Notings of Attention™
Acmlmboard 2 Released
Github/GIT | @acmlmboard | IRC: #abdev
Chatting Places
IRC: #kafuka | Discord | Mastodon

Affiliates
Super Mario Bros. X | Kuribo64
Views: 7,215,947
Main | FAQ | IRC chat | Memberlist | Active users | Latest posts | Stats | Ranks | Online users | Search
07-27-21 01:56 PM
Guest: Register | Login

0 users currently in The Officer's Club | 1 bot

Main - The Officer's Club - Abortion?
Next newer thread | Next older thread

Pages: 1 2 3

KP
Posted on 02-12-15 05:17 AM Link | ID: 81774
Retired Staff
NES Game Aficionado
Level: 70


Posts: 1181/1354
EXP: 2945186
Next: 70625

Since: 01-02-12

Last post: 967 days
Last view: 475 days
Posted by Squiddy
Posted by CherryBunny
It does, but a low mood can make it hard to identify.

Well, I guess so then.

Also, a problem in society is abortion. Abortion is the murder of an unborn human. Abortion violates human rights yet for some reason it is legal. And no, anti-abortion is not fascism if it is about human rights. In this thread, I do not see how making abortion illegal is bad. I mean think of it, what if you were aborted? See my point? Abortion is murder. This is coming from me, a woman. I would never have an abortion because I would be murdering my unborn child.
I don't think it should be illegal. There are some medical situations where it becomes a necessity to perform an abortion. For example, the LDS church is not pro-abortion; quite the opposite. Except, it does believe that an abortion is necessary when, among other reasons, the mother is not expected to live.



ek_0
Posted on 02-12-15 09:18 AM Link | ID: 81775
Normal User

Purple Leever

Level: 30


Posts: 187/213
EXP: 154148
Next: 11721

Since: 11-02-14
From: Earth

Last post: 2164 days
Last view: 2090 days
Okay I'm going to make one point and leave it there as I don't want to offend anyone, Sometimes in very specific cases where the mother's health is concerned, It is considered the lesser of two evils. That is all I am going to say on this. This is my opinion based on what I was taught in the last year of my time at Secondary School (High School for Americans)

Squiddy
Posted on 02-12-15 11:31 AM Link | ID: 81776
Banned
Unspecificed Cooling Off Period. Be Safe
Bisexual Empress of the Stolen Title?
Level: 136


Posts: 5505/6751
EXP: 30037570
Next: 59345

Since: 07-17-13

Last post: 2204 days
Last view: 2111 days
When an abortion is necessary such as an ectopic pregnancy or cancerous uterus, then sure. But abortion on demand such as "I want to be pregnant" and then "I don't want to be pregant anymore" or "my boyfriend is forcing me to get an abortion", yeah no. And if your boyfriend is forcing you to get an abortion, then just beat the shit out of him because he's a misogynist who sees you as an object. Ugh, I hate it when men are like that. Those type of men think they can force us women to do anything they want us to do. >_<

____________________
Sunshine Realm
Welcome to Aqmlm's, the only board with Al-Aq'mlmistrators!

Nicole
Posted on 02-12-15 01:53 PM Link | ID: 81779
Administrator
Goddess of the Apocalypse
Level: 191


Posts: 8478/13967
EXP: 97550594
Next: 523499

Since: 01-03-12
From: Boston, MA

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 3 days
8478 3492 70
I don't consider the fetus to be an independent human life before birth, so it is my opinion that abortion for any reason, including inconvenience, sex selection, or others are permissible. I use birth as the cutoff because that's the clearest medically-defined point; I consider late-term abortions a matter of the woman's conscience.

This is difficult to debate for me, however, because it naturally flows from a principle, and disagreeing about principles is difficult. That being said, I do agree with Squiddy that any man who forces a woman to get a medical procedure done she doesn't want is despicable.


Epele
Posted on 02-12-15 02:04 PM Link | ID: 81780
Site Administrator
The Sorceress.
Boing~

Level: 227


Posts: 13403/20768
EXP: 176927289
Next: 2039301

Since: 01-01-12
From: UK

Last post: 122 days
Last view: 2 hours
There's only some times I see it as good. For reasons like, too ignorant to use contraceptive measures.. that's just wrong. Likewise for the man trying to force the woman scenario. That's several levels of wrong.

For medically defined reasons, such as complications for either mother or baby. Then that's fine. Likewise, if the mother's pregnancy was the consequence of something like rape. That could have a lasting impression on the victim in that case, so that one's more just.


The world could always use more heroes!

Squiddy
Posted on 02-12-15 09:12 PM (rev. 2 of 02-12-15 09:13 PM by Squiddy) Link | ID: 81783
Banned
Unspecificed Cooling Off Period. Be Safe
Bisexual Empress of the Stolen Title?
Level: 136


Posts: 5506/6751
EXP: 30037570
Next: 59345

Since: 07-17-13

Last post: 2204 days
Last view: 2111 days
Posted by Nicole
I don't consider the fetus to be an independent human life before birth, so it is my opinion that abortion for any reason, including inconvenience, sex selection, or others are permissible. I use birth as the cutoff because that's the clearest medically-defined point; I consider late-term abortions a matter of the woman's conscience.


If the fetus is not alive then why are the cells alive? I mean, of course the fetus is a living person. So abortion on demand is still murder and is still a crime a against humanity.

____________________
Sunshine Realm
Welcome to Aqmlm's, the only board with Al-Aq'mlmistrators!

Arisotura
Posted on 02-12-15 09:37 PM Link | ID: 81787
Developer
pancakes
Level: 80


Posts: 668/1867
EXP: 4766339
Next: 16630

Since: 01-05-12
From: France

Last post: 20 days
Last view: 19 days
In my opinion, abortion is still far better than putting your baby in the freezer or getting rid of it by the dumpster.

____________________
Kuribo64 - melonDS

want some revolution in your coffee?

Squiddy
Posted on 02-12-15 09:38 PM (rev. 2 of 02-12-15 09:40 PM by Squiddy) Link | ID: 81789
Banned
Unspecificed Cooling Off Period. Be Safe
Bisexual Empress of the Stolen Title?
Level: 136


Posts: 5511/6751
EXP: 30037570
Next: 59345

Since: 07-17-13

Last post: 2204 days
Last view: 2111 days
Putting your baby up for adoption is always an option, though. So there is no excuse for abortion on demand.

____________________
Sunshine Realm
Welcome to Aqmlm's, the only board with Al-Aq'mlmistrators!

Arisotura
Posted on 02-12-15 09:40 PM Link | ID: 81790
Developer
pancakes
Level: 80


Posts: 669/1867
EXP: 4766339
Next: 16630

Since: 01-05-12
From: France

Last post: 20 days
Last view: 19 days
Oh, yeah. Forcing the woman to go through abortion is another bowl of shit. I find that to be shameful practices.

____________________
Kuribo64 - melonDS

want some revolution in your coffee?

Nicole
Posted on 02-12-15 09:43 PM Link | ID: 81791
Administrator
Goddess of the Apocalypse
Level: 191


Posts: 8479/13967
EXP: 97550594
Next: 523499

Since: 01-03-12
From: Boston, MA

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 3 days
8479 3492 70
Posted by Squiddy
If the fetus is not alive then why are the cells alive?

Lots of cells are alive and we don't worry much about killing them... Also interestingly, there was a recent study that showed that women who had been pregnant have cells living inside of them with the same DNA as the children they've had, as those cells ended up separating from the fetus and joining the mother. But that's really more of an aside.
Posted by Squiddy
I mean, of course the fetus is a living person. So abortion on demand is still murder and is still a crime a against humanity.

This is why I find this topic difficult to discuss- you say "of course" because that idea is obvious to you. But to me the opposite is clear. So how can we discuss this? All we can do is talk over each other.


Squiddy
Posted on 02-12-15 09:45 PM (rev. 2 of 02-12-15 09:46 PM by Squiddy) Link | ID: 81794
Banned
Unspecificed Cooling Off Period. Be Safe
Bisexual Empress of the Stolen Title?
Level: 136


Posts: 5512/6751
EXP: 30037570
Next: 59345

Since: 07-17-13

Last post: 2204 days
Last view: 2111 days
But a fetus is what will be born as a human, just like a child will become an adult. Are children considered to be unhuman? No. To prevent a human from being born by killing the fetus is murder.

____________________
Sunshine Realm
Welcome to Aqmlm's, the only board with Al-Aq'mlmistrators!

Nicole
Posted on 02-12-15 09:56 PM Link | ID: 81796
Administrator
Goddess of the Apocalypse
Level: 191


Posts: 8482/13967
EXP: 97550594
Next: 523499

Since: 01-03-12
From: Boston, MA

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 3 days
8482 3492 70
Posted by Squiddy
But a fetus is what will be born as a human, just like a child will become an adult. Are children considered to be unhuman? No. To prevent a human from being born by killing the fetus is murder.

Before the point of conception no one worries about saving a potential life. After birth, it is clearly obvious that killing is wrong. These are as far as I can tell the firm facts of the matter; anything in-between is interpretation.


Squiddy
Posted on 02-12-15 09:57 PM Link | ID: 81797
Banned
Unspecificed Cooling Off Period. Be Safe
Bisexual Empress of the Stolen Title?
Level: 136


Posts: 5513/6751
EXP: 30037570
Next: 59345

Since: 07-17-13

Last post: 2204 days
Last view: 2111 days
The "firm facts" are that potential life is in the womb and that all humans, even unborn humans, have dignity.

____________________
Sunshine Realm
Welcome to Aqmlm's, the only board with Al-Aq'mlmistrators!

KP
Posted on 02-12-15 11:35 PM Link | ID: 81804
Retired Staff
NES Game Aficionado
Level: 70


Posts: 1182/1354
EXP: 2945186
Next: 70625

Since: 01-02-12

Last post: 967 days
Last view: 475 days
Posted by StapleButter
In my opinion, abortion is still far better than putting your baby in the freezer or getting rid of it by the dumpster.
In the most basic of logic, yes, abortion is better. But, there are places where you can give up a baby no questions asked. No paperwork, no fear of discipline. Most hospitals have a place to just drop babies off if they're unwanted.

Also, potential life is a really screwy thing to deal with. And it really shouldn't be. If one can reasonably expect that no serious ill should come to the child or the mother, then the child should be carried and birthed. Doesn't matter how far along the fetus is. Then you deal with finding a home for the unwanted child.

Potential life isn't about defining when a fetus becomes an "independent being", it's about what that fetus could grow up to be. Hell, one of you very well might not exist because someone decided that you're an inconvenience to their lives. Weren't all of you a fetus at one point? But instead, you're alive, because you've been lucky enough to not have a closed-minded individual decide your fate for you.

Again, all of this is said barring reasonable medical concern or availability.



Kironide
Posted on 02-13-15 01:24 AM (rev. 3 of 02-13-15 01:35 AM by Kironide) Link | ID: 81810
Normal User

Paragoomba

Level: 20


Posts: 70/77
EXP: 39913
Next: 2526

Since: 01-07-12

Last post: 2255 days
Last view: 2128 days
Arguments against abortion based on potential are fundamentally misled. (Well, that is indeed just my opinion, but I will attempt to justify it.) For one, they apply an extreme amount of reductionist logic. Taking the reasoning one step further, are males committing acts of mass murder when they masturbate, because of the potential of every sperm? What about when, after ovulation, unfertilized eggs are reabsorbed into the body or discharged via menstruation? The obvious counterargument here is that sperm and eggs do not have the capability to develop into a full human by themselves--but neither do fetuses, which are, at least for a period of multiple months, entirely dependent upon the mother's body and incapable of growing outside the womb. An argument based on potential, taken a little bit further, implies that we are morally impelled to harvest sperm and eggs from men and women and combine them as efficiently as possible, and then to incubate these fertilized cells in as many women as possible so as to minimize the number of potential lives lost. But this moral imperative is clearly absurd, which demonstrates the weakness of such an argument.

An argument based on potential life also presupposes that human life, regardless of the nature, form, or manifestation of said life, possesses overwhelming unique and intrinsic moral value. It is easy to look back and say, as KP9000 did,


Hell, one of you very well might not exist because someone decided that you're an inconvenience to their lives. Weren't all of you a fetus at one point


But we are speaking from a position of privileged knowledge. It is natural, of course, that we value our own lives. However, before a fetus is actually born and before the child matures, it is impossible to precisely determine the course of the child's life, obviously because we are not capable of knowing how the future unfolds. It is easy to see that the argument that the potential of life must be protected is made from a position where we have little to no information about what this potential actually is, and hence, as I have noted, presupposes that bringing new life into the world is intrinsically morally good. But is this an assumption that we are willing to make? Do note that, conventionally, we value the preservation of existing life (e.g. through laws and taboos against murder), but this is very different from valuing the act of creating life. KP9000 writes,


But, there are places where you can give up a baby no questions asked. No paperwork, no fear of discipline. Most hospitals have a place to just drop babies off if they're unwanted.


But do we pay no regard to the quality of a child's life, particularly one that is sent off to live in a foster home or an orphanage? Statistically, children who are abandoned at birth end up unhappier and with poorer outcomes in life than children that are kept by their parents. Are we willing to potentially condemn a child to a life of unhappiness and inferiority? What about the effects of overpopulation and the decline in the quality of life of already existing humans that will occur as the result of an additional birth--do the rights of a child that is not yet born supersede the lives of people who have memories, experiences, and desires right now?

I do not presume to give answers to these questions. They are difficult topics. However, it is important to note that you cannot apply an argument based on potential without also thinking deeply about the answers to these questions, hidden as they may be underneath the sophistry of an emotional argument.

--

In truth, the debate about abortion is about two different and separate questions--questions which are often confused.

First, what is the point between conception and birth at which we recognize the fetus to be morally equivalent to a living, grown human? That is, at what point does it acquire the rights which we take to be naturally granted to all mankind?

Second, supposing that we have passed the point at which the fetus is recognized to possess the natural rights of every human, how do we balance the rights of the fetus against the rights of other people (primarily the mother, secondarily the father, and peripherally the rest of mankind)?

--

I'll begin by replying to some of the other posts in this thread.


I don't consider the fetus to be an independent human life before birth, so it is my opinion that abortion for any reason, including inconvenience, sex selection, or others are permissible. I use birth as the cutoff because that's the clearest medically-defined point; I consider late-term abortions a matter of the woman's conscience.


I find myself unconvinced that birth is an appropriate cutoff point. As you write later in the thread,


Before the point of conception no one worries about saving a potential life. After birth, it is clearly obvious that killing is wrong. These are as far as I can tell the firm facts of the matter; anything in-between is interpretation.


On these points, I certainly agree. But when we 'interpret' the 'in-between' part--that is, when we try to come up with an answer to the first question I have posed above--should we not aim on the side of caution? It seems to me that setting the cutoff point a little too early is more morally preferable to setting it a little too late. Indeed, consider the case of a premature birth--in many such cases, we have the technology required to save the life of the fetus (e.g. incubators in hospitals). That is, at some point in time before birth, we are fully capable of extracting the fetus and sustaining it to independence with our current level of technology. Also, in such cases, it's fairly clear that the fetus has developed a conscious mind, that is, it is capable of sapient thought and awareness on some level. In these cases, it would not seem particularly reasonable to me to permit an abortion.

(My personal preference for a reasonable cutoff point is the end of the first trimester.)



I consider late-term abortions a matter of the woman's conscience.


I'm afraid this doesn't immediately make sense to me. Is it not also a matter of the doctor's conscience, and indeed of society's conscience, since we collectively have the power to permit or deny such an abortion? Actions are not, after all, undertaken in a void.

Arguably, it could be said that the potential moral badness of a late-term abortion is less in magnitude than the potential moral badness of imposing society's views upon another person, but I'm not convinced that this argument holds up; it would work on the assumption that the moral badness of killing someone grows as said person's age increases (because we clearly find no trouble in imposing upon individuals the societal view that murder, even of a newly born infant, is morally impermissible).


If the fetus is not alive then why are the cells alive? I mean, of course the fetus is a living person. So abortion on demand is still murder and is still a crime a against humanity.


Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of why we consider murder to be morally wrong. It is not because we hold life itself to possess some intrinsic sanctity; indeed many people find nothing wrong with the slaughter of cows, pigs, chicken, and so on and so forth. The difference is that we consider grown humans to be in possession of self-awareness, consciousness, and most importantly human sapience; that is, we assign a particular importance to the experience of being human and find ourselves morally horrified at the idea of the cessation of human experience. It is manifestly clear that, after birth, humans can be said to be experiencing the experience of being human (as tautological as that sounds); the self-awareness and consciousness of a child are not in question.

But it is not so clear, however, that a fertilized egg possesses even the base qualities of self-awareness and consciousness, let alone the qualia of human experience. If you argue that the primitive form of "life" experienced by fetuses in the first trimester--a form of life devoid of self-awareness or consciousness or any of the qualities that embody what we consider to be the human experience--is sufficiently complex that it is worth protecting at almost any cost, then you also argue that organisms as simple as yeast and plants are worth protecting with equal, if not greater, vigilance. If you are willing to accept this, then so be it, but you cannot ignore the consequences of your moral calculus. If you are not so willing, then the only logically consistent option is to abandon your current line of argument.


But a fetus is what will be born as a human, just like a child will become an adult. Are children considered to be unhuman? No. To prevent a human from being born by killing the fetus is murder.


And every single sperm cell in every ejaculation has the potential to become a human. Is that also murder? Every single carbon atom in my trash has the potential to, one day, become part of a fetus. Am I a genocider of millions?

You commit the base fallacy of false equivalence, drawing an analogy between children and fetuses that does not necessarily hold. Or, to be more precise, you state that they are morally equivalent, but you do not make a justification for this claim. I could just as well as you: "But every pair of sperm and egg, though they may be separated and even reside in different bodies, may be born as as a child, which will then become an adult. When our bodies naturally recycle these cells, are we continually murdering unborn children throughout the course of our lives?"

Naturally, there is some point between conception and birth that the fetus acquires the moral and natural rights of every human. It is permissible to state that this point in time is always equivalent to the point of conception, but that claim must be justified somehow. The fact that the fetus can be born into a human is a mere tautology; it simply restates the definition of a fetus and is not itself an argument against abortion.


Squiddy
Posted on 02-13-15 01:44 AM Link | ID: 81812
Banned
Unspecificed Cooling Off Period. Be Safe
Bisexual Empress of the Stolen Title?
Level: 136


Posts: 5520/6751
EXP: 30037570
Next: 59345

Since: 07-17-13

Last post: 2204 days
Last view: 2111 days
A fertilized egg is already a living human being. That's when life begins. Sperm cells and unfertilized egg cells are not a full human being so a woman having a period or a guy wacking off is not murder. Anyway, I guess this'll be the last time I'll post in this thread; I personally think the abortion topic is too sensitive of a subject to touch since neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion will win the argument. My apologies for bringing it up in the first place. :P

____________________
Sunshine Realm
Welcome to Aqmlm's, the only board with Al-Aq'mlmistrators!

Kironide
Posted on 02-13-15 01:50 AM Link | ID: 81813
Normal User

Paragoomba

Level: 20


Posts: 71/77
EXP: 39913
Next: 2526

Since: 01-07-12

Last post: 2255 days
Last view: 2128 days

A fertilized egg is already a living human being. That's when life begins.


This is an assertion, not an argument.

You have not actually addressed any of the counterarguments which I provided in my above post.

How do you define a living human being? Why do you think we protects the rights of post-birth humans and in what ways do the same justifications apply to protecting the rights of pre-birth humans? These are questions that must be answered if you are to take your current position, not glossed over in a cavalier manner.


Sperm cells and unfertilized egg cells are not a full human being


And how do we define a full human being? The lack of various developmental structures, macromolecules, and enzymatic processes? The exact same argument could be applied to a fetus in the first trimester.

Again, you make an assertion but have provided no justification.

I'm not trying to be combative, but you haven't even engaged in an argument or discussion at all; you've merely stated your position repeatedly, which is not the same as providing your reasoning.

KP
Posted on 02-13-15 02:01 AM Link | ID: 81814
Retired Staff
NES Game Aficionado
Level: 70


Posts: 1183/1354
EXP: 2945186
Next: 70625

Since: 01-02-12

Last post: 967 days
Last view: 475 days
I suppose that terms like "potential life" and "where life begins" are both too broad of a term to look at them at their most basic components. Kironide did a good job at bringing up and expounding upon specific points, as well as encouraging discussion based on those points. As abrasive as it might seem (compared to the rest of the arguments given) he captured the art of debate extremely well, and I can't hope to get on his level.

Abortion is one of those things that "seem wrong" (or right) depending on your view of the world, but can be discussed and broken down to pure elementary questions of science. But, I feel like when you do that, you lose the goal of trying to define whether it's right or wrong and instead trying to simply define it. At the same time, you need to define it to be able to make a judgment on it! Ugh...

Somehow I think this is a conversation that's going to be had in a courtroom sometime soon.



Kironide
Posted on 02-13-15 02:04 AM (rev. 2 of 02-13-15 02:04 AM by Kironide) Link | ID: 81815
Normal User

Paragoomba

Level: 20


Posts: 72/77
EXP: 39913
Next: 2526

Since: 01-07-12

Last post: 2255 days
Last view: 2128 days
Well, there was the case of Roe v. Wade.

Perhaps this would be a good source of reading material for anyone interested in the debate as it was in 1973: http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/roe_v_wade#Tab=Decision

SapphireBlaze
Posted on 02-13-15 03:05 PM Link | ID: 81839
Normal User

I may or may not be back to life.
Level: 51


Posts: 557/661
EXP: 963268
Next: 50670

Since: 10-09-12
From: 51.41277327819231 0.7888535549864173

Last post: 1403 days
Last view: 1007 days
Excuse me while I avoid this thread like the plague. Seriously, why would you bring this up? It's guaranteed to start debates.

____________________
Pages: 1 2 3


Next newer thread | Next older thread
Main - The Officer's Club - Abortion?


Acmlmboard v2.5.5 (10/04/2020)
© 2005-2021 Acmlm, Emuz, et al.

Page rendered in 0.123 seconds. (951KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 217, rows: 658/696, time: 0.083 seconds.