Abortion: Legal or Illegal

The Doctor wrote: I'm sure there is scientific research on the subject, but I'd guess quite near the end of the pregnancy.  But as I said, I'm not a doctor.  Just The Doctor.  One thing I can say for certain is that there is no sentience at conception.  And in the early stages, it's pretty much just a formed blob of cells.

What country are you from, Chester?  Our country (the USA) defends human beings' right to life.  Not a right to sentience.

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I'm sure there is scientific research on the subject, but I'd guess quite near the end of the pregnancy.  But as I said, I'm not a doctor.  Just The Doctor.  One thing I can say for certain is that there is no sentience at conception.  And in the early stages, it's pretty much just a formed blob of cells.   What country are you from, Chester?  Our country (the USA) defends human beings' right to life.  Not a right to sentience. Sadly, I'm from the US too.  Just because the US does something a certain way doesn't make it right.  In fact, it is more often the opposite.

You mean you oppose one's right to life?

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I'm sure there is scientific research on the subject, but I'd guess quite near the end of the pregnancy.  But as I said, I'm not a doctor.  Just The Doctor.  One thing I can say for certain is that there is no sentience at conception.  And in the early stages, it's pretty much just a formed blob of cells.   What country are you from, Chester?  Our country (the USA) defends human beings' right to life.  Not a right to sentience. Sadly, I'm from the US too.  Just because the US does something a certain way doesn't make it right.  In fact, it is more often the opposite.  You mean you oppose one's right to life?

I do not oppose the right to life of a sentient being.  Of course, that leaves out about 90% of the human race. 

The Doctor wrote: I'm for the legal side of this argument.  First, whether life begins at conception or not, I believe should be irrelevant.  The question should be when does sentience begin, and I'm not a doctor, but I am The Doctor,  I don't think sentience in any way can be said to begin at conception.  I would put sentience much later on in the pregnancy.   We destroy life all the time.  I just had bronchitis a few weeks ago and took a nice round of antibiotics, committing what amounted to genocide of the creatures in my bronchial tubes.  A fetus, prior to sentience is a parasite.  It simply lives on the mother's body.  Like my bacteria were doing to me a few weeks ago.  Pregnancy is a medical condition.  Nothing more until such time as a fetus can be said to have developed its own self-awareness.  That does not come early in the pregnancy. Of course, unlike my bacteria, a fetus has the potential to become sentient.  But if we're simply talking about potential, then I've committed mass murder throughout my life, not through abortion, but through other means.  And my guess is that most men have.  Wink

Are people in a coma fair game for a beheading, then? They're not aware of their surroundings or conscious.

Many argue that sentience doesn't even begin directly after a baby is born. Some believe it takes weeks or even months before a baby actually is aware of what's going on. The problem with terms like "Sentience" or "Awareness" is that they're vague and there's no conclusive proof on when any of it definitively happens.

If I blow up a building and people die, I can't defend myself by saying that I wasn't sure that it was empty but that I believed it was empty. I couldn't get off clean for the deaths of people in the building by saying, "Well, I've checked the building several times before and it was empty so I thought it was OK!". The same concept applies in the case of abortion; assuming that a baby isn't sentient or human or whatever is absurd.
You don't just kill stuff on the assumption that it's not a person. You have to know for sure. If you're out hunting and you see a bush move and you shoot and it turns out that it was a human instead of a deer, guess who is getting charged with a crime... You are! It doesn't matter if you thought it wasn't human or not.

Anyway, I'm about to go abort a few million potential sentients.

So, since everyone is so concerned about fetuses, how about ensuring that EVERY child has proper medical care, proper food, clothing and housing?  Oh, but you don't want to pay for that in the form of taxes, do you Rob?  Or are children only important while they're in the womb?

The Doctor wrote: So, since everyone is so concerned about fetuses, how about ensuring that EVERY child has proper medical care, proper food, clothing and housing?  Oh, but you don't want to pay for that in the form of taxes, do you Rob?  Or are children only important while they're in the womb?

Two things:

1. You've been away a long time, so you don't know what I've gone through this past couple of years.

2. You've been away a long time so you don't exactly know what I actually believe about healthcare or taxes.

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: So, since everyone is so concerned about fetuses, how about ensuring that EVERY child has proper medical care, proper food, clothing and housing?  Oh, but you don't want to pay for that in the form of taxes, do you Rob?  Or are children only important while they're in the womb? Two things: 1. You've been away a long time, so you don't know what I've gone through this past couple of years. 2. You've been away a long time so you don't exactly know what I actually believe about healthcare or taxes.

Ok.  Correct on both counts.  Didn't mean to single you out.  But read my last post for clarity on my position. 

The Doctor wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: The Doctor wrote: So, since everyone is so concerned about fetuses, how about ensuring that EVERY child has proper medical care, proper food, clothing and housing?  Oh, but you don't want to pay for that in the form of taxes, do you Rob?  Or are children only important while they're in the womb? That would be pretty nice, too. I  bet a lot of people would rather pay for that in taxes than pay for some lazy fool to sit around playing XBoX his entire life. Seems a bit diffusional from the issue of abortion, though. It is exactly the issue.  If you only fight to limit abortion, but do not also want to help children that have already been born, then in my view your position becomes one not of protecting children, but simply one of control over women.  You can't preach against abortion and welfare, government funded healthcare for children, school lunches, and so on without being a hypocrite.  Then I would say your interest is not in protecting children, but rather in controlling women.

Is it not enough that our family believes in adopting and fostering children as we are able?

Or are we heartless b*****ds who want to control a woman's body?  Four members of my family are alive because their mothers' chose to let them be ADOPTED rather than killed off.


Edited by Epignosis - November 01 2011 at 22:37

These threads never end well.

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: The Doctor wrote: So, since everyone is so concerned about fetuses, how about ensuring that EVERY child has proper medical care, proper food, clothing and housing?  Oh, but you don't want to pay for that in the form of taxes, do you Rob?  Or are children only important while they're in the womb? That would be pretty nice, too. I  bet a lot of people would rather pay for that in taxes than pay for some lazy fool to sit around playing XBoX his entire life. Seems a bit diffusional from the issue of abortion, though. It is exactly the issue.  If you only fight to limit abortion, but do not also want to help children that have already been born, then in my view your position becomes one not of protecting children, but simply one of control over women.  You can't preach against abortion and welfare, government funded healthcare for children, school lunches, and so on without being a hypocrite.  Then I would say your interest is not in protecting children, but rather in controlling women.  Is it not enough that our family believes in adopting and fostering children as we are able? Or are we heartless b*****ds who want to control a woman's body?  Four members of my family are alive because their mothers' chose to let them be ADOPTED rather than killed off. Erm, you don't know me well enough to know this Rob, but I was also adopted.  I was one of the lucky ones though, who had grandparents who wanted to adopt me and give me a loving home.  How many children are that lucky?  Really? How many children are going hungry?  How many are ill without adequate healthcare?  How many are homeless?  How many are abused by foster parents (note, I am in no way saying anything about your fostering, but many are not so lucky to get decent people caring for them)?  And you want to increase their numbers by limiting abortion?  My heart breaks for children too, Rob, but not the ones who were aborted, but the ones who are alive and suffering.

You're right.  Children are suffering.  Let's kill them.