s situation will only worsen (presumably if they survive). From all this, I have to say that abortion is the best option, socioeconomically, medically and “ethically” (the “socio” part takes that into consideration, but I’ll express it again, I’ll go in depth in my “abortion” section, I don’t want to ruin all the fun, I’ll correlate to her case a bit because I want to discuss the idea of “choice” further), If we want to save as many lives as possible. To conclude my argument with WAD, this is how laws are made in a perfect system, it’s written specifically for you so it's easy to understand. In a perfect system, there is no corruption, solutions always exist and are always taken into consideration. But in “reality”, as you might like to say, we have cases like in Paraguay, where the voters get shit upon and have “coup d’etats” going on, or put in charge someone like Berlusconi, which did not follow his program, instead he only sucked upon Italy’s wealth and made laws to not be able to get prosecuted or have his laws forced in (ex. Purcellum which if I really have to I’ll translate). The other issue of “reality” is that not every bill is wanted by the populace. And the bills are not controlled by the populace even without corruption. Not every bill is something the elected talked about in their program either. For example, the pornography laws in the UK. There are also laws that are unrelated to ethics, and are not shaped by them. Some laws are ethical because they remained since older times. Ethics are made by communities, but it’s not a given that every community will have the same ethics, and equating ethics to law is incredibly ignorant and misguided. Let’s not forget that ethics with no basis in reason tend to be useless and harmful anyway, thinking directly of abortion, and I’ll explain why with my “abortion” section of the argument. I’ll also explain the more common “ethical” concerns, that don’t include random “BUT I DON’T LIKE IT” type of thinking but rather, “does it do harm? does it do more harm than good?”. Now, let’s discuss “abortion”. Definition of “abortion”: “Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on it’s own. It can also happen naturally, in that case it’s often called a “miscarriage”.” Now that we know what it is, let’s discuss the issue at hand. Is it “right” to make abortion legal in every case? Well, let’s talk about opposites first, let’s talk about making abortion illegal unless there are special cases like the endangerment of the mother’s life, let’s start from the antithesis. “Abortion is dangerous for the mother, if we consider the statistics, the risk of death increases with the length of pregnancy, from an astonishing 0.7 per 100000 women dying from child birth during at or before 8 weeks to a 1 per 99000 women after 21 weeks. The mental trauma is also extreme for the mother. Abortion is unethical because we kill a human being, like, what if Gandhi would have been aborted? She should have just closed her legs, if she was willing to have sex, then she was willingly taking the risk of pregnancy, she could have also used contraceptives. But it’s fine, in cases of rape and incest I’ll agree with abortion, that’s ok, or if her life is in danger. Otherwise, she should just wait and give the child for adoption instead of abortion. Heh, I’m so great with puns. Anyway, the idea is that it’s selfish. Got that? I mean, women should not use abortion as a contraceptive either, that’s just wrong. You wouldn’t like it if your mother wanted to abort you either, right? Plus, it’s completely unethical and against God almighty. The fucker gave us life for a reason, right? Heil Hitler.” Now… “Let’s shred them…” First of, yes, 0.7 per 100000 women is fucking extreme m8, you got me there. Whoever you are, you’re great at reading statistics. But it seems you’ve forgot something. “Don’t sweat it, I have it here for you…” It’s the amount of maternal deaths and the comparison between numbers, a woopin’ 18.5 out of 100000 from simple childbirth in the US. Let’s not make it that unfair though, I’ll take something that fits the date of my statistics on abortions. Which is… A nice 9.1 per 100000 live births. Most abortions are late because of reasons like lack of money. Considering that most of the women that wanted the abortion earlier were on the poorer side (about 60%? Check the stats, I don’t remember). It seems child birth is actually more dangerous than abortion. Who would have ever fucking thought that that was the case? Not you, most likely. For a fine example of how it went when abortion was illegal, I’ll give you my country of origin. Romania. More women died because many of them couldn’t get an abortion, thus, did it through illegal means or through really dangerous ways. Heh… The need pushes you, doesn’t it? Oh, and the trauma? Here you go. It seems the “mental trauma” would have been the same if they would have kept the unwanted child. What else do you have? Let’s see… The issue of women using it as a “contraceptive” is ridiculous at best, there are no statistics for that, considering that abortions are actually decreased by real contraceptives. 1, 2. And it’s costly too, way more costly than contraceptives. The idea of “what if you were aborted” is an appeal to emotion, mostly. First of, I can’t possibly know that. I would have no opinion on the matter, I’m too neurologically incapable to assess the situation and it’s also unlikely that at earlier than 24 weeks I could even be able to feel pain. So I would just stop functioning. The concept of “But what if someone like Einstein would be born if you let the fetus live?”, is an appeal to the future, an appeal to improbable hypotheses and absurd, because I can use the same argument in reverse… What if a new Hitler would be born? Oh… Wait… That “Heil Hitler” was classy, I’m serious… The whole concept of “But it’ll be a human being.” is absurd not only because of ethical reasons (which I’ll explain later), but also a retarded appeal to the future again, what it can be is not the same as what it is. It could be just as it couldn’t be a living human being IN THE FUTURE. Anything can happen in the future. In a debate it’s not an argument, it’ll also kill a lot of research if we follow such ideas. Like stem cells research and totipotent cell research. You’re basically making it harder for us to find treatment for certain illnesses and even harder for the idea of growing organs for use. There are other examples, but really now… The idea that contraceptives work 100% of the time is also flawed, accidents happen, it’s also not a given that it’s easy for teens to get contraceptives. Or that sexual ed isn’t fucking retarded in the US or other places., but then again. This is really a red herring and a strawman, this argument of yours that “women should take responsibility.”, it’s no longer an issue of “pro-life”, it’s another issue, an issue I can’t express because I’ll get banned, but you have it. Agreeing only in the case of incest and rape makes me think that you’re saying that a child born from such acts is a lesser being or something, even when healthy. I think you’re a hypocrite and it’s a bit retarded to limit choice for arbitrary reasons after all. But oh well, you brought God up, it must be that arbitrary reasoning moves your life anyway. To answer Bambi_, you do judge, that’s inherent and it’s pronounced even more in this case. The moment you claim that you see the one’s committing the act as “selfish”, that means you just judged them. How simple, right? Your reason was that it’s selfish because someone could have wanted that baby, but as I used the previous example, I would also like you to come here in Italy, pay the airtrip yourself and have sex with me for free, it would be selfish for you not to do it. I MEAN, I REALLY WANT IT. The argument of “selfishness” doesn’t work because every human action is inherently selfish. And having to use your own body to promote “unselfish” acts (which are impossible), how idiotic. And “selfish” in your case is something negative too, so your biased judgment will lead you to biased actions towards them, unnoticeable and minor, surely, but having a “negative mentality” towards reasonable actions is stupid anyway. Anyway… What else do we have? OHHHHH…? The idea that the fetus is a HUMAN BEING. Heheheheheeee… Oh, this is going to be fun, although a repetition of my other argument, you have yet to debunk it. No, a fetus is not a “human being”, it is made out of “human cells”, so it is “human”, but it’s yet to be a “person”, or even a “being”. But let’s make it “person”, shall we? I’ll take what Mary Ann Warren (philosopher) has said about being a “person”: 1. A developed capacity for reasoning - Which a fetus does not possess, I’ll just take this as “capacity for reasoning”. 2. Self awareness- Which a fetus does not possess again. They are unaware of their surroundings and their existence until around 41 weeks, when they can actually distinguish sounds and the mother’s voice. That isn’t really being aware of surroundings and existence, but anyway. 3.Consciousness and ability to feel pain- A fetus can feel pain at 28 weeks, they do not possess a consciousness though. 4. Self motivated activity - A fetus is not properly aware of it’s movements, they’re not from his own volition. 5. Capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types - A fetus cannot communicate, people sometimes misinterpret kicks or movement with communication but the fetus is not aware of an outside world, or its mother until 41 weeks. So basically, you can’t “murder” a fetus, you can “kill” it though. After 24 weeks, it’s illegal to have an abortion anyway, unless there are specific cases, like the endangerment of the mother. That’s when the mother is always chosen if her life is in danger. It’s not enough for him to be “human”, because even a finger is “human”, even a “cell” is human. But we “kill” every day. From cells, to bugs, to other animals, to plants, etc, yet we have no issues with that. I’d say it’s a necessary hypocrisy to not want to kill a “human being”, but killing something “human” is not the same as killing a “human being”, otherwise getting rid of genital warts fits your criteria too. The other issue is again, the issue of “choice”, which I’d love to talk about right now. I’ll start with the idea that a “guardian” or “parent” has the right to interfere with the choice of a mother that is underage with the issue of the fetus, in our case, and so say international studies, a mother at 10 years old will have problems, like death. Actually, anything under the age of 15 will have problems with child birth, so the most sensible course of action is abortion. It’s less traumatic in the long and short run. It’s not a given, like almost nothing is a given… There have been cases in which children were given the legal right to consent for medical purposes. And children in general understand death 1, and surely as hell they understand the concept of pain and causing pain, I’d say these are harder to understand than the mechanical act of sex, but hey… Children tend to not be able to have children until they become teenagers anyway, which is around the age of 10. Now, let’s get started with adults (which will include teenagers). Let’s not only end it with the idea that a fetus can’t be a person. Let’s get to the crux of the problem. I’ve given you a link earlier in the abortion definition of fetal viability. Do you know why I did that? Oh, it’s simple. A fetus cannot survive by it’s own. No, a baby can’t hunt or forage or go to the supermarket, but a baby can survive WITHOUT the aid of the mother’s body, AKA they no longer need the umbilical cord. Most under the 24th week DO NOT survive AT ALL. Where am I getting here? Oh, of course, the direct dependency on a person and its body, NOT ONLY on the person, but its body too. I mean, even if the “fetus” would have the right to live, the right to live does not come with the right on another’s body, that’s because you’ll soon tell me that harvesting organs of living people that are living well even, is OK, because another can live off their organs. The right to live does not mean you have the right to put someone’s life in danger either, the act of childbirth still is more threatening to a mother’s life than abortion. I thought women had the right like any other human being to not have the will of someone else forced on their bodies, “fetuses” before fetal viability included. Otherwise I can use the argument of “selfishness” for thanking Bambi_. So, in conclusion. You are all wrong. Let’s see your arguments… Delivered to you by the God of Rustling. |
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Feb 25, 2016 1:57 PM
#33
Comic_Sans said: I hate it when this happens and I recognize the words and feels like a tape-recorder is unwinding in my head.I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION BEFORE! OT: I'm just going to leave this here Immahnoob said: It seems that since I’ve stopped debating with my usual fervor, now people seem to think they really have a chance, I find it amusing how the simple fact that I’m known by the community and that this community is slowly getting “used to me”, now my arguments seem to have no merit, bandwagons are now the usual case, as no one seems to even care anymore to argue complete idiocy unlike I do because I do like the endeavor itself, even so, they devolve into a completely erroneous shifting of the burden of proof when I merely want them to show me exactly how they got to such reasoning for the mere purpose of leading them towards the truth or so we can have a proper debate. I merely ask for it because there really is nothing to debate if there is nothing behind the conclusion too. But it seems I’m always forced to take a position of attrition, to have to repeat myself although my points have not been countered in the slightest. To have to explain even the “axioms” we’re depending on for the debate to even function. It’s really pathetic when you want to show your position is better but you really can’t… But let’s change that, shall we? Let’s make this all fun. Let’s take every position that has been claimed and debunk them once more. I’ll make this as exhaustive as my mood can possibly let me. I’ll probably add arguments that haven’t been uttered yet. It seems that now I have to prepare my arguments for each case, no longer can I depend on these to be dynamic and situational. If that’s what you want, then I can help you out. Let’s start with the case of this girl, considering this is the whole reason for the other arguments. We know: - The girl is 10 years old. That means she legally can’t choose, in Paraguay it’s even more true. - She was raped by her stepfather. - Abortion is not completely legal in Paraguay, only if the mother’s life is in danger. So let’s start with the easy part, we know for a fact that girls that give birth have a higher chance of dying, them and the baby, the video even claims it is 5 times higher than an adult woman, although the problem isn’t always biological but socioeconomic, it seems there are even biological issues, (we’re talking about Paraguay, so socioeconomic issues do exist) like low weight births and premature births. So this means her chances of dying and her baby dying are quite high already if you want her to give birth. This should already be conclusive enough for her case, considering that in Paraguay, 1 in 270 to 1 in 500 women die from child birth, that’s also because a lot of these pregnancies are teens in Paraguay, around 20%. The rate of infant deaths seems to be from 21:1000 to 32:1000. Quite fucking high if you ask me. I don’t know the reason for why Paraguay illegalized abortion except for special cases. The OP presumes “religion”, so I will go with that, considering Paraguay is a third-world country and 88% of the populace is catholic. YES, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE REASON AFTER ALL. Anyway, if abortion is permitted only in these special cases, legal wise, she fits every criteria, but for some reason, the video claims that the medics do not want to make a claim on how dangerous this will be to her and the video also claims that there is no legal action because she’s underage, as I’ve proven above, the chances of death exist always, but her chances are increased exponentially, even so more if she lives in a third world country. It’s funny that abortion is only legal when someone’s life is in danger though, I’ll talk about abortion itself in a bit, when we’re concerned with the “ethical” argument. I’m not here to shit on Paraguay though, I’m here to destroy your arguments, so I’m going to talk about the matter of keeping the child. Let’s start with the concluding argument. We know for a fact that this was rape. So she had no choice in the conception of this being. Keeping it is retarded starting from that. Now with the least concluding argument. The other issue is the socioeconomic issue, we can guess that she is in a bad situation, and child labor is illegal, but it happens, and presuming from all the statistics that exist, they get paid shit. So she really won’t be able to properly raise it, she’d have to raise it with the help of her family which is already in a shitty situation most likely. Keeping it will only damage her situation and her families situation, to her because it seems high fertility rates are correlated to low education, in the case of teenagers and children., and because of the above, the lack of money will not be a good thing to her family. Then, to conclude: TL;DR: - The girl and her baby can easily die from this. - She had no choice in the matter because she was raped. - If she keeps the child, her situation and the child’s situation will only worsen (presumably if they survive). From all this, I have to say that abortion is the best option, socioeconomically, medically and “ethically” (the “socio” part takes that into consideration, but I’ll express it again, I’ll go in depth in my “abortion” section, I don’t want to ruin all the fun, I’ll correlate to her case a bit because I want to discuss the idea of “choice” further), If we want to save as many lives as possible. To conclude my argument with WAD, this is how laws are made in a perfect system, it’s written specifically for you so it's easy to understand. In a perfect system, there is no corruption, solutions always exist and are always taken into consideration. But in “reality”, as you might like to say, we have cases like in Paraguay, where the voters get shit upon and have “coup d’etats” going on, or put in charge someone like Berlusconi, which did not follow his program, instead he only sucked upon Italy’s wealth and made laws to not be able to get prosecuted or have his laws forced in (ex. Purcellum which if I really have to I’ll translate). The other issue of “reality” is that not every bill is wanted by the populace. And the bills are not controlled by the populace even without corruption. Not every bill is something the elected talked about in their program either. For example, the pornography laws in the UK. There are also laws that are unrelated to ethics, and are not shaped by them. Some laws are ethical because they remained since older times. Ethics are made by communities, but it’s not a given that every community will have the same ethics, and equating ethics to law is incredibly ignorant and misguided. Let’s not forget that ethics with no basis in reason tend to be useless and harmful anyway, thinking directly of abortion, and I’ll explain why with my “abortion” section of the argument. I’ll also explain the more common “ethical” concerns, that don’t include random “BUT I DON’T LIKE IT” type of thinking but rather, “does it do harm? does it do more harm than good?”. Now, let’s discuss “abortion”. Definition of “abortion”: “Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on it’s own. It can also happen naturally, in that case it’s often called a “miscarriage”.” Now that we know what it is, let’s discuss the issue at hand. Is it “right” to make abortion legal in every case? Well, let’s talk about opposites first, let’s talk about making abortion illegal unless there are special cases like the endangerment of the mother’s life, let’s start from the antithesis. “Abortion is dangerous for the mother, if we consider the statistics, the risk of death increases with the length of pregnancy, from an astonishing 0.7 per 100000 women dying from child birth during at or before 8 weeks to a 1 per 99000 women after 21 weeks. The mental trauma is also extreme for the mother. Abortion is unethical because we kill a human being, like, what if Gandhi would have been aborted? She should have just closed her legs, if she was willing to have sex, then she was willingly taking the risk of pregnancy, she could have also used contraceptives. But it’s fine, in cases of rape and incest I’ll agree with abortion, that’s ok, or if her life is in danger. Otherwise, she should just wait and give the child for adoption instead of abortion. Heh, I’m so great with puns. Anyway, the idea is that it’s selfish. Got that? I mean, women should not use abortion as a contraceptive either, that’s just wrong. You wouldn’t like it if your mother wanted to abort you either, right? Plus, it’s completely unethical and against God almighty. The fucker gave us life for a reason, right? Heil Hitler.” Now… “Let’s shred them…” First of, yes, 0.7 per 100000 women is fucking extreme m8, you got me there. Whoever you are, you’re great at reading statistics. But it seems you’ve forgot something. “Don’t sweat it, I have it here for you…” It’s the amount of maternal deaths and the comparison between numbers, a woopin’ 18.5 out of 100000 from simple childbirth in the US. Let’s not make it that unfair though, I’ll take something that fits the date of my statistics on abortions. Which is… A nice 9.1 per 100000 live births. Most abortions are late because of reasons like lack of money. Considering that most of the women that wanted the abortion earlier were on the poorer side (about 60%? Check the stats, I don’t remember). It seems child birth is actually more dangerous than abortion. Who would have ever fucking thought that that was the case? Not you, most likely. For a fine example of how it went when abortion was illegal, I’ll give you my country of origin. Romania. More women died because many of them couldn’t get an abortion, thus, did it through illegal means or through really dangerous ways. Heh… The need pushes you, doesn’t it? Oh, and the trauma? Here you go. It seems the “mental trauma” would have been the same if they would have kept the unwanted child. What else do you have? Let’s see… The issue of women using it as a “contraceptive” is ridiculous at best, there are no statistics for that, considering that abortions are actually decreased by real contraceptives. 1, 2. And it’s costly too, way more costly than contraceptives. The idea of “what if you were aborted” is an appeal to emotion, mostly. First of, I can’t possibly know that. I would have no opinion on the matter, I’m too neurologically incapable to assess the situation and it’s also unlikely that at earlier than 24 weeks I could even be able to feel pain. So I would just stop functioning. The concept of “But what if someone like Einstein would be born if you let the fetus live?”, is an appeal to the future, an appeal to improbable hypotheses and absurd, because I can use the same argument in reverse… What if a new Hitler would be born? Oh… Wait… That “Heil Hitler” was classy, I’m serious… The whole concept of “But it’ll be a human being.” is absurd not only because of ethical reasons (which I’ll explain later), but also a retarded appeal to the future again, what it can be is not the same as what it is. It could be just as it couldn’t be a living human being IN THE FUTURE. Anything can happen in the future. In a debate it’s not an argument, it’ll also kill a lot of research if we follow such ideas. Like stem cells research and totipotent cell research. You’re basically making it harder for us to find treatment for certain illnesses and even harder for the idea of growing organs for use. There are other examples, but really now… The idea that contraceptives work 100% of the time is also flawed, accidents happen, it’s also not a given that it’s easy for teens to get contraceptives. Or that sexual ed isn’t fucking retarded in the US or other places., but then again. This is really a red herring and a strawman, this argument of yours that “women should take responsibility.”, it’s no longer an issue of “pro-life”, it’s another issue, an issue I can’t express because I’ll get banned, but you have it. Agreeing only in the case of incest and rape makes me think that you’re saying that a child born from such acts is a lesser being or something, even when healthy. I think you’re a hypocrite and it’s a bit retarded to limit choice for arbitrary reasons after all. But oh well, you brought God up, it must be that arbitrary reasoning moves your life anyway. To answer Bambi_, you do judge, that’s inherent and it’s pronounced even more in this case. The moment you claim that you see the one’s committing the act as “selfish”, that means you just judged them. How simple, right? Your reason was that it’s selfish because someone could have wanted that baby, but as I used the previous example, I would also like you to come here in Italy, pay the airtrip yourself and have sex with me for free, it would be selfish for you not to do it. I MEAN, I REALLY WANT IT. The argument of “selfishness” doesn’t work because every human action is inherently selfish. And having to use your own body to promote “unselfish” acts (which are impossible), how idiotic. And “selfish” in your case is something negative too, so your biased judgment will lead you to biased actions towards them, unnoticeable and minor, surely, but having a “negative mentality” towards reasonable actions is stupid anyway. Anyway… What else do we have? OHHHHH…? The idea that the fetus is a HUMAN BEING. Heheheheheeee… Oh, this is going to be fun, although a repetition of my other argument, you have yet to debunk it. No, a fetus is not a “human being”, it is made out of “human cells”, so it is “human”, but it’s yet to be a “person”, or even a “being”. But let’s make it “person”, shall we? I’ll take what Mary Ann Warren (philosopher) has said about being a “person”: 1. A developed capacity for reasoning - Which a fetus does not possess, I’ll just take this as “capacity for reasoning”. 2. Self awareness- Which a fetus does not possess again. They are unaware of their surroundings and their existence until around 41 weeks, when they can actually distinguish sounds and the mother’s voice. That isn’t really being aware of surroundings and existence, but anyway. 3.Consciousness and ability to feel pain- A fetus can feel pain at 28 weeks, they do not possess a consciousness though. 4. Self motivated activity - A fetus is not properly aware of it’s movements, they’re not from his own volition. 5. Capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types - A fetus cannot communicate, people sometimes misinterpret kicks or movement with communication but the fetus is not aware of an outside world, or its mother until 41 weeks. So basically, you can’t “murder” a fetus, you can “kill” it though. After 24 weeks, it’s illegal to have an abortion anyway, unless there are specific cases, like the endangerment of the mother. That’s when the mother is always chosen if her life is in danger. It’s not enough for him to be “human”, because even a finger is “human”, even a “cell” is human. But we “kill” every day. From cells, to bugs, to other animals, to plants, etc, yet we have no issues with that. I’d say it’s a necessary hypocrisy to not want to kill a “human being”, but killing something “human” is not the same as killing a “human being”, otherwise getting rid of genital warts fits your criteria too. The other issue is again, the issue of “choice”, which I’d love to talk about right now. I’ll start with the idea that a “guardian” or “parent” has the right to interfere with the choice of a mother that is underage with the issue of the fetus, in our case, and so say international studies, a mother at 10 years old will have problems, like death. Actually, anything under the age of 15 will have problems with child birth, so the most sensible course of action is abortion. It’s less traumatic in the long and short run. It’s not a given, like almost nothing is a given… There have been cases in which children were given the legal right to consent for medical purposes. And children in general understand death 1, and surely as hell they understand the concept of pain and causing pain, I’d say these are harder to understand than the mechanical act of sex, but hey… Children tend to not be able to have children until they become teenagers anyway, which is around the age of 10. Now, let’s get started with adults (which will include teenagers). Let’s not only end it with the idea that a fetus can’t be a person. Let’s get to the crux of the problem. I’ve given you a link earlier in the abortion definition of fetal viability. Do you know why I did that? Oh, it’s simple. A fetus cannot survive by it’s own. No, a baby can’t hunt or forage or go to the supermarket, but a baby can survive WITHOUT the aid of the mother’s body, AKA they no longer need the umbilical cord. Most under the 24th week DO NOT survive AT ALL. Where am I getting here? Oh, of course, the direct dependency on a person and its body, NOT ONLY on the person, but its body too. I mean, even if the “fetus” would have the right to live, the right to live does not come with the right on another’s body, that’s because you’ll soon tell me that harvesting organs of living people that are living well even, is OK, because another can live off their organs. The right to live does not mean you have the right to put someone’s life in danger either, the act of childbirth still is more threatening to a mother’s life than abortion. I thought women had the right like any other human being to not have the will of someone else forced on their bodies, “fetuses” before fetal viability included. Otherwise I can use the argument of “selfishness” for thanking Bambi_. So, in conclusion. You are all wrong. Let’s see your arguments… Delivered to you by the God of Rustling. I'VE NEVER FELT LIKE THIS BEFORE! |
Feb 25, 2016 1:59 PM
#35
Kurtmo said: In all honesty a little population control would go a long way.Let's just all admit it. Abortions are obligatory. |
Feb 25, 2016 2:04 PM
#36
I personally dislike the concept of abortion as I see it as cheating someone out of a chance at life. That being said I definitely wouldn't ban it as people living under certain circumstances wouldn't be able to raise a child properly. And of course the option should definitely be open to rape victims. |
LoveLikeBloodFeb 25, 2016 2:25 PM
Take care of yourself |
Feb 25, 2016 2:07 PM
#37
How can you talk about abortion and call it a casual discussion? LOL. This site's forum is amazing in many many ways. I'm not familiar with internet forums, so please forgive me.. But, come on, you don't talk about abortion with your girlfriend or friends in a coffee shop, right? Right? Or maybe I'm the minority here lol. It is ironic, but I am going to join this casual discussion and give my opinions anyway lol. Anyway, most of the time abortion is not okay for me, but I'm okay if it's lifethreatening for the mother (not to be pragmatic, but you can make the baby again later, most of the time I think the mother will agree too). It's also okay for me if the mother is a victim of rape. I mean come on, you can't judge her. If she's mentally stong or has a personality as near as an angel, she'll accept the baby of course. But, if she's traumatized and the baby's reminding her of the rapist, especially if she dreams of a perfect wedding with her prince and building a happy family with him, of course she can't stand that baby and I won't judge her. I'm sure it'll end bad for her and for the child. Don't be a douche now, you may call her weak, but mental breakdown is a real thing. Not everybody's mentally prepared and kind-hearted enough for that sh*t. So don't judge! I'm also okay if the child is disabled, imperfect, defective or whatever you call it to the point that the child's life will be absolutely miserable. This needs many many many considerations though. The parents conscience and the doctors insights play the main role here. For me, I'm totally okay if the child's blind, and I know I'll have a huge responsibility to make that child's life happy and it's gonna be harder than a normal child. I'm not sure for other kinds of disability and imperfection though, I cannot just say that I'm strong enough to raise any kind of child. It's not just about you and the child, you'll also have to deal with your wife, your family, your financial status (for example, if that child needs to be bedridden all the time), your society (for example, if that child ever get to go to school or college, that's gonna be hard), etc. Not every people in this world is kind enough to accept those kind of child (the rape victim's child and the child with disability), and not every kind-hearted people is rich and powerful enough to help you. |
Feb 25, 2016 2:21 PM
#38
Candy said: That's probably because you've seen that specific post beforeComic_Sans said: I hate it when this happens and I recognize the words and feels like a tape-recorder is unwinding in my head.I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION BEFORE! OT: I'm just going to leave this here Immahnoob said: It seems that since I’ve stopped debating with my usual fervor, now people seem to think they really have a chance, I find it amusing how the simple fact that I’m known by the community and that this community is slowly getting “used to me”, now my arguments seem to have no merit, bandwagons are now the usual case, as no one seems to even care anymore to argue complete idiocy unlike I do because I do like the endeavor itself, even so, they devolve into a completely erroneous shifting of the burden of proof when I merely want them to show me exactly how they got to such reasoning for the mere purpose of leading them towards the truth or so we can have a proper debate. I merely ask for it because there really is nothing to debate if there is nothing behind the conclusion too. But it seems I’m always forced to take a position of attrition, to have to repeat myself although my points have not been countered in the slightest. To have to explain even the “axioms” we’re depending on for the debate to even function. It’s really pathetic when you want to show your position is better but you really can’t… But let’s change that, shall we? Let’s make this all fun. Let’s take every position that has been claimed and debunk them once more. I’ll make this as exhaustive as my mood can possibly let me. I’ll probably add arguments that haven’t been uttered yet. It seems that now I have to prepare my arguments for each case, no longer can I depend on these to be dynamic and situational. If that’s what you want, then I can help you out. Let’s start with the case of this girl, considering this is the whole reason for the other arguments. We know: - The girl is 10 years old. That means she legally can’t choose, in Paraguay it’s even more true. - She was raped by her stepfather. - Abortion is not completely legal in Paraguay, only if the mother’s life is in danger. So let’s start with the easy part, we know for a fact that girls that give birth have a higher chance of dying, them and the baby, the video even claims it is 5 times higher than an adult woman, although the problem isn’t always biological but socioeconomic, it seems there are even biological issues, (we’re talking about Paraguay, so socioeconomic issues do exist) like low weight births and premature births. So this means her chances of dying and her baby dying are quite high already if you want her to give birth. This should already be conclusive enough for her case, considering that in Paraguay, 1 in 270 to 1 in 500 women die from child birth, that’s also because a lot of these pregnancies are teens in Paraguay, around 20%. The rate of infant deaths seems to be from 21:1000 to 32:1000. Quite fucking high if you ask me. I don’t know the reason for why Paraguay illegalized abortion except for special cases. The OP presumes “religion”, so I will go with that, considering Paraguay is a third-world country and 88% of the populace is catholic. YES, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE REASON AFTER ALL. Anyway, if abortion is permitted only in these special cases, legal wise, she fits every criteria, but for some reason, the video claims that the medics do not want to make a claim on how dangerous this will be to her and the video also claims that there is no legal action because she’s underage, as I’ve proven above, the chances of death exist always, but her chances are increased exponentially, even so more if she lives in a third world country. It’s funny that abortion is only legal when someone’s life is in danger though, I’ll talk about abortion itself in a bit, when we’re concerned with the “ethical” argument. I’m not here to shit on Paraguay though, I’m here to destroy your arguments, so I’m going to talk about the matter of keeping the child. Let’s start with the concluding argument. We know for a fact that this was rape. So she had no choice in the conception of this being. Keeping it is retarded starting from that. Now with the least concluding argument. The other issue is the socioeconomic issue, we can guess that she is in a bad situation, and child labor is illegal, but it happens, and presuming from all the statistics that exist, they get paid shit. So she really won’t be able to properly raise it, she’d have to raise it with the help of her family which is already in a shitty situation most likely. Keeping it will only damage her situation and her families situation, to her because it seems high fertility rates are correlated to low education, in the case of teenagers and children., and because of the above, the lack of money will not be a good thing to her family. Then, to conclude: TL;DR: - The girl and her baby can easily die from this. - She had no choice in the matter because she was raped. - If she keeps the child, her situation and the child’s situation will only worsen (presumably if they survive). From all this, I have to say that abortion is the best option, socioeconomically, medically and “ethically” (the “socio” part takes that into consideration, but I’ll express it again, I’ll go in depth in my “abortion” section, I don’t want to ruin all the fun, I’ll correlate to her case a bit because I want to discuss the idea of “choice” further), If we want to save as many lives as possible. To conclude my argument with WAD, this is how laws are made in a perfect system, it’s written specifically for you so it's easy to understand. In a perfect system, there is no corruption, solutions always exist and are always taken into consideration. But in “reality”, as you might like to say, we have cases like in Paraguay, where the voters get shit upon and have “coup d’etats” going on, or put in charge someone like Berlusconi, which did not follow his program, instead he only sucked upon Italy’s wealth and made laws to not be able to get prosecuted or have his laws forced in (ex. Purcellum which if I really have to I’ll translate). The other issue of “reality” is that not every bill is wanted by the populace. And the bills are not controlled by the populace even without corruption. Not every bill is something the elected talked about in their program either. For example, the pornography laws in the UK. There are also laws that are unrelated to ethics, and are not shaped by them. Some laws are ethical because they remained since older times. Ethics are made by communities, but it’s not a given that every community will have the same ethics, and equating ethics to law is incredibly ignorant and misguided. Let’s not forget that ethics with no basis in reason tend to be useless and harmful anyway, thinking directly of abortion, and I’ll explain why with my “abortion” section of the argument. I’ll also explain the more common “ethical” concerns, that don’t include random “BUT I DON’T LIKE IT” type of thinking but rather, “does it do harm? does it do more harm than good?”. Now, let’s discuss “abortion”. Definition of “abortion”: “Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on it’s own. It can also happen naturally, in that case it’s often called a “miscarriage”.” Now that we know what it is, let’s discuss the issue at hand. Is it “right” to make abortion legal in every case? Well, let’s talk about opposites first, let’s talk about making abortion illegal unless there are special cases like the endangerment of the mother’s life, let’s start from the antithesis. “Abortion is dangerous for the mother, if we consider the statistics, the risk of death increases with the length of pregnancy, from an astonishing 0.7 per 100000 women dying from child birth during at or before 8 weeks to a 1 per 99000 women after 21 weeks. The mental trauma is also extreme for the mother. Abortion is unethical because we kill a human being, like, what if Gandhi would have been aborted? She should have just closed her legs, if she was willing to have sex, then she was willingly taking the risk of pregnancy, she could have also used contraceptives. But it’s fine, in cases of rape and incest I’ll agree with abortion, that’s ok, or if her life is in danger. Otherwise, she should just wait and give the child for adoption instead of abortion. Heh, I’m so great with puns. Anyway, the idea is that it’s selfish. Got that? I mean, women should not use abortion as a contraceptive either, that’s just wrong. You wouldn’t like it if your mother wanted to abort you either, right? Plus, it’s completely unethical and against God almighty. The fucker gave us life for a reason, right? Heil Hitler.” Now… “Let’s shred them…” First of, yes, 0.7 per 100000 women is fucking extreme m8, you got me there. Whoever you are, you’re great at reading statistics. But it seems you’ve forgot something. “Don’t sweat it, I have it here for you…” It’s the amount of maternal deaths and the comparison between numbers, a woopin’ 18.5 out of 100000 from simple childbirth in the US. Let’s not make it that unfair though, I’ll take something that fits the date of my statistics on abortions. Which is… A nice 9.1 per 100000 live births. Most abortions are late because of reasons like lack of money. Considering that most of the women that wanted the abortion earlier were on the poorer side (about 60%? Check the stats, I don’t remember). It seems child birth is actually more dangerous than abortion. Who would have ever fucking thought that that was the case? Not you, most likely. For a fine example of how it went when abortion was illegal, I’ll give you my country of origin. Romania. More women died because many of them couldn’t get an abortion, thus, did it through illegal means or through really dangerous ways. Heh… The need pushes you, doesn’t it? Oh, and the trauma? Here you go. It seems the “mental trauma” would have been the same if they would have kept the unwanted child. What else do you have? Let’s see… The issue of women using it as a “contraceptive” is ridiculous at best, there are no statistics for that, considering that abortions are actually decreased by real contraceptives. 1, 2. And it’s costly too, way more costly than contraceptives. The idea of “what if you were aborted” is an appeal to emotion, mostly. First of, I can’t possibly know that. I would have no opinion on the matter, I’m too neurologically incapable to assess the situation and it’s also unlikely that at earlier than 24 weeks I could even be able to feel pain. So I would just stop functioning. The concept of “But what if someone like Einstein would be born if you let the fetus live?”, is an appeal to the future, an appeal to improbable hypotheses and absurd, because I can use the same argument in reverse… What if a new Hitler would be born? Oh… Wait… That “Heil Hitler” was classy, I’m serious… The whole concept of “But it’ll be a human being.” is absurd not only because of ethical reasons (which I’ll explain later), but also a retarded appeal to the future again, what it can be is not the same as what it is. It could be just as it couldn’t be a living human being IN THE FUTURE. Anything can happen in the future. In a debate it’s not an argument, it’ll also kill a lot of research if we follow such ideas. Like stem cells research and totipotent cell research. You’re basically making it harder for us to find treatment for certain illnesses and even harder for the idea of growing organs for use. There are other examples, but really now… The idea that contraceptives work 100% of the time is also flawed, accidents happen, it’s also not a given that it’s easy for teens to get contraceptives. Or that sexual ed isn’t fucking retarded in the US or other places., but then again. This is really a red herring and a strawman, this argument of yours that “women should take responsibility.”, it’s no longer an issue of “pro-life”, it’s another issue, an issue I can’t express because I’ll get banned, but you have it. Agreeing only in the case of incest and rape makes me think that you’re saying that a child born from such acts is a lesser being or something, even when healthy. I think you’re a hypocrite and it’s a bit retarded to limit choice for arbitrary reasons after all. But oh well, you brought God up, it must be that arbitrary reasoning moves your life anyway. To answer Bambi_, you do judge, that’s inherent and it’s pronounced even more in this case. The moment you claim that you see the one’s committing the act as “selfish”, that means you just judged them. How simple, right? Your reason was that it’s selfish because someone could have wanted that baby, but as I used the previous example, I would also like you to come here in Italy, pay the airtrip yourself and have sex with me for free, it would be selfish for you not to do it. I MEAN, I REALLY WANT IT. The argument of “selfishness” doesn’t work because every human action is inherently selfish. And having to use your own body to promote “unselfish” acts (which are impossible), how idiotic. And “selfish” in your case is something negative too, so your biased judgment will lead you to biased actions towards them, unnoticeable and minor, surely, but having a “negative mentality” towards reasonable actions is stupid anyway. Anyway… What else do we have? OHHHHH…? The idea that the fetus is a HUMAN BEING. Heheheheheeee… Oh, this is going to be fun, although a repetition of my other argument, you have yet to debunk it. No, a fetus is not a “human being”, it is made out of “human cells”, so it is “human”, but it’s yet to be a “person”, or even a “being”. But let’s make it “person”, shall we? I’ll take what Mary Ann Warren (philosopher) has said about being a “person”: 1. A developed capacity for reasoning - Which a fetus does not possess, I’ll just take this as “capacity for reasoning”. 2. Self awareness- Which a fetus does not possess again. They are unaware of their surroundings and their existence until around 41 weeks, when they can actually distinguish sounds and the mother’s voice. That isn’t really being aware of surroundings and existence, but anyway. 3.Consciousness and ability to feel pain- A fetus can feel pain at 28 weeks, they do not possess a consciousness though. 4. Self motivated activity - A fetus is not properly aware of it’s movements, they’re not from his own volition. 5. Capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types - A fetus cannot communicate, people sometimes misinterpret kicks or movement with communication but the fetus is not aware of an outside world, or its mother until 41 weeks. So basically, you can’t “murder” a fetus, you can “kill” it though. After 24 weeks, it’s illegal to have an abortion anyway, unless there are specific cases, like the endangerment of the mother. That’s when the mother is always chosen if her life is in danger. It’s not enough for him to be “human”, because even a finger is “human”, even a “cell” is human. But we “kill” every day. From cells, to bugs, to other animals, to plants, etc, yet we have no issues with that. I’d say it’s a necessary hypocrisy to not want to kill a “human being”, but killing something “human” is not the same as killing a “human being”, otherwise getting rid of genital warts fits your criteria too. The other issue is again, the issue of “choice”, which I’d love to talk about right now. I’ll start with the idea that a “guardian” or “parent” has the right to interfere with the choice of a mother that is underage with the issue of the fetus, in our case, and so say international studies, a mother at 10 years old will have problems, like death. Actually, anything under the age of 15 will have problems with child birth, so the most sensible course of action is abortion. It’s less traumatic in the long and short run. It’s not a given, like almost nothing is a given… There have been cases in which children were given the legal right to consent for medical purposes. And children in general understand death 1, and surely as hell they understand the concept of pain and causing pain, I’d say these are harder to understand than the mechanical act of sex, but hey… Children tend to not be able to have children until they become teenagers anyway, which is around the age of 10. Now, let’s get started with adults (which will include teenagers). Let’s not only end it with the idea that a fetus can’t be a person. Let’s get to the crux of the problem. I’ve given you a link earlier in the abortion definition of fetal viability. Do you know why I did that? Oh, it’s simple. A fetus cannot survive by it’s own. No, a baby can’t hunt or forage or go to the supermarket, but a baby can survive WITHOUT the aid of the mother’s body, AKA they no longer need the umbilical cord. Most under the 24th week DO NOT survive AT ALL. Where am I getting here? Oh, of course, the direct dependency on a person and its body, NOT ONLY on the person, but its body too. I mean, even if the “fetus” would have the right to live, the right to live does not come with the right on another’s body, that’s because you’ll soon tell me that harvesting organs of living people that are living well even, is OK, because another can live off their organs. The right to live does not mean you have the right to put someone’s life in danger either, the act of childbirth still is more threatening to a mother’s life than abortion. I thought women had the right like any other human being to not have the will of someone else forced on their bodies, “fetuses” before fetal viability included. Otherwise I can use the argument of “selfishness” for thanking Bambi_. So, in conclusion. You are all wrong. Let’s see your arguments… Delivered to you by the God of Rustling. I'VE NEVER FELT LIKE THIS BEFORE! |
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Feb 25, 2016 2:22 PM
#39
TheBrainintheJar said: I think abortions are merciful. Life is horrible and pointless. Forcing people to exist is cruelty. It's better never to have been. I swear you are a male version of me >_> |
Feb 25, 2016 3:26 PM
#40
I don't believe there are many cercumstances where taking the life of an innocent is justifiable. There are plenty of alternative options to raising the child should you not have the means or will to provide for it. You have all benefitted from having the right to exist. How any of you have the audacity to argue that taking other peoples rights to life away is in any way justified when you yourselves actively benefit with every breath you draw from having not been aborted is utterly disgusting. It's really incredible the ways in which people perform mental gymnastics in order to justify what should obviously be murder. |
BigSleeveSheevFeb 25, 2016 3:52 PM
Feb 25, 2016 3:31 PM
#41
I often abort missions in videogames so I do not see anything wrong with it. |
Feb 25, 2016 3:38 PM
#42
Sure! go ahead go nuts for donuts! Bruh I remember seeing this video of this woman trying to paint abortion in a nice light then saying "I think it's beautiful I can make a child" after or before she aborted it That was the one time I was genuinely angered about someone being a giant attention whore |
removed-userFeb 25, 2016 3:46 PM
Feb 25, 2016 4:02 PM
#43
ModeratelyHuman said: That robot still has the potential to be a programmed robot. There would be an extra financial cost to build another robot .I would not consider abortion acceptable if the baby is: 1. Younger than 3 months old minimum. (Unless any of the next 3 requirements are met.) 2. Concieved out of rape. 3. The parent's are completely unable to support the child and give it a proper standard of care. (Though I believe people need to pass some basic standardized testing to recieve a permit to concieve a child.) All these poor people breeding like rats is fucking disgusting and just wrong. People who cant raise a child they willingly gave birth to are fucking scum. 4. The woman or child is in danger of death during birth. I believe that the rights a living thing/robot/anything capable of though deserves is based off of its sentience. A fetus is not a sentient creature. It is just about as intelligent as a worm. Consider this example, you have an advanced robot capable of being programmed into a sapient robot. But at the very moment it is hasnt been programmed. Would it be morally wrong to take destroy this robot? Of course not. Because it doesnt have its programming yet, at the moment it is nothing but a hunk of metal. Likewise, an undeveloped fetus is nothing more than a hunk of flesh. |
"Fuck this shit, fun things are fun!" |
Feb 25, 2016 4:30 PM
#44
sure its fine for abortion especially if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest (where the child will have genetic problems that will make the childs life miserable), its also fine to do abortion when the mother is not yet ready for parenting like if she is too young or has no financial security this thread is like pro-choice vs pro-life, and i side with pro-choice |
Feb 25, 2016 4:35 PM
#45
I don't think fetuses are life - they are things turning into life - so the comparisons to murder I find are a bit silly. That said, I wouldn't really complain if it was illegal since I'm a responsible adult, but it should always be permissible in cases of rape. I also hope that the super conservatives are aware and okay with the fact that forcing unplanned births to occur will significantly increase the amount of people who require welfare and other forms of government aid. |
Feb 25, 2016 4:37 PM
#46
Are you guys so bored that your deliberately making these intensely debatable threads about the same shit just see everyone yell at each-other? |
Feb 25, 2016 4:42 PM
#47
chokingasuka said: Are you guys so bored that your deliberately making these intensely debatable threads about the same shit just see everyone yell at each-other? Topics that are debated endlessly like abortion and religion are debated endlessly for a reason. They're discussions worth having. |
Feb 25, 2016 5:02 PM
#48
chokingasuka said: Are you guys so bored that your deliberately making these intensely debatable threads about the same shit just see everyone yell at each-other? Agreed! This topic is not even casual. That discussion with a girl asking MAL users about her new bonsai's name is casual. Or that discussion where a person asking how often you wash your hair, that is casual. Maybe this site should make a special room for "serious" discussions. |
Feb 25, 2016 5:06 PM
#49
finestseeker17 said: chokingasuka said: Are you guys so bored that your deliberately making these intensely debatable threads about the same shit just see everyone yell at each-other? Agreed! This topic is not even casual. That discussion with a girl asking MAL users about her new bonsai's name is casual. Or that discussion where a person asking how often you wash your hair, that is casual. Maybe this site should make a special room for "serious" discussions. I wasn't really thinking of it like that but yeah, your right. This isn't "Casual Discussion" this person had made 2 threads about "Death Penalty" and "Abortion" both in the same Catagory of "Casual Discussion" like I don't care about those topics, people make them every other week and I dont want to see it anymore, they get met with mostly sarcasm at this point, nobody want's to debate about this shit anymore. |
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
More topics from this board
» Are friends that important?Soullessss - 11 hours ago |
30 |
by 149597871
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Does MAL members scare away new Thread Makers ?VabbingSips - Yesterday |
29 |
by Tropisch
»»
31 minutes ago |
|
» How willing are you to compromise and cooperate with people with different views?RobertBobert - Yesterday |
19 |
by Adverrito
»»
39 minutes ago |
|
» If MAL was a physical city, what would it be like?IpreferEcchi - Oct 4 |
19 |
by PeripheralVision
»»
46 minutes ago |
|
» have to deal with being alone?Rivermind - Aug 24 |
32 |
by MissHeed
»»
49 minutes ago |