| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
AtomicCrimsonRush 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
|
 Posted: February 22 2012 at 01:50 |
Abortion is murder any way you slice it (bad choice of words intentional)
For those who say the woman has a right to choose.... what about the baby's right?
No human extermination should be legalised - If it is illegal for me to chop up a human being, why should it then be legal for a man in a white coat with a doctor's degree to carry out the same act?
|
|
|
 |
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: February 22 2012 at 03:54 |
 CPicard wrote:
Abortion should be mandatory. Make room, make room!
|
OK, as long as this can be administered retroactively
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: February 22 2012 at 21:27 |
^ well that sure was a conversation stopper  
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 17:45 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Abortion should be mandatory. Make room, make room!
|
OK, as long as this can be administered retroactively
|
Retroactively, overactively, any form of "actively" is good, according to my agenda.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 18:10 |
|
You did the impossible, stopped an abortion debate. Don't mess with your success by posting!!!
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 18:51 |
I think abortion is fine, but preemptively using contraception options is a better and much less invasive idea.
Also, if you haven't noticed, we're a bunch of men. Let the women have this conversation, as I believe their right to abortion should be entirely their choice. To have it any other way seems a bit '50s-ish and I think most women would agree.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 18:57 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
Abortion is murder any way you slice it (bad choice of words intentional)
For those who say the woman has a right to choose.... what about the baby's right?
No human extermination should be legalised - If it is illegal for me to chop up a human being, why should it then be legal for a man in a white coat with a doctor's degree to carry out the same act?
|
What about frozen embryos?
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 19:24 |
|
I'd say the baby's right to live should be determined by what each individual pairing of parents believe from a religious or non religious perspective, which is what the whole debate seems to stem from anyway. If the parents believe that life doesn't begin at conception should be able to choose to abort if they feel like it, and religious people who think abortion is the destruction of a life should be able to choose not to have an abortion.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 19:28 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
I'd say the baby's right to live should be determined by what each individual pairing of parents believe from a religious or non religious perspective, which is what the whole debate seems to stem from anyway. If the parents believe that life doesn't begin at conception should be able to choose to abort if they feel like it, and religious people who think abortion is the destruction of a life should be able to choose not to have an abortion. |
Religious people are not necessarily pro-life, and pro-abortion people are not necessarily irreligious.
|
|
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 19:33 |
Epignosis wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
I'd say the baby's right to live should be determined by what each individual pairing of parents believe from a religious or non religious perspective, which is what the whole debate seems to stem from anyway. If the parents believe that life doesn't begin at conception should be able to choose to abort if they feel like it, and religious people who think abortion is the destruction of a life should be able to choose not to have an abortion. |
Religious people are not necessarily pro-life, and pro-abortion people are not necessarily irreligious.
|
I know nothing about religion
My point is that I think the decision on the baby's right to live should be decided by each individual pair of parents *on whatever grounds they decide are relevant*. The mother and father should negotiate the options and ultimate fate of the developing life, but I also think it should ultimately come down to what the mother decides considering that the extreme physical changes and potentially profound emotional reactions of having a child are primarily experienced by the mother.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 19:47 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
My point is that I think the decision on the baby's right to live should be decided by each individual pair of parents *on whatever grounds they decide are relevant*. The mother and father should negotiate the options and ultimate fate of the developing life, but I also think it should ultimately come down to what the mother decides considering that the extreme physical changes and potentially profound emotional reactions of having a child are primarily experienced by the mother. |
My objection to your idea is that it rests on its inherent and unsatisfying relativism.
Can a mother and father decide to abort their child hours after birth? If not, why not? And since you specifically mentioned religious freedom: Suppose it's the religion of the parents to sacrifice their first-born to their god. Is that acceptable? If not, why not?
|
|
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 19:55 |
|
Next step: what is worse? abortion or sacrifice to Baal?
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 19:58 |
Epignosis wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
My point is that I think the decision on the baby's right to live should be decided by each individual pair of parents *on whatever grounds they decide are relevant*. The mother and father should negotiate the options and ultimate fate of the developing life, but I also think it should ultimately come down to what the mother decides considering that the extreme physical changes and potentially profound emotional reactions of having a child are primarily experienced by the mother. |
My objection to your idea is that it rests on its inherent and unsatisfying relativism.
Can a mother and father decide to abort their child hours after birth? If not, why not? And since you specifically mentioned religious freedom: Suppose it's the religion of the parents to sacrifice their first-born to their god. Is that acceptable? If not, why not?
|
Well, when the child is no longer an extension of the mother's body, then the child is a separate human. "Aborting" it at that point should be considered murder (nine months of time to decide the child's fate is more than sufficient), but of course then still have the option of sending the child to an orphanage or whatever.
If the parents decide that it is their religious duty to rip out the unborn child from inside of its mother and eat it on a hot dog bun with chilli then they should be allowed to follow their weird-ass religious ideas.
Edited by colorofmoney91 - February 23 2012 at 20:00
|
|
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 19:58 |
CPicard wrote:
Next step: what is worse? abortion or sacrifice to Baal?
|
Both seem reasonable to me.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 20:08 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
My point is that I think the decision on the baby's right to live should be decided by each individual pair of parents *on whatever grounds they decide are relevant*. The mother and father should negotiate the options and ultimate fate of the developing life, but I also think it should ultimately come down to what the mother decides considering that the extreme physical changes and potentially profound emotional reactions of having a child are primarily experienced by the mother. |
My objection to your idea is that it rests on its inherent and unsatisfying relativism.
Can a mother and father decide to abort their child hours after birth? If not, why not? And since you specifically mentioned religious freedom: Suppose it's the religion of the parents to sacrifice their first-born to their god. Is that acceptable? If not, why not?
|
Well, when the child is no longer an extension of the mother's body, then the child is a separate human. "Aborting" it at that point should be considered murder, but of course then still have the option of sending the child to an orphanage or whatever.
|
So it would not be murder if one conjoined twin murdered the other?
"Extension of the mother's body" is an oversimplification. An unborn child has his or her own DNA. This means that child is a separate and unique individual, not a mere appendage.
On the other hand, no sane doctor would amputate a perfectly healthy woman's arm just because she said, "I don't want this arm. It's my body, so my choice."
So you cannot have it both ways:
1) If the baby is an extension of the woman's body, then abortion is a form of mutilation.
2) If the baby is not an extension of the woman's body, then you cease to have a foundation for your argument.
|
|
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 20:18 |
Epignosis wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
My point is that I think the decision on the baby's right to live should be decided by each individual pair of parents *on whatever grounds they decide are relevant*. The mother and father should negotiate the options and ultimate fate of the developing life, but I also think it should ultimately come down to what the mother decides considering that the extreme physical changes and potentially profound emotional reactions of having a child are primarily experienced by the mother. |
My objection to your idea is that it rests on its inherent and unsatisfying relativism.
Can a mother and father decide to abort their child hours after birth? If not, why not? And since you specifically mentioned religious freedom: Suppose it's the religion of the parents to sacrifice their first-born to their god. Is that acceptable? If not, why not?
|
Well, when the child is no longer an extension of the mother's body, then the child is a separate human. "Aborting" it at that point should be considered murder, but of course then still have the option of sending the child to an orphanage or whatever.
|
So it would not be murder if one conjoined twin murdered the other?
"Extension of the mother's body" is an oversimplification. An unborn child has his or her own DNA. This means that child is a separate and unique individual, not a mere appendage.
On the other hand, no sane doctor would amputate a perfectly healthy woman's arm just because she said, "I don't want this arm. It's my body, so my choice."
So you cannot have it both ways:
1) If the baby is an extension of the woman's body, then abortion is a form of mutilation.
2) If the baby is not an extension of the woman's body, then you cease to have a foundation for your argument.
|
Wouldn't a conjoined twin killing the other affect the living twin's ability to live somehow? I'm also not a doctor.
People in the past have argued that getting piercings, tattoos, and getting a slit tongue are forms of mutilation, but are somehow okay in society. Considering this, one's own decision to have an abortion or arbitrarily have their own arm amputated should be okay. No doctor would amputate someone's arm just because the patient asks for it not because of sanity but because of the legal issues regarding arbitrarily amputating someone's arm (though sanity probably also has something to do with it). Also, having a doctor perform an amputation for any reason is much safer in a controlled medical environment rather than if someone decides to do it themselves, which could and often does result in death-- same with abortion.
|
|
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 20:22 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
Abortion is murder any way you slice it (bad choice of words intentional)
For those who say the woman has a right to choose.... what about the baby's right?
No human extermination should be legalised - If it is illegal for me to chop up a human being, why should it then be legal for a man in a white coat with a doctor's degree to carry out the same act?
|
Because they are professionals carrying out a task with the patient's consent.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 20:25 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
My point is that I think the decision on the baby's right to live should be decided by each individual pair of parents *on whatever grounds they decide are relevant*. The mother and father should negotiate the options and ultimate fate of the developing life, but I also think it should ultimately come down to what the mother decides considering that the extreme physical changes and potentially profound emotional reactions of having a child are primarily experienced by the mother. |
My objection to your idea is that it rests on its inherent and unsatisfying relativism.
Can a mother and father decide to abort their child hours after birth? If not, why not? And since you specifically mentioned religious freedom: Suppose it's the religion of the parents to sacrifice their first-born to their god. Is that acceptable? If not, why not?
|
Well, when the child is no longer an extension of the mother's body, then the child is a separate human. "Aborting" it at that point should be considered murder, but of course then still have the option of sending the child to an orphanage or whatever.
|
So it would not be murder if one conjoined twin murdered the other?
"Extension of the mother's body" is an oversimplification. An unborn child has his or her own DNA. This means that child is a separate and unique individual, not a mere appendage.
On the other hand, no sane doctor would amputate a perfectly healthy woman's arm just because she said, "I don't want this arm. It's my body, so my choice."
So you cannot have it both ways:
1) If the baby is an extension of the woman's body, then abortion is a form of mutilation.
2) If the baby is not an extension of the woman's body, then you cease to have a foundation for your argument.
|
Wouldn't a conjoined twin killing the other affect the living twin's ability to live somehow? I'm also not a doctor.
People in the past have argued that getting piercings, tattoos, and getting a slit tongue are forms of mutilation, but are somehow okay in society. Considering this, one's own decision to have an abortion or arbitrarily have their own arm amputated should be okay. No doctor would amputate someone's arm just because the patient asks for it not because of sanity but because of the legal issues regarding arbitrarily amputating someone's arm (though sanity probably also has something to do with it). Also, having a doctor perform an amputation for any reason is much safer in a controlled medical environment rather than if someone decides to do it themselves, which could and often does result in death-- same with abortion. |
Fair enough.
How sure are you that the mother isn't just an extension of the baby's body?
|
|
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 20:29 |
Epignosis wrote:
How sure are you that the mother isn't just an extension of the baby's body?
|
Not sure at all because I'm not a doctor, but it seems kind of obvious that the baby stems from the mother's body considering that the mother had been living prior to the child's conception and gives birth to the child. Also it seems kind of insane to say that the child grows the mother to form a fleshy walking shell that goes backwards in time.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: February 23 2012 at 20:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Abortion: Legal or Illegal
