The Abortion Debate (continued) (2 Viewers)

[black_kat_meow]

Yes. How dare one who usually slides towards the left side of things actually recognise the deficiencies of the pro-abortion point of view. how dare he evaluate the evidence and form an opinion based on that! how dare he challenge the almost untouchable status that women are developing in relation to this topic. how dare he challenge a womans right to murder!

stupid cunt

Um, it's not just this debate, reading the numerous threads you have contributed to paint a picture of a person I would rather not associate with, lol.

Plus, what's with the "how dares"? Omg, he's trying to scare 08'ers, what a brave, brave man.

Cough.

Also: dickhead.

Look, look, I can swear to try look cool and scary too, yay!

 

[Kwayera]

a) It is not the right of a parent to kill their child. I thought that Australia had progressed beyond infanticide. Apparently not?

b) There are no good reasons for killing an innocent human life.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but as a refresher,
- what about the cases of rape?
- what if carrying the foetus will kill the mother?

What is your arbitrary line in the sand then?

 

[katie tully]

Hahaha. Awful. At the very least you could have come up with an actual reason rather than drawing the arbitrary line in the dirt. How about 17 weeks? Is that ok? Why/why not? Because you say so huh?

Man, you're incredibly fucking stupid aren't you. You asked where I drew a line in the dirt, not anybody else. I only had to justify to what stage I support abortions.

For starters, until 18 weeks it's still hard to do many presumptive genetic tests. Foetal development is still early, so things like neural tube defects, Down Syndrome etc are harder to detect until the 18 week mark.
Secondly, it's entirely impossible for a foetus to survive being born at 18 weeks, even with medical intervention. I find once a foetus has a viable chance at life, the arguments for termination should be void. You've had 18 weeks of not viable foetus to terminate, so unless the genetic defect is severe, it shouldn't be allowed.

Also, it has been shown again and again that foetus's cannot feel pain until at, or after the 28 week stage. I think once you start getting closer to that 28 week period, as 24 weeks is, you're treading a thin line.

 

[ASNSWR127]

Um, it's not just this debate, reading the numerous threads you have contributed to paint a picture of a person I would rather not associate with, lol.

Plus, what's with the "how dares"? Omg, he's trying to scare 08'ers, what a brave, brave man.

Cough.

Also: dickhead.

Look, look, I can swear to try look cool and scary too, yay!

lol I think this neb' guy has a "issue" with thinking things through...

I have no problem with his points of view but maybe on such a sensitive topic he should show a little more maturity.

 

[katie tully]

This is an admirable sentiment imo. But it sets a dangerous precedent (much like abortion in general but nm that). Why exactly are we permitted to intervene and kill a human life if there's a guarantee that it will die later, or be in pain? Once again, where do we draw the non-arbitrary line in terms of that?

Should be up to the parents.

We put down our pets when they're in pain, why don't we do the same for humans?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Infanticide and abortion are two very different things.

How so?

You would propose that regardless of circumstance a baby should be born?

Unless a logical reason for allowing the murder (or if you don't like that word, 'killing') of humans in varying situations is found, then indeed, that's what I believe. I don't understand how it can be my view to decide whether or not another [innocent] should live or die. I don't understand how parents should have the right to decide when and how their child dies. As far as I'm concerned when the sperm touches the egg and the cycle begins, that's the ONLY non-arbitrary line that can be found, and terminating a life after is not permittable.

Should the mother be in danger if she has the baby, then there's a problem. I'd tend to side with the theory that Kwayera outlined in the other thread about biological 'worth', tbh.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but as a refresher,
- what about the cases of rape?
- what if carrying the foetus will kill the mother?

What is your arbitrary line in the sand then?

Detailed above, but I'd like to point out that I'm not the one who has an arbitrary line.

For starters, until 18 weeks it's still hard to do many presumptive genetic tests. Foetal development is still early, so things like neural tube defects, Down Syndrome etc are harder to detect until the 18 week mark.
Secondly, it's entirely impossible for a foetus to survive being born at 18 weeks, even with medical intervention. I find once a foetus has a viable chance at life, the arguments for termination should be void. You've had 18 weeks of not viable foetus to terminate, so unless the genetic defect is severe, it shouldn't be allowed.

Why should we preemptively terminate a life if it is unable to survive on its own? Also, why is it permissable to terminate a life it it is unable to survive on its own?

Also, it has been shown again and again that foetus's cannot feel pain until at, or after the 28 week stage. I think once you start getting closer to that 28 week period, as 24 weeks is, you're treading a thin line.

I don't like the idea that you can kill a human if it can't kill pain.

 

[Kwayera]

As far as I'm concerned when the sperm touches the egg and the cycle begins, that's the ONLY non-arbitrary line that can be found, and terminating a life after is not permittable.

That line is still arbitrary. The average woman will spontaneously abort something like half of the eggs that are fertilised - should she be prosecuted for negligence? Manslaughter?

What I don't understand is why you draw the line at conception and the sanctity of life. If you valued the sanctity of life, you'd be dead of starvation long ago; or, do you just value our species above all others? What is the basis of this, and where would you draw that line? Bonobos? Chimpanzees? Australopithicus?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Should be up to the parents.

We put down our pets when they're in pain, why don't we do the same for humans?

Why do parents have the choice over what happens to their children?

I'd like to establish guidelines for humans before we start using our treatment of animals as a guideline for the treatment of humans

That line is still arbitrary. The average woman will spontaneously abort something like half of the eggs that are fertilised - should she be prosecuted for negligence? Manslaughter?

So long as the decision to abort those fertilised eggs wasn't conscious nor based on negligence, then she should not be prosecuted or blamed at all. If I'm driving at the speed limit, go over a bump that I couldn't see, lose control and cause an oncoming car to go into a pole, I shouldn't be blamed. And indeed, I'm pretty sure it would be called an accident, which is exactly what the situation to described is: a non-negligent, non-conscious accident.

What I don't understand is why you draw the line at conception and the sanctity of life. If you valued the sanctity of life, you'd be dead of starvation long ago; or, do you just value our species above all others? What is the basis of this, and where would you draw that line? Bonobos? Chimpanzees? Australopithicus?

Of course I value my own species above others. Reasoning: Genetic predisposition to ensure survival of my own species. I don't think my valuing a random human over a random gibbon is too outlandish. Seems like a consistent human quality imo.

As for why I draw the line at conception, it's because that's the point where a life begins.

 

[ASNSWR127]

How so?



Unless a logical reason for allowing the murder (or if you don't like that word, 'killing') of humans in varying situations is found, then indeed, that's what I believe. I don't understand how it can be my view to decide whether or not another [innocent] should live or die. I don't understand how parents should have the right to decide when and how their child dies. As far as I'm concerned when the sperm touches the egg and the cycle begins, that's the ONLY non-arbitrary line that can be found, and terminating a life after is not permittable.

Should the mother be in danger if she has the baby, then there's a problem. I'd tend to side with the theory that Kwayera outlined in the other thread about biological 'worth', tbh.

Thank you for a more measured, mature and quite frankly more insightful post - it makes such a refreshing change.

Now as I say I have no problem with you having this point of view (and nothing i can say will change that) and I would welcome this debate in a different setting and context.

However the fact that we have differences on this sort of proves my point that one should NEVER legislate against this because peoples views on these things (whether it is killing or not) differ so much. For instance you would come back with the (vague and stupid) argument that I would support murder or something. This is not the case.

I simply don't equate these things as anywhere near on the same level.

I believe "Kfunk" came up with the anomaly that would explain our differing (and unresolvable) differences on this. 'moral relativism' (under the communism thread) - I think it explains it well.

 

[black_kat_meow]

As far as I'm concerned when the sperm touches the egg and the cycle begins, that's the ONLY non-arbitrary line that can be found, and terminating a life after is not permittable.

So you don't believe in the birth control pill then? It can stop a fertilised egg from implanting itself, essentially terminating it.

 

[katie tully]

Why should we preemptively terminate a life if it is unable to survive on its own? Also, why is it permissable to terminate a life it it is unable to survive on its own?

If you're suggesting we leave an unviable foetus to die in utero, you're insane.

Why isn't it permissable to terminate an unviable life? What would be more stressful to a mother. Terminating a pregnancy, or having a foetus die in utero? Why do you think an unviable life has more rights than that of the mother?

I don't like the idea that you can kill a human if it can't kill pain.

You're not killing it because it can't feel pain, stop twisting words. Certainly knowing that a foetus cannot feel pain eleviates guilt, but it's not the reason for the termination.

 

[katie tully]

Why do parents have the choice over what happens to their children?

I'd like to establish guidelines for humans before we start using our treatment of animals as a guideline for the treatment of humans

Why would you have guidelines for humans before animals?

As far as I'm concerned, there are guidelines for the two. And apparently we're willing to treat our dogs with a lot more respect.

Why shouldn't parents decide. The mother is ultimately carrying the foetus, how do you think the emotional health of the mother will stand knowing she is carrying a defective foetus? They're the ones that will be stuck with the foetus for it's short and possibly miserable life, why shouldn't they be able to take a preemptive step by terminating the pregnancy?

 

[ASNSWR127]

So you don't believe in the birth control pill then? It can stop a fertilised egg from implanting itself, essentially terminating it.

No I don't think that is his position - lets give him a little credit.

I think it has more to do with the "killing" of something.

Not so much prevention of a life

Correct me if i am wrong neb?

 

[Kwayera]

I'd like to establish guidelines for humans before we start using our treatment of animals as a guideline for the treatment of humans

But.. we are animals.

Why do we treat ourselves so differently? We're not that special.

 

[ASNSWR127]

But.. we are animals.

Why do we treat ourselves so differently? We're not that special.

That might be stretching it a little bit...

 

[katie tully]

That might be stretching it a little bit...

Not at all. Do you honestly think on a pure biological level, we're any different from animals?

 

[black_kat_meow]

No I don't think that is his position - lets give him a little credit.

I think it has more to do with the "killing" of something.

Not so much prevention of a life

Correct me if i am wrong neb?

No, by what he said it's essentially the same thing. On birth control, a woman is aware this can occur. How is that not termination?

It's not preventation if it is fertilised.

Neb, I'm just wondering?

 

[ASNSWR127]

Not at all. Do you honestly think on a pure biological level, we're any different from animals?

I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer that, that is where you have the advantage of me.

Sufficed to say there has been no other species on the planet that has managed to screw with nature as much as us (that must mean we are special!).

 

[Kwayera]

That might be stretching it a little bit...

Why? Genetically, we're the third species of chimpanzee (alongside Pan troglodytes and even closer to Pan paniscus).