What a ladies man lol.
Pro-Life without God
Posts
Total:
174
-->
@Uragirimono
This is demonstrably false. We already kill other humans is many socially acceptable ways and none of them are based on value. We don't execute prisoners because they're inherently less valuable than the rest of us. We don't go to war and bomb people because they're inherently of less value. We don't shoot people who break into our homes because they're of less value. Value does not determine who we're okay with killing in societal terms.
I'm anti-war and I don't support the death penalty, but you are wrong as to the reasons people are killed in these instances. When we go to war, we are of the view that we have equal or more value than our enemies, and that this is why killing them can be justified. Why do you think countries are interested in self-defense? Because they believe they don't have any value?
There wouldn't be any point in having an army or entering a war if you don't think that you have value that is equal to or more than the value of the enemy. When you kill in combat, you do it because you don't want to die, as you feel your life has value, and that your country has value.
Why would you do it if you are without that value?
When someone is convicted of comitting a serious crime or crimes, some people think that person's value is diminished and that their life should come to an unnatural end. I am strongly against the death penalty, but that is how they rationalize it.
I don't care if my choices are accepted. I care when my choices are made illegal by the opinions of others. Shun me, scold me, hate me for getting an abortion all you want, I don't care. Don't limit my rights by making laws based on your feelings and we'll be good. What if I thought having more than one kid was immoral? How would you feel if I tried to ban multi-child families?
People want to make this choice illegal *because* they don't accept it, so perhaps you should start caring. We make a lot of laws based on feelings...should we dispense with those because they limit the right of someone to do what they want? Abortion involves instristic harm to a human embryo or offspring (harm that can be avoided), which other people in society want to protect.
Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. Do you think marital rape should be legal? Do you think slavery should be legal? Do you think Christians should drag native children away from their families to re-education centers legally? All of these violations of bodily autonomy used to be legal and socially accepted, and then we grew as a people and said "no, you can't do that anymore." We've long accepted bodily autonomy is real and must be respected -- even you do so. You just exclude pregnant people from it, saying they must be legally required to forfeit their autonomy in favor of the unborn.
These are non-sequiturs. None of your examples involve the purposeful ending of another human life that is of no threat to the human life that it is presently attached to, beyond that person thinking they don't want it. You can't even really make an argument for the mental health of a woman who wants to abort her baby but isn't legally able to, as she can give it for adoption or just leave it in the hands of another person who does want it, after it is born. Pregnancy is a natural state of being, not an illness.
I will, however, provide you with a relevant example of when bodily autonomy is compromised:
Let's imagine that there are conjoined twins. One of them really wants to be separated and to live independently from their twin, but the other is prepared to tolerate being conjoined to their twin for the rest of their life, and is concerned about the medical outcomes that could result from this surgery.
They have been told by a doctor that they CAN separate them, but it is not without some significant risks. The former twin is desperate to go ahead with the surgery, but the latter twin is unwilling.
In this scenario, who should get their way?
You're assuming I agree with this. I agree with an individual's right to self harm and don't think suicide should be illegal. Counseling should be available and easily accessible for those who feel like they struggle with self-harm or suicidal thoughts, but it should not include involuntary confinement.
It's irrelevant whether you agree or disagree. Fundamentally, the rest of society agrees and that is what matters. The police, doctors, nurses, members of the public, etc. uphold that individuals shouldn't be able to harm their bodies, and that is of greater significance than your opinion.
In this country and many others, you are subject to involuntary confinement if you are a "danger to yourself or others."
This law and the commonly held views associated with it mean more to me than what Uragirimono from this obscure site on the internet thinks. 😆
Out of curiosity, though, wouldn't you say that involuntary confinement in a psychiatric facility is a way for people to access mental health care and counseling? If someone is intending to harm themselves or commit suicide, they probably aren't thinking of any potential counseling they can receive at a future date, and so the issue then has to be dealt with by using some degree of force. And that is what the police do.
-->
@TWS1405
I hope you have unprotected sex and get pregnant. Then come back and argue your same nonsensical drivel after you have an abortion because you are too young and financially ill-equipped to have a child for 18 years of your life.
I've already had two kids, fool.
-->
@Uragirimono
A right to life.When outside of pregnancy and birth does one's right to life trump another's right to bodily autonomy?
I've answered this.
Would you allow for the abortion of an unborn to be partially removed from the mother where head and torso is removed but umbilical chord remains attached?I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision.
Okay so the fact that you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.
Would you allow 9 month abortions?There's no such thing. Babies are born at 9 months.
Yes, but instead of letting the baby out, would you allow, at the mothers discretion, for doctors to pull the child half out, leaving their heads in, and penetrating it's chest with a pair of scissors (this is how 3rd trimester abortions can be done)?
Would you allow for the killing of babies who are tragically born with requirement of life support since they have no autonomy?I would allow the parents to make decisions for that child, including taking it off life support.
Well I disagree fundamentally. At what stage would you say that the child has autonomy and that they can have a say as to whether they are on life support.
We already do this -- give parents the medical authority over their children -- so again me "allowing" it is irrelevant.
Giving consent is different from signing off their death.
-->
@Bones
Giving consent is different from signing off their death
I would think Abortion, especially past the point of viability, should at least meet the same criteria as legalized euthanasia for kids.
Abortion on demand should necessarily allow for euthanasia on demand.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Shouldn't you be beating your wife.
-->
@Bones
Okay so the fact that you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.
How the hell did you get to this from my statement of "I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision. " Are you a doctor? Do you know the best methods of removal or are you regurgitating the nightmarish nonsense politicians use to manipulate us? At no point did your question say it was past 9 months development, so now you're just adding things to sensationalize the discussion and make yourself sound rational (and me insane by extension)
Yes, but instead of letting the baby out, would you allow, at the mothers discretion, for doctors to pull the child half out, leaving their heads in, and penetrating it's chest with a pair of scissors (this is how 3rd trimester abortions can be done)?
Is it dead or alive? If it's already dead I don't care how it comes out, again, I'd let the people with the medical knowledge make that decision.
If it's alive, it's just gonna be born. Literally no one does this to 9 month old fetuses that are compatible with life. Why in the world would a woman go through the life-changing effects of pregnancy just to off it the day before birth?
Well I disagree fundamentally. At what stage would you say that the child has autonomy and that they can have a say as to whether they are on life support.
I'm interested that you think the government or other parties should be able to make decisions about a born child. If you disagree fundamentally that the parents should be the ones making medical decisions for their children, who do you think should be making them?
Children becoming legally capable of making their own medical decisions at 18, just like they become able to legally make other decisions for themselves at 18.
Giving consent is different from signing off their death.
No, it's not. Parents make medical decisions for their children, including when "to pull the plug" if such a scenario rises. Just because you don't like the moral implications or struggles that come with that doesn't mean it's not happening.
-->
@ahiyah
There wouldn't be any point in having an army or entering a war if you don't think that you have value that is equal to or more than the value of the enemy.
We go to war over greed. The US didn't invade Iraq because we thought Americans were more valuable than Iraqis. We invaded because we wanted their oil. The humans living there were a side note. Judging someone's value requires acknowledging them, and we couldn't even do that.
You can't even really make an argument for the mental health of a woman who wants to abort her baby but isn't legally able to, as she can give it for adoption or just leave it in the hands of another person who does want it, after it is born.
So you think a woman saying "I do not want to go through pregnancy" is a sign of mental illness. Adoption does not prevent her from going through pregnancy. It is a solution to not wanting to parent, not a solution to not wanting to be pregnant.
In this scenario, who should get their way?
Your scenario doesn't answer my question. I said "Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another." There is no legal requirement in your conjoined twins example for one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. We've legalized that all pregnant people forgo their bodily autonomy for 9 months for the sake of the unborn. There's no law that says "conjoined twins have to stay together/separate."
Even in your example you have two people both capable of giving an opinion -- they can discuss and come to a rational decision like adults. Abortion doesn't match this, as we can't ask the child if it wants to live. It can't even want anything as it doesn't have the mental capacity to do that. So you're painting the wants/desires of a person (the woman) as equal to the nonexistent wants/desires of a fetus in this analogy.
This law and the commonly held views associated with it mean more to me than what Uragirimono from this obscure site on the internet thinks. 😆
Awesome, so given that most Americans think abortion should be legal, glad to hear you're supporting choice now. A year ago "the law and commonly held views" allowed abortion in America, and pro-lifers still overturned it. If commonly held views is what decides what's right, I hope you'll join the majority and fight to get abortion access reinstated across the country.
-->
@TWS1405
Cannot have empathy for that which does not even exist, yet.
But it does exist. You may not want to define it as a child, but it does exist.
In no world or society on this planet is a born child's rights more important than the adult's life.
Not in the least bit true. And you can test this. Try claiming self-defense when reciprocating against a child who has physically harmed you. I get your point, but your premise is lacking.
The adult contributes to society, a child does not.
Again, not the least bit true. Children do contribute. If you're speaking about submitting manual labor, then that would be the fault of the adult electorate and politicians who have enforced child labor laws.
Born human life (i.e., [a] human being/[a] person) does have value, a pregnancy does not until birth. A pregnancy is NOT "another human (being)".
An arbitrary division.
And since study after study has shown that unwanted children, those born to single parent homes, contribute greatly to the crime problem in human society, abortion reduces crime, among other social/cultural ailments.
This argument is such bullshit. Since you're all about the facts, I want a reference or argument from yourself that demonstrates causality. (No correlations.)
The black out of wedlock birth rate went from 20% to over 70% at the turn of the civil rights movement, which resulted in an exponential increase in criminality among black male youth leading to career adult criminals. Unwanted children, children that a single parent simply cannot care for, becomes society's problem that costs more than just money to deal with.
It started much earlier than that, especially at the end of World War II and Truman was in office.
-->
@Uragirimono
What is law if not a facilitator of moral economy?
-->
@Athias
Is this question in reference to something specific I said in this thread, or are you asking about the nature of law in general?
--> @IwantRooseveltagainPolytheist-Witch: I don't give two fucks about Donald Trump. What if I'm not an atheist I must want to suck Donald Trump's cock, fuck you, dick head
Are you upset that you are not an atheist which is why you want to suck Donald Trump's cock?
But that if you were an atheist you wouldn’t give two fucks to Donald Trump. Maybe just one!!
Why do you put so many conditions on yourself regarding Donald Trump?
-->
@Athias
@TWS1405Cannot have empathy for that which does not even exist, yet.But it does exist. You may not want to define it as a child, but it does exist.
It's not a child and it exists the same as a cancer tumor exists as well. We don't call the tumor a child, now do we!
In no world or society on this planet is a born child's rights more important than the adult's life.Not in the least bit true. And you can test this. Try claiming self-defense when reciprocating against a child who has physically harmed you. I get your point, but your premise is lacking.
You just took what I said out of context with an irrelevant example, and a really bad example at that.
The adult contributes to society, a child does not.Again, not the least bit true. Children do contribute. If you're speaking about submitting manual labor, then that would be the fault of the adult electorate and politicians who have enforced child labor laws.
It's absolutely 100% true. Again, you're taking what I said out of context with an irrelevant and really bad example. Children do not contribute to society until they mature to the age of adulthood. When they are educated and entering the workforce and interact with others and provide useful across a spectrum of ways, and not just employment.
Born human life (i.e., [a] human being/[a] person) does have value, a pregnancy does not until birth. A pregnancy is NOT "another human (being)".An arbitrary division.
Nope. Factual.
And since study after study has shown that unwanted children, those born to single parent homes, contribute greatly to the crime problem in human society, abortion reduces crime, among other social/cultural ailments.This argument is such bullshit. Since you're all about the facts, I want a reference or argument from yourself that demonstrates causality. (No correlations.)
Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far. Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1 percent a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction. The estimated coefficient on legalized abortion is actually larger in the latter period than it was in the initial dataset in almost all specifications. We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s.
This is a well-known study, but I guess less educated folk wouldn't know it.
The black out of wedlock birth rate went from 20% to over 70% at the turn of the civil rights movement, which resulted in an exponential increase in criminality among black male youth leading to career adult criminals. Unwanted children, children that a single parent simply cannot care for, becomes society's problem that costs more than just money to deal with.It started much earlier than that, especially at the end of World War II and Truman was in office.
Partially correct.
While it began to increase over time, slowly, it became consistent since the turn of the civil rights movement.
Still doesn't change the fact that children born without father's or positive male role models in their life have a drastically increased chance of criminality and ending up dead before 30yoa.
-->
@Uragirimono
We go to war over greed. The US didn't invade Iraq because we thought Americans were more valuable than Iraqis. We invaded because we wanted their oil. The humans living there were a side note. Judging someone's value requires acknowledging them, and we couldn't even do that.
You are missing the point entirely, lol. Greed is one reason we go to war, but to be able to do this you need to have an army that believes it has value and that they are fighting for a worthwhile cause. Value comes before the greed. If you think you don't have any value, you'll probably never become greedy.
One problem with people is that they often assign themselves too much value. This is certainly the case with women who think their need to not carry their offspring that will not harm them, is more important than the need of that offspring to live or the needs of other people who do not want to see it killed.
So you think a woman saying "I do not want to go through pregnancy" is a sign of mental illness. Adoption does not prevent her from going through pregnancy. It is a solution to not wanting to parent, not a solution to not wanting to be pregnant.
A solution to not wanting to get pregnant is to use birth control and/or use a condom. There are several highly effective forms of contraception to choose from, and they are all readily avaliable in most developed countries.
Using this contraception as advised, in addition to using condoms to be even more safe, will stop you from getting pregnant.
Henceforth, this issue of enduring a pregnancy you don't want need not be an issue, as it is *very* preventable.
Your scenario doesn't answer my question. I said "Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another." There is no legal requirement in your conjoined twins example for one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. We've legalized that all pregnant people forgo their bodily autonomy for 9 months for the sake of the unborn. There's no law that says "conjoined twins have to stay together/separate."
Yes it does, because it's an example of when there is conflict surrounding bodily autonomy involving two humans. You're arguing that an unborn offspring has no personhood, but it IS a member of the human race and IS a separate entity from the mother. If it wasn't separate, you wouldn't need to abort it when you don't want it.
Even in your example you have two people both capable of giving an opinion -- they can discuss and come to a rational decision like adults. Abortion doesn't match this, as we can't ask the child if it wants to live. It can't even want anything as it doesn't have the mental capacity to do that. So you're painting the wants/desires of a person (the woman) as equal to the nonexistent wants/desires of a fetus in this analogy.
They can discuss it, but if there is no agreement in the end, they have reached an impasse and if the former twin wants to pursue this separation, they can get a lawyer and try to take it to Court. This is when it becomes a legal matter, and when their bodily autonomy is called into question. Having the ability to talk about it doesn't mean they will reach a conclusion that they can both agree to.
Another problem here is that you clearly think that being able to verbalize is an integral part of personhood, which is very ignorant on your part. What if the latter twin was or became deaf? Or couldn't read or write? Have you considered that they may be disabled or have special needs? They wouldn't be able to have much of a rational discussion then.
Being disabled or having special needs would make it difficult for them to voice their view, and their twin may try to take advantage of that.
Does them having a mental disability or special needs make them less of a person because they can't verbalize or vocalize very well?
In the case of abortion, have you considered the father of that child and his needs? The baby is half of each parent so he should be allowed to have a say in whether his baby is born or not. That this baby grows inside the woman's body for nine months is irrelevant because it's part of him as well.
If the roles were reversed and men could get pregnant, would you ardently support them having abortions because of "my body, my choice", or would you believe that women should have a say in the matter?
I'm still amazed that you haven't realized that it's a body in your body, and that this is why many people have a problem with abortion. It's not just your needs that are important when you have another human body in you. Even an embryo or a very small fetus is its own "body."
Awesome, so given that most Americans think abortion should be legal, glad to hear you're supporting choice now. A year ago "the law and commonly held views" allowed abortion in America, and pro-lifers still overturned it. If commonly held views is what decides what's right, I hope you'll join the majority and fight to get abortion access reinstated across the country.
"Most" in this context seems excessive when you consider that it's only around 60% of Americans who, as of this year, say they support abortion. If there was such unanimous support for this practice, Roe v. Wade wouldn't have been overturned.
-->
@ahiyah
This is certainly the case with women who think their need to not carry their offspring that will not harm them,
So if I say "being pregnant and giving birth will cause me harm" and you say "no it won't" I'm supposed to listen to you because I am mentally ill. You have a very low opinion of women.
Regardless, pro-choice women aren't asking for a perfect world with no regrets or no harm. We're asking for the freedom to make our own choices so that if there is regret, it will be regret we chose. I'd rather terminate a pregnancy of my own volition and regret it later than be forced to give birth and regret it later.
Using this contraception as advised, in addition to using condoms to be even more safe, will stop you from getting pregnant.
Right, of course. There's never in the history of humanity been a pregnancy conceived while contraceptives were in use. Silly me, I guess I'll go tell those kids I know that they can't exist because Mommy was on the pill and Daddy used a condom.
Contraceptives fail all the time, even when used correctly. Stick to reality, not wishful thinking.
If it wasn't separate, you wouldn't need to abort it when you don't want it.
If it's separate, then by definition it can go away. "Separate entities" exist in two different places at once. Try taking a fetus out of a woman and putting it in the next room if it's so separate. If it dies without me, it's not separate from me. This is simple logic.
If the roles were reversed and men could get pregnant, would you ardently support them having abortions because of "my body, my choice", or would you believe that women should have a say in the matter?
Yes, of course. If men were the sex that have to use their bodies to grow new life then I would say men should have the choice to get abortions or not. The parent, whether man or woman, that is not carrying the child inside of them doesn't get to tell the carrying parent what to do. They don't own the child simply because they share DNA, and the person carrying the pregnancy owes them nothing in terms of providing them with a baby.
I'm still amazed that you haven't realized that it's a body in your body, and that this is why many people have a problem with abortion. It's not just your needs that are important when you have another human body in you. Even an embryo or a very small fetus is its own "body."
I know it's a body. I have never said it is not a body. I have said it is a human body more than once and like every other human body on the planet it is not entitled to the use of my body if I do not consent to it. People can have all the problems they want, but unless it's their body in question, their "problems" should not be used to make decisions.
Being disabled or having special needs would make it difficult for them to voice their view, and their twin may try to take advantage of that.
Tred carefully here. You're very casual in using groups to which you don't belong to prove your point. If I told you I was disabled, would you casually throw my demographic in our conversation?
Disabled people can communicate. Maybe not the way we want or expect them too, but certainly moreso than a fetus. It's rather heartless of you to suggest disabled people can't communicate more than an embryo can.
"Most" in this context seems excessive when you consider that it's only around 60% of Americans who, as of this year, say they support abortion. If there was such unanimous support for this practice, Roe v. Wade wouldn't have been overturned.
60% is "most" by every definition of the word. Roe was overturned by a handful of people that the average American had no influence over and did not reflect current popular attitudes. I guarantee if we put it up to a national vote, the majority of Americans would vote for it to be legal.
-->
@ahiyah
Also as an addendum, I invite you to look at this case of separating conjoined twins.
I'd like to highlight this part in particular
"The ethics committee ultimately concluded that a decision to proceed with surgery was ethically supported and preferable to not performing the surgery. Given the emotional weight of the decision and the conflicting views, though, we believed that the operation should not be required. This meant it came down to the family’s wishes and the surgical team’s willingness."
So, despite risks to the children up to and including death, the doctors deferred to the family's wishes. They told the family one twin would likely die, the family opted to go ahead with the surgery, and the predicted twin died. The parents consented to and asked for the procedure that killed one twin.
The article goes on to say the living twin grew healthy and happy. "I asked her parents if they had any regrets. Absolutely not, they said. They felt like they had been in the best hands for the worst situation."
So, the bodily autonomy of two children was affected, the parents made a decision, and that decision resulted in the death of one child. No one was prosecuted for a crime. We already allow parents to make difficult medical decisions for their children, even when death is a risk. All pro-choicers want is that same consideration. Let me make my decisions for my family, with the input from medical professionals if needed, and stay out of my business. Difficult decisions often have to be made when reproduction is involved. We just want to be free to make them.
If the parents of two conjoined children can decide to risk the death of one twin for the health of the other, then I can decide to risk the death of a fetus for my own health.
-->
@Uragirimono
Is this question in reference to something specific I said in this thread, or are you asking about the nature of law in general?
You:
I do agree abortion is a moral issue but it's also a legal one.
-->
@TWS1405
It's not a child
By definition.
it exists the same as a cancer tumor exists as well. We don't call the tumor a child, now do we!
Except a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a cancer tumor by definition. If you're going to maintain the lexical integrity of your applied terms, then don't undermine others at your convenience.
You just took what I said out of context
No, I didn't.
with an irrelevant example, and a really bad example at that.
Not irrelevant. Your point was that children's rights were not deemed as "more important" than an adult's in any society; this is categorically false given that children are individuals who are afforded "the right" to conscript adults into their service.
It's absolutely 100% true. Again, you're taking what I said out of context with an irrelevant and really bad example. Children do not contribute to society until they mature to the age of adulthood. When they are educated and entering the workforce and interact with others and provide useful across a spectrum of ways, and not just employment.
It's absolutely 100% nonsense. Children not only contribute in their own homes, but outside of it as well, whether it be in charitable efforts, in their exploitation through candy rackets, the arts, entertainment, etc. The fact that children can't legally enter the labor force is, as the qualifier suggests, a design of law, not incapacity. YOUR POINT IS UTTER FUDGING NONSENSE!
Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far. Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1 percent a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction. The estimated coefficient on legalized abortion is actually larger in the latter period than it was in the initial dataset in almost all specifications. We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s.This is a well-known study, but I guess less educated folk wouldn't know it.
Even a person as "less educated" as myself can determine that this "study" is nothing more than a cum hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. (The only control it offers to its estimated correlations is police staff hiring in the States with lower abortion rates.) Perhaps my meager education has taught me to read past the abstract. And I said, no correlations. I want an explicit demonstration of causality.
Partially correct.
No, correct. It started with the social programs delineated in the New Deal, which was later exacerbated by Truman's Fair Deal programs. Don't get me wrong, the Civil Rights Movement didn't help, but it started long before then.
I am against abortion.
If you destroy fetuses, you destroy humans.
Future of humanity depends upon survival of fetuses.
Now, of course someone could say: "humanity doesnt deserve to survive".
They would be 100% right in saying that.
So in that sense, abortion can be justified as a way to destroy humanity.
Best.Korea: I am against abortion.If you destroy fetuses, you destroy humans.Future of humanity depends upon survival of fetuses.Now, of course someone could say: "humanity doesnt deserve to survive".They would be 100% right in saying that.So in that sense, abortion can be justified as a way to destroy humanity.
Wouldn’t it be more efficient to destroy the couples who make babies?
Dear Shila,
Forced sterilization is also one of solutions. I think it can be done through vaccines.
Best.Korea: Dear Shila,Forced sterilization is also one of solutions. I think it can be done through vaccines
Even China could not create such a vaccine. Or the one child per family would have been painless.
Dear Shila,
Our government could invest into developing such a vaccine as top priority, then mask it as a new flu shot.
If 90% of children receive such vaccine, it will reduce total reproduction by 90%.
It wont kill all humans, but it will help.
Nuclear war would also be a positive solution. But they also have to kill the fish too so the fish doesnt evolve into new humans.
-->
@Uragirimono
Okay so the fact that you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.How the hell did you get to this from my statement of "I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision. "Would you allow for the abortion of an unborn to be partially removed from the mother where head and torso is removed but umbilical chord remains attached?I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure?
Okay I didn't think I had to step you through this. So then you support the doctor, if they chose chose, Dilation and Extraction, a variant of dilation and evacuation (D&E) whereby the aborted fetus is delivered intact instead of in pieces. Politically, it is known as partial-birth abortion. To provide further context, if the baby is delivered feet first, the head is crushed with forceps or pierced with scissors (allowing the brain to be suctioned out by vacuum aspiration). If the baby is delivered head first, scissors are used to pierce the top of the head as soon as it appears at the cervical opening. To position the baby in a D&X abortion, the NAF recommends using Hern forceps. They have "fewer and smaller teeth"–which are "especially useful when traction or rotation of an intact fetus is desired (instead of dismemberment)." Hence me saying, quite accurately, you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.
Yes, but instead of letting the baby out, would you allow, at the mothers discretion, for doctors to pull the child half out, leaving their heads in, and penetrating it's chest with a pair of scissors (this is how 3rd trimester abortions can be done)?If it's alive, it's just gonna be born.
It would be born, but under the pro-choice position, you would forbid that (just as how you forbid 24 week unborns to be killed) and instead let it be aborted, correct? It's a simple yes or no. If the above circumstance is given to you, and the unborn is perfectly healthy but the mother does not want to go through with the very painful pregnancy, would you allow the doctor to pull the child half way out and dismember its chest?
Well I disagree fundamentally. At what stage would you say that the child has autonomy and that they can have a say as to whether they are on life support.I'm interested that you think the government or other parties should be able to make decisions about a born child. If you disagree fundamentally that the parents should be the ones making medical decisions for their children, who do you think should be making them?
Well I would assume that children should have a choice about whether they ought to be murdered. At least if I were a child I would want some autonomy over such a decision.
Giving consent is different from signing off their death.No, it's not. Parents make medical decisions for their children, including when "to pull the plug" if such a scenario rises. Just because you don't like the moral implications or struggles that come with that doesn't mean it's not happening.
Well now you are creating a wholly different situation to the one being discussed. I am talking about perfectly healthy unborn children and you are comparing it to those who are in the situation where they could have a plug pulled, implying they are probably comatose.
Best.Korea: Dear Shila,Our government could invest into developing such a vaccine as top priority, then mask it as a new flu shot.If 90% of children receive such vaccine, it will reduce total reproduction by 90%.
It’s not the children that reproduce. It’s the adult couples and parents that create children. They will continue to reproduce even if their children are vaccinated. You don’t understand human reproduction.
It wont kill all humans, but it will help.
Killing all humans would defeat the purpose of your vaccine.
Nuclear war would also be a positive solution. But they also have to kill the fish too so the fish doesnt evolve into new humans.
Killing fish with nuclear war will contaminate the water and make it unfit for humans.
You don’t have very good solutions.
Have you considered going back to your Korean roots and living in isolation?
Because this thread is asking for secular pro-life arguments, I tend to argue that it is contradictory to deny human rights to the unborn unless human rights mean something other than human rights. Escaping that picture, I have simply not heard a good argument for abortion that did not lead to certain conclusions that most people would see as horrific. With or without God, the pro life position seems to be the most reasonable.
Now, in the other thread, I was looking for something that may as well move me off this, but whether it was a stream of insults, or generally incoherent statements, I failed to see the good argument for the pro-choice view. I don't care much about the politics of it by the way, its ethics seem the most important fundamentally.
In summation: I think being pro choice is silly.
Dear Shila,
If a nuclear war killed all humanity and everyone died, there would be no more pain in the world. Then we could say that everything is fine.
But if the stupid fish is gonna come out of water and evolve again, we will have pain again.
So the fish is the enemy.
Our government could build special rockets that target fish. Maybe some poison too.
You want to insult me, call me stupid...ect.
I dont mind. Jesus was called stupid too. They hated him. And he was nailed. And stabbed a few times.
But he won. It says so in the Bible.
Novice_II: Because this thread is asking for secular pro-life arguments, I tend to argue that it is contradictory to deny human rights to the unborn unless human rights mean something other than human rights. Escaping that picture, I have simply not heard a good argument for abortion that did not lead to certain conclusions that most people would see as horrific. With or without God, the pro life position seems to be the most reasonable.
You forget women that have abortions can and many do have children when their circumstances change for the better. Abortion is a choice and not permanent.
On the other hand many pro-Lifers cannot have children.
Most of the women in america have 1.7 children.
-->
@Uragirimono
So if I say "being pregnant and giving birth will cause me harm" and you say "no it won't" I'm supposed to listen to you because I am mentally ill. You have a very low opinion of women.
I am a woman, and can say with certainty that I do not have a low opinion of other members of the female sex. In cases of abortion and all other matters pertaining to children, I always side with the child (the child comes first), but that does not mean I can't empathize with women.
It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body and you do not have to keep your child if you don't want it. If you think pregnancy causes harm to women, you should ask yourself why the planet is so vastly populated and how humankind has made it this far.
Regardless, pro-choice women aren't asking for a perfect world with no regrets or no harm. We're asking for the freedom to make our own choices so that if there is regret, it will be regret we chose. I'd rather terminate a pregnancy of my own volition and regret it later than be forced to give birth and regret it later.
This is one of the most asinine comments I've ever read.
Do you actually believe what you're writing?
Right, of course. There's never in the history of humanity been a pregnancy conceived while contraceptives were in use. Silly me, I guess I'll go tell those kids I know that they can't exist because Mommy was on the pill and Daddy used a condom.Contraceptives fail all the time, even when used correctly. Stick to reality, not wishful thinking.
Again, I wonder if you really believe this because it is one stupid view to hold. Contraceptives are said to be more than 99% effective when used correctly, and most of us know that.
I don't want to speculate on this too much, but has it ever occurred to you that some of the women who have said they were using contraception at the time of conception may not have been telling the truth? After all, it's embarrassing to say that you're having an abortion after you did nothing to avoid pregnancy.
The chances of getting pregnant when using a contraceptive method like the injection, with your male partner also wearing a condom, are extremely slim.
If it's separate, then by definition it can go away. "Separate entities" exist in two different places at once. Try taking a fetus out of a woman and putting it in the next room if it's so separate. If it dies without me, it's not separate from me. This is simple logic.
It "goes away" when you carry it to the point of birth, which is how nature intends it to be. A fetus dying without you does not make it a part of you.
I know it's a body. I have never said it is not a body. I have said it is a human body more than once and like every other human body on the planet it is not entitled to the use of my body if I do not consent to it. People can have all the problems they want, but unless it's their body in question, their "problems" should not be used to make decisions.
Except you consent to the act that you know can lead to an unwanted pregnancy if you don't use contraception, or don't use it properly if you do.
Tred carefully here. You're very casual in using groups to which you don't belong to prove your point. If I told you I was disabled, would you casually throw my demographic in our conversation?
How do you know I don't belong to this group?
Disabled people can communicate. Maybe not the way we want or expect them too, but certainly moreso than a fetus. It's rather heartless of you to suggest disabled people can't communicate more than an embryo can.
A disabled person's ability to communicate depends on their disability and how this affects them. There are a wide range of disabilities a person can be afflicted with, you know.
Perhaps, we could further consider the scenario where the conjoined twin in question is unable to talk AND write, but is otherwise living a functional life and is accepting their situation as best they can, bearing in mind they are also permanently attached to their twin. In a world where sign language might not exist OR if they simply can't, don't, or won't learn it, how can they communicate their desire to not be separated?
60% is "most" by every definition of the word. Roe was overturned by a handful of people that the average American had no influence over and did not reflect current popular attitudes. I guarantee if we put it up to a national vote, the majority of Americans would vote for it to be legal.
I never said it wasn't "most", I commented that support wasn't unanimous. You should be able to admit that abortion is a highly controversial topic, and that 40% is not a negligible number. You are trying to diminish the overturning of Roe v. Wade and its appeal to many Americans, but you've failed. That states have acted on Roe v. Wade no longer being in existence by changing their abortion laws *with* support from people living in those states, shows how the alteration is very popular to a lot of concerned parties.
In Europe, the U.S is considered as being a nation where the population is truly divided on the matter of abortion, to the extent that it is acknowledged that significant numbers of people are highly likely to be against abortion. Depending on certain trends, perhaps the number of people against abortion will rise to 50%.
What will you say then, oh person who thinks that a consensus around suicide prevention can be compared to the (lack of) consensus around abortion?
With regard to your response concerning a case of conjoined twins, I think you are misunderstanding or misrepresentating my argument again.
A secondary issue is that it refers to children only, whereas I would like to know what you think of a conjoined twin who is an adult not giving their consent to a surgical separation. As previously stated, they could be disabled or unable to talk/write for whatever reason, but know that they do not want to undergo surgery and be separated.
In addition, you need to understand that the example of the 22 month old coinjoined twins who were separated is speaking from a perspective where there is a desire to "save", not end, a life. These parents want to save at least one child so they can look after it, and so are prepared to lose one to save the other one. If you don't know why, let me tell you that it is because they value that child's life. It's the one child who they can save and have future happiness with.
Most fundamentally, they are putting their child, not themselves, first.