# New Abortion Law Wave



## cots (May 20, 2019)

So we're seeing a lot of press coverage over the entire abortion issue lately due to some states outlawing the practice. I see no problem with this. I mean, if you're protesting to protect a tree why not protect a human life? If you are having sexual relationships then your are usually taking the risk of becoming pregnant. Not ready to be a parent - keep your pants on. Of course, there is the minority of people who are impregnated against their own will. Rape sucks, but murder is murder. Rape usually doesn't result in the baby being mis-figured or deformed (which is the case if someone in your immediate gene pool - which happens in even less of the situations). So is the murder justified in these cases? I don't think murder can be justified. Murder is murder. However, I do see Trump's point of view saying that Alabama's Law (which outlaws abortion in all cases except when a mother's life is in danger). It's a lose-lose situation in that case and I'm not a women nor have ever been in the position where if I give birth I might die so I can't really assume to tell anyone else anything about that. Just something inside of me tells me that killing babies is not right.

I know that the majority of abortions don't fit into the minority categories so I'm relieved that there will be less overall needless death, but if democrats really cared about only the minority then why is it allowable to cry about the majority of the popular vote in our last election? It's not supposed to be the Governments job to tell a mother what do to with her baby, but since we accept the Governments decisions that regulate most of our lives already I don't see any harm in saving a life. If money is an issue then society shouldn't abandon the kid (which is what the parent shouldn't do to begin with - the parents decided to have sex and should raise the child). 

We already fail children in so many ways, but at least give them a fighting chance! Murder is murder. I'm glad these laws are being passed.

Here is what our President said about the issue ...



> Days after Alabama’s government passed a near-total ban on abortion, President Donald Trump and other prominent Republican lawmakers are staking out their more lenient positions on the issue. Saturday night Trump sent out a series of tweets explaining his stance on reproductive rights while warning that Republicans will suffer if the party cannot get on the same page.
> 
> “I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions — Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother — the same position taken by Ronald Reagan,” he wrote. “We must stick together and Win for Life in 2020. If we are foolish and do not stay UNITED as one, all of our hard fought gains for Life can, and will, rapidly disappear!”
> 
> ...


----------



## BiggieCheese (May 20, 2019)

It’s all fun and games and “stickin’ it to the libs” until a teenage girl’s rotten corpse is found in an apartment because she tried to abort her rapist dad’s son by herself, only to bleed to death in the process.


----------



## Kunty (May 20, 2019)

I think the new laws are disgusting. No one has the right to force someone to carry a child if they don't want to.


----------



## kuwanger (May 20, 2019)

To start with, let me begin with I'm against abortion, but I'm more against making abortion illegal.  I have a similar view about drugs, alcohol, etc.  Having said that:



cots said:


> I know that the majority of abortions don't fit into the minority categories so I'm relieved that there will be less overall needless death, but if democrats really cared about only the minority then why is it allowable to cry about the majority of the popular vote in our last election?



Democrats don't care about only the minority in any situation.  That's a non-sequitur.  Just like the point of a popular vote.  It's also a non-sequitur to the point.  If you're so concerned about needless death, why aren't you concerned about needless life that's neglected?  Meaningfully that's more of an issue that no one wants to really deal with.



cots said:


> It's not supposed to be the Governments job to tell a mother what do to with her baby, but since we accept the Governments decisions that regulate most of our lives already I don't see any harm in saving a life.



And so the moralizers banned alcohol.  We saw how well that worked out.



cots said:


> If money is an issue then society shouldn't abandon the kid (which is what the parent shouldn't do to begin with - the parents decided to have sex and should raise the child).



As I stated in another thread, radically change the way in which adoption works.  Make it a standard, relatively quick and unrevocable transfer of guardianship.  Allow it at any age.  Investigate more into all areas of abuse upon children, including neglect.  Push for better contraception use--those like injections and sterilization.  Encourage everyone to have a planned parenthood.  Stop pushing the "keep your pants on" mantra--sexless marriages aren't a reasonable standard to expect from people.


----------



## orangy57 (May 20, 2019)

I'm pro choice because it has LITERALLY nothing to do with us. We're guys, we don't have a uterus to plop babies out of, so why should it be our decision? Also you're not killing babies, it's literally the equivalent of removing a parasite until it's over 21 weeks old. I swear you all are like "life is precious oh how sweet a little baby" until it's born without a loving family that can't even afford to take care of the thing, in which case you guys couldn't give a single flying fuck about them. It's better to have a """"""living thing"""""" gone than give it an awful life. Also you said that "something inside you tells you that killing babies isn't right" yet forcing a woman to give birth to a child after she's been raped is fine to you? You literally make me sick, the world would be better if you were aborted too.


----------



## BiggieCheese (May 20, 2019)

Orangy57 said:


> I'm pro choice because it has LITERALLY nothing to do with us. We're guys, we don't have a uterus to plop babies out of, so why should it be our decision? Also you're not killing babies, it's literally the equivalent of removing a parasite until it's over 21 weeks old. I swear you all are like "life is precious oh how sweet a little baby" until it's born without a loving family that can't even afford to take care of the thing, in which case you guys couldn't give a single flying fuck about them. It's better to have a """"""living thing"""""" gone than give it an awful life. Also you said that "something inside you tells you that killing babies isn't right" yet forcing a woman to give birth to a child after she's been raped is fine to you? You literally make me sick


^ Pretty much this except for the dig (which i removed from the quote) at the very end


----------



## Jayro (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Murder is murder.


I'm sure glad abortions aren't murder.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 20, 2019)

dude do you know how incest screws up a baby created by this? ot's not only morally disgusting but the child could have serious health issues like down syndrome and what if a 10 year old girl got raped and impregnated? (Puberty can happen earlier you know sometimes as soon as 8 in girls) people don't think and pulls laws out of their ass, if anything needs to be aborted it's the entire government it's a corrupt society


----------



## cots (May 20, 2019)

Orangy57 said:


> I'm pro choice because it has LITERALLY nothing to do with us. We're guys, we don't have a uterus to plop babies out of, so why should it be our decision? Also you're not killing babies, it's literally the equivalent of removing a parasite until it's over 21 weeks old.



So, we should put the well being of a soulless, heartless non-thinking tree over the life of an unborn child? You're right, it's not my decision nor is it yours. If being a women and you get pregnant and kill your baby then that's your choice and you'll have to live with being a murderer for the rest of your life. That's something I don't want to be a part of and since democrats support big Government and the result is these kinds of laws and control over us I am being forced to make a decision regardless and I chose life. If it were up to me we'd save the trees and the children.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



chrisrlink said:


> dude do you know how incest screws up a baby created by this? ot's not only morally disgusting but the child could have serious health issues like down syndrome and what if a 10 year old girl got raped and impregnated? (Puberty can happen earlier you know sometimes as soon as 8 in girls) people don't think and pulls laws out of their ass, if anything needs to be aborted it's the entire government it's a corrupt society



A very low minority of cases would involve this circumstance and it would be sad, but I rather the child have a chance than just "lets kill it as it might end up with deformations". Granted, not all babies born from incest have serious health issues and a lot of children born from non-incest related pregnancies do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kuwanger said:


> Democrats don't care about only the minority in any situation.  That's a non-sequitur.  Just like the point of a popular vote.  It's also a non-sequitur to the point.  If you're so concerned about needless death, why aren't you concerned about needless life that's neglected?  Meaningfully that's more of an issue that no one wants to really deal with.



I do care both about the unborn child and the mother and it should be her decision whether or not she should commit murder, but this is what we get from having the Government control every aspect of our lives so it makes it, in part, my decision also. This is why I'm glad that I chose life. We shouldn't be neglecting the mother or the child and in some cases mothers do decide to have the baby and take the risk and die in the process, but in their minds it was worth saving their child (and if you're going to go with putting the children first and it's all about the children and our future generations than you may agree with this point of view).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kuwanger said:


> As I stated in another thread, radically change the way in which adoption works.  Make it a standard, relatively quick and unrevocable transfer of guardianship.  Allow it at any age.  Investigate more into all areas of abuse upon children, including neglect.  Push for better contraception use--those like injections and sterilization.  Encourage everyone to have a planned parenthood.  Stop pushing the "keep your pants on" mantra--sexless marriages aren't a reasonable standard to expect from people.



These sound like good ideas that should include not having sex as the result of such between a man and a women can result in a baby. I never mentioned anything about marriages either. If you don't want to raise a child then don't produce one. I don't think lacking the proper resources should be an excuse as lots of poor people have children that grow up into fine adults.


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2019)

"Party of small government" wants to dictate how all ~150 million women in this country manage their sex lives.  More than a bit ironic.  Also unconstitutional, but it's not like Republicans have let that document slow them down since Trump was elected.


----------



## Deleted User (May 20, 2019)

The biggest things I see touted concerning this are the extremes, which seem to be used to justify all of it. I think that part is rather silly and unjustified. The big issue here is whether or not people seem to believe if what is unborn is actually a child. If you say it's not, you don't have to deal with the fact that it's murder. If you say it is, then you have to deal with that, and no one honestly wants to murder a baby.

I myself am against abortion 100%, though I've gained some new insight from this push. Rape and incest being the minority of the cases doesn't justify the whole of it, but it's also important to think about the mothers of children who aren't being supported as well as the children in foster care and, well, the homeless children. I don't know a whole lot of what goes down in that area, so whatever the facts are, I can't state 'em. But if there aren't programs in place for them to get what they need as well, that's also wrong. Yet, the wrongdoing in one area does not justify the other. I think if we're going to be honest about all of this, we need to see things for what they are and not use one issue to justify the other.


----------



## PityOnU (May 20, 2019)

I don't think anyone "wants" to get an abortion.

If we lived in a perfectly lawful, level-headed world then of course it would make sense to ban abortions as they are certainly a morally grey area.

Unfortunately, dumb-decisions and evil acts do exist, along with medical issues, so the reality is that abortions are a necessary evil. Indeed evil, but unfortunately necessary.

Banning them outright is a very short-sighted decision.


----------



## cots (May 20, 2019)

Kyouken said:


> The biggest things I see touted concerning this are the extremes, which seem to be used to justify all of it.



Democrats usually take use a really small horrible example that rarely ever happens and try to use it to gain an emotional response as a control tactic when in all reality these things happen at such a low rate and also aren't they always talking about "the children and our future and we need to be looking our for our kids"? I don't see how killing them before they are born fits into this logical thinking pattern.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



PityOnU said:


> I don't think anyone "wants" to get an abortion.



Even mothers that want to get one at the time usually come to regret the decision. I mean, it's not a risk free procedure and it's a really hard choice to make. I personally knew someone who had one that never got over it. I doubt anyone that has one ever will.


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2019)

Kyouken said:


> I think if we're going to be honest about all of this, we need to see things for what they are and not use one issue to justify the other.


Good luck getting Republican lawmakers to understand sex ed and/or biology.  This wave of anti-intellectualism that's responsible for flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers is just as responsible for these draconian abortion laws.  This shit never would've passed if there was a single doctor or scientist involved in the process.



cots said:


> I agree that it's really non of their business and this is a prime example of what happens when we give up or freedoms. Each time a new law is passed we lose another freedom. Democrats wanted big Government so they got it. Keep voting blue and this will only get worse.


The fuck are you smoking?  Electing pro-choice Democrats leads to medieval anti-abortion laws passed by Republicans?  I don't think anyone is buying that argument.  The right-wing has extremely authoritarian tendencies which have to be kept in check by the left.  If you vote in too many Republicans for too long, your state turns in to Alabama.  Dead last in the nation in nearly all standard of living metrics.


----------



## cots (May 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The fuck are you smoking?  Electing pro-choice Democrats leads to medieval anti-abortion laws passed by Republicans?  I don't think anyone is buying that argument.  The right-wing has extremely authoritarian tendencies which have to be kept in check by the left.  If you vote in too many Republicans for too long, your state turns in to Alabama.  Dead last in the nation in nearly all standard of living metrics.



I'm not saying that the Republicans are right for abusing their power, but this power was given to them by expanding the Government which is what the Democrats are responsible for. Keep giving them more and more power over your lives and shit will only get worse.


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not saying that the Republicans are right for abusing their power, but this power was given to them by expanding the Government which is what the Democrats are responsible for. Keep giving them more and more power over your lives and shit will only get worse.


GWB and Dick Cheney expanded the power of the executive branch more than any administration before them.  It's just plain untrue that Republicans aren't willing to expand the government or their own power in order to accomplish their authoritarian goals.  They've never waited for Democrats to do it for them.


----------



## kuwanger (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> this is what we get from having the Government control every aspect of our lives so it makes it, in part, my decision also.



No.  If you have a problem with the government being too involved in your life, you don't turn around and use the government to become too involved in other people's lives.



cots said:


> These sound like good ideas that should include not having sex as the result of such between a man and a women can result in a baby. I never mentioned anything about marriages either.  If you don't want to raise a child then don't produce one.



Of course you didn't.  You merely implied that abortions are chiefly the byproduct of unmarried women sleeping around.  Yet the statistics aren't there, AFAIK*.  The statistics that *do* exist are of unplanned pregnancies of which a substantial number are from married couples.  Most couples aren't interested in having more than a few children at most.  Short of a complete hysterectomy/castration, AFAIK no other form of contraception is 100% guaranteed to not produce children.  Ergo, you're either recommending that most married people have hysterectomies/castrations at around age 25 or that most marriages be sexless.

* I would admit that it would seem to logically follow that those women who are unmarried who realize they're not in a position to raise a child would be more inclined to abort a child than a married couple with an unplanned pregnancies who would be more willing to birth and raise an unwanted child.  The only reasonable counter to this would be to (1) incentivize more marriages, (2) incentivize women birthing children for adoption, and/or (3) pushing even stronger laws for forcing child support payments.  (3) is bad because it subverts men's rights.  (2) is bad because it is literally paying people to breed.  (1) is bad because clearly government shouldn't be in the business of incentivizing marriage.  Basically, I don't see how any other avenue is in any serious way less of a social ill.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 20, 2019)

Republicans:

Muslims - BAN!!!
Immigrants = BAN!!!
Abortion - BAN!!!
Gay Marriage - BAN!!!
Guns - BANS DON'T WORK!!!


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2019)

Of course, the real test is yet to come.  None of these anti-abortion laws are on solid legal footing or present a legitimate challenge to the settled law of Roe v Wade, so the Supreme Court would be wise to simply not give these cases a hearing.  If they do decide to let this shitshow proceed, then we pretty much know that the majority of justices are bought and paid for, and the result is likely to be 5-4 in favor of turning the US into 'A Handmaid's Tale' IRL.  We hate Middle Eastern far-right theocracies so much that we're apparently trying to become one.


----------



## cots (May 20, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> No.  If you have a problem with the government being too involved in your life, you don't turn around and use the government to become too involved in other people's lives.



Well, as a normal citizen it's sort of forced on you. If you're asked to vote you'll have to make a decision one way or the other. If there was a vote to start getting rid of laws and reducing the size of the Government I'd definitely vote for that. For the Republican party - they shouldn't be doing what you wrote. Since it is forced on me I choose life over murder.



Xzi said:


> GWB and Dick Cheney expanded the power of the executive branch more than any administration before them.  It's just plain untrue that Republicans aren't willing to expand the government or their own power in order to accomplish their authoritarian goals.  They've never waited for Democrats to do it for them.



I still think the Patriot act is bullshit. Larger Government isn't inclusive to Democrats, but it's one of their main points on their agenda and not so much with the Republicans. I think we all should be getting rid of laws and voting to stop the law making processes all together.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> Republicans:
> Guns - BANS DON'T WORK!!!



Banning guns would work in giving the Government almost complete control over us and then they could force us to do a lot worse than just outlawing abortions. Gun bans also wouldn't stop violence as guns aren't the only tools required for violence to take place. On the flip side outlawing abortions also will not stop them from happening, but if you're caught having one you'll get arrested, but that arrest won't result in what would happen if they took our guns away from us.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Banning guns would work in giving the Government almost complete control over us and then they could force us to do a lot worse than just outlawing abortions. Gun bans also wouldn't stop violence as guns aren't the only tools required for violence to take place.



So you only want complete control when it suits your own beliefs. Typical far right RepubliCON.


----------



## kuwanger (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> If there was a vote to start getting rid of laws and reducing the size of the Government I'd definitely vote for that.



Yea, about that: US Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants by State.  Does not include federal prisoners, so it's not merely being shifted by placement of them.  Clearly, either the South has a lot more criminals, it has a lot more invasive government that makes things crimes, or it has overly long prison terms.  Point is, you obviously have a vote on who you elect.  Casting down on Democrats seems absurd.  Casting down on all legislators, regardless of party, who enlarge government power would be the thing.



cots said:


> Since it is forced on me I choose life over murder.



None of this was referendum votes but to the extent that you could vote on such things, you could obviously vote on the individual who would never abuse their power in government to interfere with others lives.  It's not a question of "choose life over murder", as much as you want to present it that way.


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> I still think the Patriot act is bullshit.


On that we completely agree.  And Obama didn't do enough to completely rid us of it either, though he did tame it down a bit.



cots said:


> Larger Government isn't inclusive to Democrats, but it's one of their main points on their agenda and not so much with the Republicans. I think we all should be getting rid of laws and voting to stop the law making processes all together.


Larger government to Democrats means more social safety nets, more movement against climate change, and more globally-standard human rights, such as healthcare for all (whatever form it might take).  Republicans are no longer the party of small government, if you're being honest with yourself.  Trump is outspending Obama year-to-year, and GWB was insanely spendy after Clinton had budget surpluses and had paid down national debt a ton.

Regardless, you sound more like an anarchist than someone who would rightly belong to either mainstream party.  I'm more progressive/Socialist than Democrat myself, but there are at least candidates/Congresspeople that more closely represent my views in the party.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 20, 2019)

Abortion is murder so it's wrong no matter the circumstances, as for rapist... to avoid victims, people should trust no one with their lives, even family members, with out* CONSIDERABLE* testing of the individual (teach THAT in school), while the government finds some way to send all the rapists to prison, problem solved.


----------



## Jayro (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Nope. Doesn't look anything like murder to me.


Good, glad we're on the same page.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Abortion is murder so it's wrong no matter the circumstances, as for rapist... to avoid victims, people should trust no one with their lives, even family members, with out* CONSIDERABLE* testing of the individual (teach THAT in school), while the government finds some way to send all the rapists to prison, problem solved.


You've GOT to be joking...


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Good luck getting Republican lawmakers to understand sex ed and/or biology. This wave of anti-intellectualism that's responsible for flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers is just as responsible for these draconian abortion laws. This shit never would've passed if there was a single doctor or scientist involved in the process.



Interesting claim, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers are fairly balanced, if Republicans were responsible you'd think that wasn't the case.
Meh, I guess you're just pulling shit out of your ass again.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

We did have that big thread ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/how-do-you-feel-about-abortion.501574/ ) but as I suppose this counts as a fairly big development (one of the bigger countries in the world with it as a fairly core issue seems to actually have it as more of an issue with movement than a ceaseless talking/distraction point) I will leave this rather than merging it. Would have preferred a more objective opener that actually states the sorts of developments that have led to today, maybe a bit of history, and the likely options for progression from here but eh we are getting there.



Orangy57 said:


> because it has LITERALLY nothing to do with us. We're guys, we don't have a uterus to plop babies out of, so why should it be our decision?



I have never quite understood this line of thought. Do I also have to exclude menopausal, sterile, underage (pending fertility being achieved, or theoretically achieved -- do I have to test such people first?) and such women from the discussion? Do we exclude anybody else that does not have the equipment from other discussions of ethics and morality anywhere else -- so a make child is born, do we tell the woman to fuck off as she does not have a dick and thus has nothing to say on circumcision? If people have a mind and care to comprehend the concepts involved then it seems like they should have the option to form a judgement and otherwise contribute to the discussion, personally I would care to hear the most from those that understand the science, have considered some of the moral philosophies at play, have understood the legal positions and can elaborate on the previous concepts to a decent degree, and at least one of those to a serious degree (I would not expect a lawyer dealing with bodily autonomy type law to also be a midwife, never mind a relevant field doctor, though it would not be a bad thing either).
Moreover we have artificial wombs a very real possibility in the near enough future -- complex mammalian life has already been done https://www.newscientist.com/articl...elps-premature-lamb-fetuses-grow-for-4-weeks/ . Upon their introduction for humans do we suddenly have to train up half the population (plus those potentially excluded from the other groups) to understand, and possible contemplate the implications of such technology upon existing concepts?



cots said:


> Nope. Doesn't look anything like murder to me.


Looks tasty. Got some apple sauce?


----------



## DBlaze (May 20, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Abortion is murder so it's wrong no matter the circumstances, as for rapist... *to avoid victims, people should trust no one with their lives*, even family members, with out* CONSIDERABLE* testing of the individual (teach THAT in school), while the government finds some way to send all the rapists to prison, problem solved.



Try telling that to someone who's just riding a bike somewhere, just to be pulled off her bike and raped.
Has little to do with trusting people or not, does it?

Abortion is ok under certain circumstances, it's how i've always thought about it and that won't change anytime soon, because we live in a way too messed up world that is just too far gone.
It's not ok to be forced to have a child as a result of rape.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 20, 2019)

Ah...another day in banana republic USA. I couldn't be bothered to read the 2 pages (sorry), but I'll just take a stab at the OP for lulz sake.



cots said:


> I mean, if you're protesting to protect a tree why not protect a human life?


Trees are full grown. You probably didn't mean to imply that others don't want to protect full grown humans, so Ill brush that of as being a dumb analogy. The correct analogy would be "if you're protesting to protect a weed, why not protect a fetus?".

...to which I would reply: this is 'weed' in the sense of those starting plants that crop up anywhere, not 'weed' as in marihuana. Nobody's protecting the former kind.



cots said:


> If you are having sexual relationships then your are usually taking the risk of becoming pregnant. Not ready to be a parent - keep your pants on. Of course, there is the minority of people who are impregnated against their own will. Rape sucks, but murder is murder. Rape usually doesn't result in the baby being mis-figured or deformed (which is the case if someone in your immediate gene pool - which happens in even less of the situations).


I...Honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate here. Considering you make the statement that women are better positioned to judge on the matter, I'd think so. But then why add that sense of twisted logic? 



cots said:


> We already fail children in so many ways, but at least give them a fighting chance!


The idea is that if you get rid of the unwanted children, the actually wanted children have a better fighting chance. You repeat the "it's murder"-line a lot, but considering you trip up on your opening statement (even if you consider fetuses life, at least acknowledge that it's not an universally shared belief) I don't think it'll convince anyone thinking otherwise.




cots said:


> Here is what our President said about the issue ...


Sorry, but this is where I tune out. This is a triple whammy of strong skepticism:
1) republicans never really cared for abortion, but use it as an argument to draw in votes with religious folk that are too dumb to realise that republican's main goal is to lower taxes on the rich.
2) Trump is a known liar. That doesn't make him wrong per se, but you really want to dig up someone more credible if you want to make a statement.
3) Trump is also a crook, and on the brink of being exposed as such. As a result, anything controversial that gets thrown in the ether is more likely to be because of "this way, less attention is spend on my government" reasons than "I actually adore life, no matter how early" reasons.


----------



## zxr750j (May 20, 2019)

Pro choice, pro condoms, pro education
Against rapist, against hate, against telling others how they should live their lives.
More love and respect towards others and their opinions would be nice.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Trees are full grown. You probably didn't mean to imply that others don't want to protect full grown humans, so Ill brush that of as being a dumb analogy. The correct analogy would be "if you're protesting to protect a weed, why not protect a fetus?".
> 
> ...to which I would reply: this is 'weed' in the sense of those starting plants that crop up anywhere, not 'weed' as in marihuana. Nobody's protecting the former kind.



Consider the following:
A fetus stops being a fetus at the moment of birth then it's a baby, isn't that a bit arbitrary? A baby born after 25 weeks of gestation (6 and a half months) has an above 50% chance of survival.

I don't want to call you out on the absurdity of calling a viable human life weed and give you the benefit of the doubt here but your analogy is quite disgusting taken at face value.

The question is: At what point does the fetus' life become worthy of protection? I disagree that it's the moment of birth, it's far more nuanced than that!


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Interesting claim, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers are fairly balanced, if Republicans were responsible you'd think that wasn't the case.
> Meh, I guess you're just pulling shit out of your ass again.


The right-wing is responsible for the anti-intellectual movement.  I never said the fallout from that hasn't hit both parties equally hard.  With Betsy DeVos as secretary of education, we're raising a whole new generation of idiots right now.  Which side of the political aisle they land on is irrelevant to the larger problem.


----------



## YamiZee (May 20, 2019)

When abortion is legal, that doesn't mean everyone is coming in crowds to get them. Accidents happen, no matter how careful you are. Not to mention rape etc. No one would ever use abortion as their contraception. It's not as easy as people are assuming.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Consider the following:
> A fetus stops being a fetus at the moment of birth then it's a baby, isn't that a bit arbitrary? A baby born after 25 weeks of gestation (6 and a half months) has an above 50% chance of survival.


Erm...if your current laws allowed for abortion at any moment before birth, then I wouldn't mind regulating them a bit more. In my country, it's only legal until 3 months after conception, and IIRC it was 4 or 5 in the Netherlands. This is done exactly for what you say: above 6 months, it transforms from being a fetus into an actual baby. There is no one moment where it stops being the one and is exactly the other, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I don't want to call you out on the absurdity of calling a viable human life weed and give you the benefit of the doubt here but your analogy is quite disgusting taken at face value.


No...by all means: please do. Because when you do, I can point out back at you that you missed on how this analogy works.

Weeds are akin to newborns in that they are yet to come into fruition. That's what the analogy is about. I'm not calling humans weeds any more than cots calls humans trees. 

Granted: if you want to be completely punctual: weed is indeed not correct. Weeds are actually a form of plants, rather than "the beginning of...". A sprouted seedling would be even more correct, but I had to figure out how to correctly translate that (English isn't my first language).


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm...if your current laws allowed for abortion at any moment before birth, then I wouldn't mind regulating them a bit more.



It's important to remember when discussing this issue with Americans that their laws are a lot more liberal than ours.
Someone correct my if I'm wrong but I believe in most states abortion is legal until the 24th week or viability and some have no restrictions at all. As I've said earlier the 24th week is the turning point where the chance of survival becomes 50%+.



> In my country, it's only legal until 3 months after conception, and IIRC it was 4 or 5 in the Netherlands. This is done exactly for what you say: above 6 months, it transforms from being a fetus into an actual baby. There is no one moment where it stops being the one and is exactly the other, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.



Glad you responded because this is how misunderstandings happen. A fetus stays a fetus until the moment of birth by definition, there's no transformation, at the fetal stage all inner organs are developed. The best distinction you can get is chance of survival really. Here's a Wikipedia article regarding the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Medical_viability

I believe Germany and Belgium is pretty much the same, abortion becomes illegal at the fetal stage (around the 14th week) abortion is legal at the embryonic stage.



> No...by all means: please do. Because when you do, I can point out back at you that you missed on how this analogy works.
> 
> Weeds are akin to newborns in that they are yet to come into fruition. That's what the analogy is about. I'm not calling humans weeds any more than cots calls humans trees.



I'll chalk that up to linguistic imprecision. A fetus is a fetus until the moment of birth by definition. Also throwing newborns in there makes your suggestions straight up murder, no question, so your attempt to back it up made it much worse.
Here's your quote:



> The correct analogy would be "if you're protesting to protect a weed, why not protect a fetus?".
> 
> ...to which I would reply: this is 'weed' in the sense of those starting plants that crop up anywhere, not 'weed' as in marihuana. Nobody's protecting the former kind.


----------



## CORE (May 20, 2019)

Rape or Complications risk to mother or possible baby's way of life not worth living bad health issues not formed or other physical health factors Exceptional. 

There is no other excuse I agree only to these situations and as much as I would agree with that Bill they taking it too far yes all Life is precious until forced on someone I see this as a stab at the Left and will just provoke more arguments.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

CORE said:


> Rape or Complications risk to mother or possible baby's way of life not worth living bad health issues not formed or other physical health factors Exceptional.
> 
> There is no other excuse I agree only to these situations and as much as I would agree with that Bill they taking it too far yes all Life is precious until forced on someone I see this as a stab at the Left and will just provoke more arguments.


Even in those there are seriously blurry edges.

Simple one might be autism. The ability to scan for it, or at least some forms, in the womb looks to be on the cards. What goes here?
Ultrasound shows one arm is not formed. What do here? Two arms? Just a hand?
Risk to mother? Does this include mental health and wellbeing? If that then what about socio-economic health? Get lumped with a kid at 22 and have to take a year off as it were to sort it and your career prospects take a rather big tumble, even earlier and it gets even more fun.
Incest was not on your list directly, despite it normally being on it in such lists, or does that come under the later things?

Just for giggles where do we draw the line between birth control pills, morning after pills and chemical abortions which can be done up to about 10 weeks at present. Similarly why would you draw it there?


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

Kunty said:


> I think the new laws are disgusting. No one has the right to force someone to carry a child if they don't want to.



I think women who don't want to carry a child even if they don't want to is disgusting. Use the condom or birth control! Ever heard of it? Why don't they used it?! NO EXCUSED! SMH!


----------



## Kunty (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I think women who don't want to carry a child if they don't want to is disgusting. Use the condom or birth control! Ever heard of it? Why don't they used it?! NO EXCUSED! SMH!


Let's make something clear. Condoms are a male item, why don't they use it? Why must it be the woman's fault? As for birth control it can and does fail on occasion, why must the woman pay the price for that? If someone wishes to be rid of a symbiotic organism then they should be able to without persecution. It is no one's business but the person involved, if they want an abortion no one has the right to stop that. This is typical of the care until it's born brigade. I'm sure if that child grew up to be gay and/or transgender they would be the victim of "kill it it's going to hell."


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

Kunty said:


> Let's make something clear. Condoms are a male item, why don't they use it? Why must it be the woman's fault? As for birth control it can and does fail on occasion, why must the woman pay the price for that? If someone wishes to be rid of a symbiotic organism then they should be able to without persecution. It is no one's business but the person involved, if they want an abortion no one has the right to stop that. This is typical of the care until it's born brigade. I'm sure if that child grew up to be gay and/or transgender they would be the victim of "kill it it's going to hell."



Why don't women closed their legs then ? Yes, there are women condoms. Google it. What are you talking about gay nor transgender ? This is about abortion thread.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Why don't women closed their legs then ?


Is that a reasonable thing to ask someone to do? The sex drive for most animals is quite high (it is a lot of energy to expend otherwise when sitting under a tree is far more efficient a use of it) and beyond that many find it to be fun and emotionally rewarding. If the previous methods have all failed (possible, though more education prevents many things from getting that far) then why the arbitrary line at firing up the womb vacuum?


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that a reasonable thing to ask someone to do? The sex drive for most animals is quite high (it is a lot of energy to expend otherwise when sitting under a tree is far more efficient a use of it) and beyond that many find it to be fun and emotionally rewarding. If the previous methods have all failed (possible, though more education prevents many things from getting that far) then why the arbitrary line at firing up the womb vacuum?



Oh brother. If you support Abortion then that's your decision. It is absolutely wrong and it is murder. No matter what you or anybody say. It can be women's bodies but they have no right to killing unborn babies anyway. Absolutely no right at all. They are disgusting human being wanting to killing unborn babies in their wombs. Sad.. Very sad. 

It is getting old and many people argument about it. It is not going anywhere. I will say two words: No abortion.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Oh brother. If you support Abortion then that's your decision. It is absolutely wrong and it is murder. No matter what you or anybody say. It can be women's bodies but they have no right to killing unborn babies anyway. Absolutely no right at all. They are disgusting human being wanting to killing unborn babies in their wombs. Sad.. Very sad.
> 
> It is getting old and many people argument about it. It is not going anywhere. I will say two words: No abortion.


That's like... your opinion and stuff... I for the other hand don't think it's murder. Since the embryon have yet no sense of life. Women should have control of their own body. If they don't want a crotchgoblin, they should have the right to terminate it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> It is absolutely wrong and it is murder. Absolutely no right at all.


Why? What leads you to thinking that? Such a viewpoint is rather against the grain and I would genuinely like to understand why you hold the opinions you do -- to go against the grain that hard and be that firm in opinions usually means some very different logic is at work and I find that worth exploring. Myself I have contemplated the issue, looked at the thoughts of most moral authorities on the matter, looked at the science of it all and tried to understand things and can't even get close to a position that you appear to hold.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> That's like... your opinion and stuff... I for the other hand don't think it's murder. Since the embryon have yet no sense of life. Women should have control of their own body. If they don't want a crotchgoblin, they should have the right to terminate it.



No, it is not an opinion. It is absolutely fact. You don't think it is murder then something's wrong with you. It is absolutely wrong.. Very wrong. No wonder, I look at human being as coward. That's why I am ashamed to be human being because of them. 

The women who abortion the unborns are the cowards of all! Absolutely!


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> No, it is not an opinion. It is absolutely fact. You don't think it is murder then something's wrong with you. It is absolutely wrong.. Very wrong. No wonder, I look at human being as coward. That's why I am ashamed to be human being because of them.
> 
> The women who abortion the unborns are the cowards of all! Absolutely!


I suspect you are a man, I think women should have more say in this than men. Just personally speaking.
I don't feel it's murder, nor should any woman.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> I suspect you are a man, I think women should have more say in this than men. Just personally speaking.
> I don't feel it's murder, nor should any woman.



Then women have no right to have sex with men if women wants to abortion. As I said birth control or condom is the answer. No excuse. No. Women have no more say in this than men. Without men, women can't have a babies. Again, they are the coward if they do that.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Then women have no right to have sex with men if women wants to abortion. As I said birth control or condom is the answer. No excuse. No. Women have no more say in this than men. Without men, women can't have a babies. Again, they are the coward if they do that.


Sigh... you speak with feelings right and not facts?


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> Sigh... you speak with feelings right and not facts?



Look! Women has a right too but unborn has a right to live:

Mother: “It’s my body!”

Baby: “No! It’s my body!”

Yes, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception. What women does are irresponsible behavior. A unborn is a life -- a gift to be cherished.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

Scientifically and logically it's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with abortion. It is a choice of a potential future, and that is a huge burden on anyone to make. So understand it is a right of bodily autonomy, a personal decision, and in no way murder.



azoreseuropa said:


> No, it is not an opinion. It is absolutely fact. You don't think it is murder then something's wrong with you. It is absolutely wrong.. Very wrong. No wonder, I look at human being as coward. That's why I am ashamed to be human being because of them.
> 
> The women who abortion the unborns are the cowards of all! Absolutely!





azoreseuropa said:


> Then women have no right to have sex with men if women wants to abortion. As I said birth control or condom is the answer. No excuse. No. Women have no more say in this than men. Without men, women can't have a babies. Again, they are the coward if they do that.



You are defining something that isn't murder, as murder. Then using this personal definition as a way to think you're morally superior to say very sexist things. It is very obvious you have no idea how sex works or what a healthy and positive relationship with women looks like. Please, learn what consent is, what respect for a significant other is, and what the right to autonomy means. Please.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> You are defining something that isn't murder, as murder. Then using this personal definition as a way to think you're morally superior to say very sexist things. It is very obvious you have no idea how sex works or what a healthy and positive relationship with women looks like. Please, learn what consent is, what respect for a significant other is, and what the right to autonomy means. Please.



No, I am serious worry about your future. If you are father and you encourage your wife or girlfriend that it is okay to abortion if she don't want to. A good father ? Absolutely not. I am worry about your future. For me, I love children even if my girlfriend or my wife got rape. I would be hurt badly but I would not encouraged her to aboration it. I would learn to love this baby because baby has a right to life.

Sorry, no. I don't care what you are saying.. and you have no right to tell me but respect mine. I respect you too! HOWEVER... WRONG WRONG AND WRONG! Period. I do respect women and that's their choice and their decision but they are absolutely 100 percent WRONG, period. I am not telling them what to do but I am telling myself in my mind "SMH" and say nothing. It is nor worth to argue because it is not getting anywhere. Thanks for the discussion. Have a good day.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Look! Women has a right too but unborn has a right to live:
> 
> Mother: “It’s my body!”
> 
> ...


That's stupid... just so stupid...

Also what if the contraceptives don't work?


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> That's stupid... just so stupid...
> 
> Also what if the contraceptives don't work?



Then you are stupid. I am done. Thanks for discussion. I feel sorry if you ever become a father and still believe that abortion is a right choice. I am done. Thanks.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Then you are stupid. I am done. Thanks for discussion. I feel sorry if you ever become a father and still believe that abortion is a right choice. I am done. Thanks.


Thank you!


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> No, I am serious worry about your future. If you are father and you encourage your wife or girlfriend that it is okay to abortion if she don't want to. A good father ? Absolutely not. I am worry about your future. For me, I love children even if my girlfriend or my wife got rape. I would be hurt badly but I would not encouraged her to aboration it. I would learn to love this baby because baby has a right to life.
> 
> Sorry, no. I don't care what you are saying.. and you have no right to tell me but respect mine. I respect you too! HOWEVER... WRONG WRONG AND WRONG! Period. I do respect women and that's their choice and their decision but they are absolutely 100 percent WRONG, period. I am not telling them what to do but I am telling myself in my mind "SMH" and say nothing. It is nor worth to argue because it is not getting anywhere. Thanks for the discussion. Have a good day.


You are using the word "baby". Why? It is not a baby. 

Not telling them what to do? Oh good, so you're actually against anti-abortion laws because it's not your choice? Well, there's that I suppose.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> You are using the word "baby". Why? It is not a baby.
> 
> Not telling them what to do? Oh good, so you're actually against anti-abortion laws because it's not your choice? Well, there's that I suppose.



Trying to bring it back around because I do think there's some sensible discussion to be had.
My question to you: What makes a baby? At what point is it a baby?


----------



## DBlaze (May 20, 2019)

Can it also be described as it being a parasite, since it's basically being kept alive thanks to the host until it pops out?
Let's approach it from that angle 

probably not the best idea though


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Trying to bring it back around because I do think there's some sensible discussion to be had.
> My question to you: What makes a baby? At what point is it a baby?


I can tell you about both ends and a bit in-between. At the beginning, a fertilized egg is just a template. Genetic code that is basically a "how-to" to build a human. And seeing as that plan changes in the womb based on environmental factors, it's more of a rough draft of a plan. 1st-draft blueprints, let's call it.

The woman's body provides the resources needed to build the blueprints. It does it slowly, and does it oddly. We are a history of our evolution, and this shows in our embryonic development/blueprint building phase. It takes a pretty long time for the blueprint to look different than most other mammals, actually. Closer to birth you get, the further down the evolutionary chain you go. As our big brain is pretty much our huge unique feature when compared to our closest relatives, this also means it is the last to develop. This happens around the third trimester, or month 7. As we are our brain, it's pretty safe to say the person isn't a person until maybe probably around this point. This is also around the point when a child starts becoming viable (capable of living outside the womb) for similar reasons.

Usually it's near or before this point that most laws are "nah, no abortions past this point". which most everyone is fine with. As for what makes a "baby", I guess that depends on whether you consider a person is their brain or if they're something more...supernatural.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I can tell you about both ends and a bit in-between. At the beginning, a fertilized egg is just a template. Genetic code that is basically a "how-to" to build a human. And seeing as that plan changes in the womb based on environmental factors, it's more of a rough draft of a plan. 1st-draft blueprints, let's call it.
> 
> The woman's body provides the resources needed to build the blueprints. It does it slowly, and does it oddly. We are a history of our evolution, and this shows in our embryonic development/blueprint building phase. It takes a pretty long time for the blueprint to look different than most other mammals, actually. Closer to birth you get, the further down the evolutionary chain you go. As our big brain is pretty much our huge unique feature when compared to our closest relatives, this also means it is the last to develop. This happens around the third trimester, or month 7. As we are our brain, it's pretty safe to say the person isn't a person until maybe probably around this point. This is also around the point when a child starts becoming viable (capable of living outside the womb) for similar reasons.
> 
> Usually it's near or before this point that most laws are "nah, no abortions past this point". which most everyone is fine with. As for what makes a "baby", I guess that depends on whether you consider a person is their brain or if they're something more...supernatural.


About the brain, funny enough. It's not fully grown until the age of 25. If I remember correct the brain does grow in the baby, but at the age of 3 is when it really starts to grow. That's why you don't really remember stuff from earlier than that. Since  your brain wasn't developed completely.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> About the brain, funny enough. It's not fully grown until the age of 25. If I remember correct the brain does grow in the baby, but at the age of 3 is when it really starts to grow. That's why you don't really remember stuff from earlier than that. Since  your brain wasn't developed completely.


The brain is weird. And I think that happens, because the human body can't birth something with that big of a head XD. So a lot of the cognitive stuff has to happen outside the body. I dunno, is it more of a lvl1 brain at the third trimester you think? 

I know we're still figure out what happens and when as far as like, development. I remember hearing when I was younger that you're like, done when you're in your 20s or 30s. But apparently it's more of a shift into different types of development? My knowledge is a bit fuzzy at this point. It's pretty dang exciting stuff to talk about.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> The brain is weird. And I think that happens, because the human body can't birth something with that big of a head XD. So a lot of the cognitive stuff has to happen outside the body. I dunno, is it more of a lvl1 brain at the third trimester you think?
> 
> I know we're still figure out what happens and when as far as like, development. I remember hearing when I was younger that you're like, done when you're in your 20s or 30s. But apparently it's more of a shift into different types of development? My knowledge is a bit fuzzy at this point. It's pretty dang exciting stuff to talk about.


Trust me, it's a lot we don't know about the brain. So what I said might be wrong tomorrow.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Then you are stupid. I am done. Thanks for discussion. I feel sorry if you ever become a father and still believe that abortion is a right choice. I am done. Thanks.


How are we supposed to want to adopt your position if you provide no reason and insult people? That is not how debate generally works. Again you seem rather sure in your reasons for thinking the way you do but I have nothing to look at to figure out whether you are on to something with it. 



linuxares said:


> About the brain, funny enough. It's not fully grown until the age of 25. If I remember correct the brain does grow in the baby, but at the age of 3 is when it really starts to grow. That's why you don't really remember stuff from earlier than that. Since  your brain wasn't developed completely.



It gets even more fun than that. People have speculated more on the timeline there and pondered if the rather early birth of humans (elephants do some 22 months) is because the head growth would be too much to fit down a birth canal otherwise.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> How are we supposed to want to adopt your position if you provide no reason and insult people? That is not how debate generally works. Again you seem rather sure in your reasons for thinking the way you do but I have nothing to look at to figure out whether you are on to something with it.
> 
> 
> 
> It gets even more fun than that. People have speculated more on the timeline there and pondered if the rather early birth of humans (elephants do some 22 months) is because the head growth would be too much to fit down a birth canal otherwise.


I'm not jealous of women... that must be painful enough and just imagine a bigger head... ooooof


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

Lets make it super simple. Fine, stupid fucking bitches want to go and MURDER their own flesh and blood because they are heartless pieces of scumbag shit. Then this is what should be done in return. Make the woman get sterilized so she can NEVER get pregnant again. Hell, even better, sew her vagina shut. Oh, even better, throw the cold blooded wench into prison. Best yet, just chop her fucking head off. Useless whores are useless.


----------



## DBlaze (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Lets make it super simple. Fine, stupid fucking bitches want to go and MURDER their own flesh and blood because they are heartless pieces of scumbag shit. Then this is what should be done in return. Make the woman get sterilized so she can NEVER get pregnant again. Hell, even better, sew her vagina shut. Oh, even better, throw the cold blooded wench into prison. Best yet, just chop her fucking head off. Useless whores are useless.


You seem to have some cropped up issues, might want to get some help with that


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> You seem to have some cropped up issues, might want to get some help with that


I think murders should die as well. Nothing wrong with my thinking. Abortion is murder and I feel strongly that anyone whom gets an abortion should get charged with the same crime as anyone whom commits murder.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

Funny enough I see a big parallel here. It seems that more abortion haters comes from the US. Is this mostly unique in the US about abortion being bad? Since theirs a lot of facts about the fetus not feeling anything during a abortion since most of them today are medical and not surgical.


----------



## DBlaze (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I think murders should die as well. Nothing wrong with my thinking. Abortion is murder and I feel strongly that anyone whom gets an abortion should get charged with the same crime as anyone whom commits murder.


So what do you do with the baby if the woman dies due to complications during childbirth, kill the baby? Can the baby be held accountable in that case? Death indirectly caused? Or do you draw a moral line there after all?
At an early stage, it's nothing more than a blob of cells.

Children growing up in by default broken situations, isn't good for anyone and is insanely prone to just causing more issues down the line.
Try thinking about a close friend or family member being raped and getting pregnant as a result. What would you do, force them to keep it, else she should die?

It's not that easy or black and white if you've ever encountered that kind of situation up close.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

United states having 3th world country laws like they had in Medieval Europe. Who would have guessed cough cough


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I can tell you about both ends and a bit in-between. At the beginning, a fertilized egg is just a template. Genetic code that is basically a "how-to" to build a human. And seeing as that plan changes in the womb based on environmental factors, it's more of a rough draft of a plan. 1st-draft blueprints, let's call it.
> 
> The woman's body provides the resources needed to build the blueprints. It does it slowly, and does it oddly. We are a history of our evolution, and this shows in our embryonic development/blueprint building phase. It takes a pretty long time for the blueprint to look different than most other mammals, actually. Closer to birth you get, the further down the evolutionary chain you go. As our big brain is pretty much our huge unique feature when compared to our closest relatives, this also means it is the last to develop. This happens around the third trimester, or month 7. As we are our brain, it's pretty safe to say the person isn't a person until maybe probably around this point. This is also around the point when a child starts becoming viable (capable of living outside the womb) for similar reasons.
> 
> Usually it's near or before this point that most laws are "nah, no abortions past this point". which most everyone is fine with. As for what makes a "baby", I guess that depends on whether you consider a person is their brain or if they're something more...supernatural.



Thank you for your reply.

To tell you the truth I don't really know what to make of it. I have no problem with abortion at the embryonic state or even early fetal stage. 

Viability starting around month 7 is also technically incorrect according to the Wikipedia article on medical viability, in month 7 the chance of survival is already above 90%, however a fetus has a small chance of survival at the end of month 5 (22nd week). 

I guess my position boils down to the following:

Everything after entering the fetal stage (week 14), is a moral grey area, there's no clear answer to me at what point the fetus' life is worthy if legal protection
Abortions at the stage of overwhelming chance of survival kinda are murder (which according to Wikipedia is legal in Canada and some US states)
What can I take away from this? I guess if late term abortion was something that was legal in my country then you might find me at a pro-life rally.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 20, 2019)

on a side note the government was built on rebellion try that today and especially durring trumps reign you'll be on death row


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> on a side note the government was built on rebellion try that today and especially durring trumps reign you'll be on death row


Yes, that's why you guys got the second amendment, because of rebellion. So the people could always take arms to overthrow the goverment if necessary. You and me both that doesn't work or will happen today. So it's outdated. 
Then again, a lot of countries are form after rebellions and none diplomatic ways.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> So what do you do with the baby if the woman dies due to complications during childbirth, kill the baby? Can the baby be held accountable in that case? Death indirectly caused? Or do you draw a moral line there after all?
> At an early stage, it's nothing more than a blob of cells.
> 
> Children growing up in by default broken situations, isn't good for anyone and is insanely prone to just causing more issues down the line.
> ...


Oh god. Don't act like one of those shit heads that want to take what only happens in an EXTREMELY MINUTE amount of cases and use that as your argument. And seriously, don't be a pedantic little shit. It is obviously not a god damn babies intentional fault if the mother dies, so seriously, don't be a shit head.

You know, adoption is a choice. Just because a child was born from rape or incest (again, extremely minute amount of cases, not worth using that as your ammo) does not mean that the child should lose it's chance at life because of someone else's poor or terrible choices. IDFC if the child may grow up retarded or deformed, it deserves a chance at life, and if it hates life that much, well I also support a person's right to die when it is their own choice.

Ironically, the only people that should be aborted are the ones voting for the right to have an abortion.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh god. Don't act like one of those shit heads that want to take what only happens in an EXTREMELY MINUTE amount of cases and use that as your argument. And seriously, don't be a pedantic little shit. It is obviously not a god damn babies intentional fault if the mother dies, so seriously, don't be a shit head.
> 
> You know, adoption is a choice. Just because a child was born from rape or incest (again, extremely minute amount of cases, not worth using that as your ammo) does not mean that the child should lose it's chance at life because of someone else's poor or terrible choices. IDFC if the child may grow up retarded or deformed, it deserves a chance at life, and if it hates life that much, well I also support a person's right to die when it is their own choice.
> 
> Ironically, the only people that should be aborted are the ones voting for the right to have an abortion.


Again these are feelings more than actually facts etc. 
I feel the woman should have the right to have the baby if they want it. Also not to born the child if they don't want it. I'm also supported of juridical abortion for the father if he wish nothing todo with the baby.

To claim it's murder, is just silly. Then you feel the same for bacteria and viruses as well? They also have the right to live then right? They aren't more than cells, just quite more harmful. There must be a line somewhere and I feel 16 weeks is pretty fair. By then you probably know you're pregnant. So you can terminate it when ever you like.

As I said, most abortions today are performed medicinal, you basically start a miscarriage. I guess miscarriage is murder as well... oh and male orgasm should be genocide.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh god. Don't act like one of those shit heads that want to take what only happens in an EXTREMELY MINUTE amount of cases and use that as your argument. And seriously, don't be a pedantic little shit. It is obviously not a god damn babies intentional fault if the mother dies, so seriously, don't be a shit head.
> 
> You know, adoption is a choice. Just because a child was born from rape or incest (again, extremely minute amount of cases, not worth using that as your ammo) does not mean that the child should lose it's chance at life because of someone else's poor or terrible choices. IDFC if the child may grow up retarded or deformed, it deserves a chance at life, and if it hates life that much, well I also support a person's right to die when it is their own choice.
> 
> Ironically, the only people that should be aborted are the ones voting for the right to have an abortion.


Seems that mindset is only something shared in your country. Every country in Europe makes abortion legal during the first trimester, even countries where they're still strict catholic. I really don't get why America has that medieval mindset with abortion and everything else. Well i'm proud to live in a country where we are one of the first that legalized gay marriage, abortion and even euthanasia. It's 2019 and not the 1400's. It's all funny how you're all screaming murder when somebody's does abortion but you're all fine with sending baby chicks through a blender and killing of thousands of lams and baby calves every single day. How hypocritical !


----------



## Kunty (May 20, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Why don't women closed their legs then ? Yes, there are women condoms. Google it. What are you talking about gay nor transgender ? This is about abortion thread.


Oh ok so it has to be the woman who closes her legs. Maybe the guy should keep his dick in his pants? Femidoms are uncomfortable, condoms are much better. I mention it because typically anti-abortion people also tend to be anti-anything but cisgender white male. Are you going to give a shit about a child after its born? Or do you only care when it's an embryo?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

Medieval? For real? Medieval would more like "The whore has a baby in her belly. Just shove a hot pike up there and kill, and to hell with it if the whore dies as well", and then they would actually carry out that type of an action. Medieval times were a rather lawless time. So I think you have that confused.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> To tell you the truth I don't really know what to make of it. I have no problem with abortion at the embryonic state or even early fetal stage.
> 
> ...


That's true. Though the reason for the higher chance at month 7 is because of the brain stuff. End of month 5 takes some science wizardry to ensure the baby can still continue to develop.
Week 14, or the second trimester, most of the organs start happening, aside from the brain really. So it starts looking like something that is kinda human at this point. If your definition of human is it looks human-ish and has a developing liver, heart, etc., then this is your trimester.

Since overwhelming chance of survival is the criteria for a lot of places, that places it around the 3rd trimester, yes?  I'm morally okay up to that point, personally. It's also still not my decision, being a guy.

I think the canadian stance is, since it's unconscionable to make a woman do something with her body against her will, her permission is still required to do anything. Same as if had a blood type required to save someone's life in an emergency situation and you were the only one around to do it: still your choice, even if it'd probably immoral not to. The state can't dictate what someone can or can't do with their body, is their position. Not pro-late-term abortion, more of a "we cannot make a decision because the state cannot morally be allowed to make those kinds of decisions".


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> Again these are feelings more than actually facts etc.
> I feel the woman should have the right to have the baby if they want it. Also not to born the child if they don't want it. I'm also supported of juridical abortion for the father if he wish nothing todo with the baby.
> 
> To claim it's murder, is just silly. Then you feel the same for bacteria and viruses as well? They also have the right to live then right? They aren't more than cells, just quite more harmful. There must be a line somewhere and I feel 16 weeks is pretty fair. By then you probably know you're pregnant. So you can terminate it when ever you like.
> ...


Bacteria? Oh come on. We are talking about a human life. Fuck, I will stomp on ants, swat at wasps, eradicate rodents, and chop chickens heads off. I am a farmer. I do what is necessary to help support human life.

Don't have sex if you can not accept the consequences of your actions. Don't drive drunk if you can't handle going to jail for life for killing someone. Life is full of consequences for your actions. This should not be any different.

If anyone thinks that abortion is alright, then what if I drive drunk and I kill someone? I don't get to call 'backsies' and be like "eh, I don't want to deal with the consequences of my actions today". You make a choice and now you must live with it.

And yes, there are always special circumstances for the cases where the mother or child may die from pregnancies. But that should not be the basis of an argument. Bringing those up is akin to someone making a statement that says "People are born with 8 fingers and 2 thumbs", and then some snooty college liberal shithead yells of from the back of the auditorium "No. Some people are born with extra digits. So we need to change the medical book to never say that people how many digits people are born with".


----------



## Bonehead (May 20, 2019)

Don't judge abortions until have you've had a few.  Would be like reviewing a game you haven't played.

I rate all of my abortions 8 out of 10.  They kick ass.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Bacteria? Oh come on. We are talking about a human life. Fuck, I will stomp on ants, swat at wasps, eradicate rodents, and chop chickens heads off. I am a farmer. I do what is necessary to help support human life.
> 
> Don't have sex if you can not accept the consequences of your actions. Don't drive drunk if you can't handle going to jail for life for killing someone. Life is full of consequences for your actions. This should not be any different.
> 
> ...


That's the worst comparison I've ever heard of. Life and accidents happen, even if you do absolutely everything right. Being drunk is much more akin to rape than sex. What if someone else drives drunk and runs into you. Why do you have to deal with the same consequences as if you were the drunk driver?


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> That's true. Though the reason for the higher chance at month 7 is because of the brain stuff. End of month 5 takes some science wizardry to ensure the baby can still continue to develop.
> Week 14, or the second trimester, most of the organs start happening, aside from the brain really. So it starts looking like something that is kinda human at this point. If your definition of human is it looks human-ish and has a developing liver, heart, etc., then this is your trimester.
> 
> Since overwhelming chance of survival is the criteria for a lot of places, that places it around the 3rd trimester, yes?  I'm morally okay up to that point, personally. It's also still not my decision, being a guy.



Is it that easy though? At what point is it legal for a doctor not to help someone, if the patients _estimated_ chance of survival is 49% or below?

It's also debatable whether this is a women's rights issue or a human rights issue as the question is at what point you should award a fetus human rights. Of course it affects women more severely but from a legislative standpoint, a precedent of a man having less say on a human rights issue makes me feel uneasy.



> I think the canadian stance is, since it's unconscionable to make a woman do something with her body against her will, her permission is still required to do anything. Same as if had a blood type required to save someone's life in an emergency situation and you were the only one around to do it: still your choice, even if it'd probably immoral not to. The state can't dictate what someone can or can't do with their body, is their position. Not pro-late-term abortion, more of a "we cannot make a decision because the state cannot morally be allowed to make those kinds of decisions".



I really do understand that, I just think it isn't right. At least here in Germany you have laws that deal specifically with crimes against people that can't protect themselves like kids or elderly people suffering from dementia. I feel like a viable fetus' life is more worthy of protection than the mother's wishes in cases where the child was conceived in a consensual relationship.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> That's the worst comparison I've ever heard of. Life and accidents happen, even if you do absolutely everything right. Being drunk is much more akin to rape than sex. What if someone else drives drunk and runs into you. Why do you have to deal with the same consequences as if you were the drunk driver?


Huh?
Sorry, still waking up.
No one accidentally has sex. You don't just slip and land your dick in a woman. It is an intentional act (not including rape). Everyone is taught what happens when you have sex. Everyone knows what happens when you drive drunk. You are taking a risk knowing the possible outcome, and everyone already knows condoms and birth control fails. The only way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid sex.

If you are the victim of a drunk driver, then the drunk driver must get consequences (unless you are an elitist and then you get away with anything).

There is no legal recourse for a woman getting an abortion, and there should be, ESPECIALLY if the father was against the abortion. It is his child too.

Women bitching "My body, my choice", yes, they already made their choice to have sex. There should be consequences for having an abortion to deter people from making poor choices.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And to anyone that says to me "So what are you going to do about all those unwanted babies when the mother gives it up and orphanages are full?"

You know what. I already do a shit load to help everyone around me. I give away the meat that we raise and the food that we grow to people all the time. I share a great amount. I have already been raising 3 troubling children that are not mine but I have treated them exactly as if they are mine. We have taken other children into our home that were in need and did great.

My life goal is to help people with my success. I was a shit head the majority of my younger years and I have turned that around to become a much better person. My plans for my future include continuing to give back to the community, the world, and people in need.

I will make certain that once I have even more the ability to do so, I will become actively involved with providing for children in foster homes and orphanages. My father spent a long time in an orphanage and it gave him nightmares for the rest of his life. No child should have to live like that. Ever child should have a great start to life. I will do my part in making that better for as many children as I can.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Huh?
> Sorry, still waking up.
> No one accidentally has sex. You don't just slip and land your dick in a woman. It is an intentional act (not including rape). Everyone is taught what happens when you have sex. Everyone knows what happens when you drive drunk. You are taking a risk knowing the possible outcome, and everyone already knows condoms and birth control fails. The only way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid sex.
> 
> ...


Drunk driving and sex is two very different worlds and a very dumb analogy.

We human are one of a few species that have sex for pleasure, is that wrong? But we also have it because of needs. A lot of the other species only have it for reproduction. The women decide what grows and going on in her body. You shouldn't be the one that judge it, if she feels it's wrong, she should be able to get it out. It's just asinine to go back to laws dictated by the church than on actual facts, economy and living conditions.

About your earlier segment about "human life", no we does the life become human, where do we decide what have the right to live and not? I'm being a man have no right if the child so live or not, it's up to the mother. If I want a child so bad, I need to either find a person that want to get a child or adopt. That's the harsh reality we men must face. 

Also "there should be consequnces for having an abortion"... there is already. A lot of social stigma, a lot of emotional pull etc. I know 4 people that have done abortions, and none of them have felt it was an easy decition. Two were waaay to young (18, still living at home, contraceptives didn't work what they told me) and two others have been more adult.

The two older decide they didn't feel it was the right time to have a baby, and I agree. If they feel they can't and would make the childs life a hell, then by all means yes. Get an abortion, its your right and no one should take it from you.

I kind of want to hear the female people of the temps talk about this instead of us with dingdongs... Also it's both parties problem if they get pregnant. It's not magically a women problem.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> There should be consequences for having an abortion to deter people from making poor choices.


why? Because you, personally, don't like it? You have to prove the responsibility, you can't assume it based on bad information or personal feelings. Your offense is not the same thing as moral imperative.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

There is the morning after pill. There are reasonable ways to stop the pregnancy before if becomes a being.

I would like to introduce you to Marcio Jardel.



 
The information on this man is scarce. Apparently the mother tried to have him aborted multiple times beyond the first trimester and he did not want to give up, but this is the result. How fucking fair is that?

You know what? If I drive drunk and I kill someone, then maybe I shouldn't go to jail because there is already enough of a social stigma...


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> There is the morning after pill. There are reasonable ways to stop the pregnancy before if becomes a being.
> 
> I would like to introduce you to Marcio Jardel.
> View attachment 167543
> ...


Drunk driving and abortion is still not the same thing.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> why? Because you, personally, don't like it? You have to prove the responsibility, you can't assume it based on bad information or personal feelings. Your offense is not the same thing as moral imperative.


If I drive drunk, and lets say that no one even gets hurt but I get pulled over, why should I get arrested? Because you, personally, don't like it? You have to prove the responsibility, you can't assume it based on bad information or personal feelings. Your offense is not the same thing as moral imperative.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> The only way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid sex.



Ignoring self fertilisation (which has been documented in humans and other higher life forms, though is quite rare as far as we know) then it should be noted that abortion is a magnificent way of having a pregnancy continue, and while prevention is generally better than a cure a cure is nothing to sneeze at either.

Still help me draw a line.
Birth control pill (female). Multiple methods though preventing release of an egg, typically by mimicking aspects of pregnancy wherein egg release is halted, is a popular one. I am guessing that is fine.
Birth control pill/injection (male). Reached human trials a while back. Unsure of the mechanism but dud swimmers is the speculated one. Guessing also fine.
Morning after pill (female). Causes a breakdown of the lining of the womb and prevents implantation of the fertilised egg, assuming there even is one, leaving it go land on a tampon or whatever. Are we still fine here?
Condoms (typically male but there are variations). If used correctly prevents sperm from entering the woman and thus never making contact with an egg. Seemingly no objection voiced there despite mentioning the concept.
Implant (female). Mechanisms vary a bit but usually some variation of the above and preventing implantation.
Various more permanent things including vasectomy, tubes tying and whole excision of uterus aka hysterectomy (also potentially comes with other benefits like no periods if enough things are removed, other times ovulation still happens and we are functionally back to some of the previous stuff). What goes here?
After this we do go into chemical abortions. Here it is typically a two stage affair, one halts the growth of the foetus and the second stage either promotes reabsorption of materials or sees the body flush them out (more common nowadays). What changed between other presumably OK for you methods and this or are we still good here?
Following this we go in for the more surgical approaches, though they also vary in approach, and surgical approaches are an option before this point (chemical stuff has been around a while but is still something of a developing field).

What goes in cases where the pregnancy is a risk to the carrier, and presumably then the parasite too (if the host dies and all that)? Spin it again and what if the host will end up a vegetable or something if one is not done and another procedure carried out?

I would go on for the rights of the father thing as that is an interesting thing to contemplate but I will skip it for now, if nothing else it was discussed in the previous thread.


----------



## kuwanger (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Seems that mindset is only something shared in your country. Every country in Europe makes abortion legal during the first trimester, even countries where they're still strict catholic. I really don't get why America has that medieval mindset with abortion and everything else.



There are definitely a lot of people who feel abortion is wrong and are against it--you mention Catholics.  In most countries, including the US, it devolves into flamewars when the subject comes up.  I get the impression there's more people in the US willing to start and flame flamewars than most other countries because there's a very strong belief in freedom of speech, especially on political issues.  In any case, it's still a substantially vocal minority in the US who wants the law changed because many Republican (politicians) would, if the time came, want to pressure a spouse or mistress to have an abortion.  That last part is the real disgusting part to me, since it clearly comes the mindset that "we're different" as justification.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> Drunk driving and abortion is still not the same thing.


You are right. One is legal and one is not. In my eyes both are preventable and both are a crime. Nothing anyone can say to me will change my mind about abortion being wrong.

Both the man and the woman have everything possible to be able to prevent a pregnancy that it is just extremely irresponsible to get pregnant when you dont want to be.

P.s. I am not a religious person at all. I am agnostic. My feelings about abortion are not based on any religious doctrines.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> You are right. One is legal and one is not. In my eyes both are preventable and both are a crime. Nothing anyone can say to me will change my mind about abortion being wrong.
> 
> Both the man and the woman have everything possible to be able to prevent a pregnancy that it is just extremely irresponsible to get pregnant when you dont want to be.


But one isn't a crime, that's what we're fighting for. One is a crime that endes a proper life, not a embryon.

Then if nothing can change your mind, why are you still trying to discuss it?

As i said earlier, I want a more feminin look on this, because right now the scientific world is more against you than your feelings.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> If I drive drunk, and lets say that no one even gets hurt but I get pulled over, why should I get arrested? Because you, personally, don't like it? You have to prove the responsibility, you can't assume it based on bad information or personal feelings. Your offense is not the same thing as moral imperative.


You're trying to get around proving responsibility by equating a forced comparison. You can't just point to the responsibilities when driving drunk and use those to justify anything you want to say about being forced to go through a pregnancy. It is not a logical or coherent thing to do. Please try to understand nothing you're saying holds water.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Seems that mindset is only something shared in your country. Every country in Europe makes abortion legal during the first trimester, even countries where they're still strict catholic.



Well, that's just false. It's not even true for the EU.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

linuxares said:


> But one isn't a crime, that's what we're fighting for. One is a crime that endes a proper life, not a embryon.
> 
> Then if nothing can change your mind, why are you still trying to discuss it?
> 
> As i said earlier, I want a more feminin look on this, because right now the scientific world is more against you than your feelings.


Because this type of discussion is necessary to have and all possible points from both sides be laid out to help those that are unsure of where they stand on it.

I am not sure of at what part of a pregnancy that I feel it is alright for a woman to terminate it and have no moral recourse. I am fine with the morning after pill. I do feel that the heartbeat is a good line as to where it gets drawn. I would have to research it in depth to know exactly where I feel it is alright. But even at the haertbeat, that still gives a woman at least 6 weeks to make a fair choice. I must also say, that there is debate of what exactly constitutes as a heartbeat. 6 weeks is the earliest I have seen it be said.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

Some people don't know they're pregnant until like at week 8. It's extremly common, so the heartbeat isn't a good indicator either. It just a machine to pump blood. That all it does. It's all about the brain for me. The one we call us, is in the brain. Our concious, our thoughts etc. is in our brain. When the heart is beating, the brain is hardly anything than a tiny goup to control that. For example, is a braindead person alive or dead?

Is it right for us to turn of the machine of said person that keeps it alive?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

If you are having sex, you should be regularly taking pregnancy tests. It is irresponsible to not be doing so.

The thing about a braindead person is a whole other discussion. But in short, everyone should have a living will or at least loved ones to make the proper choice respecting what that person may have wanted, especially if there is possible hope. I think we should keep that topic separate because it goes down a really deep rabbit hole.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Well, that's just false. It's not even true for the EU.


a simple google search does a lot . Belgium as an example it is legal to do so till 3 months in to the pregnancy and everybody can freely choose that but after 3 months it can only be done if it endangers the health of the person carrying the child. I think it should be the same everywhere in the world. 
http://abortion-clinics.eu/abortion-europe/


----------



## Bonehead (May 20, 2019)

Virgins talking about abortions is hilarious, btw.


----------



## WeedZ (May 20, 2019)

The problem with this debate is that opinions rely on a moral foundation. The problem with morality is that its subjective, its fluid, its constantly changing with time, culture and circumstance. There is no bottom line that you can turn to to say if it's right or wrong. There are cases where shooting a grown man in the face is the right, and morally acceptable thing to do. And times where one is considered a hero doing so. This is why potential crimes are judged on a case by case basis. To throw a blanket of standard over abortion is against the practices of modern society.

I like how deadlyfoes says we need to push these discussions to get people on one side of the fence or the other. Because it points out exactly what we dont need to do. It's ok to not have an opinion on something. Sometimes, it's better if people mind their own business. I dont care one way or another about abortion. I've never been faced with having to make that decision, nor do I judge those that have, because i know i cant possibly know everything about what would drive someone to have to do that.

 And if I did have to make that decision, let's say my gf and i were expecting, but the baby was horribly deformed or a product of a violent rape, I would already be facing one of the hardest trials of my life and wouldnt want a bunch of moral tryhards getting involved in my personal life when they clearly dont know what they're talking about.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> a simple google search does a lot . Belgium as an example it is legal to do so till 3 months in to the pregnancy and everybody can freely choose that but after 3 months it can only be done if it endangers the health of the person carrying the child. I think it should be the same everywhere in the world.
> http://abortion-clinics.eu/abortion-europe/



Yes it tells you where it is illegal and severely restricted. I have to commend you on providing the sources that disprove what you say.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Yes it tells you where it is illegal and severely restricted. I have to commend you on providing the sources that disprove what you say.


The union has 28 countries wich only one has abortion banned completely and couple others partially. So almost every country has it legalized.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Yes it tells you where it is illegal and severely restricted. I have to commend you on providing the sources that disprove what you say.


The union has 28 countries wich only one has abortion banned completely and couple others partially. So almost every country has it legalized.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Nothing anyone can say to me will change my mind about abortion being wrong.



So try to change mine. I am less fixed in my opinions here; while I would like to believe my opinions were the result of a long and involved consideration of the concepts and ethics thereof, one undertaken having achieved an understanding of the underlying concepts, the whole "no amount can prove me right, any one experiment can prove me wrong" thing is very much in play.


----------



## zomborg (May 20, 2019)

Why Cots why? I really wasn't ready for the abortion issue to be discussed.

 First of all, if, each time a woman chose to abort, she died as a result, the number of abortions would significantly decrease. Also it would eliminate debate.

 Also, to address those who refer to the unwanted life as a virus, parasite, blob of cells or crotch goblin.
Would your opinion be the same if the topic was an endangered species such as the the northern white rhinoceros? As with all endangered species on our world, scientists, activists and average citizens alike are concerned for them and rightly so. We want to fight as hard as we can to keep them from becoming extinct.
 Even though humans are nowhere near extinction and many on the left would bring the overpopulation argument, although the white rhino is important, each and every human life is vastly more important.
Even we do not dare to categorize a white rhino pregnancy as a parasite or weed so then we should not do the same with a human. Humans have infinitely more potential. Humans have higher cognitive functions and more advanced reasoning. Humans drive trucks, operate advanced technologies and create cures for deadly disease.
 Do you see any of the animals on the endangered list driving trucks?

Also if your pro abortion stances had merit and your views became law of the land many years ago, then many of you potentially may have been aborted and you would never have existed to engage in this debate or for that matter, ever have signed up at the temp. Many of the positive things that you each contribute to society may have been lost if your mothers were as steadfastly in favor of abortion. Just consider all of the programmers, coders, designers, engineers, mathematicians and other intelligent people who may never have been born because they weren't given that chance.
 Many have argued that we have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body but by that same token, the unborn life should be given the same respect and consideration.
How do we know that baby is not going to grow up to solve world hunger or cure all disease? Who are we to interfere?

One last point I wish to make. It boils down to responsibility. Those in favor of abortion, do not wish to be held accountable for their irresponsible actions. Yes, yes I know the whole rape, incest and unplanned pregnancy in wedlock arguments but those account for only a tiny portion of world wide pregnancies. As others have mentioned in this thread keep your legs closed and keep your pants zipped but if and when that fails, be prepared to accept your responsibility. A baby is one of the consequences of not being responsible and the only person you have to blame is yourself and your partner. But people want to step out and play and be promiscuous and then take the easy way out. Instead of being a responsible adult they become pro choice.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> One last point I wish to make. It boils down to responsibility. Those in favor of abortion, do not wish to be held accountable for their irresponsible actions. Yes, yes I know the whole rape, incest and unplanned pregnancy in wedlock arguments but those account for only a tiny portion of world wide pregnancies. As others have mentioned in this thread keep your legs closed and keep your pants zipped but if and when that fails, be prepared to accept your responsibility. A baby is one of the consequences of not being responsible and the only person you have to blame is yourself and your partner. But people want to step out and play and be promiscuous and then take the easy way out. Instead of being a responsible adult they become pro choice.


^^^Exactly this.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> The union has 28 countries wich only one has abortion banned completely and couple others partially. So almost every country has it legalized.



Good that we agree. Now read further and you'll realize that the US has, on average, much more liberal laws regarding abortion. So I guess we're stuck in middle ages here?


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Also if your pro abortion stances had merit and your views became law of the land many years ago, then many of you potentially may have been aborted and you would never have existed to engage in this debate or for that matter, ever have signed up at the temp. Many of the positive things that you each contribute to society may have been lost if your mothers were as steadfastly in favor of abortion. Just consider all of the programmers, coders, designers, engineers, mathematicians and other intelligent people who may never have been born because they weren't given that chance.
> Many have argued that we have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body but by that same token, the unborn life should be given the same respect and consideration.
> How do we know that baby is not going to grow up to solve world hunger or cure all disease? Who are we to interfere?


That's the old-school catholic approach. That's why masturbation is a crime against god. You're killing all those potential humans.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 20, 2019)

So a doctor giving a rape victim an abortion would do FAR more time than the rapist themselves. Good one RepubliCONS. I bet you feel so proud of yourselves. Deplorable garbage.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Good that we agree. Now read further and you'll realize that the US has, on average, much more liberal laws regarding abortion. So I guess we're stuck in middle ages here?


If you would have read my complete comment i was talking in general when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia and so forth wich is all perfectly fine here in Belgium. So yeah when it comes to the US in general a lot of laws are stuck in the middle ages and are a lot of times archaic. I find the US one of the least progressive countries in the world when it comes to the west in general and very very archaic in comparison to other western countries.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> So a doctor giving a rape victim an abortion would do FAR more time than the rapist themselves. Good one RepubliCONS. I bet you feel so proud of yourselves. Deplorable garbage.


Who the fuck ever said that? A rapist should be in prison for life, caged like the animal that it is.

Now, I could be wrong, but I know I hadn't even mentioned anything about the end of the doctor, and the comments from other people that I have read didn't mention anything about what may happen to a doctor. So wtf are you going on about?


----------



## zomborg (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> That's the old-school catholic approach. That's why masturbation is a crime against god. You're killing all those potential humans.


Yes indeed. Not all old school ideas are outdated relics. If people were more responsible our world would be a better place with significantly fewer problems.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> If you would have read my complete comment i was talking in general when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia and so forth wich is all perfectly fine here in Belgium. So yeah when it comes to the US in general a lot of laws are stuck in the middle ages and are a lot of times archaic. I find the US one of the least progressive countries in the world when it comes to the west in general.



Well, I agree.
It's just that you specifically mentioned Europe, not the EU, not Belgium, yet the US is more progressive on gay marriage with the number of EU states where gay marriage is legal around 50%. As mentioned they are also more liberal in terms of abortion with only a few states who introduced more restrictive abortion laws very recently.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Yes indeed. Not all old school ideas are outdated relics. If people were more responsible our world would be a better place with significantly fewer problems.


Funnily enough, that particular notions comes from the idea that the "whole" of the person comes from the man's sperm. We still use the same terminology, actually.  the man's "seed", the woman is "fertile", etc. They thought semen was literally human seed, and the woman's womb was the human soil in which it was grown. This way of thinking has shaped this entire debate. Remove the religious dogma, and you'd have a far more logical and moral kind of discussion.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Well, I agree.
> It's just that you specifically mentioned Europe, not the EU, not Belgium, yet the US is more progressive on gay marriage with the number of EU states where gay marriage is legal around 50%. As mentioned they are also more liberal in terms of abortion with only a few states who introduced more restrictive abortion laws very recently.


But they also have the death penalty, gay marriage is perfectly fine here in Belgium and gender change can be done without a surgery so in that regard i don't find the US to be that progressive. Think we're also the only country in the world were euthanasia is legal but yeah in regard to the union as a whole some countries aren't that progressive as Belgium is. But in general when it comes to like everything regarding prison, death penalty, gay rights, abortion and so forth they are one of the least progressive countries in the west. Some laws may be more progressive compared to other countries but when you look at everything in general it just doesn't count up.


----------



## AkGBA (May 20, 2019)

Unwanted pregnancies destroy lives, plural.
People should be prepared if and when they want to raise children.

I'm trying to understand the pro-life stance, but I always come back to this argument.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Who the fuck ever said that? A rapist should be in prison for life, caged like the animal that it is.
> 
> Now, I could be wrong, but I know I hadn't even mentioned anything about the end of the doctor, and the comments from other people that I have read didn't mention anything about what may happen to a doctor. So wtf are you going on about?



Oh, please. Don't play dumb. You know exactly what I'm talking about and exactly how it fits in to the entire conversation.


----------



## Harumyne (May 20, 2019)

When I lived in England I knew 2 girls who had abortions, they loved to take cocaine and have weird parties with the bar owners after hours, I was unlucky enough to be that person who hears about all sorts of shit because I had loads of "friends" back then, and to be honest they were morons those two, and they are the sorts of people making abortions illegal, I agree that under certain circumstances a child can be aborted, but there are people that are disgusting excuses for human beings that abused it to the point of it basically becoming murder.

Religious bullshit aside, it's sad that people choose to stop another human from experiencing what life is, all for themselves, finances shouldn't be a reason, which I have heard used often as a reason for justification, because you're 'not ready'.. get fucking real.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

Elemi said:


> When I lived in England I knew 2 girls who had abortions, they loved to take cocaine and have weird parties with the bar owners after hours, I was unlucky enough to be that person who hears about all sorts of shit because I had loads of "friends" back then, and to be honest they were morons those two, and they are the sorts of people making abortions illegal, I agree that under certain circumstances a child can be aborted, but there are people that are disgusting excuses for human beings that abused it to the point of it basically becoming murder.
> 
> Religious bullshit aside, it's sad that people choose to stop another human from experiencing what life is, all for themselves, finances shouldn't be a reason, which I have heard used often as a reason for justification, because you're 'not ready'.. get fucking real.


What for you is considered life is not considered life over there or here. It has been shown multiple times that brain activity starts after 3 months in and life here isn't considered to be life when there's no brain activity. It is the same with somebody who is in a vegative state. There's no brain activity so in that regard the person isn't seen as alive anymore. If you consider life without brain activity then you can also consider a beating heart without a body but attached to a machine life wich it isn't


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> But they also have the death penalty, gay marriage is perfectly fine here in Belgium and gender change can be done without a surgery so in that regard i don't find the US to be that progressive. Think we're also the only country in the world were euthanasia is legal but yeah in regard to the union as a whole some countries aren't that progressive as Belgium is. But in general when it comes to like everything regarding prison, death penalty, gay rights, abortion and so forth they are one of the least progressive countries in the west. Some laws may be more progressive compared to other countries but when you look at everything in general it just doesn't count up.



Yet they're far more progressive on cannabis legalization. The death penalty is still signed into law in some regions of the EU it's just not in effect because it's superceded by that country's federal law, which I understand is the same with the Alabama abortion bill.
Some of the things you mention can also be argued to be rather regressive.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Yet they're far more progressive on cannabis legalization. The death penalty is still signed into law in some regions of the EU it's just not in effect because it's superceded by that country's federal law, which I understand is the same with the Alabama abortion bill.
> Some of the things you mention can also be argued to be rather regressive.


What ? Name me one Union country that has the death penalty ? NONE !
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sect...d-human-rights/fight-against-death-penalty_en


----------



## zomborg (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Funnily enough, that particular notions comes from the idea that the "whole" of the person comes from the man's sperm. We still use the same terminology, actually.  the man's "seed", the woman is "fertile", etc. They thought semen was literally human seed, and the woman's womb was the human soil in which it was grown. This way of thinking has shaped this entire debate. Remove the religious dogma, and you'd have a far more logical and moral kind of discussion.


I'm not so sure I agree with that. In the absence of order, chaos reigns. I mean sure, if we remove religion it may stop both sides being bitterly entrenched but then it wouldn't be much of a debate with everyone being pro choice. There would be nothing left to discuss.
 Seems as though it would be logical to accept one's responsibility when you make a mistake and decide it's time to stop sleeping around, settle down and raise the life you helped bring into this world.
Then, in the event you aren't capable of providing for the child, there are many sterile yet loving people out there (who have the financial means) yearning for that child.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> What ? Name me one Union country that has the death penalty ? NONE !
> https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sect...d-human-rights/fight-against-death-penalty_en



Rheinland-Pfalz and Hessen in Germany have the death penalty in their state constitutions, as I've mentioned they're not in effect as they're superceded by the German constitution.

Oh, I just noticed Hessen has scrapped it last year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46070519


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Rheinland-Pfalz and Hessen in Germany have the death penalty in their state constitutions, as I've mentioned they're not in effect as they're superceded by the German constitution.


Long gone
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46070519


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Long gone
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46070519



Yeah, I just realized and edited my post before I read your reply. Your definition of Long gone regarding laws is rather curious though.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Yeah, I just realized and edited my post before I read your reply. Your definition of Long gone regarding laws is rather curious though.


state law abolished it in 1949 so in that regard it has been long gone. Like it says on that page, it was just a symbolic thing seeing state law abolished it in 1949. You're nitpicking, in that regard you can nitpick about a lot of things wich are in constitutions like being drunk in a bar without having a permit to be drunk in the UK wich isn't enforced at all but ey lets just nitpick


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

AkGBA said:


> Unwanted pregnancies destroy lives, plural.
> People should be prepared if and when they want to raise children.
> 
> I'm trying to understand the pro-life stance, but I always come back to this argument.


Unwanted drunk driving accidents do as well. Be responsible or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
This is the only personal responsibility thing that people can use a 'get out of jail free' card, so to speak, when they have fucked up. All other poor choices that afflicts on another person rights, freedoms, belongings, and safety are met with criminal liabilities.

Lately, more places have been adopting the law that if someone causes the fault of a miscarriage of a pregnant woman, the person will get charged for that. Not sure where they draw the line on how far along the pregnancy that they will consider it.


----------



## Harumyne (May 20, 2019)

I think it's wrong for people to be messing about and when they inevitably get pregnant just go and abort it, I will never agree with that.


----------



## MMX (May 20, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> So a doctor giving a rape victim an abortion would do FAR more time than the rapist themselves. Good one RepubliCONS. I bet you feel so proud of yourselves. Deplorable garbage.



how many % of abortions are even by rape victims, and how many of trash-tier women who just F*ck everything? Abortion isn't the problem, it's our society, the hookup culture and sexual liberation of women


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

MMX said:


> how many % of abortions are even by rape victims, and how many of trash-tier women who just F*ck everything? Abortion isn't the problem, it's our society, the hookup culture and sexual liberation of women


so it's okay for a man to be sexual liberated but it ain't for a woman ? Luckily you're one of the minority who thinks like that. We all know how great the medieval centuries were eh


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> state law abolished it in 1949 so in that regard it has been long gone. Like it says on that page, it was just a symbolic thing seeing state law abolished it in 1949. You're nitpicking, in that regard you can nitpick about a lot of things wich are in constitutions like being drunk in a bar without having a permit to be drunk in the UK wich isn't enforced at all but ey lets just nitpick



It hasn't been abolished until 2018, it has not been in effect since 1949. You're also missing the point I wanted to make, which is that the same applies to the Alabama abortion law (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this please, it's something I've read in a German news article). Perhaps I haven't made myself clear.


----------



## Harumyne (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> so it's okay for a man to be sexual liberated but it ain't for a woman ? Luckily you're one of the minority who thinks like that. We all know how great the medieval centuries were eh


I think what men have been getting up to is wrong, I think what women are getting up to is wrong too, sex is being reduced to a bare commodity and a disgusting excuse for 'love' and I hate it, it is causing so much bad, families destroyed, diseases running rampant, nobody trusts eachother for fear of their mate cheating..

Gross, eww eww, stop it all..


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Who the fuck ever said that? A rapist should be in prison for life, caged like the animal that it is.
> 
> Now, I could be wrong, but I know I hadn't even mentioned anything about the end of the doctor, and the comments from other people that I have read didn't mention anything about what may happen to a doctor. So wtf are you going on about?



If you really want to know "Who the fuck ever said that?"... the law books did. Try doing some research before spouting off a bunch of nonsense. In Alabama alone, a 2nd degree rape carries a max penalty of 20 years. The doctor performing the abortion on the victim faces up to 99 years. In others states the penalties for rape are even less. And who hasn't seen plenty of times in the news where rapists are just let free with no time served? Especially first time offenders who get a slap on the wrist and some probation time.

Regarding the rest of your comment, why does someone else need to bring up the doctors end of things first, before I can comment on it? That's just stupid. Do I require your permission to bring up additional points directly related to the subject? Again, stop playing pretend like you're completely clueless.




MMX said:


> how many % of abortions are even by rape victims, and how many of trash-tier women who just F*ck everything? Abortion isn't the problem, it's our society, the hookup culture and sexual liberation of women



Except you're missing the entire point of why people are upset. They're pissed because there was no exception made for rape/incest/molestation victims. The trash-tier women are completely invalid to the entire thing because they are excluded from receiving a legal abortion whether the exceptions were added or not. Your post is completely moot.


----------



## MMX (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> so it's okay for a man to be sexual liberated but it ain't for a woman ? Luckily you're one of the minority who thinks like that. We all know how great the medieval centuries were eh



women hold the key to life, they can choose who they have sex with. Luckily I'm not a cuck unlike you


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> so it's okay for a man to be sexual liberated but it ain't for a woman ? Luckily you're one of the minority who thinks like that. We all know how great the medieval centuries were eh


It's a problem of both parties responsibility. Both dipshits are at fault.

When my ex got pregnant with my first child, she was afraid to tell me because she thought that I would want to abort it. I was happy as all hell. Best news I had ever gotten. At that point I said to myself "time to grow the fuck up and take responsibility". It changed me that day.

Too bad so many other scumbag pieces of trash are like "Hey brother Jed, you got me pregnant again. time for my quarterly abortion. Hyuck.", and society is supposed to act like this shit is all right. Ghetto trash perpetuating the idea that it is alright to be irresponsible and training them to believe that theres an easy way out of responsibility if you can figure out how to cheat.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

Elemi said:


> I think what men have been getting up to is wrong, I think what women are getting up to is wrong too, sex is being reduced to a bare commodity and a disgusting excuse for 'love' and I hate it, it is causing so much bad, families destroyed, diseases running rampant, nobody trusts eachother for fear of their mate cheating..
> 
> Gross, eww eww, stop it all..


there were more diseases running rampant when the Vatican ruled everyone. I trust the person i'm with. You're projecting your own trust issues on everybody and like i said '' i trust the person i'm with fully''

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MMX said:


> women hold the key to life, they can choose who they have sex with. Luckily I'm not a cuck unlike you


Did i suggest differently ? You should learn to read. I'm really wondering how you got that from my comment wich was '' so it's okay for a man to be sexual liberated but it ain't for a woman ? Luckily you're one of the minority who thinks like that. We all know how great the medieval centuries were eh ''


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 20, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> If you really want to know "Who the fuck ever said that?"... the law books did. Try doing some research before spouting off a bunch of nonsense. In Alabama alone, a 2nd degree rape carries a max penalty of 20 years. The doctor performing the abortion on the victim faces up to 99 years. In others states the penalties for rape are even less. And who hasn't seen plenty of times in the news where rapists are just let free with no time served? Especially first time offenders who get a slap on the wrist and some probation time.
> 
> Regarding the rest of your comment, why does someone else need to bring up the doctors end of things first, before I can comment on it? That's just stupid. Do I require your permission to bring up additional points directly related to the subject? Again, stop playing pretend like you're completely clueless.


Oh, you are completely allowed to bring in other points into the conversation, but when you start shooting off and putting the people in this forum into a group of beliefs that was not even mentioned yet and then start insulting and acting like a complete neurotic ass-clown, yeah, expect some instant pushback.

That would be like me saying out of nowhere "Oh yeah, and you are a shithead for being a part of the confederate, and and and, they uhhh, enslaved blacks.... yeah"
Fuck, you never mentioned the confederate, and it wasn't previously brought up in the argument that anyone was trying to stand behind.


----------



## Harumyne (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> there were more diseases running rampant when the Vatican ruled everyone. I trust the person i'm with. You're projecting your own trust issues on everybody and like i said '' i trust the person i'm with fully''
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I have never had a partner, I'm too young (25) and travelling/surfing is more interesting to me at the moment.

Also nothing as evil as AIDS, I am certain, Syphilis was bad, but AIDS worse.

And I am referring to all the breakups I've seen so far in life, not attacking.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 20, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh, you are completely allowed to bring in other points into the conversation, but when you start shooting off and putting the people in this forum into a group of beliefs that was not even mentioned yet and then start insulting and acting like a complete neurotic ass-clown, yeah, expect some instant pushback.



Nothing people dislike more than a raging hypocrite. Enjoy your day.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

Elemi said:


> I have never had a partner, I'm too young (25) and travelling/surfing is more interesting to me at the moment.
> 
> Also nothing as evil as AIDS, I am certain, Syphilis was bad, but AIDS worse.
> 
> And I am referring to all the breakups I've seen so far in life, not attacking.


HIV has already been as good as cured and PREP is actually quite easy to get and not expensive at all. There's also PEP wich is also easy to get and not that expensive. Atleast here in the union it isn't


----------



## MMX (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Did i suggest differently ? You should learn to read.



You convinved me, women should have unlimited free abortions


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

MMX said:


> You convinved me, women should have unlimited free abortions


i didn't say that, don't twist what i said


----------



## MMX (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> i didn't say that, don't twist what i said


so you're against it? what are you? some kinda women hater? Middle ages called


----------



## Harumyne (May 20, 2019)

In debate societies, it's not allowed to become personal, I think maybe as a rule it would stop these heated arguments from derailing it into personal attacks.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

MMX said:


> so you're against it? what are you? some kinda women hater? Middle ages called


Ugh you're annoying. Not gonna bother answering you anymore. It was you who said women can't be sexually liberated while men can be, not me


----------



## MMX (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Ugh you're annoying. Not gonna bother answering you anymore. It was you who said women can't be sexually liberated while men can be, not me



dear friend, I was talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution not about a "sexual liberation of men."


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

MMX said:


> dear friend, I was talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution not about a "sexual liberation of men."


your comment wich was '''' how many % of abortions are even by rape victims, and how many of trash-tier women who just F*ck everything? Abortion isn't the problem, it's our society, the hookup culture and sexual liberation of women ''''
wich i responded to so in your eyes it is okay for a man to be sexually liberated but it ain't for a woman ? You clearly said that women being sexually liberated are the problem.


----------



## WeedZ (May 20, 2019)

Alright guys. Debate respectfully or not at all.


----------



## MMX (May 20, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> your comment wich was '''' how many % of abortions are even by rape victims, and how many of trash-tier women who just F*ck everything? Abortion isn't the problem, it's our society, the hookup culture and sexual liberation of women ''''
> wich i responded to so in your eyes it is okay for a man to be sexually liberated but it ain't for a woman ? You clearly said that women being sexually liberated are the problem.



please think of the whole sentence. it's the hookup culture, our society which promotes promiscuity AND the sexual liberation of women which all made it so women can be as irresponsible as can be. 
At the end of the day, a woman decides if they have sex with some man or not and how. 
If you date some girl she's not going to get pregnant unless she makes a conscious decision to have sex with you. it's thatsimple

And don't come with the rape argument that's such a fragment of the actual abortions.


----------



## GhostLatte (May 20, 2019)

Republicans are against the "murder of unborn children" but will willingly lock children in cages. Their mentality is fuck you after you are born.


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

MMX said:


> please think of the whole sentence. it's the hookup culture, our society which promotes promiscuity AND the sexual liberation of women which all made it so women can be as irresponsible as can be.
> At the end of the day, a woman decides if they have sex with some man or not and how.
> If you date some girl she's not going to get pregnant unless she makes a conscious decision to have sex with you. it's thatsimple
> 
> And don't come with the rape argument that's such a fragment of the actual abortions.


Then you should have used different wording for your original statement since what you commented first doesn't line up with what you just said now. I'm guessing it is because you don't know English that well and used the wrong wording. If that is the case then forgot what i said since i took it in a different manner and it probably wasn't your intention of stating that since well bad wording i guess.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (May 20, 2019)

cots said:


> So we're seeing a lot of press coverage over the entire abortion issue lately due to some states outlawing the practice. I see no problem with this. I mean, if you're protesting to protect a tree why not protect a human life? If you are having sexual relationships then your are usually taking the risk of becoming pregnant. Not ready to be a parent - keep your pants on. Of course, there is the minority of people who are impregnated against their own will. Rape sucks, but murder is murder. Rape usually doesn't result in the baby being mis-figured or deformed (which is the case if someone in your immediate gene pool - which happens in even less of the situations). So is the murder justified in these cases? I don't think murder can be justified. Murder is murder. However, I do see Trump's point of view saying that Alabama's Law (which outlaws abortion in all cases except when a mother's life is in danger). It's a lose-lose situation in that case and I'm not a women nor have ever been in the position where if I give birth I might die so I can't really assume to tell anyone else anything about that. Just something inside of me tells me that killing babies is not right.
> 
> I know that the majority of abortions don't fit into the minority categories so I'm relieved that there will be less overall needless death, but if democrats really cared about only the minority then why is it allowable to cry about the majority of the popular vote in our last election? It's not supposed to be the Governments job to tell a mother what do to with her baby, but since we accept the Governments decisions that regulate most of our lives already I don't see any harm in saving a life. If money is an issue then society shouldn't abandon the kid (which is what the parent shouldn't do to begin with - the parents decided to have sex and should raise the child).
> 
> ...


If done sufficiently early, it's not murder. It's not a life yet, just a lump of flesh. Nothing has formed yet that could be considered a person, it has no thoughts, no feelings, no senses.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with that. In the absence of order, chaos reigns. I mean sure, if we remove religion it may stop both sides being bitterly entrenched but then it wouldn't be much of a debate with everyone being pro choice. There would be nothing left to discuss.
> Seems as though it would be logical to accept one's responsibility when you make a mistake and decide it's time to stop sleeping around, settle down and raise the life you helped bring into this world.
> Then, in the event you aren't capable of providing for the child, there are many sterile yet loving people out there (who have the financial means) yearning for that child.


lack of religion does not breed chaos in matters of morality. i usually find the opposite to be true. when you put people above the dogma, you're more likely to find solutions that benefit people.

also, why is sleeping around a bad thing? that's another religous axiom that was created back before we really knew how stuff worked and incorrect knowledge created bad rules. it helped them create lineages and ownership, because that's how their world worked. our world works differently.

continual consent, do it safe, communicate effeciently and often, and minimize dogma and assumptions. not having sex has no inherent moral value. having sex has no inherent moral value. it's only what you personally feel about it. which is 100% valid, free to change, and you do you. but you can't tell other people how they should feel about it.

sex isn't a bad thing and shouldn't be considered a crime that needs punishing. before or after marriage, it's the same thing. i think that singular bad idea really holds back some folks from actually having the actual discussion at hand.


----------



## BiggieCheese (May 20, 2019)

MMX said:


> how many % of abortions are even by rape victims, and how many of trash-tier women who just F*ck everything? Abortion isn't the problem, it's our society, the hookup culture and sexual liberation of women


Are you an incel?


----------



## TheMrIron2 (May 20, 2019)

The amount of ad-hominem attacks being thrown here are derailing the whole thread.

Before I answer this question, let's be objective before bringing in _anything_ subjective:

- Millions of people around the world every year have unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. In fact, 45% of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. The "be responsible or keep your pants on" argument is shaky at best, because even a very responsible couple can have issues with contraceptives (eg. a bad condom).

 - Anti-abortionists here are avoiding the rape argument because it's a small percentage of abortions, but why does this discount the argument? As per the recent case that went viral, an 11-year-old girl who was involved in non-consensual sex is now not allowed to have an abortion, even though this provides a serious risk to the health or life of the girl. The reality is, these cases do happen in their thousands (25,000-32,000 cases per year in the USA) and banning the bill is just unfair on the victim, who along with therapy from the assault now has to give birth to a baby they had no say in and perhaps can't support.

- Anti-abortion arguments regularly rely on the snuck premise of the terminated fetus being a "murder", or that life is from conception. There are differing opinions on this, but it is not inhumane to abort a baby before they can feel pain. At that point, the baby isn't developed enough to be hurt by it and any criticism of a "pre-pain" abortion is just the regurgitation of moral dogma. You care more about the baby's life than the baby does, at that point, and even then that's on the assumption we're calling it life at 20 weeks.

Now for more opinionated commentary on the issue: I believe that while some may find it morally objectionable that we're aborting a potential human being, I find it equally objectionable that we're restricting women from choosing what happens to unborn life.  It's very arbitrary policing of what "might" be a potential human at the expense of very real threat, in many cases, of a woman's health.
Additionally, the legality of abortion often doesn't change whether or not a woman gets an abortion - according to WHO, there are an estimated 25 million unsafe abortions every year (out of approx. 56 million abortions, safe or not). This results in serious complications for ~7 million women annually.

The pragmatic answer to the abortion question is that many women who have unplanned/unwanted or even unconsented pregnancies will get an abortion *regardless of the legality* in their home state/country: the only thing the law affects is how safe the operation is. If these women are getting abortions regardless of laws or moral doctrines, then the best thing we can do is to minimize the discrimination faced by abortion-seekers and to make it a safe, humane procedure.


----------



## MMX (May 20, 2019)

BiggieCheese said:


> Are you an incel?


are you a furry?


----------



## TheMrIron2 (May 20, 2019)

MMX said:


> are you a furry?


That's an inane and defensive response that basically confirms his question


----------



## BiggieCheese (May 20, 2019)

(Pretend that i didn’t forget to put a quote here)
No.


----------



## zomborg (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> lack of religion does not breed chaos in matters of morality. i usually find the opposite to be true. when you put people above the dogma, you're more likely to find solutions that benefit people.
> 
> also, why is sleeping around a bad thing? that's another religous axiom that was created back before we really knew how stuff worked and incorrect knowledge created bad rules. it helped them create lineages and ownership, because that's how their world worked. our world works differently.
> 
> ...


You broach a deep subject concerning morality. Where does morality come from? Some say morality has it's roots in religion but they are in error.
 Religion is a construct made by man and thereby faulty. If morality sprang forth from man then it is faulty and doomed to fail. Instead I posit that there would be no morality and that indeed it never would have existed without first the belief in a higher power. It is not man made religion whereby morality springs from but because people of old had a relationship with this higher power.
 Why is sexual freedom a negative thing? What positive things has it created? Higher abortion rates?, STDs? Definitely not positive. Also it contributes to moral decay.
If sex is practiced within the confines of wedlock it is a wonderful and beautiful thing. It also greatly reduces STDs when both in the union remain faithful to each other. Also it greatly reduces the likelihood of abortion. Add to that the decreased risk of rape due to the fact that a woman is not regularly engaged in seeking a mate in various high risk locals. (bars, night clubs, etc)


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Why Cots why? I really wasn't ready for the abortion issue to be discussed.
> 
> First of all, if, each time a woman chose to abort, she died as a result, the number of abortions would significantly decrease. Also it would eliminate debate.
> 
> ...



If a northern white rhinoceros cared to have an abortion and indicated such then fine, same if its owner also wanted it.

Even if I take a human life as being more important as read then is it life that an abortion takes?

Roe vs Wade, the end of a long thing in the US law (various states had before then, and outside the US it had been happening before that) was 1973. So yes it would seem the pro abortion stances became the law of the land many years ago, probably before the majority ever likely to read this were or indeed could have been conceived. We could go back to the Romans as well if you wanted.

If society truly gave a fuck about having more "programmers, coders, designers, engineers, mathematicians and other intelligent people" then schools, healthcare, city planning, salaries, parental leave and so forth would be a hell of a lot better than they are. Similarly some have pondered if it also goes the other way and how many killers, thieves and lawyers never came to pass. The Freakonomics folks have interesting stuff here.

"by that same token, the unborn life should be given the same respect and consideration."
and when it becomes life I will. Pending that day though...

"How do we know that baby is not going to grow up to solve world hunger or cure all disease? Who are we to interfere?"
Why is that any different to using a condom, knowingly sticking it in an infertile woman, masturbating, not aiming to get pregnant every ovulation...? Indeed why don't we interfere gattaca style to profile and select the absolute best combination (possibly also sequence everybody to see what the best combination will be) or pour billions into this crispr lark to ensure a better chance of that, possibly also some artificial wombs*?

*speaking of which earlier I saw a comment along the lines of women control the making of life. I would add "for now" to the end of that one.

Final part then. How do those in favour of abortion not want to be held responsible for their actions? Indeed having to go see a medic to sort a problem would seem like a consequence to an action and responsibility for sorting it being taken.
A tiny portion? Do numbers matter much here? Also why would I draw a line in the sand there?
Similarly shutting your legs is a method that works well enough if kept too, so is the pill. Practically though people forget to take it so efficacy is less than total. I suspect the practical realities of the shutting your legs method is less efficient still.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 20, 2019)

why are the mods even allowing these crappy baity topics to stay around?

it's always the same 'lib-baiting' time and time again, wasting every sane persons time by arguing in good faith with people that wouldn't take an argument or a fact, if literal god the almighty would've carved it into the moon for all to see.


----------



## linuxares (May 20, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> why are the mods even allowing these crappy baity topics to stay around?
> 
> it's always the same 'lib-baiting' time and time again, wasting every sane persons time by arguing in good faith with people that wouldn't take an argument or a fact, if literal god the almighty would've carved it into the moon for all to see.


Its fine. It's the right part of the correct forum.


----------



## FoxMcloud5655 (May 20, 2019)

I'll say this.

Is a cell alive?  Yes, but it acts according to what your DNA has coded it to do.  If you knowingly release (or accept) a sperm (which is a cell and therefore is alive) into an egg, then you have made a conscious decision to create a baby.  The minute that the sperm hits the egg and fertilizes it, since both the egg and the sperm are alive, does that not make the completed product alive?

That's just my thinking, completely barring the fact that I'm Christian, as some of you already know.


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (May 20, 2019)

Wow, I never realized how much of a burden it is to be born with eggs and a uterus until the topic of abortion came into existence.


----------



## TheMrIron2 (May 20, 2019)

FoxMcloud5655 said:


> I'll say this.
> 
> Is a cell alive?  Yes, but it acts according to what your DNA has coded it to do.  If you knowingly release (or accept) a sperm (which is a cell and therefore is alive) into an egg, then you have made a conscious decision to create a baby.  The minute that the sperm hits the egg and fertilizes it, since both the egg and the sperm are alive, does that not make the completed product alive?
> 
> That's just my thinking, completely barring the fact that I'm Christian, as some of you already know.


The crux of the issue is that there are millions of cases where the sperm unwillingly finds the egg or the woman unwillingly receives it. Setting aside the question of classifying "life", how is one meant to respond in that situation, especially if the woman is unable to birth the child or support it once born?


----------



## kumikochan (May 20, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> If a northern white rhinoceros cared to have an abortion and indicated such then fine, same if its owner also wanted it.
> 
> Even if I take a human life as being more important as read then is it life that an abortion takes?
> 
> ...


If you think a person can grow up to become a certain someone also raises a different concern and that is that there is no free will since everything is on a fixed path and despite all we do we all end up the way we're supposed to do. I don't agree with the notion that that person could have become someone who cured world hunger or whatsoever since that would be also agreeing there is no free will and we just end up how we're supposed to end up. I live iright now not in the '' what if scenario and in 10 years time this or that ''


----------



## Bonehead (May 20, 2019)

Adopt or gtfo.


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> You broach a deep subject concerning morality. Where does morality come from? Some say morality has it's roots in religion but they are in error.
> Religion is a construct made by man and thereby faulty. If morality sprang forth from man then it is faulty and doomed to fail. Instead I posit that there would be no morality and that indeed it never would have existed without first the belief in a higher power. It is not man made religion whereby morality springs from but because people of old had a relationship with this higher power.
> Why is sexual freedom a negative thing? What positive things has it created? Higher abortion rates?, STDs? Definitely not positive. Also it contributes to moral decay.
> If sex is practiced within the confines of wedlock it is a wonderful and beautiful thing. It also greatly reduces STDs when both in the union remain faithful to each other. Also it greatly reduces the likelihood of abortion. Add to that the decreased risk of rape due to the fact that a woman is not regularly engaged in seeking a mate in various high risk locals. (bars, night clubs, etc)


Not doing things decreases risks. Aye, this is true. But most everything has some inherent risk to it, especially the fun things in life. Why go rock climbing if you could fall and die? Because it's fun. I agree though, the risk should be taught and explained in highschool, as well as how to avoid them when possible. The marriage and "avoid sex" bit  won't fix anything, but explaining the reality of the situation and how to mitigate the risk will greatly reduce those risk. Which seems fairly straight forward.

And really, the consequences for sex are the risk of STIs(current name for STDs), potential for unwanted pregnancy, potential shaming by peers and culture, things like that. Those are "punishment" enough, and we should be actively trying to work towards a world where there are no natural risk like that. There's no need to go in the opposite direction and add created punishments on top of it. You do you. And just like if someone goes rock-climbing and hurts themselves (do you consider that punishment for wanting to rock-climb?), I will still feel for them and insist they are allowed to get medical care to make it better. An abortion would be an equivalent to getting a antibiotic to treat certain types of STIs


----------



## Haloman800 (May 20, 2019)

It seems like the lefty mods don't like your post, OP, because you're now banned. Given that fact, I'll refrain from posting factual information on here.


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (May 20, 2019)

I didn't realize he ended up suspended in the end. :/
it was strange that OP didn't come back to respond to anything yet.


----------



## FoxMcloud5655 (May 20, 2019)

TheMrIron2 said:


> The crux of the issue is that there are millions of cases where the sperm unwillingly finds the egg or the woman unwillingly receives it. Setting aside the question of classifying "life", how is one meant to respond in that situation, especially if the woman is unable to birth the child or support it once born?


Here we go; sorry if I get carried away.

Yes, there are cases where it's unwilling.  That doesn't change the fact that it's a being that is alive, no matter how small it may be.  Now, in the cases where it's threatening another life (the mother), then if it's necessary, I'm all for it.  It should be open as a medical procedure to save another life, not to be available because one doesn't want to deal with the consequences of their own decisions.

(As a side note and going into me being a Christian and how that affects my views, I believe that the child is better off in heaven than down here anyways, but we aren't to dictate that decision without taking into account that both lives [the child and the mother] are alive, and that saving one means destroying the other.)


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2019)

FoxMcloud5655 said:


> I'll say this.
> 
> Is a cell alive?  Yes, but it acts according to what your DNA has coded it to do.  If you knowingly release (or accept) a sperm (which is a cell and therefore is alive) into an egg, then you have made a conscious decision to create a baby.  The minute that the sperm hits the egg and fertilizes it, since both the egg and the sperm are alive, does that not make the completed product alive?
> 
> That's just my thinking, completely barring the fact that I'm Christian, as some of you already know.



Not every sexual encounter results in a baby, indeed I would put reasonable money on most of them not doing that. Even if it looks like it going to head that way we seem to have some nice means of stopping it.

Fertilisation is an interesting point to pick -- some go for implantation within the uterus (or possibly fallopian tube in the case of ectopic pregnancies, I have no idea what artificial wombs would do for those people), some go for division of cells, others pick other points which topic has already covered (heart beats, central nervous system formation, brain activity, viability without special measures...)

That said even if it is alive what value should I assign to it so I can determine the appropriate level of concern for its wellbeing? If I leave it on the floor it is not going to do much, I would struggle to feed it if it was sitting on my bench... only with some fairly specialist equipment would it become anything.
Similarly we are probably within spitting distance of human cloning and/or generating pluripotent stem cells from adult cells, and some more fun things besides (we can create life from inert chemicals these days, simple bacteria at present but still life). Do I have to be appalled that when you scratched an itch a few minutes ago that you have condemned a certain number of cells (possibly a number equal to all the best killers in history) got condemned to not be alive any longer, or go on to form more complex life?


----------



## osaka35 (May 20, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> It seems like the lefty mods don't like your post, OP, because you're now banned. Given that fact, I'll refrain from posting factual information on here.


This is not why they got a ban  feel free to share whatever is relevant, as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules. just follow those rules and you're golden. It will never harm your reputation on here to disagree with a mod. We do not ban because someone disagrees with us. That'd be pretty dang silly.


----------



## TheMrIron2 (May 20, 2019)

FoxMcloud5655 said:


> Here we go; sorry if I get carried away.
> 
> Yes, there are cases where it's unwilling.  That doesn't change the fact that it's a being that is alive, no matter how small it may be.  Now, in the cases where it's threatening another life (the mother), then if it's necessary, I'm all for it.  It should be open as a medical procedure to save another life, not to be available because one doesn't want to deal with the consequences of their own decisions.


It's possibly controversial to say that a rape victim should still birth the child, but aside from that at least we are on common ground that when necessary, steps should be taken to prioritise the mother's life over the developing fetus.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> This is not why they got a ban  feel free to share whatever is relevant, as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules. just follow those rules and you're golden. It will never harm your reputation on here to disagree with a mod. We do not ban because someone disagrees with us. That'd be pretty dang silly.


Great, thanks for the clarification.

For those saying "adopt or gtfo", you can be against the murder of homeless people without inviting one to live with you.

For those angry at Alabama, it's simply a sanctuary state for unborn babies .


----------



## kuwanger (May 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I agree though, the risk should be taught and explained in highschool, as well as how to avoid them when possible.



Grade school, not high school.  We don't wait until you're 14 until we start teaching people about washing their hands, antibiotics, vaccines, etc.  Just like in rock climbing we don't wait until you're on the cliff or in sky diving we don't shove you out the plane first before teaching you how the parachute works.  There's this massive pathology that exists that teaching children how to safely engage in sex will encourage them to have sex.  I think there's very few 13+ year olds that need encouragement to have sex.  Given puberty can start as early as 8 in many population groups, it makes little sense to not teach children as early as reasonably possible.



osaka35 said:


> The marriage and "avoid sex" bit won't fix anything, but explaining the reality of the situation and how to mitigate the risk will greatly reduce those risk. Which seems fairly straight forward. And really, the consequences for sex are the risk of STIs(current name for STDs), potential for unwanted pregnancy, potential shaming by peers and culture, things like that. Those are "punishment" enough,



That's precisely why so many seem to be against abortion (and contraception).  They want people to be "punished' with children so they and others can learn from that example.  The last thing they want is substantial sex liberation free of most of the risks of sex.  Why?  I can only imagine because they themselves aren't able to control their own libido nor do they expect their children can either.  God's wrath is apparently not enough, so they need the mortal punishment of AIDs and screaming babies.  Again, it's in black humor that there is so much crying about "welfare queens" popping out babies, yet in the same breathe will they speak about the horrors of abortion?  It seems like, if anything, "welfare queens" are doing the Lord's work.


----------



## zomborg (May 20, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> If a northern white rhinoceros cared to have an abortion and indicated such then fine, same if its owner also wanted it.
> 
> Even if I take a human life as being more important as read then is it life that an abortion takes?
> 
> ...


It seems as though a major sticking point for those in the pro choice camp is determining where life begins or defining what life is. In a community with our apparent high level of intelligence why is this even an issue? Almost every life form on earth has something in common. Generally speaking, the male and female join in mating and as a result of this union, new life is conceived. It's not a 100% guarantee that offspring will be created but the probability is high. Also of note is the fact that the chances of conception drop significantly in the absence of mating. (without external aid) Of course for the human, the mating process is generally pleasurable. That may not be the case for other life forms. But the condensed version of the process is the male inserts his penis into the female vagina and after an extended time, sometimes not so extended, the male begins to ejaculate and thereby the process continues as then the seed/sperm begins to make attempts to fertilize the female egg. Once the seed has successfully fertilized the egg the process then begins in earnest for the creation of offspring. Then after 9 months give or take, the female goes into labor and the offspring arrives.
 Each life form on earth has this in common with mankind. It varies from species to species as some lay eggs and from there the offspring hatches and then arrives. Although there are many different species in this world, overall the end result is the same. Male and female mate producing offspring. 

 This concep, on the surface, does not seem difficult to comprehend. But let's look at an analogy. I know you Fast6191 and others engaged in this conversation seek to define the exact point in which life begins but if you will allow me some latitude. 
 Consider the 100% USDA approved pure beef hamburger. It's components are really quite simple.
You take ground beef from a cow, you shape it into a patty, season it if you prefer, introduce the beef patty to a heat source such as an open grill, cook it until desired level of doneness has been achieved, remove from heat source prepare normally a bun to receive the patty, with your choice of trimmings. (lettuce, tomato, ketchup, etc,) then place cooked patty on prepared bun and the end result is a hamburger.

Also the same applies to an asphalt road or a computer. You will start out with the basic components but the end result is the complete package, the finished product if you will. 
But if you started out to make a hamburger, it doesn't matter in the early stages what it looks like and it doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is. It may only look like ground beef, bun and condiments but even in it's basic elements, because you started out to make a hamburger that's what it always was and will be. 
 In the case of a human life, yes I know it's an extremely crude example but the bed is your grill, the male provides the hamburger meat and the female the bun. It may not look that way during the mating phase but mating is meant to produce offspring (life), so even though you break it down to the basic elements it's still life.

 My reference to endangered species such as the white rhino was a little more far reaching than whether or not the rhino desires an abortion. Since white rhinos and all animals on the endangered list cannot express it for themselves, since they cannot tell us they do not wish to become extinct, it has fallen upon man, who is probably responsible for them being in jeopardy to begin with, to try to save them. As you can see in the last 100 years the intense effort to save those on the verge of extinction.
 So why should man place any less value on human life? Why should man strive any less intensely to save his own?

And yes it's true we cannot know what or who the unborn baby may grow up to be but the same can be said of Einstein or Beethoven. Yes we could be aborting the next Hitler but we could also be aborting the next Einstein.


----------



## CORE (May 21, 2019)

Who thinks that they or others for that matter maybe older folk think that they have achieved nothing in life? 

Guess what you have you exist because you made the journey where others failed the Sperm met the Egg that single Sperm was you so what gives others the right to take that chance away from others achieving the same goal. 

Yes I am aware of Twins etc blabla The Sperm is the Soul the Egg is the genetic makeup for the Flesh and physical body which alone is made up off Atoms/Adam.


----------



## kuwanger (May 21, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Generally speaking, the male and female join in mating and as a result of this union, new life is conceived. It's not a 100% guarantee that offspring will be created but the probability is high.



It's 85% effective in humans, but it varies pretty wildly with other animals.  Meanwhile, less than 1% with Birth Control Implant or IUD are pregnant in a year*.  You get different figures depend on where you look.

* The figure I've usually seen is practically around 0.01% for BCI, compared to 0.5% for Tubal ligation.  Given an 19-54 population of ~71 million women in the US, that means around 7,100 worst case scenario unwanted pregnancies if BCI was heavily used.  Funny how there isn't a massive push for BCI for women.  Funny how male condoms, which are pretty damn terrible, are pushed.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 21, 2019)

zomborg said:


> It seems as though a major sticking point for those in the pro choice camp is determining where life begins or defining what life is. In a community with our apparent high level of intelligence why is this even an issue? Almost every life form on earth has something in common. Generally speaking, the male and female join in mating and as a result of this union, new life is conceived. It's not a 100% guarantee that offspring will be created but the probability is high. Also of note is the fact that the chances of conception drop significantly in the absence of mating. (without external aid) Of course for the human, the mating process is generally pleasurable. That may not be the case for other life forms. But the condensed version of the process is the male inserts his penis into the female vagina and after an extended time, sometimes not so extended, the male begins to ejaculate and thereby the process continues as then the seed/sperm begins to make attempts to fertilize the female egg. Once the seed has successfully fertilized the egg the process then begins in earnest for the creation of offspring. Then after 9 months give or take, the female goes into labor and the offspring arrives.
> Each life form on earth has this in common with mankind. It varies from species to species as some lay eggs and from there the offspring hatches and then arrives. Although there are many different species in this world, overall the end result is the same. Male and female mate producing offspring.
> 
> This concep, on the surface, does not seem difficult to comprehend. But let's look at an analogy. I know you Fast6191 and others engaged in this conversation seek to define the exact point in which life begins but if you will allow me some latitude.
> ...



There are asexual reproduction methods, cloning based methods, single sex things (parasitic wasps being fun ones to contemplate here), and depending upon how you want to categorise things (individual forms, biomass, area spread) some of those may even be main form of it, but the shared thing seemed like a throwaway comment so I will skip that one beyond this.

Life is actually not really where I go. I go with suffering instead. If something lacks the capability to suffer in a meaningful capacity and it prevent suffering in something that can meaningfully do so then it seems like a fairly easy decision, as time progresses then lines get a bit blurrier as far as this ethics lark goes. Though amusingly the lines where suffering and self sustaining without serious intervention life start align pretty well for a lot of things. To be fair though that was mostly the other thread I went for that one in.

The other part is a fairly standard philosophical pondering (I think I first heard it as "if I run my finger along this table it surely removes some atoms from the table, when is it no longer a table?"). It is generally noted there is no fundamental force of the universe (or direct consequence of it) that yields "human", or indeed anything much beyond the elements and their approximate distribution. We therefore get to invent a philosophy, define a human, define their value, figure out what behaviours we care to discourage and how... and thus we are having this discussion.
Again though I am still not at life, or life form capable of suffering, as much as a few ingredients with a half decent chance at becoming it one day.

"but mating is meant to produce offspring"
Meant by what and why should I care what it thinks/cares/implies? I will also return to the "does this mean I am supposed to fuck an infertile, menopausal or otherwise incapable of conceiving woman?" thing. There is a massive social component to such activities for humans and a lot of primates.

"cannot express it for themselves"
I believe that was the joke.
"So why should man place any less value on human life? Why should man strive any less intensely to save his own?"
Actions speak louder than words here (quite a few people out there living a horrific existence while we dick around on the internet), and again is it a life and is it as valued in all the same ways? Human life is not rare, you said as such, and while that is not the sole determinant of value it surely factors into this. I am also not sure it is all that useful an analogy -- saving rhinos is something of a vanity project done by humans because it is cool. 

I am still stuck on this future potential thing as well. If something is essentially random (I would argue it is anything but -- nature and nurture is at play here and if nurture is out of the window because plans had to change and the time, tools and talent are not there any more nor likely to develop...) then why worry about it? Did my choosing to walk the dog this afternoon rather than go to the gym or wherever it is the ladies hang out nowadays to find someone to have kids with do the same and deny the chance of something special happening? Why is abortion different from any number of pregnancy prevention methods as far as this is concerned (if nature was allowed to take its course and all that)? Do now have an excuse for my favourite philosoraptor though


----------



## FoxMcloud5655 (May 21, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Not every sexual encounter results in a baby, indeed I would put reasonable money on most of them not doing that. Even if it looks like it going to head that way we seem to have some nice means of stopping it.
> 
> Fertilisation is an interesting point to pick -- some go for implantation within the uterus (or possibly fallopian tube in the case of ectopic pregnancies, I have no idea what artificial wombs would do for those people), some go for division of cells, others pick other points which topic has already covered (heart beats, central nervous system formation, brain activity, viability without special measures...)
> 
> ...



Cells that are part of a larger system, in my opinion, are different from cells that are actively trying to create a new life.  I know, there are probably exceptions to that, but that's always been how I think of it.



TheMrIron2 said:


> It's possibly controversial to say that a rape victim should still birth the child, but aside from that at least we are on common ground that when necessary, steps should be taken to prioritise the mother's life over the developing fetus.



That's true that it's controversial.  Though most likely completely unwanted, I still think of it as life.  Unless it's life is causing the mother to die (or cause her health to possibly deteriorate to the point where it could be fatal, which is probably a lot of cases of rape victoms due to how the "action" is performed), I wouldn't want to unnecessarily stop the process of development.


----------



## zomborg (May 21, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> There are asexual reproduction methods, cloning based methods, single sex things (parasitic wasps being fun ones to contemplate here), and depending upon how you want to categorise things (individual forms, biomass, area spread) some of those may even be main form of it, but the shared thing seemed like a throwaway comment so I will skip that one beyond this.
> 
> Life is actually not really where I go. I go with suffering instead. If something lacks the capability to suffer in a meaningful capacity and it prevent suffering in something that can meaningfully do so then it seems like a fairly easy decision, as time progresses then lines get a bit blurrier as far as this ethics lark goes. Though amusingly the lines where suffering and self sustaining without serious intervention life start align pretty well for a lot of things. To be fair though that was mostly the other thread I went for that one in.
> 
> ...


What makes abortion any different from any other form or birth control?
Using a condom or birth control pill usually takes place before conception. Even though I do not classify them as superior or condone them, still they are used to prevent conception. Whereas, abortion on the other hand is used after conception to end life. One prevents the life process from ever starting while the other terminates the life process after it has begun. Those who do not value life apparently cannot grasp this concept. It's like you are blinded to the value of human life?

 Man is the dominant species on this planet and not without good reason.
For instance, here in America we place high value on our pets. Many treat them as family members or even treat them better than family. Do you consider yourself to be more valuable than a pet dog, cat or hamster? Is your life more important than a wild squirrel you may chance to meet in the woods? If a choice came down to killing you who had committed no crime or a rabid wolf and that had been killing children in town and they chose to end your life, would you feel as though it was an unfair decision that they chose you over a wild wolf?
 Well here in America, even though we place our animals on such a high pedestal, most would value their life much more significantly over an animal. Especially when the human life in question is highly educated with many degrees.

 Man has dominion over this earth for many reasons. Not the least of which is he is the superior intellect. You've never seen nor are you likely to ever see a group of elephants sitting around debating over why they should value their unborn offsprings life because they are not capable. No other species on our world can ever be capable of establishing dominion except man.

 Humans are much more than just the sum of their parts. More than just a grouping of atoms. They are defined by more than just their ability to suffer/endure suffering.

Life and the beginning of life is easy to determine for those who are willing to open their eyes. Some prefer to deny it and remain blind.


----------



## cracker (May 21, 2019)




----------



## FAST6191 (May 21, 2019)

zomborg said:


> What makes abortion any different from any other form or birth control?
> Using a condom or birth control pill usually takes place before conception. Even though I do not classify them as superior or condone them, still they are used to prevent conception. Whereas, abortion on the other hand is used after conception to end life. One prevents the life process from ever starting while the other terminates the life process after it has begun. Those who do not value life apparently cannot grasp this concept. It's like you are blinded to the value of human life?
> 
> Man is the dominant species on this planet and not without good reason.
> ...



Why should I adopt the point of conception (or possibly implantation) as a notable one for this ethical position? You say open your eyes and I would like to believe I have. I have read hundreds of philosophies from ancient times (what is a man being answered by a plucked chicken by Diogenes questioning Plato being a good example to begin with) to now and would like to believe I have a more than superficial understanding of the relevant biology. There is no consensus among those, much less an easy answer or answer without edge cases.

The animal analogies are continuing to not do a lot for me as far as illustrating a broader point or highlighting a relevant one here.

"birth control ... I do not classify them as superior or condone"
Yet you seemingly promote abstinence. From a functional level it seems no different.

"You've never seen nor are you likely to ever see a group of elephants sitting around debating over why they should value their unborn offsprings life"
I hope to live to the point where species uplifting is a thing but OK. I have seen a hamster eat its young when it felt threatened though, and I have seen mating seasons delayed by drought or lack of food in other things.


"Especially when the human life in question is highly educated with many degrees."
So experiences and investment in a thing are valuable? What then does something that never experienced anything, or computed anything of note to themselves or the world at large have in that equation?


----------



## Deleted User (May 21, 2019)

I'm against abortion and I wish it never happened, but I think the fallout from this law is going to be way worse then what these legislators are thinking.

How did that phrase go . . .

Safe, legal, and rare.

That's the phrase all laws surrounding conception should be framed around.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 21, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> Try telling that to someone who's just riding a bike somewhere, just to be pulled off her bike and raped.
> Has little to do with trusting people or not, does it?
> 
> Abortion is ok under certain circumstances, it's how i've always thought about it and that won't change anytime soon, because we live in a way too messed up world that is just too far gone.
> It's not ok to be forced to have a child as a result of rape.


First, we all know the world is too messed up to just trust people, I know that, you know that, what people need to know is the criminals know that too, they can be very smart, It's the women's job to protect themselves from rapist's, and do their best to avoid being a victim, I don't think it's that hard to do honestly, if they are one, the baby should never have to suffer in those cases because it wasn't it's fault.



Kunty said:


> Let's make something clear. Condoms are a male item, why don't they use it? Why must it be the woman's fault? As for birth control it can and does fail on occasion, why must the woman pay the price for that? If someone wishes to be rid of a symbiotic organism then they should be able to without persecution. It is no one's business but the person involved, if they want an abortion no one has the right to stop that. This is typical of the care until it's born brigade. I'm sure if that child grew up to be gay and/or transgender they would be the victim of "kill it it's going to hell."


Not so, in the Bible God wants to keep all the wicked alive so they can change, *he doesn't want to destroy ANY of them (2 Peter 3:9 EXB)*, but he'll have to if the wicked continue to: be homosexuals, murder, steal, lie, .etc because he can't have any of that in his kingdom, the Bible is the truth.

Truth is at the end of the day we'll all have different feelings about abortion, some'll be okay with it others won't , the real question is: is it right? And what's right in society is set based on the majority of people and how they feel (even though no one should have the authority to do that), and it's causing lots of problems, so it can't be the right to do it this way, everyone having different opinions on something this important is proof, the truth is, the only thing that can: find out what's right, can help fix any problem, and can unite everyone to do the right thing is God through his word The Holy Bible. <The Truth


----------



## Kunty (May 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Not so, in the Bible God wants to keep all the wicked alive so they can change, *he doesn't want to destroy ANY of them (2 Peter 3:9 EXB)*, but he'll have to if the wicked continue to: be homosexuals, murder, steal, lie, .etc because he can't have any of that in his kingdom, the Bible is the truth.


Sure Linda, the bible is the truth. Lmao.
Stay pressed <3


----------



## cracker (May 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> First, we all know the world is too messed up to just trust people, I know that, you know that, what people need to know is the criminals know that too, they can be very smart, It's the women's job to protect themselves from rapist's, and do their best to avoid being a victim, I don't think it's that hard to do honestly, if they are one, the baby should never have to suffer in those cases because it wasn't it's fault.



It's the embryo's job to protect itself from being aborted.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 21, 2019)

cracker said:


> It's the embryo's job to protect itself from being aborted.


That's a new twist on "like taking candy from a baby".


----------



## zomborg (May 21, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Why should I adopt the point of conception (or possibly implantation) as a notable one for this ethical position? You say open your eyes and I would like to believe I have. I have read hundreds of philosophies from ancient times (what is a man being answered by a plucked chicken by Diogenes questioning Plato being a good example to begin with) to now and would like to believe I have a more than superficial understanding of the relevant biology. There is no consensus among those, much less an easy answer or answer without edge cases.
> 
> The animal analogies are continuing to not do a lot for me as far as illustrating a broader point or highlighting a relevant one here.
> 
> ...


I guess what it comes down to is this. Those who value human life for which I firmly stand. I place a level of high importance on each and every human life. Even those unwanted by our society.
Versus
Those who feel human life has no more significant value than any other grouping of atoms on this earth. Apparently for which you and many others stand.
 I do not care if the scientific research says that it's not even considered alive until a certain point. I do not care what roe vs wade says. I stand for life and I fight for life and to me life starts the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. From my perspective, from that moment on, it is murder if you abort.
To me each and every human life is special and precious and has a purpose. A purpose he/she will not be able to achieve if wicked men and women have their way.
 I am thankful and proud of the Alabama decision to pass such a law and I truly hope many more such laws are passed.
It is indeed an horrible day we live in when we find ourselves having to fight to protect the unborn from humankind. It is monstrous and evil. One would think over time we would have grown wiser but we have instead grown more foolish. It's like people have reverted back to a primitive mindset despite their higher education. It grieves me to call myself a member of a mankind as barbaric as we have become.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 21, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I guess what it comes down to is this. Those who value human life for which I firmly stand. I place a level of high importance on each and every human life. Even those unwanted by our society.
> Versus
> Those who feel human life has no more significant value than any other grouping of atoms on this earth. Apparently for which you and many others stand.



That is a false characterisation of myself at least, and something I would wager a substantial sum on being the case for most of the others in this thread and the world at large.



zomborg said:


> I do not care if the scientific research says that it's not even considered alive until a certain point. I do not care what roe vs wade says. I stand for life and I fight for life and *to me life starts the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg*. From my perspective, from that moment on, it is murder if you abort.



So that is a radically different position to that which the laws, philosophies of laws, ethics boards and many others contemplating the matter hold. You are free to adopt such a position but you have yet to elaborate on why I should adopt the same position, much less convince me of its merit, at which point much of the rest of your position would logically follow.


----------



## Deleted User (May 22, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> That is a false characterisation of myself at least, and something I would wager a substantial sum on being the case for most of the others in this thread and the world at large.
> 
> 
> 
> So that is a radically different position to that which the laws, philosophies of laws, ethics boards and many others contemplating the matter hold. You are free to adopt such a position but you have yet to elaborate on why I should adopt the same position, much less convince me of its merit, at which point much of the rest of your position would logically follow.



Out of curiosity, when do you believe an embryo obtains the basic rights we normally ascribe to adults or kids? When does it cross the 'human' line?


----------



## Deleted User (May 22, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Grade school, not high school. We don't wait until you're 14 until we start teaching people about washing their hands, antibiotics, vaccines, etc. Just like in rock climbing we don't wait until you're on the cliff or in sky diving we don't shove you out the plane first before teaching you how the parachute works. There's this massive pathology that exists that teaching children how to safely engage in sex will encourage them to have sex. I think there's very few 13+ year olds that need encouragement to have sex. Given puberty can start as early as 8 in many population groups,


This. This on so many levels. You can't just tell people to stop doing the monkey. For better or worse a lot of these kids are growing up in environments where doing the double Dutchman is encouraged. And deep-set cultural assumptions like that don't change overnight.


kuwanger said:


> That's precisely why so many seem to be against abortion (and contraception). They want people to be "punished' with children so they and others can learn from that example. The last thing they want is substantial sex liberation free of most of the risks of sex. Why? I can only imagine because they themselves aren't able to control their own libido nor do they expect their children can either. God's wrath is apparently not enough, so they need the mortal punishment of AIDs and screaming babies. Again, it's in black humor that there is so much crying about "welfare queens" popping out babies, yet in the same breathe will they speak about the horrors of abortion? It seems like, if anything, "welfare queens" are doing the Lord's w


Personally, I don't think it's my place to judge. If there ever come a time when there is 'substantial sex liberation', well, that's really none of my business, as long as the sperm never touches the egg. Go wild.


----------



## Xzi (May 22, 2019)

Let's be frank about this: abortion is a necessity created by an over-zealous capitalist system.  If every pregnant woman was guaranteed the resources she needed to raise her child, the abortion rate would be at/near zero, except in cases of rape or incest.  Forcing people who are already below the poverty line to be burdened with a child they can't afford and can't care for properly is just going to make things a lot worse.  Basically: if Republicans really cared about lowering the abortion rate, they'd be implementing more social safety nets for mothers who need them.  Making it illegal will only result in even more desperation, and back-alley abortions.


----------



## Undwiz (May 22, 2019)

abortion should only be legal if you was raped or if you have health issues that could kill you(only if you found that out after that is)...... Sex is a choice that can come with having a baby. can get Aids from sex also... sure the hell can't abort that LOL.. The whole "My Body My Choice" thing is stupid. the moment you agree to sex you agree to what could happen, be it a Baby or a STD... you make that risk on you own... and like Aids you should have to live with it. Hate to compare Aids with Babys, but that how Pro-abortion people treat Babies they don't want.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 22, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> abortion should only be legal if you was raped or if you have health issues that could kill you(only if you found that out after that is)...... Sex is a choice that can come with having a baby. can get Aids from sex also... sure the hell can't abort that LOL.. The whole "My Body My Choice" thing is stupid. the moment you agree to sex you agree to what could happen, be it a Baby or a STD... you make that risk on you own... and like Aids you should have to live with it. Hate to compare Aids with Babys, but that how Pro-abortion people treat Babies they don't want.



That's such a fantastic and fundamental view. Categorical and judgemental at the same time.

First of all: are you a woman? 
I'm not and do not feel I am entitled to tell them how to live their lives or handle unwanted pregnancies. It is important that people who want to tell other people how to live their lives based on some moral setup should be kept out of legislation.

With that out of the way; upper limit for abortion needs to be well thought over. 18 weeks perhaps? Most


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Out of curiosity, when do you believe an embryo obtains the basic rights we normally ascribe to adults or kids? When does it cross the 'human' line?


The standards in most of Europe do well for me. Free and clear until pain responses/central nervous system development and whatnot (usually several months in and most people would know), after that you would want a medic to want to sign off on it and it would usually be for risk to the carrier or that the embryo is unlikely to lead a good life. The latter part has a lot of grey area and while I would consider several choices as bloody stupid (ex maybe being if you let an aggressive cancer spread for 6 months rather than abort I would consider that stupid) I would similarly be against compelling it in cases where people are able to choose.




Xzi said:


> Let's be frank about this: abortion is a necessity created by an over-zealous capitalist system.  If every pregnant woman was guaranteed the resources she needed to raise her child, the abortion rate would be at/near zero, except in cases of rape or incest.  Forcing people who are already below the poverty line to be burdened with a child they can't afford and can't care for properly is just going to make things a lot worse.  Basically: if Republicans really cared about lowering the abortion rate, they'd be implementing more social safety nets for mothers who need them.  Making it illegal will only result in even more desperation, and back-alley abortions.


It is still a fair time sink and cuts into career progression and time for running around doing what you like after it is born. Similarly the poorest members of society still manage to squeeze out the kids as it stands now, even in places with ready access to such things. Unless welfare gets to be increased to "fob it off on a nanny" levels then...



Undwiz said:


> Sex is a choice that can come with having a baby.the moment you agree to sex you agree to what could happen, be it a Baby or a STD... you make that risk on you own... and like Aids you should have to live with it.


It is an outcome that is possible, however we don't not prescribe penicillin because going somewhere and getting scratched carries a risk of infection. If we have the tools, time and talent to sort the problem then why not offer it?


----------



## SG854 (May 22, 2019)

GhostLatte said:


> Republicans are against the "murder of unborn children" but will willingly lock children in cages. Their mentality is fuck you after you are born.


Alyssa Milano is on a #sexstrike because of anti abortion thinking this will own Republicans, but she’s owning herself because thats exactly what republicans want. No sleeping around to create unwanted pregnancies.

In Texas the tried to pass a bill to fine men $100 each time they masturbate to own men and show what it’s like have laws telling them what they can do with their body.


I don’t think these people actually talked to a religious conservative. Because religious people are against masturbation. These aren’t arguments against the religious pro life right. They’re in support.


That’s what the left does, they own themselves and eat their own because they don’t understand the republican position.


There was research done by Jonathan Haidt that liberals were less accurate at predicting at how republicans vote and republicans more accurate at how liberals vote. Rep understands libs more then libs understand Rep. And it shows more often then not. They get things wrong about them, or misrepresent arguments, or they argue points no one even brought up to virtue signal, or don’t understand the nuance.

That’s what happens when they ban conservatives because hate speech is all around us, oh my god!





I’m pro choice. I think it respects both sides to some degree, without laws that support only one side completely. People that don’t see it a bad thing can get it. People that see it as a horrific act against humans can not get it. It won’t completely satisfy the rights goal to save all unborn babies, but it can at least satisfy their own beliefs with their own family.


----------



## Deleted User (May 23, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> The standards in most of Europe do well for me. Free and clear until pain responses/central nervous system development and whatnot (usually several months in and most people would know), after that you would want a medic to want to sign off on it and it would usually be for risk to the carrier or that the embryo is unlikely to lead a good life. The latter part has a lot of grey area and while I would consider several choices as bloody stupid (ex maybe being if you let an aggressive cancer spread for 6 months rather than abort I would consider that stupid) I would similarly be against compelling it in cases where people are able to choose.



Hmm... Personally I believe they get it as soon as the sperm hits the egg (do you kill a braindead patient who'll recover in 6 months?), but in cases where the embryo could live a terrible life or endangers another human life there's definitely a lot of grey area. As for compelling it, I one hundred percent agree. It's only a sad attempt to bandage a symptom of a much larger problem.


----------



## Deleted User (May 23, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> That's such a fantastic and fundamental view. Categorical and judgemental at the same time.
> 
> First of all: are you a woman?
> I'm not and do not feel I am entitled to tell them how to live their lives or handle unwanted pregnancies. It is important that people who want to tell other people how to live their lives based on some moral setup should be kept out of legislation.
> ...


I um... Your right about @Undwiz being judgemental, but don't do the 'are you x' argument. I don't professionally study ethics but does that not mean we can't discuss why slavery is wrong? Many of the people who helped get rid of slavery in Britain (can't think of the guys name) weren't slave owners, or slaves, but they still saw gross human rights violations and helped stop it.


And as for the 'tell them how to live their lives, sure. It's not any of our business if it just involved the woman. 

BUT, if you think that an embryo is human, then we're talking about mass murder on a ridiculous scale. It doesn't just involve a woman. This is something that needs to be discussed.


----------



## WeedZ (May 23, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Hmm... Personally I believe they get it as soon as the sperm hits the egg (do you kill a braindead patient who'll recover in 6 months?), but in cases where the embryo could live a terrible life or endangers another human life there's definitely a lot of grey area. As for compelling it, I one hundred percent agree. It's only a sad attempt to bandage a symptom of a much larger problem.


Braindead people dont recover. Hence the "dead" part


----------



## Deleted User (May 23, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Braindead people dont recover. Hence the "dead" part



Alright... Erm, a braindead person, who, thanks to a *RADICAL* new treatment and limited amounts of damage will be able to think like a normal person and eventually enter back into society?


----------



## WeedZ (May 23, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Alright... Erm, a braindead person, who, thanks to a *RADICAL* new treatment and limited amounts of damage will be able to think like a normal person and eventually enter back into society?


If such a thing existed.. my point is, we do kill braindead people. It's called pulling the plug. So your point kinda falls flat.


----------



## Deleted User (May 23, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> If such a thing existed.. my point is, we do kill braindead people. It's called pulling the plug. So your point kinda falls flat.



Yeah, but there's a *RADICAL* new treatment!

Seriously, if there was a guarantee that, most of the time, a braindead patient would wake up within 6 months, would you still kill them? I know it's not realistic, but just go with me here. If such a world existed, and you lived in it (hypothetically), would you still pull the plug on one of these guys if given the option?


----------



## cracker (May 23, 2019)

That's like saying there is a radical new method for separating an embryo back into a sperm and egg. It is a fanciful what-if until it is a reality.


----------



## Undwiz (May 23, 2019)

Sorry , I just hate the fact of killing Babies, Just a little pet peeve. Hell lets just make post-birth abortion Legal, f*ck 18 weeks lets make it 18 years.

 Makes me sick that abortion is legal , I have 5 kids - all planned and I would not trade them for anything. Fact that people whore around knowing there is many ways to prevent getting Pregnant and don't use it then kill the kid cause they think they are grown up enough to take what goes in and can't take what comes out....Just makes me sick.............      sorry run-on sentence .


----------



## FAST6191 (May 23, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> Sorry , I just hate the fact of killing Babies, Just a little pet peeve. Hell lets just make post-birth abortion Legal, f*ck 18 weeks lets make it 18 years.
> 
> Makes me sick that abortion is legal , I have 5 kids - all planned and I would not trade them for anything. Fact that people whore around knowing there is many ways to prevent getting Pregnant and don't use it then kill the kid cause they think they are grown up enough to take what goes in and can't take what comes out....Just makes me sick.............      sorry run-on sentence .


Are they killing kids or having an abortion? Rather notable distinction there.


----------



## Undwiz (May 23, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Are they killing kids or having an abortion? Rather notable distinction there.



A Fetus has a heartbeat by 5 weeks, usually the same time a women realizes she has missed a period. The baby is alive at that point...  So no not a notable distinction. the baby is alive and yes then abortion is killing a life... Heartbeat = Life


----------



## FAST6191 (May 23, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> Heartbeat = Life


Is a heart not just a mechanical pump? Why would I pick that as a point of delineation?


----------



## Undwiz (May 23, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Is a heart not just a mechanical pump? Why would I pick that as a point of delineation?




delineation?  Funny choice of wording , as there is no answer just opinion like this entire discussion.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 23, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> delineation?  Funny choice of wording , as there is no answer just opinion like this entire discussion.


OK what philosophical, logic or ethical reason might I have for placing greater restrictions on myself and others over what the, seemingly time tested and otherwise agreed upon, laws of the land say is cool here? Why would I use a heartbeat as the dividing line between alive and dead in this instance?


----------



## Undwiz (May 23, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> OK what philosophical, logic or ethical reason might I have for placing greater restrictions on myself and others over what the, seemingly time tested and otherwise agreed upon, laws of the land say is cool here? Why would I use a heartbeat as the dividing line between alive and dead in this instance?




I watched my 15 month old Daughter die in front of me back in 2015. She had a heart condition HLHS. it hurt really bad to she her go. To see people just destroy the gift of having a child hurts.


  You can cry Yay for abortion all you want.....  My answer is Nay is you made the choice to have Sex... Just what can come with it.

  anyway done with Arguing with pro child killers...  take care buddy.   last post on this topic.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 23, 2019)

Fair enough. One day we might see some good debate.


----------



## Undwiz (May 23, 2019)




----------



## 1NOOB (May 23, 2019)

Meh . As long as it doesnt have a brain and a fonctional organic systems its not alive . Or if there is any probleme to it or just if the woman is not ready , i see so many reasons , you all take life for something too important . "You dont know how it is when youndont have kid" ever heard of dumpster babies? Sure the mom was feeling wonderful , what about crack babies . Lol so many different stroke . You think too small stay in your little world where wathever make you slwep at night .  We are not the hero of our story we are just atoms evolving and surviving .


----------



## cracker (May 23, 2019)

It isn't until about 10 weeks where anything resembling a heart has formed at 6 weeks it is basically 2 tubes separated by a layer of cells. The 'heartbeat' is akin to an electric signal that can be detected. Nothing has developed enough to be considered the anatomy of a human until much later than 6 weeks. If you don't believe me then research the topic. Compare a human fetus to that of other animals to get a better idea of how early in development 6 weeks really is.


----------



## Bonehead (May 23, 2019)

The bible is pro-genocide, btw.


----------



## cots (May 23, 2019)

Well, I guess I'm late returning to the party. I was banned for a few days due to the fact that I linked to an external site that had a picture of what remains after the abortion process. Funny thing is, if there's nothing wrong with abortion than why should posting pictures about the process be a bannable offense? The mods called it "gore", but wouldn't it have to be more than some cells bound together (aka life) to be considered gore? Either way, I think I made my point. If anyone viewed the picture and is permanently scarred by it - that wasn't my intention, but you'll see worse in biology class. I will, in the future, refrain from linking to any more pictures of this kind.


----------



## WeedZ (May 23, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, I guess I'm late returning to the party. I was banned for a few days due to the fact that I linked to an external site that had a picture of what remains after the abortion process. Funny thing is, if there's nothing wrong with abortion than why should posting pictures about the process be a bannable offense? The mods called it "gore", but wouldn't it have to be more than some cells bound together (aka life) to be considered gore? Either way, I think I made my point. If anyone viewed the picture and is permanently scarred by it - that wasn't my intention, but you'll see worse in biology class. I will, in the future, refrain from linking to any more pictures of this kind.


You attempted to shock people to make a point, but there was no point to be made here. That wasn't a picture of the aftermath of an abortion. It was a fully formed baby. If it was indeed aborted, it was done illegally as abortions in that stage of development is illegal. It was just gore, and this tactic of exploiting a gruesome dead baby to scar people for the sake of argument is absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 23, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> You attempted to shock people to make a point, but there was no point to be made here. That wasn't a picture of the aftermath of an abortion. It was a fully formed baby. If it was indeed aborted, it was done illegally as abortions in that stage of development is illegal. It was just gore, and this tactic of exploiting a gruesome dead baby to scar people for the sake of argument is absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.



Uh, yes, it is legal in quite a few places.


----------



## WeedZ (May 23, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Uh, yes, it is legal in quite a few places.


The only countries that allow abortion after the general gestational age limit do so with strict limitations. You wont find any developed country that will allow a late stage termination without there being severe health risks to the mother or the child itself.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 23, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> The only countries that allow abortion after the general gestational age limit do so with strict limitations. You wont find any developed country that will allow a late stage termination without there being severe health risks to the mother or the child itself.



I wonder if Bernie knows he’s from a third world state



> Statutory Definition of Legal Abortion
> 
> It is legal for an abortion to be performed in Vermont at any stage of pregnancy for any reason or for no reason.



https://statelaws.findlaw.com/vermont-law/vermont-abortion-laws.html

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

Wikipedia also mentions Canada as a country with no restrictions.
I’d be happy to be wrong and won’t rule out that I’m missing something here, I’m just going by the sources that I can find through a quick google search.


----------



## cracker (May 23, 2019)

How many women are actually getting those late term abortions without any good reason ( health of the mother and/or child )? I agree it is abhorrent at that stage 'just cuz'. Women with unwanted/harmful pregnancies will want to go in as soon as they can unless there is something mentally wrong with them or something health-wise about them or the fetus is discovered.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 23, 2019)

cracker said:


> How many women are actually getting those late term abortions without any good reason ( health of the mother and/or child )? I agree it is abhorrent at that stage 'just cuz'. Women with unwanted/harmful pregnancies will want to go in as soon as they can unless there is something mentally wrong with them or something health-wise about them or the fetus is discovered.



I couldn’t tell you but does it really matter?
As I’ve mentioned earlier, in my opinion this is a question about when a fetus should be awarded human rights and scale of an issue is simply irrelevant when it comes to human rights.


----------



## Thardus (May 23, 2019)

"I want to have your abortion" - Marla Singer, Fight Club

I'm concerned with how sex and abortions are so nonchalantly accepted and I'm by no means prude or "backward". I read Fight Club a long time ago. The movie will be celebrating its 20 year anniversary this year. That line above was excluded from the movie because it was "too offensive". I guarantee you that if Fight Club was released in 2019, the line would not only be included, it would be highlighted as a symbol of women's rights and encouraged, even though the true feminine meaning of the movie would be lost on the majority.

I am 100% for the government getting out of the way of pretty much everything. Government makes everything worse. [Yes, I know, without government children would be working in coal mines with amputated limbs from workplace injury.] The government is a tool for those who seek power. Never give power to the government you're not willing to give to your worst enemies. 

Where we stand now: Men pay the majority of taxes. Taxes fund abortions [Hey, the best way to get more of a behavior is to subsidize it]. Men definitely have a say on these grounds alone, not to mention in takes two to tango. Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts -- $$$$$. The Virginia governor recently endorsed "post-birth abortion". FFS, the fact that we're using language like "post-birth abortion" instead of calling it by its true name is disgusting and telling how far our society has morally drifted.

One solution: The government prohibits the selling of babies, but you should be able to. Many will gasp in horror at that statement while shrugging at the murder of a developed baby. 10-15% of couples experience infertility and I'd venture to guess that a similar percentage of women have had abortions. It's extremely difficult and costly for infertile couples to adopt. Until you've wanted kids you probably won't understand this, but being in a committed relationship, wanting children, and being unable to have them is heartbreaking. [No, the government shouldn't subsidize fertility clinics either.] A marketplace should be allowed to operate. 

For all you involuntary celibates that have never had a pregnancy scare, let me share with you a bit of my past. "I missed my period" are some words you do NOT want to hear when you're 16 years old and your subconscious knows you're in a terrible relationship. I've heard that phrase a couple of times from a couple different ex-girlfriends. Thinking about it now still stresses me out. I was young. I was playing with fire. Luckily, I have never impregnated any of my ex-girlfriends (of which I'm aware). I'm glad I was never in a position to choose between an abortion or a child. I'm afraid my selfishness would have wanted to pay $300 for the procedure. $300 is an inexpensive way to crush your soul. 

Anyway, I hope the lot of you will never have to choose as well. 

Probably the wrong crowd for this because family obligations supersede video gaming: Eat healthy. Exercise. Find a good girl. Marry her. Impregnate her. Raise a family. Be a man. But then again, video games attractively sap male ambition. Good luck!


----------



## cots (May 24, 2019)

Thardus said:


> For all you involuntary celibates that have never had a pregnancy scare, let me share with you a bit of my past. "I missed my period" are some words you do NOT want to hear when you're 16 years old and your subconscious knows you're in a terrible relationship. I've heard that phrase a couple of times from a couple different ex-girlfriends. Thinking about it now still stresses me out. I was young. I was playing with fire. Luckily, I have never impregnated any of my ex-girlfriends (of which I'm aware). I'm glad I was never in a position to choose between an abortion or a child. I'm afraid my selfishness would have wanted to pay $300 for the procedure. $300 is an inexpensive way to crush your soul.



People realize to see that the father, you know, who is 1/2 responsible for the creation of the child should also have a choice in the matter and if you're going to use the Government to control other people and use my money to abort babies with then I do have a part in the process and my opinion should also be considered. You can't say "We're going to take your money and use it to pay for other people commit murder" and then tell me I have no decision in the matter.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> You attempted to shock people to make a point, but there was no point to be made here. That wasn't a picture of the aftermath of an abortion. It was a fully formed baby. If it was indeed aborted, it was done illegally as abortions in that stage of development is illegal. It was just gore, and this tactic of exploiting a gruesome dead baby to scar people for the sake of argument is absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.



It was before they ground the baby up into bits using a baby grinding machine. I suggest you Google "abortion" and read about the process if you don't believe me. I sourced the image from a simple 1 word normal censored image search and it's not anything you won't find images of in later biology courses. I don't see how it would "shock" anyone - I mean, if this is what they are supporting then why should it "shock" them?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



supersonicwaffle said:


> I couldn’t tell you but does it really matter?
> As I’ve mentioned earlier, in my opinion this is a question about when a fetus should be awarded human rights and scale of an issue is simply irrelevant when it comes to human rights.



It seems trees, which have no heart beat or logical thought process that ever develops (not to mention no sort of brain or self awareness) should be saved and are more important than human life. I swear, these people with their modern day religion (science) are just as bad if not worse than previous generations with their funky religions (when it comes to murdering innocent people). Science has resulted in more deaths over any other natural force in modern times. "In the name of science" screams the crazy Liberal "Let's kill babies!". I just hope whatever comes up next and replaces science will have less senseless death as a result.


----------



## Deleted User (May 24, 2019)

cracker said:


> That's like saying there is a radical new method for separating an embryo back into a sperm and egg. It is a fanciful what-if until it is a reality.



You forgot to bold your *RADICAL*.

Anyway, you have a point, but it's the best analog I could think of. 

I would like to reiterate that despite that, I still believe that abortion should be legal. This is a cultural problem, and you can't fix those by just yelling and outlawing it. We need proper prevention and proper sex ed, among others.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> People realize to see that the father, you know, who is 1/2 responsible for the creation of the child should also have a choice in the matter and if you're going to use the Government to control other people and use my money to abort babies with then I do have a part in the process and my opinion should also be considered. You can't say "We're going to take your money and use it to pay for other people commit murder" and then tell me I have no decision in the matter.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Hey, man. Listen, I get where you're coming from. But acting morally superior and saying stuff like 'says the crazy liberal' isn't going to bring anyone to your cause.


----------



## cots (May 24, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Hey, man. Listen, I get where you're coming from. But acting morally superior and saying stuff like 'says the crazy liberal' isn't going to bring anyone to your cause.



I don't believe my morals should be imposed on anyone else. If you want to go around killing people, by all means, kill them. Just don't use my money to do so and then tell me I have no say in the manner and don't ask me to agree with you.

Should have I been more attentive to the Liberal mindset and said something like "The poor confused minority who needs me to tell them what to think, do and say because they can't figure it out by themselves"? ROFL. I'm not here to make friends with these lunatics.

I didn't know I had a "cause", unless, that includes pointing out Liberal hypocrisy, then, yes, I do have a cause.


----------



## Superbronx (May 24, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> I watched my 15 month old Daughter die in front of me back in 2015. She had a heart condition HLHS. it hurt really bad to she her go. To see people just destroy the gift of having a child hurts.
> 
> 
> You can cry Yay for abortion all you want.....  My answer is Nay is you made the choice to have Sex... Just what can come with it.
> ...


I'm not a liberal and I'm definitely not pro choice but I do understand where they are coming from and the message they are attempting to convey. I think I can speak for all of them who have added their eloquent comments to this discussion by stating simply yet effectively :


----------



## Thardus (May 24, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> I watched my 15 month old Daughter die in front of me back in 2015. She had a heart condition HLHS. it hurt really bad to she her go. To see people just destroy the gift of having a child hurts.
> 
> 
> You can cry Yay for abortion all you want.....  My answer is Nay is you made the choice to have Sex... Just what can come with it.
> ...



As a father, I have deep sympathy for you and your family. Thank you for sharing that video. I'm sure you guys provided Karlee with a tremendous amount of love, and I'm sure she provided you with joy even if for a short while. Take care.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2019)

Superbronx said:


> I'm not a liberal and I'm definitely not pro choice but I do understand where they are coming from and the message they are attempting to convey. I think I can speak for all of them who have added their eloquent comments to this discussion by stating simply yet effectively :


"It's not unconstitutional, women don't actually have rights." - Trump supporters

"No no, life is sacred _UNTIL_ the baby is old enough to die in a pointless Middle East war, Arabs aren't actually people." - Also Trump supporters

See how being reductionist gets us nowhere?


----------



## Undwiz (May 24, 2019)

Thardus said:


> As a father, I have deep sympathy for you and your family. Thank you for sharing that video. I'm sure you guys provided Karlee with a tremendous amount of love, and I'm sure she provided you with joy even if for a short while. Take care.



 Thank You.


----------



## Deleted User (May 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "It's not unconstitutional, women don't actually have rights." - Trump supporters
> 
> "No no, life is sacred _UNTIL_ the baby is old enough to die in a pointless Middle East war, Arabs aren't actually people." - Also Trump supporters
> 
> See how being reductionist gets us nowhere?



I really hate this argument. Generalising and making assumptions also gets us nowhere.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Superbronx said:


> I'm not a liberal and I'm definitely not pro choice but I do understand where they are coming from and the message they are attempting to convey. I think I can speak for all of them who have added their eloquent comments to this discussion by stating simply yet effectively :


Y'know, this is so freaking provocative it's ridiculous, but it does raise interesting questions.

At the time, the idea that Jews weren't people was rooted in actual science. Really, really twisted science that sounds incredibly dumb knowing what we know now, but that's the point. I wonder if some genetic breakthrough way outside our imagination will further thin the lines between 'human' and 'embryo'.

Food for thought.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I really hate this argument. Generalising and making assumptions also gets us nowhere.


Yeah, that was kinda my point.  You know you're leaning too hard on the hyperbole when you start comparing the opposition to the Third Reich simply for having a different opinion.


----------



## Deleted User (May 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, that was kinda my point.  You know you're leaning too hard on the hyperbole when you start comparing the opposition to the Third Reich simply for having a different opinion.



Sorry, my mistake. Politics can be blinding sometimes.


----------



## Undwiz (May 24, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Sorry, my mistake. Politics can be blinding sometimes.




 More morals then politics to me..


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> More morals then politics to me..


Either way we're essentially divided across the same lines, as I find it morally repugnant to force a woman to birth a rape or incest baby.  Same deal with forcing women to birth children that they don't have the means to care for.

Of course, these are personal morals, and I feel like the pro-life crowd too often hides behind religious morals.  When in fact, neither version of the Christian bible states that abortion is a sin, and the old testament actually has a 'how-to' guide for performing abortions.


----------



## Undwiz (May 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Either way we're essentially divided across the same lines, as I find it morally repugnant to force a woman to birth a rape or incest baby.  Same deal with forcing women to birth children that they don't have the means to care for.
> 
> Of course, these are personal morals, and I feel like the pro-life crowd too often hides behind religious morals.  When in fact, neither version of the Christian bible states that abortion is a sin, and the old testament actually has a 'how-to' guide for performing abortions.




 My first post on this , I said I believe in a women being able to abort if raped should be legal.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2019)

Undwiz said:


> My first post on this , I said I believe in a women being able to abort if raped should be legal.


The exceptions can't end there, though.  Otherwise you've still got desperate women who will be willing to perform self-abortions, go to back-alley doctors, etc.  In that sense it's also an issue of public health and safety.  Infant mortality rate is already pretty bad in many of the states where abortion is being banned, but it can always get worse.


----------



## LowEndC (May 24, 2019)

meh....

let HER decide what she wants to do with her life/body.

religion/law/morals are all man made... let your brain marinate with that for a second...

keep that in mind when a soul born on this earth wants to make it's own decision,

nobody should tell her what to do...


(let me put this in perspective for you bleeding heart liberals out there..... would you (males) be ok with a group of people (maybe all females....who knows...it doesn't matter....) passing a law saying all men need to be castrated??? for the betterment/advancement of society ??
because all men are rapist/pigs/patriarchal/racists??
you all would agree wouldnt you?  lel...
blindly following the blind...
people who think they "woke" but really aren't...

(dems/repubs.... there are no sides. no good or bad,
they are both a branch off of the main branch...
"evil"

(people who know, understand what im talking about..)



abortions are actually the least of our worries in this reality we slave about in...

this whole abortion thing and the Russian collusion/mueller/a.g. barr, and the border wall etc  is just a distraction and this monologue has been going on for ages.

no one cares. and there is evil going on somewhere...



but get your internet points anyways by posting this i guess....


----------



## FAST6191 (May 24, 2019)

Superbronx said:


> I'm not a liberal and I'm definitely not pro choice but I do understand where they are coming from and the message they are attempting to convey. I think I can speak for all of them who have added their eloquent comments to this discussion by stating simply yet effectively :


I we are posting images with unrelated content and a dubious basis in logic now


----------



## zomborg (May 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Either way we're essentially divided across the same lines, as I find it morally repugnant to force a woman to birth a rape or incest baby.  Same deal with forcing women to birth children that they don't have the means to care for.
> 
> Of course, these are personal morals, and I feel like the pro-life crowd too often hides behind religious morals.  When in fact, neither version of the Christian bible states that abortion is a sin, and the old testament actually has a 'how-to' guide for performing abortions.


Really? That sounds like the ramblings of an insane person.
Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?


----------



## bandithedoge (May 24, 2019)

Can't you just go to an abortion clinic in another state/country and come back?

Also, holy shit, is this the first time Trump said something that makes sense?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 24, 2019)

bandithedoge said:


> Can't you just go to an abortion clinic in another state/country and come back?



Depends where you are and what you have to play with. Some states are pretty big, and they often clump together in ideology too* (see all the various terms with belt in them, most notably here probably being the bible belt), so it is less of a drop the kids off somewhere, go to a clinic and drop $100 as much as marathon trip to another state (US public transport also sucks at the interstate/intercity level), possibly do a return visit in some cases (some US states/counties/whatever have cooling off periods and mandatory counselling, usually 24 hours compared to some longer ones elsewhere in the world but that then means overnight somewhere, and more fun if you already have kids already). If you don't have insurance, or your insurance will not cover it, then it also costs there depending upon time (earlier ones being cheaper but can still land you $500, move into surgical procedures and $2000 is not unheard of).


If your Poland flag is accurate and you were thinking more the fun and games people were having there the other year where the hopped across the border for a chemical setup, or had the pills tied to balloons, then you are vastly underestimating the distances involved.

*maps (imagine being in Louisiana, the small one east of Texas and on the Mexican border if you are unfamiliar with state locations, like most of the south it is not a particularly rich place either -- the passport ownership levels probably doing best to attest there, slightly different now flights are harder to do without it and you can't get into and back from Mexico I don't think on just a driving license any more)


----------



## cots (May 24, 2019)

bandithedoge said:


> Can't you just go to an abortion clinic in another state/country and come back?
> 
> Also, holy shit, is this the first time Trump said something that makes sense?



Yeah, you can go to another state and have one. I had a relative that slept around and had an abortion to hide the fact she slept around from her husband. She had to go to another state than the one she resided in to get the abortion. What she did troubled her for the rest of her life and rightfully so - murder is murder is murder no matter how you try to justify it.

Trump says a lot of things that make a lot of sense and has done a lot of things that have really helped the country, but he also says a lot of things that don't make much sense and luckily this is limited to mostly "talk" and doesn't represent itself with negative aspects of how much better things in the USA have gotten since we got rid of the last nut job we had in office. If you haven't noticed yet, most politicians will say whatever the hell they have to say to convince the people, who take them for their word, to get reelected. They are all full of shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> At the time, the idea that Jews weren't people was rooted in actual science. Really, really twisted science that sounds incredibly dumb knowing what we know now, but that's the point. I wonder if some genetic breakthrough way outside our imagination will further thin the lines between 'human' and 'embryo'.



It doesn't sound dumb to me. People only look at what is happening today and fail to realize what has happened before and what is likely to happen again. We are being overrun by people who don't know a thing about history or simply chose to ignore it. Bad people use science to justify murder all of the time. Doesn't change the fact that they are bad people nor changes the fact that's it's murder. Science isn't an overall "good" or "right" thing. More people have died in because of science than any other natural disaster in our modern age.

"In the name of science" - says a True Believer. Same lunacy we saw from Christians back in the day. Science, for some, replaces religion. No one knows what the future holds, but if the past is any indication science will be eventually be replaced with something "better". I just hope whatever replaces it involves less senseless baby killing.


----------



## bandithedoge (May 24, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Depends where you are and what you have to play with. Some states are pretty big, and they often clump together in ideology too* (see all the various terms with belt in them, most notably here probably being the bible belt), so it is less of a drop the kids off somewhere, go to a clinic and drop $100 as much as marathon trip to another state (US public transport also sucks at the interstate/intercity level), possibly do a return visit in some cases (some US states/counties/whatever have cooling off periods and mandatory counselling, usually 24 hours compared to some longer ones elsewhere in the world but that then means overnight somewhere, and more fun if you already have kids already). If you don't have insurance, or your insurance will not cover it, then it also costs there depending upon time (earlier ones being cheaper but can still land you $500, move into surgical procedures and $2000 is not unheard of).
> 
> 
> If your Poland flag is accurate and you were thinking more the fun and games people were having there the other year where the hopped across the border for a chemical setup, or had the pills tied to balloons, then you are vastly underestimating the distances involved.
> ...



I'm not underestimating the distances, I know the US is huge (Texas alone is about the size of Poland). The way I used the word "just" was not to say that it's super simple but that it might be the simplest option to get an abortion without messing with the law.

I'm pretty pro-abortion in specific instances. If they say abortion is murder, at least think of it as self-defense when the mother's life is on the line. Rape is also kinda a valid reason - the baby wasn't planned and it wasn't the mother's fault at all.

I'm open for debate, as long as we keep it civil and don't mindlessly insult each other.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Yeah, you can go to another state and have one. I had a relative that slept around and had an abortion to hide the fact she slept around from her husband. She had to go to another state than the one she resided in to get the abortion. What she did troubled her for the rest of her life and rightfully so - murder is murder is murder no matter how you try to justify it.
> 
> Trump says a lot of things that make a lot of sense and has done a lot of things that have really helped the country, but he also says a lot of things that don't make much sense and luckily this is limited to mostly "talk" and doesn't represent itself with negative aspects of how much better things in the USA have gotten since we got rid of the last nut job we had in office. If you haven't noticed yet, most politicians will say whatever the hell they have to say to convince the people, who take them for their word, to get reelected. They are all full of shit.
> 
> ...



You still seem really attached to this "it is murder" idea and I am still lacking a good basis for why I should consider it as such. I have gone looking, tried asking, and tried contemplating it for myself... still not even close from where I sit. Do you have something I might contemplate as part of this?



bandithedoge said:


> The way I used the word "just" was not to say that it's super simple but that it might be the simplest option to get an abortion without messing with the law.



The law of the nation already says it is all good though, and has seemingly been tested at the highest levels and stood for that. That there has to be... might as well use US phrasing and go with end run, around the new law then something has gone wrong somewhere.


----------



## bandithedoge (May 24, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> You still seem really attached to this "it is murder" idea and I am still lacking a good basis for why I should consider it as such. I have gone looking, tried asking, and tried contemplating it for myself... still not even close from where I sit. Do you have something I might contemplate as part of this?
> 
> 
> 
> The law of the nation already says it is all good though, and has seemingly been tested at the highest levels and stood for that. That there has to be... might as well use US phrasing and go with end run, around the new law then something has gone wrong somewhere.


I wouldn't say I'm attached to the idea. I don't think it's murder, I was kinda referencing cots's reply.


----------



## notimp (May 24, 2019)

Here are two somewhat provocative concepts you could think about.

People have fought wars based on overpopulation the past. Now if you only factor in people killed - you still could argue "at least more children were saved" - but then its also the psychological effects of wars. Which kind of suck, and also harm everyone - for longer periods.

And in terms of people that loose their lives... Same?

Thats moreso the argument for birth control and abortions on the international stage.


Also - body counts have always been used as a tool for influence. So if you use collective religious motives as a form of 'control' you always tell your people to have as many children as possible. This even is a thing on the international political stage. (And actually in a strange reversal of concepts, something that the far right "fights" in some western countries.)

So "save the babies" is almost always more a "save our culture" argument to begin with. Its inherently political. But save the babies is easier to argue for, these days.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Let's be frank about this: abortion is a necessity created by an over-zealous capitalist system.  If every pregnant woman was guaranteed the resources she needed to raise her child, the abortion rate would be at/near zero, except in cases of rape or incest.  Forcing people who are already below the poverty line to be burdened with a child they can't afford and can't care for properly is just going to make things a lot worse.  Basically: if Republicans really cared about lowering the abortion rate, they'd be implementing more social safety nets for mothers who need them.  Making it illegal will only result in even more desperation, and back-alley abortions.


Maybe Florida isn't the best example, but I would guess the statistics are similar elsewhere. 90% of abortions are simply for the hell of it (failure to take responsibility/refusal to stop whoring around).


----------



## pustal (May 25, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Maybe Florida isn't the best example, but I would guess the statistics are similar elsewhere. 90% of abortions are simply for the hell of it (failure to take responsibility/refusal to stop whoring around).


 
This is what happens when you endotrinate  people that contraception doesn't work or simply don't give the contraceptive means to people. You can't stop people from having sex, is part of life. We evolved to the point of being able to control the repercussions, yet schools in the US spread falsehoods while politicians defund it.



Glyptofane said:


> whoring around



This is the exact religious fundamentalism that drives this whole abortion debate. The negativism and judgementalism over something that is natural of the human condition. There is no brain activity and therefore no sentience in the periods where any doctor would preform an abortion. Before that a fetus is nothing more than an organ or appendix, yet these states equal the removal of it of a murderer, based on the religious belief that there is something supernatural of it, either that is blessed by a deity or part of a gods will. And you impose that religious dogma to everyone, being believe or not, while completely ignoring the science behind it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2019)

What is the delineation between "social or economic reasons" and "elective abortion"? In previous times when dealing with quite poor people but not quite enough to tip over the line into accessing certain services/"safety nets" I have been quite shocked how high/low/oddly placed the bar actually is.
Also when learning about all this in school many years ago economic could also swing the other way -- high powered and high paid lawyer wants to continue her career without a baby getting in the way of it, a break would halt progress towards being a barrister (not the same as partner track in the US but a suitable substitute) and thus we have an economic reason despite the returning salary probably still being higher than 90% of the rest of the country, indeed such a thing was something of a "trick" question on the matter. I would not be surprised at all to find a different definition here but worth noting in passing at least.

That said "you fucked up, live with it" seems like an astonishingly vindictive thing to do, rather out of line with general notions of medical care. If I was to root around in my rusty scrap heap that passes for my back garden tomorrow and get sliced up I am not going to be told "should have worn gloves, we will be here if/when you get over it and to manage your infection symptoms" should I drag myself to a medic, indeed such a thing would be contrary to general medical ethics and said medics would likely not be medics for much longer if word got out about that one.


----------



## kevin corms (May 25, 2019)

Im not going to take a side, but honestly people need to sit down calmly and figure this out. Enough is enough, learn how to talk to someone who doesnt agree with you.


----------



## pustal (May 25, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Im not going to take a side, but honestly people need to sit down calmly and figure this out. Enough is enough, learn how to talk to someone who doesnt agree with you.



The problem is that people that don't agree with you for purely religious views and disregarding science are legislating and imposing their beliefs on you instead of limiting their beliefs to their own lives.


----------



## cracker (May 25, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Really? That sounds like the ramblings of an insane person.
> Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?



Not a reply to me, but I'll pick it up.. Numbers 5. Not to mention all the instances of god performing abortions on people who pissed him off.


----------



## cots (May 25, 2019)

pustal said:


> The problem is that people that don't agree with you for purely religious views and disregarding science are legislating and imposing their beliefs on you instead of limiting their beliefs to their own lives.



What about the fact that science in itself it it's own flawed religion? I mean, it's what's taught now as the defacto standard and considered the only way to live by. The same can be said about other stuff in the past. Science is just the popular one these days. Imposing their beliefs? Who thought it was a smart idea to use my money to fund baby killing? I don't care if your science currently justifies it. It's my money and you use it to kill babies with. You forced me into taking a position. Back the fuck off, give me my money back, stop using my money in the future to fund abortions, get rid of any laws that allow you to take my money and use it for abortions and I'll consider not having such a strong opinion on murdering babies. The justification; science changes all of the time, but killing a living organism definition hasn't changed. You get enough people in power that agree things should be a certain way and watch the science change to suit their needs. Don't give me that "In the name of science crap".


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?


Book of Numbers 5:11-31.  Basically says: should a man have any suspicion that his pregnant wife has been disloyal, he is to take her to the priest and have him make her drink what is essentially poison.



Glyptofane said:


> Maybe Florida isn't the best example, but I would guess the statistics are similar elsewhere.


Florida is an outlier in more than one way compared to the other states, it wouldn't surprise me if that was also the case here.  Who knows how many of those babies were revealed by an ultrasound to be half-alligator.


----------



## cots (May 25, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> You still seem really attached to this "it is murder" idea and I am still lacking a good basis for why I should consider it as such. I have gone looking, tried asking, and tried contemplating it for myself... still not even close from where I sit. Do you have something I might contemplate as part of this?



Terminating a life form for any reason (that includes with or without it's consent) is murder. I mean, if you're going to protect trees that have no heart beat and never develop a brain you'd think you'd want to protect someone as sacred as human life. What criteria do you use to judge that a tree is worth saving, because all of this "it hasn't developed X or Y yet" is irrelevant when it comes to a tree. People kill (aka murder) life all of the time, it's a natural process (well, so is rape and incest). I think if you're going to fight to save something that will never come close to experiencing the level of consciousness as a human does just because it's "alive" and then go around killing something else "just because it hasn't developed what we consider to be consciousness - yet" (and somehow this makes it less alive then the tree) you're sick in the head.

At least two bit scum whore crack heads that go around selling their aids ridden bodies for their next "fix" have no problem admitting they are murders and don't try to find behind modern day science when it comes to joking and laughing about it. They will straight up tell you that they don't care.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Florida is an outlier in more than one way compared to the other states, it wouldn't surprise me if that was also the case here.



It's about the same no matter where you go. Women get pregnant and kill their babies just because they don't want them. The entire rape, incest or "the mother is in danger" excuses rarely ever happen and are just used as tools for sympathy by the left to push their "we want to control every aspect of your life" agenda.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> Terminating a life form for any reason (that includes with or without it's consent) is murder.


That's a pretty extreme stance to take.  People with incurable diseases who are in constant agony shouldn't be able to end things on their own terms?



cots said:


> I mean, if you're going to protect trees that have no heart beat and never develop a brain you'd think you'd want to protect someone as sacred as human life. What criteria do you use to judge that a tree is worth saving, because all of this "it hasn't developed X or Y yet" is irrelevant when it comes to a tree.


You do realize that too many humans with too few trees would mean the entire planet dies off, right?



cots said:


> It's about the same no matter where you go. Women get pregnant and kill their babies just because they don't want them. The entire rape, incest or "the mother is in danger" excuses rarely ever happen and are just used as tools for sympathy by the left to push their "we want to control every aspect of your life" agenda.


Except it's the opposite, the right is attempting to control women's lives and take away more of their freedoms.  They're attempting to legislate morality, which is not the purpose of government.  The left is protecting women's freedom of choice in this matter.


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> Terminating a life form for any reason (that includes with or without it's consent) is murder. I mean, if you're going to protect trees that have no heart beat and never develop a brain you'd think you'd want to protect someone as sacred as human life. What criteria do you use to judge that a tree is worth saving, because all of this "it hasn't developed X or Y yet" is irrelevant when it comes to a tree. People kill (aka murder) life all of the time, it's a natural process (well, so is rape and incest). I think if you're going to fight to save something that will never come close to experiencing the level of consciousness as a human does just because it's "alive" and then go around killing something else "just because it hasn't developed what we consider to be consciousness - yet" (and somehow this makes it less alive then the tree) you're sick in the head.
> 
> At least two bit scum whore crack heads that go around selling their aids ridden bodies for their next "fix" have no problem admitting they are murders and don't try to find behind modern day science when it comes to joking and laughing about it. They will straight up tell you that they don't care.
> 
> ...



You keep saying that murder is murder shit and ignore all other arguments, what's the point of this thread if you're just gonna repeat the same shit all over again, women lives are getting completely ruined because of people who think like you, you won't ever understand all the suffering a girl has to go through because of things like a scum piece of crap boyfriend who lied to her about orgasming inside of her or being impregnated while drugged, man you just can't force these women to carry another being for 9 months and then dedicate their whole lives to them, that's sick and fucked up, abortion being murder is the most insignificant thing to consider here.

EDIT: it's also funny how you mention the "we want to control every aspect of your life" thing when that's exactly what is happening when you deny women their right to decide.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Abortion is one of those subjects where a mutually satisfying consensus is impossible to achieve because neither side is willing to give an inch - on one end we have people who want to refuse abortions to rape and incest victims, on the other we have people perfectly comfortable with the concept of aborting a child 5 minutes before its due date - neither stance is reasonable and both sides will defend their point of view to the death.

Overall I'm leaning towards the Pro life side of the argument - I think abortion, in the gross majority of cases, is murder for convenience. That being said, there are several exceptions from the general rule, for instance the aforementioned incest, rape, as well as serious medical conditions that would either put the mother's health at risk or would otherwise lead to severe disability of the child, at which point the parents should be given the option.

We live in a world where contraception comes in more flavours than ice cream - there's pills, dams, sprays, patches, implants and even the old faithful $1 Rubber Johnny. But hey, let's say that you weren't particularly careful and fumbled at all of those - it still takes 72 hours for the fertilised egg to even nest where it's supposed to, which is where the morning after pill comes in. If you failed to act for three days, at that point I feel that it's on you, and a part of being a grown-up is facing the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be. This may sound harsh to some readers, but what's more harsh to me is requiring society to pay for your mistakes. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and I value life, even unborn life, more so than a stranger's aforementioned convenience.

On the subject of a "woman's right to choose", I think that the term was completely perverted over time. I do not think it's "the woman's body, therefore her choice" - not only is that statement demonstrably false, it's also a gross oversimplification of the matter. I've personally heard a good number of stories from would-be dads whose significant others went behind their backs and aborted their pregnancy - I don't think that's fair at all. I can't even begin to imagine what it feels like to be deprived of being a parent with no prior notice. I fully understand that it's the woman who has to carry the pregnancy to term, but if the man has already declared willingness to care for the child for the next 18+ years, all I see is short-term inconvenience.

Sadly, we live in a world of quick fixes, and abortion is a quick fix to a "problem" that very well may have better solutions in each individual case, just ones that require a modicum of effort or sacrifice. There's a lot of posturing going on, but not a lot of stepping up to the plate and facing the challenge that, ultimately, everyone affected created themselves.

As I said in the beginning, I'm merely leaning one side - I'd be perfectly happy with a compromise. Many European countries have set reasonable timelines for when abortion is permissable and when it isn't, and I'm okay with that so long as it saves some lives without necessarily affecting women who need abortions for legitimate reasons.


zomborg said:


> Really? That sounds like the ramblings of an insane person.
> Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?


Funnily enough, there is a citation for that. As you know, Christian religious tradition is rooted in Jewish religious tradition, which in turn addresses abortion pretty directly. Not to ramble for too long about old holy books, but the Torah explicitly states that an unborn child has not achieved the state of personhood yet (it does not have a "soul", or "nefesh" yet), however it is both alive and the blood of man (Genesis 9:6), so there are penalties associated with abortion. To be more specific, if a pregnant woman is struck and loses her child, the perpetrator owes monetary damages to both the woman and the man who impregnated her, and if "further harm" was done to the woman (as in, she died as a result of the assault), the penalty is death (Exodus 21:22). The Talmud goes as far as to say that fetuses are in fact included under the Noahide prohibition of bloodshed law (Sanhedrin 57b), although it is not "fully alive". The Mishna further clarifies when killing an unborn child is in fact permissable in Oholot 7:8:


> If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.


Meaning that if the woman's life is in danger as a result of pregnancy, it is permissable to terminate it. Graphic, but gets the point across. You might think that this only accounts for medical issues, however it does in fact account for rape, and perhaps even incest, if it occurred without consent, as those do "put the women's life in peril" due to the risk of suicide, or at least that's how the text is interpreted nowadays.

Long story short, there is religious precedent for abortion laws, and the cases where it is permissable seem quite reasonable - whenever continuing the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the mother. In Jewish tradition, the life of those already bestowed with "nefesh" takes precedent over the lives of those who haven't yet, so abortion is allowed in those cases, but at the same time, it is frowned upon when there is no legitimate reason to terminate a pregnancy.

Not really an argument for or against, just an interesting peek at what was people's stance on abortion thousands of years ago. Unsurprisingly it isn't much different than how we feel about it nowadays.


----------



## cracker (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> What about the fact that science in itself it it's own flawed religion? I mean, it's what's taught now as the defacto standard and considered the only way to live by. The same can be said about other stuff in the past. Science is just the popular one these days.



Science is about the opposite of religion:

Science

Based on what can be observed/measured
The facts are used to reach the best possible understanding of a concept
Is constantly evolving as more information is discovered
The practitioners welcome (serious) questions, dissents and critiques

Religion

Based on faith (belief in something that can't be measured)
Facts/"facts" are found that support the desired concept
Parts can be/are changed according to what the practitioners want
The practitioners get offended, and sometimes cause fights, wars, mass murder, etc when there are questions, dissents and/or critiques
Those are just a few.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

cracker said:


> Science is about the opposite of religion:
> 
> Science
> 
> ...


Snark aside, science and religion are neither opposites nor equal, they exist on separate planes altogether. They're not so much contradictory as they are complimentary in life. Religion and philosophy are an attempt at answering questions that science is not equipped to answer. For instance, you cannot scientifically arrive at a system of morals using the tools of science, and conversely, you cannot arrive at the laws of physics using religion. I think that putting yourself in a position where you have to choose one or the other is a little silly, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of these disciplines. I believe what cots wanted to say is that some people choose to worship science as an idol, against their better judgement, when using science as cover often times allows bad actors to push immoral agendas. Let's not forget that science, overall, is the pursuit of finding the truth by being constantly wrong and revising your hypothesis until you are actually right, or at least until the next scientists disproves your theory and restarts the cycle. Throughout history both science and religion have been used to perpetrate atrocities, so in that sense they're similar.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> on one end we have people who want to refuse abortions to rape and incest victims, on the other we have people perfectly comfortable with the concept of aborting a child 5 minutes before its due date - neither stance is reasonable and both sides will defend their point of view to the death.


The former we know is true because those are the laws being passed by certain state legislatures.  The latter is a gross mischaracterization of the Democratic position, however, which in reality is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  Anyone who believes that outlawing abortion will ultimately reduce the overall need for abortion services is a fool.  That's why modern first-world nations all keep it legal, and even Sharia law isn't as inflexible on this topic as Republicans in America.

Again, the larger issue for me personally is that this is an attempt to legislate morality, which government has no business attempting.


----------



## Superbronx (May 25, 2019)

I'm taking a page out of zomborgs book with this but. 

Since the beginning of time human life has been formed in exactly the same way. Any adult comprehends this concept. Male and female has sex, sperm fertilizes egg, 9 months later a precious baby is born. In today's scientific world, man has developed and is developing alternatives (which is a problem itself) 
 Every man and woman in their right mind, on the face of this earth is aware of this basic fact. They know without a doubt, that engaging in sex is what produces human life and they know each and every time they engage in the act of sex that they may be making a baby. 

They know what the ingredients are, man plus woman, penis plus vagina and sperm plus egg. They know what the process is and how to do it. No one is mistaken. 

Just like if you are making a burger you know all the ingredients and you know how to make it. Doesn't matter if at the beginning, the ground beef, bun and trimmings do not look like a burger. It is a burger. 

Same way, no even more so with human life. It doesn't matter what stage it's in or how early in development it is, it doesn't matter if the baby so far is only a few cells, since mankind has known since the beginning of time EXACTLY how a life is created, once they engage in the life creating process they know that what they are doing is creating life. 

It's not like it's been trial and error. It's not like the result is different every time. It's not like, woops, this time we made a book! Then next time, hey! It was an apple this time! Then next time it's a human baby, then another time it's a car. 

No, each and every time when people engage in sex and the woman gets pregnant it's a baby. Surprise! The results NEVER change. EVER. So, no it's not a blob of cells, it's not a virus, it's not a parasite. Each and every time it is a human life. 

Anyone who says if you abort after conception as long as it's before the heartbeat is lying to themselves. Anyone who tries to justify it by saying it's not a life yet are fooling themselves because everyone knows sex creates life and if they have sex and become pregnant it's not just cells dividing it's life. 


How can all of you intelligent people here actually act like you do not know or have a hard time comprehending exactly when life begins? If you know the process and ingredients, you know a baby is coming and at whatever point you decide to stop it, you are either preventing it from starting or you are killing it. Either way surely you can't be dumb enough to deny its a baby.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The former we know is true because those are the laws being passed by certain state legislatures.  The latter is a gross mischaracterization of the Democratic position, however, which in reality is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  Anyone who believes that outlawing abortion will ultimately reduce the overall need for abortion services is a fool.  That's why modern first-world nations all keep it legal, and even Sharia law isn't as inflexible on this topic as Republicans in America.


It's absolutely not a mischaracterisation. "Safe, legal and rare" has never been properly quantified into a specific number of weeks that the entire platform was happy to co-sign, anything short of total control, or "full right to choose" is frowned upon, and I have in fact heard certain Democrat representatives stating that an abortion on the way to delivery room should be permissable if that's what the woman wants. In fact, I even read an essay on the merits of "post-birth abortion", which would've been an interesting thought experiment if it was satire, which it wasn't.


----------



## cracker (May 25, 2019)

@Foxi4 
That's not exactly true. There are a whole spectrum of beliefs as to what should be allowed or not.

My .02 is that it shouldn't be used flippantly (say habitually not using birth control of some sort because that is the fallback solution). Pregnancies by rape and incest (most often by rape) shouldn't be forced to come to term. Those women/girls  are dealing with enough problems. The same goes for the health of the mother, fetus. I couldn't imagine telling someone they had to have a child that has no hope of ever having any semblance of a "life" like someone with microcephaly, hydrocephaly, osteogenesis imperfects, extreme spina bifida, neurofibromatosis, etc. I feel it is a compassionate act in those cases just as euthanasia is for someone incapable of dealing with a medical condition that brings the quality of life to nil.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's absolutely not a mischaracterisation. "Safe, legal and rare" has never been properly quantified into a specific number of weeks that the entire platform was happy to co-sign, anything short of total control is frowned upon, and I have in fact heard certain Democrat representatives stating that an abortion on the way to delivery room should be permissable if that's what the woman wants. In fact, I even read an essay on the merits of "post-birth abortion", which would've been an interesting thought experiment if it was satire, which it wasn't.


I've heard floods of similar claims coming from the right-wing and the White House lately, but none of them have been proven or properly sourced.  Just more propaganda meant to shock people into changing their minds.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

Science:
Exact language, peer reviewed, falsification based, follows validity, reliability, and reproducibility as concepts. (Is what i measure valid. Are my measurements reliable. Can others reproduce those concepts. (Remove other factors.))

Religion:
Dogma, poetic language

Here is how a religious argument goes. I'm right, because the book said so. I'm better, because I can interpret the book better. (And thats not just 'learned proof' thats their ultimate proof.) I wasn't supposed to know that, because god. Their language is as inexact as possible - something is correct, because the love of Jesus Christ our lord tells us so. Wait, what?
The entire catholic church has maybe half an order that follows a critical thinking approach to problem description.

They derive their power from relics for gods sake (1000s of pieces of the cross of Jesus Christ, that miraculously survived, strains of st. maries hair, they have people chant in groups, they use psychoactive soft drugs in public ceremonies (Frankincense in the catholic church). When they have a problem in doctrine, they congregate to discuss it. Then come up with new doctrine. Half of their legacy was burning books to remove prior knowledge from this earth. They make you do solilequies and memorize stances.

Here is what religion is conceptually.

Someone got a book (think of it at the latest model of iPhone before it is mass produced  ). Faked, that they could read it. Got power over a bunch of morons that were more stupid than them. Build a house. Made people give them gifts. Displayed the most astonishing gifts, so others would be impressed. Invited everyone to weekly congregations where people brainwash themselves (chants, murmors, drugs, ..) and become 'open to teachings'. When people asked - "you can't make me do that" questions, they deferrerd to hell in the afterlife. While selling absolution tickets to the rich. They burned knowledge (to establish new gods), tortured and held wars over believe systems.

They address the irrational, emotional in human beings (universal love, higher love, abstract love, truth through love) - which is fine, but its still something you chose to focus on. They pray. They use reliques. They use processions. They use the effect of masses. (Look around, so many people are here. Or nowadays - isnt it a shame, how few people are here.) They use rituals. (Science does as well - but mostly in transitioning you from scholar into practitioner.)

Here is what enlightenment scholars did. "Your doctrine has no power over us, people can be made better humans not by "you just got to believe" but by questioning things." Thats basically the difference. That an a few modes of 'dealing with knowledge' in science you go by the premise that a theory is a theory, and only true as long as someone hasnt proven it wrong. In religion, you go by "we already know everything - its in the book".

"And moses got two stone tablets from the lord, after he came down from the mountain, thats so hight, that most of you will never climb it. Look how high the mountain is. Wait - look - a burning bush. Its a sign from god!"

Now - tapping into the irrational and dealing with that - has its positives as well. But to derive modes of action, and 'truth's from it - kind of, not ideal.

Also from a collective power approach, always deal with the poor and the less able, so you don't get in conflict with worldly powers - much. And if you do - survive for maybe a few decades. (Meaning, they never were great at running states. Their power literally comes from collecting money at congregations, and getting the heritage of lonely people - then amassing that over time, by telling your priest sect, they cant't marry - and in the end everything falls back to the church. Think of it. Once theirs - always theirs. Unless wars come along.)


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

cracker said:


> @Foxi4
> That's not exactly true. There are a whole spectrum of beliefs as to what should be allowed or not.
> 
> My .02 is that it shouldn't be used flippantly (say habitually not using birth control of some sort because that is the fallback solution). Pregnancies by rape and incest (most often by rape) shouldn't be forced to come to term. Those women/girls  are dealing with enough problems. The same goes for the health of the mother, fetus. I couldn't imagine telling someone they had to have a child that has no hope of ever having any semblance of a "life" like someone with microcephaly, hydrocephaly, osteogenesis imperfects, extreme spina bifida, neurofibromatosis, etc. I feel it is a compassionate act in those cases just as euthanasia is for someone incapable of dealing with a medical condition that brings the quality of life to nil.


I more or less agree, and have stated as much - if the mother's life is threatened, the child is severely disabled or if we're dealing with rape or incest, I'm perfectly happy with abortion being performed. Well, I shouldn't say "happy", but I can accept it as a fact of life. What I can't accept is abortion being used as a form of birth control, or as a "get out of jail free" card for people who lack personal responsibility. I would feel *more* comfortable if they had their tubes tied/had a vasectomy than if they had an abortion - one is a choice regarding their own body, the other does have externalities.



Xzi said:


> I've heard floods of similar claims coming from the right-wing and the White House lately, but none of them have been proven or properly sourced.  Just more propaganda meant to shock people into changing their minds.


You've got Gov. Northam for a start (Mr."Keep the baby comfortable, make a decision later"), then you've got the pretty liberal RHA in New York which is only one flimsy paper tiger away from Abortion-on-Demand, then you've got Bernie Sanders of Loonbagia saying on national television that "it's up to the woman and her phisician, not the government" even up to the point of birth, there's lots of examples. We can have a real discussion about this when the Democrat party quantifies what "Safe, legal and rare" means on a piece of paper that we can read - until then it means nothing at all.


----------



## morvoran (May 25, 2019)

It's AMAZING how many people here are willing to go along with or outright approve of the killing of a human life. 

For the people who think it's just a clump of cells, if the "cells" are not removed from the mother, they will eventually form into a fully functioning human just as we all did. 

For those saying that the baby could be deformed, have down's syndrome, or other affliction, life is life.  Would you be willing to kill a grown adult with down's syndrome.  What about the youtuber Ricky?  Are you going to convince him that he should have been aborted?  It looks like he sure does appreciate his mother not having him torn out of "her uterus" limb by limb and had his skull crushed before being yanked out and thrown in the trash.  Same with rape and incest.  Even though the mother went through a horrible experience, why convince them to go through another one immediately after?

For those worried about back alley abortions, if the woman destroys her uterus and can't have babies anymore, that's fine as they aren't fit to be a parent anyways since they think they have the right to kill their children.  If they die themselves, then just hand them a Darwin's award.

We should be focusing more on ways of preventing these unwanted births rather than letting women think they can just have the baby "problem" removed from "their" body anytime they decide to make a mistake.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's AMAZING how many people here are willing to go along with or outright approve of the killing of a human life.
> 
> For the people who think it's just a clump of cells, if the "cells" are not removed from the mother, they will eventually form into a fully functioning human just as we all did.
> 
> ...


They're the Children of the Lie. And Beta. UH-MAH-ZING!


----------



## cracker (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Snark aside, science and religion are neither opposites nor equal, they exist on separate planes altogether. They're not so much contradictory as they are complimentary in life. Religion and philosophy are an attempt at answering questions that science is not equipped to answer. For instance, you cannot scientifically arrive at a system of morals using the tools of science, and conversely, you cannot arrive at the laws of physics using religion. I think that putting yourself in a position where you have to choose one or the other is a little silly, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of these disciplines. I believe what cots wanted to say is that some people choose to worship science as an idol, against their better judgement, when using science as cover often times allows bad actors to push immoral agendas. Let's not forget that science, overall, is the pursuit of finding the truth by being constantly wrong and revising your hypothesis until you are actually right, or at least until the next scientists disproves your theory and restarts the cycle. Throughout history both science and religion have been used to perpetrate atrocities, so in that sense they're similar.



Morality doesn't need religion. Billions of athiests have lived/are living that are moral for morality's sake. Many of the constructs actually are scientific in nature as we can see the effects around us when we choose to murder, steal, lie, etc. Other animals (especially apes) have what we would consider to morals if they were humans. They have no religions.


----------



## zomborg (May 25, 2019)

cracker said:


> Not a reply to me, but I'll pick it up.. Numbers 5. Not to mention all the instances of god performing abortions on people who pissed him off.





Xzi said:


> Book of Numbers 5:11-31. Basically says: should a man have any suspicion that his pregnant wife has been disloyal, he is to take her to the priest and have him make her drink what is essentially poison.


 You guys were right. I guess. I read that part and it seems to indicate that in the NIV. 
I only read the KJV and it's not worded that way. Either way that was during the old testament times before Jesus came and changed things. 
Yes we are still supposed read the old testament but we are supposed to live our lives based on the new testament.
There were a lot of really harsh rules they had to live by in the old testament like stoning people to death but we are not required to live by those anymore.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

cracker said:


> Morality doesn't need religion. Billions of athiests have lived/are living that are moral for morality's sake. Many of the constructs actually are scientific in nature as we can see the effects around us when we choose to murder, steal, lie, etc. Other animals (especially apes) have what we would consider to morals if they were humans. They have no religions.


Let's get some things straightened out here. For starters, animals have no moral code. Most animals lack the cognitive ability to perform any higher intellectual function, let alone grasp abstract concepts. In fact, most creatures in the animal kingdom don't even think, per se - they react to external stimuli, which is different. You're focusing a little bit too much on advanced vertebrates there. Secondly, even atheists follow some form of a philosophy in life, and to simplify matters for the sake of this discussion, we'll treat religion as a philosophy with an added aspect of divinity. There are people who believe in the divine and there are people who don't, however both groups *have beliefs*, and it's their belief systems that help them construct moral hierarchies. Even the biggest nihilist believes in something, it's an integral part of the human existence and one of many things that differentiate us from animals.


----------



## cracker (May 25, 2019)

I propose a Newer Testament!

1. Don't be a dick
2. See 1


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

cracker said:


> I propose a Newer Testament!
> 
> 1. Don't be a dick
> 2. See 1


Fun fact, this is kind of what the new covenant already is. Many Christians don't know this, but Jesus effectively replaced the "Old Law" of the Ten Commandments with "New Law" that encompasses all of them on just two through his sacrifice - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". If you always treat your neighbour the same way you would expect to be treated, you kind of can't be a dick. 

Damn, this discussion turned from abortion to religion pretty hard now.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You've got Gov. Northam for a start (Mr."Keep the baby comfortable, make a decision later"), then you've got the pretty liberal RHA in New York which is only one flimsy paper tiger away from Abortion-on-Demand, then you've got Bernie Sanders of Loonbagia saying on national television that "it's up to the woman and her phisician, not the government" even up to the point of birth, there's lots of examples. We can have a real discussion about this when the Democrat party quantifies what "Safe, legal and rare" means on a piece of paper that we can read - until then it means nothing at all.


It means we keep working to educate and inform the populace in order to bring the abortion rate down.  That's the only long-term answer.  As I said previously, simply outlawing it is not a plan.  People who identify as Republicans rely on these services just as often as Democrats, and that demand isn't going to magically change in order to correspond with the law.

Thankfully, these anti-constitutional laws are already starting to be struck down.  Starting with Mississippi's: 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-blocks-mississippi-abortion-ban


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's AMAZING how many people here are willing to go along with or outright approve of the killing of a human life.
> 
> For the people who think it's just a clump of cells, if the "cells" are not removed from the mother, they will eventually form into a fully functioning human just as we all did.
> 
> For those saying that the baby could be deformed, have down's syndrome, or other affliction, life is life. Would you be willing to kill a grown adult with down's syndrome.


Simple concepts. I believe no one in here is for killing people with mental disabilities. As societies we've come that far at least.
(We give parents who are about to have such a child a slightly longer period to decide if they are willing to go through with everything that entails, or have an abortion. Because if they turn neglectful, or angry and harmful towards it,bad scene. Again - compromises for more difficult psychological decisions. But for that you first have to acknowledge that abortions arent the worst thing that can be.)

At one point human beings are bunch of cells. Then the are more, then they arent any longer (when they die hopefully of a natural cause). Now what some people do are dealing with the 'in between phases' in kind of a way to minimize harm.
Also - rational people invented the universal declaration of human rights, and thats the 'best' you can do - in terms of actual enacted humanity in todays scene. Better than "love thy next".


Lets go at this poetically.  So - human is love. After humans died, are humans still love? People learned that no - at least not the body, because deceases (and death cults).

Now when do people become human beings with inseperable personal rights? At conception? (Which the church didn't know existed for the better parts of several centuries.) While they are still part of the female body? Something in between.

The new "law wave" (meant to trigger constitutional debates at a time where you have a majority of center right laywers on the constitutional board) is meant to trigger at "the first heart beat". Thats very poetical. But not much more.

What most people came to realize was that having a child, while by no means wanting it - kind of iduces suffering for both the 'childbarer' and the child. And the family of that child, once it grows older. So some not at all fuzzy ("all is love") decisions were made. That took into context that - if women killed themselves, or where willing to mutilate themselves severely - just to not have to go through with a pregnancy - that wasn't _it_.

Now your argument is "but now its too easy". From which point forwhat we now do what? Hold debates over when its just hard enough?  Set poetic rules that define human beings as such from the moment of the first "heart beat"?

Also - and this is something you have to deal with. Humans kill each other in wars. They do so whenever there is an issue with not enough food, or place to make a living, or if some god tells them to, or when the bad guy gets a weapon they dont like. That also produces harm, thats generational.

The sentence that now follows, would make you climp up walls, so I can not utter it - but think of the concept at least.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It means we keep working to educate and inform the populace in order to bring the abortion rate down.  That's the only long-term answer.  As I said previously, simply outlawing it is not a plan.  People who identify as Republicans rely on these services just as often as Democrats, and that demand isn't going to magically change in order to correspond with the law.


I would like to see a stat on that, I somehow doubt that's the case. As for your actual point, it's a ridiculous one. I'll use the commonly used homeless person analogy, simply because I find it very humorous. "Murdering homeless people until we can lower the rate of homelessness" is not a solution if you assign any value to the homeless person's life at all. You might argue that he's a burden, or that he's better off dead since his existence is miserable, but that doesn't make his murder justified and I sleep well knowing that it's illegal to kill a homeless man. Conversely, me saying that you shouldn't murder homeless people *in no way* makes me responsible for the upkeep of the homeless population - just because I didn't choose to stab a homeless man in the head doesn't mean that I am responsible for him going forward.

Once again, in the great majority of cases abortion is a matter of murder for convenience. Depending on where you look, abortions required due to rape or incest total at under 1%, I often see the figure 0.13%, which in my eyes makes this a red herring and non-issue that's meant to push abortions for the remaining 99% who have other reasons. Looking at the CDC stats I can see that the majority of abortions are performed within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and the patients are in their twenties. Moreover, the total number is increasing, not decreasing, which tells me that our more promiscuous modern lifestyle which introduces teens to the issue of sex earlier has the opposite result to the one you're expecting, but that's besides the point. I never quite got the whole "education" angle anyway - what's there to educate those kids about? They know where babies come from, Xzi - don't be silly. They've seen a biology textbook before. There are other causes here and other reasons why abortion is so desirable to a large segment of the population. It's not health reasons - it's desirable because it allows for avoidance of responsibility, and enables carelessness.



notimp said:


> Simple concepts. I believe no one in here is for killing people with mental disabilities. As societies we've come that far at least.
> 
> At one point human beings are bunch of cells. Then the are more, then they arent any longer (when they die hopefully of a natural cause). Now what some people do are dealing with the 'in between phases' in kind of a way to minimize harm.
> Also - rational people invented the universal declaration of human rights, and thats the 'best' you can do - in terms of actual enacted humanity in todays science. Better than "love thy next".
> ...


You're a bunch of cells too. It seems arbitrary to choose how big the lump of cells must be before we consider it human, it's far more productive to discuss circumstances when we can create exceptions to our general dislike of killing human life.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

Also - here is where our deeper love for children comes from:





src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness

Its an imprint. They need more care, so we are primed to give them more. Because if we werent - they wouldnt survive as well. And that would hurt us as a species.

We all feel it. Its not that some of us just dont. (Well, psychopaths may not, but those are a very tiny percentage, not half of your populations and more ultimately being in favor of abortions.)


----------



## cracker (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Let's get some things straightened out here. For starters, animals have no moral code. Most animals lack the cognitive ability to perform any higher intellectual function, let alone grasp abstract concepts. In fact, most creatures in the animal kingdom don't even think, per se - they react to external stimuli, which is different. You're focusing a little bit too much on advanced vertebrates there. Secondly, even atheists follow some form of a philosophy in life, and to simplify matters for the sake of this discussion, we'll treat religion as a philosophy with an added aspect of divinity. There are people who believe in the divine and there are people who don't, however both groups *have beliefs*, and it's their belief systems that help them co strict moral hierarchies. Even the biggest nihilist believes in something, it's an integral part of the human existence and one of many things that differentiate us from animals.



As Paul Stanley likes to say: we're all animals! 

Primatologists have found behaviors in apes that suggest otherwise. They have been shown to exhibit signs of guilt which is a huge indicator of morals.


----------



## barronwaffles (May 25, 2019)

Someone needs to jump in on this and start a designer embryo / 'clump of cells with no human rights' sales business.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Also - here is where our deeper love for children comes from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't necessarily use that argument when talking about fetuses since they're still in the process of growing, they look like a fish throughout early pregnancy and are anything but cute. There's also the "cuteness overload" threshold at which something is "so cute" that you want to crush it - the scientific term for it is "cute aggression" and it's why we want to hug cute animals tightly. It can turn pathological, but we're dwelling into pathological behaviour there.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again, in the great majority of cases abortion is a matter of murder for convenience.


We obviously have a starkly different world view.  As if there's anything 'convenient' about living in a hellhole like Alabama.  Taking away more freedom of choice isn't going to improve things there.  On top of that, I simply don't acknowledge the idiotic argument that abortion is murder, in a _vast majority_ of cases anyway.  Personally I believe life begins once the brain, nervous system, basically everything is fully developed, because all of these are components necessary to consciousness.  As I've said previously, I also believe abortion is a necessity in the over-capitalist world we live in, where most of the resources are funneled to a very small portion of the populace.



Foxi4 said:


> Depending on where you look, abortions required due to rape or incest total at under 1%, I often see the figure 0.13%, which in my eyes makes this a red herring and non-issue that's meant to push abortions for the remaining 99% who have other reasons.


Oh gee, maybe like economic reasons and/or the father is a deadbeat absentee? 



Foxi4 said:


> Looking at the CDC stats I can see that the majority of abortions are performed within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and the patients are in their twenties. Moreover, the total number is increasing, not decreasing, which tells me that our more promiscuous modern lifestyle which introduces teens to the issues regarding sex has the opposite result to the one you're expecting, but that's besides the point. I never quite got the whole "education" angle - what's there to educate those kids about?


A lot of these kids, especially in red states, are getting abstinence-only education in school, which works about as well for anti-sex as DARE did for being anti-drugs.  Which is to say, it doesn't work well at all.  Then their parents have to buy the teens an abortion.  A lot of the parents then simply don't provide supplemental education for whatever reason, and the cycle ends up repeating itself.  Sarah Palin's family is an excellent example.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You're a bunch of cells too. It seems arbitrary to choose how big the lump of cells must be before we consider it human, it's far more productive to discuss circumstances when we can create exceptions to our general dislike of killing human life.


It is arbitrary. Thats the point.

You attribute rights, at certain points. Its all a freaking compromise.

Even human rights are violated all the time.

The 'the love thy next as you would love yourselves' prinicple is violated all the time.

Whe can even predict, when it will be violated (wars start), based on basic needs, and if there is enough around to satisfy those. (Now, thats not an issue in the western world - but, ... (Just making you think about concepts.))

Most people arguing for "no abortions, period" are comong from a "love is absolute" standpoint. Even that isnt true. Love can turn hatred and harm. We chose to kind of minimize the situation in which it does. Did we go too far? Hard to say. I don't think so.

But craft your societies around "its your responsibility - to have the child", and you'll see all kinds of societal harms and sad stories spring up, that havent been there in the past. 'But at least the child will live'. Yes that it will.

Compromises - thats really what its about.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

cracker said:


> As Paul Stanley likes to say: we're all animals!
> 
> Primatologists have found behaviors in apes that suggest otherwise. They have been shown to exhibit signs of guilt which is a huge indicator of morals.


There's a long way from guilt to a whole system of morals, there is a number of different things that can trigger "observable guilt", but again, you're limiting yourself to primates which are an edge case - we're primates. Apes are extremely close to us genetically. On the whole you build your moral hierarchy based on life experience as well as what is passed down to you by your environment, this includes tradition, philosophy, religion, a whole number of things. In fact, I would argue that although an atheist does not believe in the existence of God, that doesn't necessarily mean that their moral compass isn't based on their religious background - it most certainly is as religion shaped their culture to begin with. All if these things are quite interconnected.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I wouldn't necessarily use that argument when talking about fetuses since they're still in the process of growing, they look like a fish throughout early pregnancy and are anything but cute. There's also the "cuteness overload" threshold at which something is "so cute" that you want to crush it - the scientific term for it is "cute aggression" and it's why we want to hug cute animals tightly. It can turn pathological, but we're dwelling into pathological behaviour there.


But people literally have the image of babies in their minds, when they say - dont kill them babies. I just want them to understand, that almost everyone is feeling that as well. Half of the population isnt just oddbals that dont. We are literally thinking around it in some situations. And it is freaking hard.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



barronwaffles said:


> Someone needs to jump in on this and start a designer embryo / 'clump of cells with no human rights' sales business.


Simple.

Who is allowed to make the decision over aborting "clump of cells". The mother. That is carrying out the child until it sees the world for the first time (poetic language).

Any other concepts of pressure or power (price!) we dont allow in that context. They exist inadvertently - but we remove literally all other pressures we can from that decision on purpose. We even tell mothers, if you arent in a situation, where you think you can care for the child - you give it away, and society will care for it. But we still allow them the decision.


----------



## barronwaffles (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Who is allowed to make the decision over aborting "clump of cells". The mother. That is carrying out the child until it sees the world for the first time (poetic language).
> 
> Any other concepts of pressure or power (price!) we dont allow in that context. They exist inadvertently - but we remove literally all other pressures we can from that decision on purpose.



Why are you using the word 'child' here?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We obviously have a starkly different world view.  *As if there's anything 'convenient' about living in a hellhole like Alabama*.  Taking away more freedom of choice isn't going to improve things there.  On top of that, I simply don't acknowledge the idiotic argument that abortion is murder, in a _vast majority_ of cases anyway.  Personally I believe life begins once the brain, nervous system, basically everything is fully developed, because all of these are components necessary to consciousness.  As I've said previously, I also believe abortion is a necessity in the over-capitalist world we live in, where most of the resources are funneled to a very small portion of the populace.
> 
> Oh gee, maybe like *economic reasons* and/or the *father is a deadbeat absentee*?
> 
> A lot of these kids, especially in red states, are getting abstinence-only education in school, which works about as well for anti-sex as DARE did for being anti-drugs.  Which is to say, it doesn't work well at all.  Then their parents have to buy the teens an abortion.  A lot of the parents then simply don't provide supplemental education for whatever reason, and the cycle ends up repeating itself.  Sarah Palin's family is an excellent example.


So convenience then. Got it. I just wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth. As for the whole DARE shabam, the one thing I remember from Sex Ed is putting a condom on a banana. I am somehow yet to impregnate a woman on accident, and I'm not a youngster anymore. I have a feeling it had less to do with the banana and more to do with having responsible parents who taught me well. I'm all for educating kids, go nuts my friend, but if you expect it to have a measurable result in decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies, I think that ship has sailed - you can't turn on the TV or listen to a song without a celebrity teaching kids all they need to know about putting that in there. The only thing that will reduce this number is a higher focus on teaching young people personal responsibility, and you can't do that if you intend to bail them out each and every time. This is less in the hands of the state and more in the hands of the parents, so perhaps your educational programs should be aimed at them.


notimp said:


> It is arbitrary. Thats the point.
> 
> You attribute rights, at certain points. Its all a freaking compromise.
> 
> ...


You can only have a compromise when both sides want one - I went into this thread believing that they don't and I continue to believe so. This isn't a debate that just suddenly popped up in the news, it's a debate that goes as far as our written record of history. It's not getting resolved in a way that satisfies both parties, at least not in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> So convenience then. Got it. I just wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth.


Necessity is not the same as convenience.  The only way to mix the two up is if you're being purposefully disingenuous.



Foxi4 said:


> The only thing that will reduce this number is a higher focus on teaching young people personal responsibility, and you can't do that if you intend to bail them out each and every time. This is less in the hands of the state and more in the hands of the parents, so perhaps your educational programs should be aimed at them.


I don't have any issue with educational programs for the parents as well, but it's definitely an issue that needs to be tackled head-on, too.  Teens need to use contraceptives if they're going to be having sex, and abstinence-only education is deluding ourselves into believing that they won't be having _any _sex, thus it can't be used to promote safe sex practices.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> Why are you using the word 'child' here?


Coming at it from he other 'sides' angle. Rhetoric element. But actually something I didn't think about. Wanting to bring both sides into the argument.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Necessity is not the same as convenience.  The only way to mix the two up is if you're being purposefully disingenuous.


There's nothing necessary about it, especially considering the amount of childless marriages waiting for healthy newborns. Personal responsibility - don't screw around if you literally can't afford to face the consequences.


----------



## barronwaffles (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Coming at it from he other 'sides' angle. Rhetoric element. But actually something I didn't think about. Wanting to bring both sides into the argument.



It's not going to be a terribly effective element when the result is a statement tacitly condoning the abortion of children.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Coming at it from he other 'sides' angle. Rhetoric element. But actually something I didn't think about. Wanting to bring both sides into the argument.


Or, more likely, it's a Freudian slip.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> There's nothing necessary about it, especially considering the amount of childless marriages waiting for healthy newborns. Personal responsibility - don't screw around if you literally can't afford to face the consequences.


This fails to acknowledge that there are too many children in the system already who don't get adopted, and turn to either vagrancy or criminality later in life.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This fails to acknowledge that there are too many children in the system already who don't get adopted, and turn to either vagrancy or criminality later in life.


I didn't make the system, I just don't want to give people a carte blanche to kill unborn children indiscriminately. You seem to be on-board with the "Safe and legal", but you're forgetting about the "rare" - "rare" is where people like me get to have a say. Once again, an analogy - I'm sure keeping grandpa alive is expensive since you have to feed and clothe him, but you can't just kill him. Send him to a home if you must, but your convenience does not supersede his right to live, regardless of how deep your wallet is. The same applies to an unborn baby. If someone needs an abortion, they better have a good reason to need one - them making a mistake is not good enough.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again, an analogy - I'm sure keeping grandpa alive is expensive since you have to feed and clothe him, but you can't just kill him. Send him to a home if you must, but your convenience does not supercede his life, regardless of how deep your wallet is. The same applies to an unborn baby. If soneone needs an abortion, they better have a good reason to need one - them making a mistake is not good enough.


It's not a good analogy.  One has lived a full life and should be respected by the rest of the family, the other hasn't even begun being 'alive' yet by nearly any definition.  I also have to contend that a mistake isn't a good enough reason, when we have an education system that encourages mistakes to happen.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's not a good analogy.  One has lived a full life and should be respected by the rest of the family, the other hasn't even begun being 'alive' yet by nearly any definition.  I also have to contend that a mistake isn't a good enough reason, when we have an education system that encourages mistakes to happen.


So, in your mind, "life experience" and "respect" is what grants personhood and the right to live, it's not simply a factor of being human? That's very interesting. With all due respect, the life of an unresponsive elderly man with severe dementia and the life of a child in the womb is not that much different, but that's besides the point. The point is that if you allow anyone and everyone to have abortions then they are not going to be rare by definition, which seems to violate your initial declaration of intent. That is, unless "Safe, legal and rare" *isn't* what you're aiming at and what you actually want is "Safe and legal", which you can freely admit if you want. You can keep blaming the education system for encouraging mistakes, but I can assure you - unwanted pregnancies are a much, much older problem than the education system and they're primarily caused by lack of responsible behaviour of the participants, not a lack of understanding of the repercussions. Fortunately, I was told by reliable sources that women are now on a "Sex Strike" until they can secure their "right to choose", which should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the foreseeable future as they embrace the new abstinence lifestyle. Lord almighty, you keep talking about this as if people were getting pregnant accidentally, and en masse. Women are not trees, they don't get pregnant because a stray gust of wind blew some pollen on them, it takes a little bit of effort to get there. Try as you may, you will not convince me that they were blissfully unaware of the possible consequences of their actions.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> It's not going to be a terribly effective element when the result is a statement tacitly condoning the abortion of children.


If I would want effective, I'd call out 'them are killing our babies' doesnt get more effective than that. 

Arguing is a process.  You win some, you loose some. In the end, you hopefully dont get rid of abortions as societies. (You see what I did there?  )

Part of that even goes together with the percieved image of motherhood, and the role of a mother in society. There are more abortions in cities, there are east/west gaps.
(https://www.thelocal.de/20080605/12291)

All kinds of stuff that is there and shouldnt be.  But still, getting rid of them turns out to be more harmful to societies at large.


Here is another angle.

In China, a male human being simply was worth more. So by some miracle of rural something, something (no one looked too close) they actually got to the highest (not sure if true, might be india)  male/female disparity in people reaching adult age. (Kind of like 60/40.)

Now what?

You need rule of absolute power, because some people in your societies will be freaking unhappy.  In india they are dealing with mass incidences of group rape - and cant do anything about it. They really cant. Also they are looking away on purpose, but they really cant.

And lets say - everything goes well, and we are all pro life, suddenly - population exposion. Chinas first problem. One child policies. Forced abortions. People going to jail... Just so you prevent civil wars.

Of course - if god is great, and has a higher plan - none of this matters. Except for saving babies. (Because the church told us so. )


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> So, in your mind, "life experience" and "respect" is what grants personhood and the right to live


No, you're being disingenuous again.  I already spoke to my beliefs on when life truly begins for a fetus.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> No, you're being disingenuous again.  I already spoke to my beliefs on when life truly begins for a fetus.


It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive". In fact, I would argue that it is human from this point onwards as it has all the genetic makeup of a human, it's simply at a very early stage of development. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here, and it is disingenuous to pretend to use scientific or medical jargon to choose arbitrary points of development as your desired cut-off points that you feel personally comfortable with. We can discuss when ending a human life should be permissable, this pertains both abortion and euthanasia, but don't talk to me from a podium about when you "believe" life begins because it's inconsequential.


notimp said:


> If I would want effective, I'd call out 'them are killing our babies' doesnt get more effective than that.
> 
> Arguing is a process.  You win some, you loose some. In the end, you hopefully dont get rid of abortions as societies. (You see what I did there?  )
> 
> ...


God is not a gumball machine. We have free will to sort these matters out ourselves, don't blame God for the mistakes made by people. In fact, if we didn't have the capacity for evil, or the capacity to sin, being "good" would have no value at all. That's getting philosophical again though.


----------



## barronwaffles (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> If I would want effective, I'd call out 'them are killing our babies' doesnt get more effective than that.
> 
> Arguing is a process.  You win some, you loose some. In the end, you hopefully dont get rid of abortions as societies. (You see what I did there?  )



With rhetoric like that I feel it's a pretty safe assumption that you don't *win* many arguments.


----------



## morvoran (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Simple concepts. I believe no one in here is for killing people with mental disabilities. As societies we've come that far at least.
> (We give parents who are about to have such a child a slightly longer period to decide if they are willing to go through with everything that entails, or have an abortion. Because if they turn neglectful, or angry and harmful towards it,bad scene. Again - compromises for more difficult psychological decisions. But for that you first have to acknowledge that abortions arent the worst thing that can be.)
> 
> At one point human beings are bunch of cells. Then the are more, then they arent any longer (when they die hopefully of a natural cause). Now what some people do are dealing with the 'in between phases' in kind of a way to minimize harm.
> ...



So in other words, babies in the womb have no more rights to live than a benign cyst?  That's just ridiculous because a cyst, which does feed off the host and will grow given time, will never have a conscience or learn to live on it's own.  Pro choice folks think of these future humans only as parasites that must be eradicated.   
I'm not here to judge people, but I will say that murder is wrong regardless how old the little child is.  

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I hope all prochoicers come back as babies that will be aborted just so they can suffer the fate of all they kill.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> So in other words, babies in the womb have no more rights to live than a benign cyst?  That's just ridiculous because a cyst, which does feed off the host and will grow given time, will never have a conscience or learn to live on it's own.  Pro choice folks think of these future humans only as parasites that must be eradicated.
> I'm not here to judge people, but I will say that murder is wrong regardless how old the little child is.
> 
> If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I hope all prochoicers come back as babies that will be aborted just so they can suffer the fate of all they kill.


Hey, hey, hey - you're letting anger take over. You don't want to wish that onto others. Listen to Jesse, forgive your mother, be Uh-mah-zing.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive". In fact, I would argue that it is human from this point onwards as it has all the genetic makeup of a human, it's simply at a very early stage of development. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here, and it is disingenuous to pretend to use scientific or medical jargon to choose arbitrary points of development as your desired cut-off points that you feel personally comfortable with. We can discuss when ending a human life should be permissable, this pertains both abortion and euthanasia, but don't talk to me from a podium about when you "believe" life begins because it's inconsequential.
> God is not a gumball machine. We have free will to sort these matters out ourselves, don't blame God for the mistakes made by people. In fact, if we didn't have the capacity for evil, or the capacity to sin, being "good" would have no value at all. That's getting philosophical again though.


Specifically critizised the "god has a final plan for all of us concept". "Indifferent (but caring  ) god" is fine.

The thing is, in some aspects of society, you definitely end up with "birth control" als the solution. And on some aspects (lets say Chinas one child policy) even at 'forced abortions'. If you dont - you always kind of end up at having civil wars instead. Think of it - it kind of was a circle in the past.. 

Something along these lines: https://www.capsweb.org/blog/overpopulation-drought-and-syria’s-devastating-five-year-civil-war

Also - humans and our life stock now account for 96% of all mammals on earth. Humans alone for 36%. We are kind of successful is the point.  (src: Something like: https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html ) It isnt that there the earth isnt all birds or fish - either..


----------



## Deleted User (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Except it's the opposite, the right is attempting to control women's lives and take away more of their freedoms. They're attempting to legislate morality, which is not the purpose of government. The left is protecting women's freedom of choice in this matter





Xzi said:


> The former we know is true because those are the laws being passed by certain state legislatures.  The latter is a gross mischaracterization of the Democratic position, however, which in reality is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  Anyone who believes that outlawing abortion will ultimately reduce the overall need for abortion services is a fool.  That's why modern first-world nations all keep it legal, and even Sharia law isn't as inflexible on this topic as Republicans in America.
> 
> Again, the larger issue for me personally is that this is an attempt to legislate morality, which government has no business attempting.



Erm, @Xzi at first glance I was just _mostly_ agreeing with you, but I realised that wouldn't the act of outlawing thievery or manslaughter also be considered legislation of morality? I would appreciate if you cleared that up.



notimp said:


> text



@notimp Im very curious about your opinion of the so-called 'Jordan Peterson' perspective of religion.



cracker said:


> Morality doesn't need religion. Billions of athiests have lived/are living that are moral for morality's sake. Many of the constructs actually are scientific in nature as we can see the effects around us when we choose to murder, steal, lie, etc. Other animals (especially apes) have what we would consider to morals if they were humans. They have no religions.



@cracker just asking for clarification: morality is scientific and it's simply more beneficial to the self for one to not murder, steal or lie?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Specifically critizised the "god has a final plan for all of us concept". "Indifferent (but caring  ) god" is fine.
> 
> The thing is, in some aspects of society, you definitely end up with "birth control" als the solution. And on some aspects (lets say Chinas one child policy) even at 'forced abortions'. If you dont - you always kind of end up at having civil wars instead. Think of it - it kind of was a circle in the past..
> 
> Something along these lines: https://www.capsweb.org/blog/overpopulation-drought-and-syria’s-devastating-five-year-civil-war


You have to consider why China had to institute the policy or why male children were more desirable than female children. The reason for that was abject poverty in the majority of the country, shortly followed by the country becoming a communist nightmare. It's doing significantly better now, but the damage is already done. In a way, you could kill two birds with one stone and tackle both abortion rates and "overpopulation" by simply tackling poverty which has a strong causal relationship with both, but that may be beyond the scope of the debate. To cut a long story short, the wealthier people are the less likely they are to choose abortion in the first place, and due to the fact that people become more career-driven, their reproductive choices seem more responsible, at least on the face of it, which leads to a decrease in population growth as well. If that's what you're aiming for, you should be primarily concerned with bolstering the economy as opposed to offering stop gap solutions.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> @notimp Im very curious about your opinion of the so-called 'Jordan Peterson' perspective of religion.


Give an abstract.  (Quora says, that hes pragmatic ("let both coexist" kind of))

Dont like him, especially - because hes simply a reaction of the times in my book - kind of the same reason why I dont like SJWs - much. (Inflating their value.  ) But thats only how I perceive him as a character/person.

I like switching thought concepts, more than he does, I guess.  But then, he is more successful with young impressionable males than I am..


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> @cracker just asking for clarification: morality is scientific and it's simply more beneficial to the self for one to not murder, steal or lie?


The general consensus is that a society that permits murder, theft and deceit is not conducive to the survival of the species, which is the basic motivation for any living being. You don't want to be murdered, so you don't want murder to be allowed in your tribe and you yourself adhere to the unspoken rule. The argument has some merit, I assume that's @cracker's view on this. It works on a base level, but I think it fails to fully address the issue.


----------



## Deleted User (May 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Give an abstract.  (Quora says, that hes pragmatic ("let both coexist" kind of))
> 
> Dont like him, especially - because hes simply a reaction of the times in my book - kind of the same reason why I dont like SJWs - much. (Inflating their value.  ) But thats only how I perceive him as a character/person.
> 
> I like switching thought concepts, more than he does, I guess.  But then, he is more successful with young impressionable males than I am..



I wasn't asking about your opinion of him or his symbolism. 

I'm asking about what you think about his ideas of biblical psychological truths, how the bible is true in that sense, and that it provides a window into the human mind, etc.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You have to consider why China had to institute the policy or why male children were more desirable than female children. The reason for that was abject poverty in the majority of the country, shortly followed by the country becoming a communist nightmare. It's doing significantly better now, but the damage is already done. In a way, you could kill two birds with one stone and tackle both abortion rates and "overpopulation" by simply tackling poverty which has a strong causal relationship with both, but that may be beyond the scope of the debate. To cut a long story short, the wealthier people are the less likely they are to choose abortion in the first place, and due to the fact that people become more career-driven, their reproductive choices seem more responsible, at least on the face of it, which leads to a decrease in population growth as well. If that's what you're aiming for, you should be primarily concerned with bolstering the economy as opposed to offering stop gap solutions.


Here is how tackling poverty works in my understanding. "People in cities have less children." (Give them economic and job opportunities, give them 401ks, raise womens rights. Dont need to necessarily live in cities, but cities build "cascade economies" which helps.)

If we are talking about "its your duty to have that child, once you conceived it", it kind of doesnt work.

Dont think of sex.



Wear mormon clothing. But look, she showed an ankle.  Theres kind of an inbalance baked into that - if every time you think of sex you also have to think about - that it would ruin your career path. I think you almost need a fall back. And it also kind of was always there. But now we are going into "how much of it was" discussions again.

The other angle - in europe  we have simply accepted abortions by now. But then, we've become far less religious on average. (Classic religions, not different human characteristics..  )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> I'm asking about what you think about his ideas of biblical psychological truths, how the bible is true in that sense, and that it provides a window into the human mind, etc.


Collective stories. Sure. I like the ones with multiple gods with human characteristics better.  If you are looking for a deeper or higher purpose - yes, religion has a place. I just watched a snippet of "the concept of beauty in theoretical physics" thats also kind of religious. Its just - idk, part of us.  Does it serve a collective purpose. Yes. Very probably. Even over generations? Yes. Even though I have a problem with doctrine thats hard to change. See catholic church.

Their problem over much of the past years (apart from the abuse issues :/ ) seems to be, that they are dealing with a global world, where they have more relevance in "newly evangelized" parts of the world, so they can't just get more liberal - because people would react with "but our values!" debates - so to still stay relevant in western societies, they started to turn their heads more often. The curse of success..


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I wasn't asking about your opinion of him or his symbolism.
> 
> I'm asking about what you think about his ideas of biblical psychological truths, how the bible is true in that sense, and that it provides a window into the human mind, etc.


Not that you're asking me, but since we're on the subject of JLP, I might as well chip in. I find him very unintentionally funny - he's prime meme material. I wouldn't call him a biblical scholar nor a philosopher, he gets a lot of this kind of stuff wrong and his comments on race are very controversial to say the least, but I have to give credit where credit is due - I think he's doing a lot of good in a very specific segment of the black community, reinstating family values in a subculture of broken families he attempts to address. He doesn't have particularly great religious advice, but he shines in the "old man at a barber's" category of advice. I guess you could call him a modern sage - he's not very articulate or erudite, but he's "seen things" and is willing to invest both time and money to improve his community, which he deserves credit for. I wouldn't treat what he has to say as gospel by any means, but I'm also not his target audience. What I do like about him is that he found a way to cut through nonsense by simply restating the questions until the he peels all the sugar coating off the disingenuous answers he usually gets, the amount of people who self-destruct on his show is astonishing considering the fact that you'd expect most of them to be smart enough not to let the mask slip.


notimp said:


> Here is how tackling poverty works in my understanding. "People in cities have less children." (Give them economic and job opportunities, give them 401ks, raise womens rights. Dont need to necessarily live in cities, but cities build "cascade economies" which helps.)
> 
> If we are talking about "its your duty to have that child, once you conceived it", it kind of doesnt work.
> 
> ...


Firstly, not all of Europe has embraced this new standard, secondly, I see very little evidence of it being a good thing and thirdly, correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other things are on the decline, not just religiosity. In the U.S. specifically there's hardly any segment of the population more religious than African Americans (dismissing the Mormons and the Amish and other orthodox groups that are relatively few in numbers) and yet they're the ones most affected by the issue of abortion, to the point that in NYC more black children were aborted than born according to recent statistics. Not a joke, by the way - in 2012 31,328 black children were aborted and only 24,758 were born, and those numbers are getting worse with each passing year. So, you have a deeply religious, in church every Sunday community that's aborting children en masse - something's not right with your calculus.


----------



## kumikochan (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive". In fact, I would argue that it is human from this point onwards as it has all the genetic makeup of a human, it's simply at a very early stage of development. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here, and it is disingenuous to pretend to use scientific or medical jargon to choose arbitrary points of development as your desired cut-off points that you feel personally comfortable with. We can discuss when ending a human life should be permissable, this pertains both abortion and euthanasia, but don't talk to me from a podium about when you "believe" life begins because it's inconsequential.
> God is not a gumball machine. We have free will to sort these matters out ourselves, don't blame God for the mistakes made by people. In fact, if we didn't have the capacity for evil, or the capacity to sin, being "good" would have no value at all. That's getting philosophical again though.


In that regard algae would also be considered alive or a cloned heart and so forth wich it isn't or even regarded as being alive. That is your interpretation of being alive but there isn't a general rule of what being alive is but you're making it out so like there is wich there isn't. Your definition of life is the clarification what you need to have life but not life itself yet


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> In that regard a virus would also be considered alive or a cloned heart and so forth wich it isn't or even regarded as being alive. That is your interpretation of being alive but there isn't a general rule of what being alive is but you're making it out so like there is wich there isn't. Your definition of life is the clarification what you need to have life but not life itself yet


A virus does not multiply unless it is actively attached to a host cell, at which point it is very much alive, although it's certainly a grey area in biology as their status is unclear. As for a cloned heart, what is the likelyhood that the heart is going to grow into a full-blown human if you leave it to its own devices? Now, what about a fetus? You conveniently omit the entire context of the statement to make a point, that's arguing in bad faith. Address the point - is it alive, yes or no, is it a unique form of human DNA, yes or no, and is it a *human at a very early stage of development*, yes or no. A cloned heart is not "at a very early stage of development", it's not at any stage of development, it's a clone grown out of someone else's genetic material.


----------



## kumikochan (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> A virus does not multiply unless it is actively attached to a host cell, at which point it is very much alive. As for a cloned heart, what is the likelyhood that the heart is going to grow into a full-blown human if you leave it to its own devices? Now, what about a fetus? You conveniently omit the entire context of the statement to make a point, that's arguing in bad faith. Address the point - is it alive, yes or no, is it a unique form of human DNA, yes or no, and is it a *human at a very early stage of development*, yes or no. A cloned heart is not "at a very early stage of development", it's not at any stage of development, it's a clone grown out of soneone else's genetic material.


Then algae is considered life since it is multicellular wich i don't regard as being alive


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Then algae is considered life since it is multicellular wich i don't regard as being alive


Of course it's alive. What's your point? Why should I care what you regard as being alive? What makes you the judge?


----------



## kumikochan (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course it's alive, it's a plant. What's your point? Why should I care what you regard as being alive? What makes you the judge?


There is no general rule of what being alive is. That is your definition but it's not a general rule. An algae can be considered life for you but it doesn't for me. That what you're saying is a definition what you need to support life but it doesn't state it is life itself


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Erm, @Xzi at first glance I was just _mostly_ agreeing with you, but I realised that wouldn't the act of outlawing thievery or manslaughter also be considered legislation of morality? I would appreciate if you cleared that up.


Those are more issues related to keeping society and the economy properly functioning than they are about subjective morality.  Almost common sense, really. 



Foxi4 said:


> It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive".


Not sure how to respond to this self-contradiction.  The latter sentence is purely opinion.  From my perspective it's almost as ridiculous as claiming masturbation is genocide.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> There is no general rule of what being alive is. That is your definition but it's not a general rule. An algae can be considered life for you but it doesn't for me. That what you're saying is a definition what you need to support life but it doesn't state it is life itself


You must be having a laugh. There is a very clear and widely accepted consensus of what is and is not life - self-propagating organic organisms are alive, rocks are not. There are simply forms of life that we find acceptable to kill and those that we don't kill. The *meaning* of life is a mystery, the status of whether something's a form of life or not, not so much.



Xzi said:


> Not sure how to respond to this self-contradiction.  The latter sentence is purely opinion.  From my perspective it's almost as ridiculous as claiming masturbation is genocide.


You should grab a textbook and have a bit of a refresher on how the reproductive system works, I don't think you're fully aware of how sperm works.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You must be having a laugh. There is a very clear and widely accepted consensus of what is and is not life - self-propagating organic organisms are alive, rocks are not. There are simply forms of life that we find acceptable to kill and those that we don't kill. The *meaning* of life is a mystery, the status of whether something's a form of life or not, not so much.


We're talking about the point at which it's considered a human life, and not life in the sense that any other cluster of cells (or sperm) is considered alive.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We're talking about the point at which it's considered a human life, and not life in the sense that any other cluster of cells is considered alive.


That's correct. You're still sounding silly, although I'm not 100% sure if you're aware as to why.


----------



## kumikochan (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You must be having a laugh. There is a very clear and widely accepted consensus of what is and is not life - self-propagating organic organisms are alive, rocks are not. There are simply forms of life that we find acceptable to kill and those that we don't kill. The *meaning* of life is a mystery, the status of whether something's a form of life or not, not so much.
> 
> You should grab a textbook and have a bit of a refresher on how the reproductive system works, I don't think you're fully aware of how sperm works.


Nope here's a quote from a biology paper " biologists don’t agree on what ‘life’ actually is. While scientists have proposed hundreds of ways to define it, none have been widely accepted "


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Nope here's a quote from a biology paper " biologists don’t agree on what ‘life’ actually is. While scientists have proposed hundreds of ways to define it, none have been widely accepted "


They're arguing on how to aptly define life, that's correct. There is *zero* disagreement on whether an algea is a living organism or not.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's correct. You're still sounding silly, although I'm not 100% if you're aware as to why.


No more silly than you are, but I'm not sure this role of overly-zealous religious fanatic really suits you.  The reason abortion is and remains legal in the US is because ultimately the more pragmatic minds won out in this debate.  A clearly-defined separation of church and state remains essential if we don't want to become exactly like the authoritarian Middle Eastern theocracies which we claim to despise.


----------



## Deleted User (May 25, 2019)

Isn't all of this irrelevant to the discussion of the main topic anyway?

Does it matter if we consider algae or bactarium life or not? Millions of people eat kale yet no one is screaming about the mass genocide of plants.

The centre of this discussion is whether we should value human lives at conception the same way we do at twelve months old. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## tatripp (May 25, 2019)

A lot of people are saying really stupid things on here on both sides of the argument. Please try not to be emotional and to actually sincerely try to understand what someone else is saying. This is the way I see it:
1) The main question is when does life begin. Once we know this, we can determine our laws and rules more easily.
I believe life begins at conception. I don't believe this for religious reasons. I believe this because it seems most logical. This is when the two sex cells become fertilized and have all of the genetic material for the organism.
--I understand that some pro choicers don't think this, but I have never heard any of them give a clear example of when life begins. If you don't know when life begins, you cannot terminate it.
2) The viability argument- I have heard some prochoice people say that it is a person when it is viable (it could live if it were removed from the womb). The problem with this argument is that if you believe it, you have to accept that personhood is determined by medical technology and resources. A 6 month old child could be viable in a good hospital with a lot of resources in the US but that same child would not be viable in a small remove village in a country with obsolete medical technology.
3) It's a woman's right- You can't just declare something a right. This argument is a dishonest attempt to change the topic and to make the other side feel like they are anti-woman. Is it a woman's right to kill her one day old child? Is it her right to kill her child a minute before it is born? It depends on when life starts, but this argument avoids the real question.
4) You can't say anything because you're a man- This is the appeal to authority. Is the argument right or not? The validity of the argument is not dependent upon the person making the argument. I am pro life and a guy, so are my arguments any less valid than my girlfriend who is also pro life?
5) Republicans are only small government when they want to be- This might be true, but it is irrelevant.
6) Republicans only care about the babies before they are born- This might be true, but it is also irrelevant. Republicans don't want to pay taxes to support unwanted children. That doesn't mean that Republicans are okay with having children getting murdered (which is what abortion is from their perspective).
7)These arguments are fallacious and dishonest, and I haven't heard a convincing prochoice argument about why conception is not the start of life. I'm not even saying that all prolife arguments are honest. I'll be the first to admit that a lot of prolife arguments are just as dishonest as the prochoice ones. All I'm saying is that the prolife side seems logical while the prochoice side seems completely emotionally driven.
8) Once again, the main question that needs answering is: when does life begin? If we don't know, we should be cautious and not allow abortion. If it is conception, we should definitely not allow abortion.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> No more silly than you are, but I'm not sure this role of overly-zealous religious fanatic really suits you.  The reason abortion is and remains legal in the US is because ultimately the more pragmatic minds won out in this debate.  Separation of church and state remains essential if we don't want to become exactly like the authoritarian Middle Eastern theocracies which we claim to despise.


Actually, the reason why it's legal in the U.S. is because a non-existent right to privacy that's never been enumerated in the Constitution has been usurped by bad actors to proclaim that a woman killing her unborn child at a doctor's office is permissable because it happens in private, which is an odd argument to make considering the fact that domestic violence happens in private too, but we don't see anyone fighting for the right to beat up wives and children. The way it was achieved was by duping a woman who was actually wronged by the system using legalese, and said woman has regretted it ever since. As for my stance, it is anything but fanatical, nor is it rooted in religion, but you're welcome to fight strawmen if you'd like. Regarding your homework, try to find the term "haploid", it might shed some light on why you're so confused regarding the mass genocide of gametes.


TerribleTy27 said:


> Isn't all of this irrelevant to the discussion of the main topic anyway?
> 
> Does it matter if we consider algae or bactarium life or not? Millions of people eat kale yet no one is screaming about the mass genocide of plants.
> 
> The centre of this discussion is whether we should value human lives at conception the same way we do at twelve months old. Nothing more, nothing less.


You have to establish what life is before you can establish what human life is. To me it's fairly simple - if it's a unique form of life that's human, it's a human life. It's as valuable at 2 days old as it is at 20 years old, however, I am also reasonable and am willing to make exceptions provided there's ample reason to grant them. The algea debate, although a distraction, was demonstrating a point. Let's say that it is just a clump of cells, so what? We're all clumps of cells of varying sizes.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Regarding yoyr homework, try to find the term "haploid", it might shed some light on why you're so confused regarding the mass genocide of gametes.


And why exactly are the new fetus' cells considered more valuable/indisposable than the cells which created that fetus from either side of the equation?  Going back to your argument before, that fetus has the potential to become a human before it's aborted, but following that logic, every individual sperm also has that same potential.  You can believe that masturbation is genocide if you want, but personally my line for when the fetus is developed enough to be considered 'alive' in the human sense is going to remain in a more reasonable place.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And why exactly are the new fetus' cells considered more valuable/indisposable than the cells which created that fetus from either side of the equation?  Going back to your argument before, that fetus has the potential to become a human before it's aborted, but following that logic, every individual sperm also has that same potential.  You can believe that masturbation is genocide if you want, but personally my line for when the fetus is developed enough to be considered 'alive' in the human sense is going to remain in a more reasonable place.


See, you didn't do your homework. I told you to do it, and you didn't, and now you're sounding silly again. Let me do the heavy lifting for you.

You're assigning to me motivation that I never presented. I never even mentioned any potential to become anything at all, you have, which is strawman number one. A good point, for sure - one that I didn't bring up, but it's relevant.

Strawman number two is swimming in the seminal fluid - male gametes, or sperm, are haploid. They carry half of my genetic material, or one set of chromosomes. Not only are they not "human life" in and out of themselves since they're not independent organisms in any shape or form, they're *my cells*, just like my skin or any other organ of mine, so I get to decide what happens to them. You're acting as if I don't know this when I explicitly told you that I'm fully aware of it. I even told you to revise this line of attack, but you believed it was expedient to pursue it anyway, which frankly makes you look foolish.

Strawman the third are the circumstances. Not to sound too rude, but I can go around masturbating, or committing sperm genocide as you call it, all day long, shoot left and right, and the chances that my gametes happen to hit a female gamete are next to none unless I explicitly intend to do so. The chances that this will unintentionally occur in the perfect circumstances, as in inside a woman, are even slimmer, and the chances that it also happens in the perfect time for fertilisation are hard even when you're trying, and it's the circumstances that matter here. I explicitly stated that *human life* begins when the material of the mother and the father recombines and begins to multiply. At that point it is neither my genetic material nor the mother's, it is unique in its own right and growing independently, whether the mother or the father intend it to. To those uninitiated or confused, this process occurs in the womb, the spot that happens to be perfect for this stage of human growth. You can pretend that I believe sperm and a unique, growing human being are one and the same if it lets you sleep easy or feel good about yourself, but I never said that and you had to try hard to infer that.

All in all a bad show, you should start arguing in good faith, otherwise this isn't going to be very productive. What I said was that a new human life form begins its life cycle when the genetic material from the mother and the father combines into a brand-new human life which begins to multiply and grow. That's a little bit different than masturbating into a potted plant, which is what you're trying to reframe the argument into.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Strawman number two is swimming in the seminal fluid - male gametes, or sperm, are haploid. They carry half of my genetic material, or one set of chromosomes. Not only are they not "human life" in and out of themselves since they're not independent organisms in any shape or form, they're *my cells*, just like my skin or any other organ of mine, so I get to decide what happens to them. You're acting as if I don't know this when I explicitly told you that I'm fully aware of it.


My point was that I was already aware of it, but that you're arbitrarily assigning value based on the amount of DNA carried by certain cells.  Unfortunate that I have to spell it out so plainly for you.



Foxi4 said:


> What I said was that a new human life form begins its life cycle when the genetic material from the mother and the father combines into a brand-new human life which begins to multiply and grow.


Which is your belief.  Not that it has combined into a new organism, I'm not debating that, but that that is the moment when it's developed enough to be considered human life.  I believe that requires consciousness on some level.



Foxi4 said:


> All in all a bad show, you should start arguing in good faith, otherwise this isn't going to be very productive.


Riiight...and you sure haven't been mischaracterizing my positions or been ridiculously hyperbolic throughout this whole debate.  

I understand it's a touchy issue, but emotionally-charged arguments aren't going to win anybody over.  That's why this has continuously been a losing issue for conservatives and why pragmatic solutions will continue to win out.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> My point was that I was already aware of it, but that you're arbitrarily assigning value based on the amount of DNA carried by certain cells.  Unfortunate that I have to spell it out so plainly for you.
> 
> Which is your belief.  Not that it has combined into a new organism, I'm not debating that, but that that is the moment when it's developed enough to be considered human life.  I believe that requires consciousness on some level.
> 
> ...


It's not "an emotional debate" because I'm conservative, nor is it a touchy subject, I simply dislike when a purely science-based argument is being reduced to, I quote, "religious fanaticism" because it is politically expedient for you to make that claim. "He conservative, so he think that because Space Book say baby murder bad" is not a good argument - it puts you in a bad light, not me, and I know you're smarter than that from our previous encounters. You say that you see the difference, and yet you don't - my own cells carry my own material, and only half of it at that, the cells of the fetus are not mine, or the mother's - they're unique. It's not about "the amount of DNA", it's not about whether it's in the sink or in a potted plant, it's about whether it's a unique, living human organism or not - my sperm is not an organism, an egg is not an organism, but together they are more than the sum of the parts. You draw the line at consciousness, which at least is some form of a definite answer to the question, but it breeds more questions. Is it okay to kill someone in a coma? What if I'm just asleep, or passed out - am I still a person then? My approach seems a little bit more universal. I will give you credit where credit is due - at least you admit it's a growing human organism, even if you're unwilling to call it life - that's good enough for me. Now, as I said, I am more than willing to make exceptions. I already made them in terms of legitimate health issues, rape and incest. I'll even happily throw in the morning after pill, since technically the egg isn't nested in the womb yet and preventing that will prevent the pregnancy from occurring, that's ample wiggle room available for everyone, whole three days to get out of the dilemma. What more do you want, exactly? What I described above fits well-within your desired "safe, legal and rare" definition. Is it religious fanaticism for me to draw the line before we get to dismemberment of a growing baby? I don't think it is, I think I'm being perfectly fair.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You draw the line of consciousness, which at least is some form of a definite answer to the question, but it breeds more questions. Is it okay to kill someone in a coma? What if I'm just asleep, or passed out - am I still a person then?


It's obvious by context that I meant the first sign of consciousness.



Foxi4 said:


> My approach seems a little bit more universal.


It's universal, but also arbitrary, and certainly too restrictive.  You're suggesting that it's a human and has all the rights of a human before the mother even knows she's pregnant.  Effectively outlawing abortion.  Basically the same idea put forth by Mississippi's 'heartbeat bill' which was just struck down by a federal judge.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's obvious by context that I meant the first sign of consciousness.
> 
> It's universal, but also arbitrary, and certainly too restrictive.  You're suggesting that it's a human and has all the rights of a human before the mother even knows she's pregnant.  Effectively outlawing abortion.  Basically the same idea put forth by Mississippi's 'heartbeat bill' which was just struck down by a federal judge.


I said that it is a human life, I never said anything about rights. As I said, in the interest of fairness, I am willing to sacrifice some lives to save others. If I were as strict as you imply, I would be perfectly comfortable with rape and incest babies as long as they didn't endanger the mother's life and had no immediate life-threatening disabilities, which is obviously not what I'm saying. Three days is a lot of time to make up your mind. I also don't agree with the "mommy doesn't know" narrative - a woman is perfectly aware of the consequences of having sex, especially if it's unprotected. You're asking me to treat adults like children which I am unwilling to do. If a condom breaks and a woman is not on the pill, she should *assume* that time is ticking there and then. I respect women enough not to assume that they have the IQ of a kumquat.

*Edit: *As a side note, there's nothing arbitrary in assuming that human life begins at the point at which it literally starts, but I'll let that one slide since we're beating a dead horse.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You're asking me to treat adults like children which I am unwilling to do. If a condom breaks and a woman is not on the pill, she should *assume* that time is ticking there and then. I respect women enough not to assume that they have the IQ of a kumquat.


As we've already discussed, adults are not the only ones having sex.  Additionally, it is possible for a condom to break without anyone being the wiser, and other forms of birth control can also unexpectedly fail.  Regardless of the context, I simply don't believe the government should have more agency over a woman's body than the woman herself.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As we've already discussed, adults are not the only ones having sex.  Additionally, it is possible for a condom to break without anyone being the wiser, and other forms of birth control can also unexpectedly fail.  Regardless of the context, I simply don't believe the government should have more agency over a woman's body than the woman herself.


It's not the woman's body. It's not her spleen, it's not her liver, it's a separate living being. We've established that it is an entity separate from the mother and the father and unique in its own right, which you, by your own admission, are not going to argue with since it's demonstrable fact. It merely happens to temporarily reside in the womb, which is where the convenience aspect comes into play. If people are having sex below the age of consent then that's statutory rape, go find the culprit. If both are kids then you certainly have a conundrum - one for the parents to unravel, but I'll even give you that one since I'm generous. Anything besides that is a calculated risk that the two participants of the act undertake and accept - sorry. When you drive your car, your insurance isn't a magical shield that repels vehicles, you're supposed to exercise caution, but even then you might get into a wreck, often times through no fault of your own. Is it fair? Not really. Is it a calculated risk you take by participating in traffic? Absolutely.

*Edit:* As for burst condoms, that's an intensely hilarious argument to me, and one that always shows up in these discussions. The scenario you describe has never happened in the history of time, provided no foul play was involved. Any man who has ever burst a condom knows exactly that it burst, it's actually fairly obvious - once those things tear, they tear. The men who say this are just lying, I am yet to see or experience one of those covert invisible holes in a condom, but then again, I have a sample size of one, myself, so this may be a bit too subjective on my part. I doubt it though.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not the woman's body. It's not her spleen, it's not her liver, it's a separate living being.


It's a separate living being _inside_ the woman's body, connected to the woman's body by feeding tube, and whose fate is intrinsically tied to the woman's.  If the fetus took only days to gestate before it could live apart from the woman, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  As things are, I maintain that the woman providing the fetus with life support needs to have more agency over decisions involving that fetus than the government.  There's no chance in hell we'd ever let them legislate anything pertaining to men's bodies, after all.  It's not only a double-standard, it sets a bad precedent for the government overstepping its boundaries.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (May 25, 2019)

protesting abortion is like protesting masturbating saying you're wasting millions on human lives


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's a separate living being _inside_ the woman's body, connected to the woman's body by feeding tube, and whose fate is intrinsically tied to the woman's.  If the fetus took only days to gestate before it could live apart from the woman, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  As things are, I maintain that the woman providing the fetus with life support needs to have more agency over decisions involving that fetus than the government.  There's no chance in hell we'd ever let them legislate anything pertaining to men's bodies, after all.


Oh, I fully support the woman's right to bodily autonomy - at no point should the government ever legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies. As far as I'm concerned, they can tie their tubes in a knot with a bow on top. I'm not concerned about that at all, it's not even in my calculus. As soon as we devise a method for women to take the growing baby out of the womb and put it in a magical container that'll do the job, I have no issues whotsoever - until then, sadly, they don't get to kill babies that grow inside of them willy-nilly. It is the constitutional obligation of the government to protect the life of anyone under its jurisdiction, in fact, it's the primary purpose of having a government in the first place. Once again, the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy is regrettable, but it doesn't give anyone the right to terminate another human life, especially not without due legal process.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again, the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy is regrettable, but it doesn't give anyone the right to terminate another human life, especially not without due legal process.


Once again, it's almost never about the 'temporary inconvenience' of pregnancy, but rather about the 18 years that follow.  The economics of raising a child become more and more daunting every year, especially for single mothers.  And while you seem perfectly fine with the idea of putting a band-aid over a broken bone, the fact of the matter is that this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, and outlawing abortion would only contribute to other major problems for this country.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Once again, it's almost never about the 'temporary inconvenience' of pregnancy, but rather about the 18 years that follow.  The economics of raising a child become more and more daunting every year, especially for single mothers.  And while you seem perfectly fine with the idea of putting a band-aid over a broken bone, the fact of the matter is that this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, and outlawing abortion would only contribute to other major problems for this country.


Oh, by no means, no band-aids at all. I simply feel more comfortable investing time, effort and money into creating an environment where raising a child for 18 years, or at the very least finding someone to raise said child, is not an issue, as opposed to just killing it. If anything, the latter seems to be the band-aid solution to the far bigger problem of unwanted pregnancies, particularly in economically underprivileged areas of the country. I know that the issue of unwanted pregnancies magically goes away if you just get rid of all the pregnancies that are inconvenient, but I firmly believe that there are better solutions - ones that actually address the root causes, not merely one of the many symptoms. For instance, you mentioned absentee dads as being a part of the problem. One of the big reasons why there's an epidemic of absentee dads is that they're too busy being in prison for minor drug offenses that, for all intents and purposes, do not warrant jail time in the already overcrowded prison system. Question time! Do you think that relaxing the drug laws would in turn result in a reduction of abortions? When given the choice between "not putting the father in prison for smoking weed" and "killing an unborn baby", I tend to lean towards the obviously less destructive, less expensive, more reasonable solution. It's extremely easy to put your foot down and say that "it's a woman's choice" and everything else is a "band-aid", but at the end of the day, you're still not addressing the root causes for why women choose to abort their pregnancies in the first place, and those causes are both complex and numerous. Aren't you offering a "band-aid solution" yourself? By offering a never-ending abortion tap and never actually doing anything to reduce the total number of abortions you're once again going against your "Safe, legal and rare" mantra. The safe and legal is what we can both get behind, it's the "rare" bit that we can't seem to agree on.


----------



## Xzi (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, by no means, no band-aids at all. I simply feel more comfortable investing time, effort and money into creating an environment where raising a child for 18 years, or at the very least finding someone to raise said child, is not an issue, as opposed to just killing it.


Sounds like Socialist propaganda to me, but okay. /s

Actually I completely agree with this, and much of the reason why I oppose a blanket ban on abortion is that it will only make such an environment harder to find in these states.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sounds like Socialist propaganda to me, but okay. /s
> 
> Actually I completely agree with this, and much of the reason why I oppose a blanket ban on abortion is that it will only make such an environment harder to find in these states.


Some common ground. You were always the more reasonable one on the team. It's not really that socialist of an idea - conservatives have always advertised themselves as pro family values, it would be much easier to market that if they stopped tearing those families apart over the most fickle of reasons.


----------



## Zonark (May 25, 2019)

Here's my two cents, Not all abortions are bad. Personally though I feel as if you are carrying the baby for more that 1/3rd of the pregnancy you need to have it and give it up for adoption if you don't want it, If the baby was going to cause harm to the mother and it needs to be aborted to save a life I believe that should be justifiable. Also people are looking at abortion being good at mainly just rape cases which isn't true, not all abortions are do to rape and While there are some people who literally get a abortion every 2 months they are vastly outweighed by the people that don't. I believe that 1/3rd is good timeframe but anything longer I think that the child should be born. I mean I would assume if someone conceived a child via rape this person isn't going to be waiting longer that 1/3rd of the pregnancy to decide.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2019)

tatripp said:


> A lot of people are saying really stupid things on here on both sides of the argument. Please try not to be emotional and to actually sincerely try to understand what someone else is saying. This is the way I see it:
> 1) The main question is when does life begin. Once we know this, we can determine our laws and rules more easily.
> I believe life begins at conception. I don't believe this for religious reasons. I believe this because it seems most logical. This is when the two sex cells become fertilized and have all of the genetic material for the organism.
> --I understand that some pro choicers don't think this, but I have never heard any of them give a clear example of when life begins. If you don't know when life begins, you cannot terminate it.
> ...



1) So if a sperm meets and egg and they combine but skip implantation and land on a tampon in a week's time do I have to go help my friend through a miscarriage?
2) Most usually add on "without special measures" at this point, similar to how we also handle end of life and serious injury. If it is a chemical dropper for food and an incubator to stand a reasonable chance of making it then that is one thing. If it is going to be an array of tubes, specialist medics, high end medicines and such then even if it is available then yeah.
3) It is the woman's body, and lifestyle, that will have to suffer for the better part of a year, if not longer if they are also compelled to raise the result. That would be the foundation of that one. Generally the right to bodily autonomy is considered a fairly fundamental one.
4) I would agree, indeed you will find several posts in this thread and the other, saying that having the equipment which functions does not render you magically more capable of understanding things.
5) Didn't see that here but I would agree it is rather out of place here.
6) It does speak to a measure of double standard though. If it is life and it is so special and magical to then turn around and allow them to live a miserable and hard fought existence does seem rather contrary to the notions underpinning the former.
7) I would have probably come to the opposite conclusion. Something that can not feel, think, suffer, comprehend or otherwise be classified as sentient gets destroyed, and in doing so likely lifts a massive burden upon something that can feel, think, suffer, comprehend and otherwise be classified as sentient. Where is the big problem?
8) I would refer back to 7). Similarly I would also say life beginning is related at best but contemplating the suffering of things is where it is really at.

Back to 1) then what are these logical reasons for sperm meets egg (or virus self fertilises egg I guess)? The tech is such that you can probably scrape some cheek cells from someone and clone them. Do we care there? We can create strands of DNA from very much inert chemicals, assemble them into full sets of DNA and have the results very much count as alive, bacteria only right now (viruses before that) but no reason to suspect higher and higher orders of life can't be made.


----------



## kumikochan (May 25, 2019)

The law here says when there is brain activity and that is from 3 months onward. Abortion is not legal after 3 months and only in extreme cases. That is a general good rule


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 25, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Huh?
> Sorry, still waking up.
> No one accidentally has sex. You don't just slip and land your dick in a woman. It is an intentional act (not including rape). Everyone is taught what happens when you have sex. Everyone knows what happens when you drive drunk. You are taking a risk knowing the possible outcome, and everyone already knows condoms and birth control fails. The only way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid sex.
> 
> ...



I am very happy that you got to turn your life around.Many of the people here just regurgitate what they heard in their liberal school about abortion,they don't really have the life experience to talk about such a delicate subject.When you spend the majority of your life playing video games instead of living in the real cruel world,it is easy to see how people could be on board with the idea of abortion.My personal opinion is that most gamer's see themselves as victims and victims are more likely to identify with liberal politics.Abortion is wrong in 99% of cases as people make a personal choice to have sex and to ejaculate inside someone for the sake of pleasure.If you aren't ready to raise a kid,you really should not be having unprotected sex.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2019)

Maluma said:


> If you aren't ready to raise a kid,you really should not be having unprotected sex.


If you are not prepared to be hit by a car you should not cross the street (or possibly even walk along it).
If you are not prepared to get hypothermia you should not climb a mountain.
If you are not prepared to be allergic to something you should never try it.
If you don't want to have a brick fall on you then probably should be a bricklayer or builder.
This could continue for a while.

In any case we have rather swish medicine these days that will attempt to correct for any problems in the event it all goes wrong, indeed not doing so if you are a medic and the patient is an otherwise healthy individually expressing a desire very much continue living will get you slapped really hard. Why is taking a few chemicals or firing up the womb vacuum any different here?


----------



## Bonehead (May 25, 2019)

A lot of you should have been aborted.  So many forever alone incels in this thread.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's AMAZING how many people here are willing to go along with or *outright approve of the killing of a human life. *
> 
> For the people who think it's just a clump of cells, if the "cells" are not removed from the mother, they will eventually form into a fully functioning human just as we all did.
> 
> ...


so I'm guessing you don't approve of the death penalty either like most hypocritical Republicans? if you say you support it then you're as bad of a Hypocrite as the rest of them


----------



## pustal (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> What about the fact that science in itself it it's own flawed religion? I mean, it's what's taught now as the defacto standard and considered the only way to live by. The same can be said about other stuff in the past. Science is just the popular one these days. Imposing their beliefs? Who thought it was a smart idea to use my money to fund baby killing? I don't care if your science currently justifies it. It's my money and you use it to kill babies with. You forced me into taking a position. Back the fuck off, give me my money back, stop using my money in the future to fund abortions, get rid of any laws that allow you to take my money and use it for abortions and I'll consider not having such a strong opinion on murdering babies. The justification; science changes all of the time, but killing a living organism definition hasn't changed. You get enough people in power that agree things should be a certain way and watch the science change to suit their needs. Don't give me that "In the name of science crap".



LOL, I rest my case.

Science is not a religion and is the way to face the world. Science is based on investigation, proof, analysis, corroboration, deduction, etc. Unlike religion that is based on a blind belief endotrinated by others. Science is verifiable, religion is not. Science encourages you to question things and prove them wrong, religion does not. Religion is the opposite, it's dogmatic. Science is meant to find the truth about the way the universe works. And it's not "my science", I'm afraid you are bound to the laws of physics and made of chemistry just as much as I do, while the laws of you're religion are in the minds of those who believe in it.

I feel sad having to state the obvious difference to someone. I also feel sad that someone whose religious belief is invalidated by factual evidence refuses to question it and consider the evidence.

Planned parenthood, which includes contraception and abortion is an effective proven mean against poverty. By defunding it, you are actually giving a hit to the Economy on the long run and actually paying more. And we live as a society, I'm sorry, not an anarchy.

Also science doesn't change, by the way. It's knowledge that increases. And you're right, most religions are immutable, don't change, don't evolve, and are stuck on the beliefs of the world set on one point in the past. Don't you give me the ''in the name of God" crap - Church and State are meant to be separated for a reason, Church and Science not.

Finally, again, a fetus without brain activity is nothing more that and appendix or yes, even a plant. We take out appendixes when they harm us and we cut down plants when we need it, even if to make a salad.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 25, 2019)

Bonehead said:


> A lot of you should have been aborted.  So many forever alone incels in this thread.


Oof. That is hard.

Who wrote so emotionally "gimme back my money" some posts up? Its not your money, and you don't get to choose what the government does with it. You may have an opinion and choose which clown does the miming from the big white mansion.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 25, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> If you are not prepared to be hit by a car you should not cross the street (or possibly even walk along it).
> If you are not prepared to get hypothermia you should not climb a mountain.
> If you are not prepared to be allergic to something you should never try it.
> If you don't want to have a brick fall on you then probably should be a bricklayer or builder.
> ...



Walking to get somewhere is completely different from doing something where the intended function is to reproduce.Please do not act disingenuous.Every moment of happiness you have had in your life is because your mom CHOSE not to abort you,imagine if she had.Would that be fair to you?I really don't think so.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



pustal said:


> LOL, I rest my case.
> 
> Science is not a religion and is the way to face the world. Science is based on investigation, proof, analysis, corroboration, deduction, etc. Unlike religion that is based on a blind belief endotrinated by others. Science is verifiable, religion is not. Science encourages you to question things and prove them wrong, religion does not. Religion is the opposite, it's dogmatic. Science is meant to find the truth about the way the universe works. And it's not "my science", I'm afraid you are bound to the laws of physics and made of chemistry just as much as I do, while the laws of you're religion are in the minds of those who believe in it.
> 
> ...



Science is also bound by political motivation.You never see any scientific studies done on race and the different characteristics among each race,why is this?Because to do so would be politically incorrect and goes directly against the narrative that we are all "created equal". Repeating what you heard in school does not make you an intelligent individual.


----------



## cots (May 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> The law here says when there is brain activity and that is from 3 months onward. Abortion is not legal after 3 months and only in extreme cases. That is a general good rule



When exactly, does the brain activity in an Oak Tree start taking place? I mean, we should protect these trees at all cost. Just wondering?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



pustal said:


> Science is not a religion and is the way to face the world. Science is based on investigation, proof, analysis, corroboration, deduction, etc. Unlike religion that is based on a blind belief endotrinated by others. Science is verifiable, religion is not. Science encourages you to question things and prove them wrong, religion does not. Religion is the opposite, it's dogmatic. Science is meant to find the truth about the way the universe works. And it's not "my science", I'm afraid you are bound to the laws of physics and made of chemistry just as much as I do, while the laws of you're religion are in the minds of those who believe in it.



Science is not a religion in definition, I am aware of this. People are simply replacing religion or using science as a basis of their actions instead of religion. People now have faith in science. So in practical application people are worshiping science or using science as the explanation for "why we exist" (which is what the majority of people used to use Religion for). Just like religion science is flawed. I'm not bound to any laws that have been created by man and who knows what sort of laws people will find "next" that will replace the current ones (including replacing science, physics and chemistry). These will all be outdated concepts some day. Who knows, they may also be also proven totally inaccurate or wrong. What won't change is if you have an abortion and use your *faith* in science to justify it - this is something you did, commit murder, that won't change and you can't take it back.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Walking to get somewhere is completely different from doing something where the intended function is to reproduce.Please do not act disingenuous.Every moment of happiness you have had in your life is because your mom CHOSE not to abort you,imagine if she had.Would that be fair to you?I really don't think so.



Intended by what or whom, and why is that anything I should respect if there even is such a thing? Even if that can be answered then sex has many more factors to it for humans than simple reproduction. Reproduction is a variously pleasant or unpleasant side effect of such actions for some people.
I fail to see how it is disingenuous to make such comparisons. Quite OK with the medic saying use a rubber next time when they are doing it, just the same as I would for them to say look both ways, know your limits/train better, be more aware of ingredients and use a hard hat.

I similarly fail to see what my ending up existing has to do with anything. To the best of my knowledge (and greatest of hopes) I am not a parent. Am I supposed to feel bad about my hypothetical children that never came to pass because contraception or simply choosing not to have sex during the relevant points in the month (or indeed with an infertile woman)? We can go the other way as well. If my mum had not aborted her pregnancy at 18 she would never have gone to school, got a decent job, worked up through the ranks and ultimately given my siblings and I a pretty comfortable and fun upbringing. Instead I might either have never had my siblings (can't afford such luxuries) or have struggled on a minimum wage, time restricted job -- something I saw many of my friends at school have happen to them. We can return to science as well -- I have never cloned myself, never assembled DNA to make a life form, nor had a surrogate incubate a spawn despite the chemicals and means to do so being all around me and have been so for many years. Do we have to count that as a lack of life being made that is somehow a tragedy?





Maluma said:


> Science is also bound by political motivation.You never see any scientific studies done on race and the different characteristics among each race,why is this?Because to do so would be politically incorrect and goes directly against the narrative that we are all "created equal". Repeating what you heard in school does not make you an intelligent individual.


I see plenty -- universities seem ready to talk my ear off about the races of those enrolled, their incoming scores and their ultimate results. Certainly political correctness has kneecapped plenty of things in recent times and that is a crying shame, one I hope turns in on itself if not tomorrow then in the near future (more likely), an event I shall be watching with popcorn at hand.
If we are continuing with magical spark of life stuff then the history of a guy called Berzelius is probably worth looking at here -- at the time science was mainly done by time served experts making pronouncements on things (as opposed to the more data driven approaches favoured today), and one of the pervasive beliefs at the time was simple organic chemistry was actually endowed with a spark of life/needed to be produced by living organisms, something said same was considered a notable proponent of. Indeed reading some of the opinions of the day... do a very simple find and replace on them and we have the same things I am seeing from some in this thread. There were a few technical counters to it then (some ammonia based stuff) but they mostly went unnoticed. Then others came along and completely blew it out of the water.


----------



## cots (May 25, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Oof. That is hard.
> 
> Who wrote so emotionally "gimme back my money" some posts up? Its not your money, and you don't get to choose what the government does with it. You may have an opinion and choose which clown does the miming from the big white mansion.



So I earn money and part of it's taken from me by other people and then used to pay for abortions. How is that not my money? Why don't I get in a say in the matter? 

If not, I want to know where you live and were you work so the next time you get paid I want you to give me half of your paycheck so I can use the money for whatever purpose I see fit. I mean, if it's not your money, what would you care?


----------



## Glyptofane (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> Science is not a religion in definition, I am aware of this. People are simply replacing religion or using science as a basis of their actions instead of religion.


Replacing the man in a white robe with the man in a white lab coat and neither appears to be any less corruptible when it comes to pushing an agenda for bribery, blackmail, kickbacks, and payoffs.


----------



## kumikochan (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> When exactly, does the brain activity in an Oak Tree start taking place? I mean, we should protect these trees at all cost. Just wondering?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Am i talking about trees ? No i wasn't


----------



## cots (May 25, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Replacing the man in a white robe with the man in a white lab coat and neither appears to be any less corruptible when it comes to pushing an agenda for bribery, blackmail, kickbacks, and payoffs.



Both science and religion have flaws and both justify murdering in some capacity. I'm just calling it like I see it. I don't care if science is the "popular" or "newest" way explain things with. Murder is murder and murdering humans is wrong. I don't care if you're justifying it with prisoner executions, wars, to stop the spread of disease, etc ... Murder is wrong. Loss of life is inevitable and shouldn't be used as an excuse to commit murder.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> Both science and religion have flaws and both justify murdering in some capacity.


_Science_ doesn't make moral judgments.


----------



## kumikochan (May 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> _Science_ doesn't make moral judgments.


sociology is considered a science tho


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> sociology is considered a science tho


At best, I'd call that a soft science. Regardless, _science_ and the _scientific method_ do not make moral judgments.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> So I earn money and part of it's taken from me by other people and then used to pay for abortions. How is that not my money? Why don't I get in a say in the matter?
> 
> If not, I want to know where you live and were you work so the next time you get paid I want you to give me half of your paycheck so I can use the money for whatever purpose I see fit. I mean, if it's not your money, what would you care?


Well, you might earn it. But the tax part is not yours. Because living in a country is a sort of social contract where you pay tax against what the government delivers. What they deliver is not for the citizen to decide. Only to perhaps have an opinion and choose politicians who claim to represent their interest.
I for one might have an opinion on what government and municipal community do with it. But that's all it is. An opinion. I am aware that this is how society works. No one single person gets the tax part of my salary, the ones running the town and country does.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> _Science_ doesn't make moral judgments.


It depends on the kind of science we're talking about. There's no shortage of scientists making sweeping generalisations based on what they consider to be empirical evidence. You can apply the scientific method in moral disputes, it just doesn't work particularly well since science is data-driven whereas morality, for the most part, isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality



Rolf12 said:


> Well, you might earn it. But the tax part is not yours. Because living in a country is a sort of social contract where you pay tax against what the government delivers. What they deliver is not for the citizen to decide. Only to perhaps have an opinion and choose politicians who claim to represent their interest.
> I for one might have an opinion on what government and municipal community do with it. But that's all it is. An opinion. I am aware that this is how society works. No one single person gets the tax part of my salary, the ones running the town and country does.


1776 begs to differ, but that's beyond the scope of the debate.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It depends on the kind of science we're talking about. There's no shortage of scientists making sweeping generalisations based on what they consider to be empirical evidence. You can apply the scientific method in moral disputes, it just doesn't work particularly well since science is data-driven whereas morality, for the most part, isn't.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality


Once we agree what _morality_ is, whether or not something is moral/immoral is objective and quantifiable. This is my position and the position of others who argue for the science of morality. However, I think _science of morality_ is a bit of a misnomer, since the scientific method can't be used to answer moral questions (as addressed in your Wikipedia article under _criticisms_). I'd rather call it something like the _logic of morality_.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It depends on the kind of science we're talking about. There's no shortage of scientists making sweeping generalisations based on what they consider to be empirical evidence. You can apply the scientific method in moral disputes, it just doesn't work particularly well since science is data-driven whereas morality, for the most part, isn't.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
> 
> 1776 begs to differ, but that's beyond the scope of the debate.


I'm not American, so I'm just guessing that you are referring to that century old constitution. Whatever that says, I believe has little bearing on reality.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Once we agree what _morality_ is, whether or not something is moral/immoral is objective and quantifiable. This is my position and the position of others who argue for the science of morality. However, I think _science of morality_ is a bit of a misnomer, since the scientific method can't be used to answer moral questions (as addressed in your Wikipedia article under _criticisms_). I'd rather call it something like the _logic of morality_.


It's quantifiable in a sense that you can put arbitrary boundaries based on popular consensus and make decisions by applying data against that consensus, however that doesn't make the process objective, it merely means that the resulting decisions will have popular approval. You cannot make a logical system based on a fundamentally illogical construct. For instance, as far as abortion is concerned, it technically has zero externalities - it only affects the woman and the unborn child, unless it has to also be publicly funded. You and I will not be aborted, we're already fully grown. Our children wouldn't be aborted either, unless we made an independent decision to do so. The only reason why abortion is a moral issue at all is because we apply value to human life, more value than any other kind of life on the planet, specifically because it's our own species. You might say that survival of the species is the primary motivator here, but if that were the case, everyone would be planting trees and turning their energy-efficient lights when they don't need them, which clearly isn't the case. There are other motivators that supersede what can be objectively quantified, I'll collectively call them "gut feelings".


----------



## cots (May 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> At best, I'd call that a soft science. Regardless, _science_ and the _scientific method_ do not make moral judgments.



Science is used all of the time to make moral judgments with. Science is thought to be able to explain anything and everything, when it can't. People use science in modern times in place of religion. Using science, which is flawed by design, to justify killing babies is not right. It's just an excuse.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> I'm not American, so I'm just guessing that you are referring to that century old constitution. Whatever that says, I believe has little bearing on reality.


Freedom is hard to swallow when you've never had a taste before.


----------



## morvoran (May 25, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> so I'm guessing you don't approve of the death penalty either like most hypocritical Republicans? if you say you support it then you're as bad of a Hypocrite as the rest of them



I have no right to judge or punish any other person.  My only intention is to point out why something is wrong and let them do as they please.  Let them suffer and die.  Regardless of your beliefs, only a higher power can determine when or if someone should die.  

As with any other murderer, abortion doctors and women who have abortions will get what they deserve eventually.   Should they be locked up like someone who kills another person?  I would say yes.  Should they be murdered for murdering?  I still would say no.

Of course, I think the only reason an abortion should be performed is when the life of the mother is at risk.  Otherwise, it's only done as a "convenience" killing.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2019)

cots said:


> Science is used all of the time to make moral judgments with. Science is thought to be able to explain anything and everything, when it can't. People use science in modern times in place of religion. Using science, which is flawed by design, to justify killing babies is not right. It's just an excuse.


The scientific method cannot itself lead to moral judgments. I also don't think anybody is justifying killing babies, with or without the scientific method. Embryos and fetuses are not babies.



Foxi4 said:


> It's quantifiable in a sense that you can put arbitrary boundaries based on popular consensus and make decisions by applying data against that consensus, however that doesn't make the process objective, it merely means that the resulting decisions will have popular approval. You cannot make a logical system based on a fundamentally illogical construct. For instance, as far as abortion is concerned, it technically has zero externalities - it only affects the woman and the unborn child, unless it has to also be publicly funded. You and I will not be aborted, we're already fully grown. Our children wouldn't be aborted either, unless we made an independent decision to do so. The only reason why abortion is a moral issue at all is because we apply value to human life, more value than any other kind of life on the planet, specifically because it's our own species. You might say that survival of the species is the primary motivator here, but if that were the case, everyone would be planting trees and turning their energy-efficient lights when they don't need them, which clearly isn't the case. There are other motivators that supersede what can be objectively quantified, I'll collectively call them "gut feelings".


Like I said, we have to agree what _morality_ means before we can get objective truths about it. Without a specific definition of what it means to be _moral_, we can't have objectively true conclusions.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Like I said, we have to agree what _morality_ means before we can get objective truths about it. Without a specific definition of what it means to be _moral_, we can't have objectively true conclusions.


...which is precisely why science and morality are incompatible. Science is concerned with making objective assessments based on empirical data. It's not based on _"agreement"_, it's based on observing, testing and codifying unchanging natural laws. Science can measure and verify that at normal pressure water will always boil at 100 degrees Celsius, every single time. What it cannot do is quantify and make a decision on whose moral code is superior _unless_ you feed it a set of subjective parameters which will invariably be tainted by your own system of values. In that sense, value is arbitrary in the first place, making it unquantifiable. It's the _agreement _part that makes science incapable of making moral judgements - we can _agree_ that murder is a morally evil act, but that's hardly scientific. We _don't have to_ agree that the Earth orbits the Sun - it just does, and we can use science to prove that. Science is de facto not equipped to deal with moral questions, so in that sense I agree - it _shouldn't _be used to make moral judgements, which are better achieved by opposing parties arguing their sides of issues and appealing to what makes us uniquely human. A moral judgement rooted in cold calculation is justifiable, but not necessarily moral.


----------



## Jhyrachy (May 25, 2019)

Just my two cents: 
Right now discussions about abortion are too much polarized by both political parties and we are losing sight of what's important.

I work in a medical field and let me tell you just few things.
First of all, abortion sucks. I hate the leftist campaign "pro-chioice" who chants stuff like 'I aborted and I'm proud of it'.
Abortions is not a walk in the park, is a medical procedure with associated risks that everybody should consider as last option.
Right now we have a WIDE disponibilty of anticontraceptive, both to prevent the damage (condoms, contraceptive pills, ecc) and to try to fix it in emergency (morning after pill).  The combined efficacy of those method is nearly 100% and the vast majority of unwanted pregnacy came from a misuse of those methods (using a not well preserved condom, acohol intake with the contraceptive pill, ecc).
When someone engage in vaginal-penetrative sex, it accept the risk of a pregnacy, because sex has the ultimate scope of procreation. When someone get pregnant, is not "an error" is the system working as intended despite the efforts they put to prevent it.
We should stop the narrative of "the baby has not the mother consent to grow in her body" because it's part of the risk of engaging in reproduction.
it's like breaking your wrist while playing some sport and being angry at your bones because they broke without your consent.
or like being in a falling plane and whining that you never consented it to fall it down.
it's an implied risk that you accept.  

but when shit hit the fan, is when you need to accept it, fix it and move on.

Pregnacy is not for everything, I have seen mothers been broken by it and who needed years of therapy to not hate their own son.
Sometimes in the news we hear about infanticide caused by post partum depression.
If the baby is going to ruin the mother's life, neither of them will benefit of the continue of the pregnacy.

Abortion is a right for the woman for a reason, we cannot force them to shoulder a weight like that.
BUT it should be their last option, NOT the first.
First of all we should teach EVERYBODY both man and female how to correct use contraceptives, prevention is ALWAYS better
Pretty much everywhere in europe (and some USA redditor told me is the same for them) you can show up in an hospital without even say your name to deliver, sign a module to leave the baby to them and go home, totally free of charge. There is a HUGE request of newborn baby for adoption, they usually find a new family in just few days.
Also governemnt often have support plans for soon-to-be-mothers to help them both with money/items and socially with a support group who could help them grow the child despite a poor social/economic condition.

Abortion MUST NOT be seen as an easy "out of jail card" because it's not.
Having a child is hard, and will always be. It's not something you can just brush it off.
A child consume money, time, energy and require sacrifice.
Also you'll never be prepared enough for when it'll come, something that you are not prepared for will alway happen.

But this must not scare or discourage people to have child because is something that has a meaning in itself and for every sad parent, I have seen tenth or hundreds happy.

That's why I don't like a lot of liberals campaign on this theme, abortion is a needed evil since we do not live in a perfect world, but it must not be glorified.
It must not been depicted as an easy way out of problems because "sex with condoms does not feels as good".
too often I have seen people depicting it as something positive, something that needs to be celebrated.

It's not that.

Abortion is something that should be accepted, but mourned.
When you see the actual women who wants to have one, there is no joy in them, there is the sadness and the weight of the situation, and often after there is the weight of the decision, they question themselves if they did the right choice, if there really was no other way.

Abortion is needed because the society failed.
it failed to teach people how to prevent it from happen
it failed because it could not protect whose who were raped
it failed because it could not support those who needed help

And since we failed, because we does not live in a perfect society, we need to keep it, but not market is as a cure-all solution, but as what it is, an extreme remedy for situation where the alternative is worse.

What me MUST do, without  political color, to decrease the number of people who need to have one, is not to ban it; but to act on the causes the lead those woman to request one.  
Sure, we'll never be able to eliminate all the need for people to have one, but we should strive to reduce that number as low as we can, because the only "good" abortion is the one that doesn't need to be performed


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> ...which is precisely why science and morality are incompatible. Science is concerned with making objective assessments based on empirical data. It's not based on _"agreement"_, it's based on observing, testing and codifying unchanging natural laws. Science can measure and verify that at normal pressure water will always boil at 100 degrees Celsius, every single time. What it cannot do is quantify and make a decision on whose moral code is superior _unless_ you feed it a set of subjective parameters which will invariably be tainted by your own system of values. In that sense, value is arbitrary in the first place, making it unquantifiable. It's the _agreement _part that makes science incapable of making moral judgements - we can _agree_ that murder is a morally evil act, but that's hardly scientific. We _don't have to_ agree that the Earth orbits the Sun - it just does, and we can use science to prove that. Science is de facto not equipped to deal with moral questions, so in that sense I agree - it _shouldn't _be used to make moral judgements, which are better achieved by opposing parties arguing their sides of issues and appealing to what makes us uniquely human. A moral judgement rooted in cold calculation is justifiable, but not necessarily moral.


As I said, science cannot make moral judgments. However, if we replace the _scientific method_ with _logic_, since I don't want this to turn into a semantic discussion, then I'd argue that moral judgments can be as objective as the boiling point of water once we precisely define what it means for something to be moral.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Freedom is hard to swallow when you've never has a taste before.


Haha. Freedom? By your tone I understand you rate the situation in US as more free than the rest. From what I see from outside, I do not agree. 
First one must specify what freedom means. Having corporations and lobbies running wild on citizens expense is not freedom for me. And I have a hard time seeing founding fathers having that vision. 
I'm from the nordic european. Have a pretty clear picture of what free health care (and abortion) and education means. There definitely are downsides. But that's not this discussion.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Haha. Freedom? By your tone I understand you rate the situation in US as more free than the rest. From what I see from outside, I do not agree.
> First one must specify what freedom means. Having corporations and lobbies running wild on citizens expense is not freedom for me. And I have a hard time seeing founding fathers having that vision.
> I'm from the nordic european. Have a pretty clear picture of what free health care (and abortion) and education means. There definitely are downsides. But that's not this discussion.


I would happily argue that the U.S. is easily one of the most free countries on the planet, although as you say, that's not really a part of this discussion.


Lacius said:


> As I said, science cannot make moral judgments. However, if we replace the _scientific method_ with _logic_, since I don't want this to turn into a semantic discussion, then I'd argue that moral judgments can be as objective as the boiling point of water once we precisely define what it means for something to be moral.


I don't see the benefit of applying logic to an illogical set of values in a desperate attempt to calculate the _"one true path"_. What you're basically saying is that _"as long as everybody thinks the same way"_, meaning we establish a universal set of values with total agreement across the entirety of the species, we can "logically" decide moral quandries. That's antithetical to individualism, incompatible with human nature and ultimately futile - if we all collectively agree on what is moral, there's no reason to have a moral code anymore, we've effectively become machines. Moral quandries are decided via abductive reasoning, there's nothing logical about them. We all have very incomplete data sets, or _"experience"_ to work with and make the best call we can, it's not fact-based, it's primarily feeling-based. We're getting off track here though, so I'll leave it be.


----------



## kuwanger (May 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You cannot make a logical system based on a fundamentally illogical construct.



Sure you can.  All logical systems are based upon axioms which are taken as true.  It's the only way to avoid circular logic systems that can prove anything.  Yet the axioms inherently limit the viability of any logical system.



Foxi4 said:


> For instance, as far as abortion is concerned, it technically has zero externalities



"What if you aborted Hilter?"  Sorry, the reason humans "have value" is because "humans have value" in their effect on society.  Of course, you can then get into the moral discussion when it's likely a human won't have value on society--hence the aborted Hilter comment--or whether we as a society should support others, like babies, when their mother/father/whoever isn't interested in caring for them.  The point, though, is it's really hard to every claim anything has zero externalities.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2019)

Jhyrachy said:


> Just my two cents:
> Right now discussions about abortion are too much polarized by both political parties and we are losing sight of what's important.
> 
> I work in a medical field and let me tell you just few things.
> ...


While I agree with many of the points in that I am not entirely sure I go with the underlying logic of some of it, and I am not sure how many opt for such things as a contraceptive or are otherwise "proud". Though I don't find those that would want to claim some kind of pride (though I would wonder if it was pride in going up against those that would call it murder and such, as opposed to the act itself) to have terribly much to be prideful of.

I am not sure the analogy with the broken wrist works in the way you have it there. By all means "shit happens, use protection/knowledge next time, let us sort it though" but the attempt to draw parallels with consent there don't work. The foetus by definition lacks agency...

I would also agree education is the way -- unwanted pregnancy is but one of the many possible downsides here, and abortions only solve a fraction of those, at a higher cost a lot of the time too.

I can't get to calling abortion an evil. At worst I am going with morally neutral. 

Similarly I have to ask "When you see the actual women who wants to have one, there is no joy in them" do we have data on what goes for different cultures here? China does crazy loads of them (partially due to abysmal education on the matter. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-30996036 ) and what little I can find says it does not have much in the way of anything here and it is treated like anything else. Going with other things then some notable differences in things like incidence rates of PTSD also differ -- the UK and US army did stuff there and despite using similar tactics, weapons styles, suffering similar casualty rates, doing the same wars more or less, having similar training, recruiting from similar pools of people (the US and UK armies, cultures and histories recent and longer term are similar and intertwined... hopefully this does not need too much qualification) the PTSD rates and resulting actions among UK peeps was different enough to note and explore, cultural differences being one of the main factors however.
If I look at the US it is major political and cultural issue. In the UK it is not one -- outside of Northern Ireland* no mainstream movements to block it/frustrate it, readily available for free on the NHS (free public healthcare) without being put through the wringer first, no politico of any note of any stripe has it as a talking point... If however the US peeps get, for want of a better term, infected with the idea that there is a serious moral issue with abortion then that could colour something regardless of what their logical ultimately leads them to, compare it perhaps with a person that left religion still having some religious thought patterns they fall back on in moments of stress or something. Might also be interesting to see how it varies with state, locality or region (basically do the big cities with low amounts of religion in readily available states care half as much?), and if you could is a difference between abstinence only states and similar states with more comprehensive education (not sure what the results might be there -- ending up going in blind can be easier to deal with the consequences for than knowing it all and then results being what you were told they likely would be).

*Northern Ireland by virtue of its extent of self governance and some historical quirks is these days one of the most restrictive places in Europe for it (especially now Republic of Ireland have legalised it and Poland is warming somewhat to the concept). Such a thing might be an interesting one actually as I have heard some opinions and actions coming out there before that are quite in contrast to a lot of other places.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Sure you can.  All logical systems are based upon axioms which are taken as true.  It's the only way to avoid circular logic systems that can prove anything.  Yet the axioms inherently limit the viability of any logical system.
> 
> "What if you aborted Hilter?"  Sorry, the reason humans "have value" is because "humans have value" in their effect on society.  Of course, you can then get into the moral discussion when it's likely a human won't have value on society--hence the aborted Hilter comment--or whether we as a society should support others, like babies, when their mother/father/whoever isn't interested in caring for them.  The point, though, is it's really hard to every claim anything has zero externalities.


The societies we currently live in are as far from the natural state of things as possible, we've crossed past the Dunbar's Number a thousand fold in any random modern metropolis - just this fact alone puts a big question mark at the end of "the value of a single human life". Does a single ant have any significant, inherent value in comparison to the hive? As for "What if's", they are hardly logical arguments, they're mental exercises with little practical application. Comparing that to a real moral quandary is like comparing riding on a tricycle to riding on a bicycle - looks similar at a distance, but lacks most of the intricacies of the real deal. It's also worth noting that axioms are only assumed true - a logical system based on a premise that can be disproven is hardly sound. This is why axioms must necessarily be _self-evident_ in order to be viable, that's what I meant when I contrasted feeling-based and fact-based reasoning. The orbit of the Earth is a self-evident and verifiable fact, moral calculations rarely are.


----------



## Soulsilve2010 (May 25, 2019)

When artificial wombs are ready we won't need abortion anymore also remember just because daddy was a rapist doesn't mean that the son/daughter created that way deserves to be punished.It shouldn't be an act of revenge.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2019)

Soulsilve2010 said:


> When artificial wombs are ready we won't need abortion anymore also remember just because daddy was a rapist doesn't mean that the son/daughter created that way deserves to be punished.It shouldn't be an act of revenge.


I don't think it's really about revenge in those cases, it's more about the psychological trauma. Carrying the result of being violated for months on end can't possibly be healthy, at least from a mental health standpoint, so I'm reluctantly okay with it being an option in those edge cases which account for less than one percent of all abortions.


----------



## Jhyrachy (May 25, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> While I agree with many of the points in that I am not entirely sure I go with the underlying logic of some of it, and I am not sure how many opt for such things as a contraceptive or are otherwise "proud". Though I don't find those that would want to claim some kind of pride (though I would wonder if it was pride in going up against those that would call it murder and such, as opposed to the act itself) to have terribly much to be prideful of.



I'm sorry, I can't properly convey the feelings I have, since neglish is not my first language.
What i meant is that I have seen more then one time collectives and others org promote "pride" for the abortion, this span from "I'm not going to hide that I had an abortion" to "You should be proud to have exerted agency on your body"



> I am not sure the analogy with the broken wrist works in the way you have it there. By all means "shit happens, use protection/knowledge next time, let us sort it though" but the attempt to draw parallels with consent there don't work. The foetus by definition lacks agency...



I had a discussion with some reddit users who claimed that the basis for the abortion was about the mother not giving consent to the fetus to use their body.



> I can't get to calling abortion an evil. At worst I am going with morally neutral.



in my tlanguage it's called "male necessario", that i translated in "necessary evil"; but it means something like "something bad but needed", it's not about morality.



> Similarly I have to ask "When you see the actual women who wants to have one, there is no joy in them" do we have data on what goes for different cultures here?



I admit that that part was from my personal experience, from when I had my training in ginecology.
It's not hard data, but I think it's a bit of personal experience that a lot of people lack in this thread.

Sure culturally it changes a lot, and chinese and arabs have a lot of them (some arabs woman use it as a contraceptive method, often performing it without telling it to the spouse; it's taken with pride the fact that they have the proof that they are fertile, but they have often already 3 or 4 child and do not actually want another, plus their culture is not good with contraceptives


----------



## pustal (May 26, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Science is also bound by political motivation.You never see any scientific studies done on race and the different characteristics among each race,why is this?Because to do so would be politically incorrect and goes directly against the narrative that we are all "created equal". Repeating what you heard in school does not make you an intelligent individual.



You don't?

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1969-17169-001

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886997001104

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=pt-PT&as_sdt=0,5&q=differences+ethnicity

And whatever you publish is always peer reviewed, that's why when some shady institution publishes bad data, it is countered by the scientific community.



cots said:


> When exactly, does the brain activity in an Oak Tree start taking place? I mean, we should protect these trees at all cost. Just wondering?



It'd be good on time cut it as it is part of the oxygen <-> carbon dyoxide cycle, and we cut down too many trees an disturbed the balance. A fetus is not part of such balance or similar. But we do cut down some trees and plant them back for the purpose of building stuff or produce paper, etc. And it is perfectly fine if we keep the balance and cut down on polluting practices. And we eat plants and kill them all the time for it, and it is not wrong as long we keep the balance.

A much better analogy would be weeds. If you want a good patch of grass, you have to kill the weeds not to affect the grass. If you want people to get out of poverty you have to provide them with planned parenthood, else unwanted babies will consume the resoursces and it'll be both bad for the families and them that'll grow in poverty and will be neglected both by families and society.



cots said:


> Science is not a religion in definition, I am aware of this. People are simply replacing religion or using science as a basis of their actions instead of religion. People now have faith in science. So in practical application people are worshiping science or using science as the explanation for "why we exist" (which is what the majority of people used to use Religion for). Just like religion science is flawed. I'm not bound to any laws that have been created by man and who knows what sort of laws people will find "next" that will replace the current ones (including replacing science, physics and chemistry). These will all be outdated concepts some day. Who knows, they may also be also proven totally inaccurate or wrong. What won't change is if you have an abortion and use your *faith* in science to justify it - this is something you did, commit murder, that won't change and you can't take it back.



People don't worship science and of course they use it as base of their decisions. It's the objective analysis and study of practical data - as oppodite of religion, that is the blind following of something that cannot be verified or contested. It's pure rationality as oppose to ratonalizations, so of course they use it and should definitely.

You on the other hand are using actual faith to base your decisions. Nothing outside religious talk tells you that a fetus is sentient in any way shape or form, so I'm sorry, you rather decide on knowledge that we don't have rather than the one we do?

And also, I'm sorry, science very rarely contradicts previous concensus. A fetus brain activity is pretty much verifiable, it's not like String Theory or the Relativity Theory where it's based on some assumptions and widely believed do to mathematical corroboration. It's knowledge gained on hard observable facts.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 26, 2019)

pustal said:


> You don't?
> 
> https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1969-17169-001
> 
> ...


The subject of race, as a general rule, is verboten in modern science. The commonly accepted consensus is that race is a "social construct" based on visual assessment more so than actual genetic differences, which might make sense if you look at genetic variability within and across ethnic groups, but seems like a flawed conclusion just on the face of it. It's a generally frowned upon, sore subject to research due to its implications on society and the inescapable danger of "racist" consequences. With that said, some researchers apply the Dawkins approach, meaning that any characteristics or variability related to race, however small it may be, is of taxonomical importance and thus worthy of being researched. Your mileage may vary, but if you proclaimed that you're researching IQ distribution through the lens of race, for instance, expect to see some people frowning because, no matter how pure and innocent your intentions might be, some groups will be statistically ahead of others.

As for your comment on peer review, you're assuming that scientists are incorruptible, don't make mistakes and have no political alignment that may cause them to, intentionally or unintentionally, overlook evidence. You might want to look into the recent social sciences hoax where three researchers wrote 20 completely fake, ridiculous papers and attempted to have them published in peer reviewed journals to check if they can be accepted purely on the merit of the jargon they used, as opposed to the strength of their evidence. 4 of the papers were successfully published, 3 were accepted and pending, 7 went into review and only 6 were rejected. The experiment led to much embarrassment and pearl-clutching in the "soft sciences" community. If you're looking for older examples of the system failing, there's always the Sokal Hoax. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true - you should always question and verify everything. Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first. Knowing the result is good, knowing and understanding how the researchers arrived at the results is better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html

This kind of thing isn't limited to social sciences either, "hard sciences" produce an abundance of trash research, especially in the realm of fluff pieces for pharmaceutical companies, double-blinds with awful controls etc. - pretty much anything with a profit motive where the result of the study directly affects the product. It is not at all uncommon to find several studies that all contradict each other - the more complex the subject the larger the data set required to find the answer, and the larger the data set the more likely it is to become contaminated, so to speak. Then there's straight-up pseudoscience that can be popular at a given time just to be completely or partially disproven many years later - phrenology comes to mind, since we're talking about race. The _concept_ helped us advance neuroscience and psychology, but the actual 19th century findings were completely debunked.


----------



## kuwanger (May 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The societies we currently live in are as far from the natural state of things as possible, we've crossed past the Dunbar's Number a thousand fold in any random modern metropolis - just this fact alone puts a big question mark at the end of "the value of a single human life".



What's the value of a single human life?  What's the value of all of humanity?  Can you derive one from the other?  That's the problem when you try to quantify things that probably aren't meaningfully quantifiable to proxy some other possibly meaningless quantifiable value.  Yet the value of all logic and science to us is in some fashion to benefit some quantity of humanity in some way.



Foxi4 said:


> It's also worth noting that axioms are only assumed true - a logical system based on a premise that can be disproven is hardly sound. This is why axioms must necessarily be _self-evident_ in order to be viable, that's what I meant when I contrasted feeling-based and fact-based reasoning. The orbit of the Earth is a self-evident and verifiable fact, moral calculations rarely are.



Many things aren't self-evidence.  The orbit of the Earth is actually one of those things.  It is hindsight and a lot of experimentation that derives the orbit of the Earth.  Most of all, most self-evident things aren't self-evident to everyone.  Part of a proof that declares axioms does so precisely because things aren't self-evident.  In fact, the greatest strength of science has been to disprove, as much as can be done, the self-evident.

What you're arguing more is that logically inconsistent systems tend to have less value.  The problem is, of course, that if think hard enough you can create paradoxes--like the Raven paradox--which are hard to rectify.  I definitely understand why one would not want to try to argue morals from logic or logic from morals.  I do think there's value, though, in listening to systems that we know are broken--general relativity and quantum mechanics--even if we know long term they're not the right answer if they're the best we have so far. :/


----------



## Foxi4 (May 26, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> What's the value of a single human life?  What's the value of all of humanity?  Can you derive one from the other?  That's the problem when you try to quantify things that probably aren't meaningfully quantifiable to proxy some other possibly meaningless quantifiable value.  Yet the value of all logic and science to us is in some fashion to benefit some quantity of humanity in some way.


You're making my argument for me. 


> Many things aren't self-evidence.  The orbit of the Earth is actually one of those things.  It is hindsight and a lot of experimentation that derives the orbit of the Earth.  Most of all, most self-evident things aren't self-evident to everyone.  Part of a proof that declares axioms does so precisely because things aren't self-evident.  In fact, the greatest strength of science has been to disprove, as much as can be done, the self-evident.
> 
> What you're arguing more is that logically inconsistent systems tend to have less value.  The problem is, of course, that if think hard enough you can create paradoxes--like the Raven paradox--which are hard to rectify.  I definitely understand why one would not want to try to argue morals from logic or logic from morals.  I do think there's value, though, in listening to systems that we know are broken--general relativity and quantum mechanics--even if we know long term they're not the right answer if they're the best we have so far. :/


It depends on what you consider to be self-evident. There's a pre-requisite of a correctly made observation here. Copernicus knew that the Earth was round and orbiting the Sun long before we went to space and actually saw it with our own eyes - it was verifiable based on the apparent movement of celestial bodies and provable via math. It was "self-evident" provided you actually sat down and observed the sky.

I also do agree that there is some value in looking at "broken" systems in order to get at least a vague approximation of the correct answer, but again, you're making my argument for me. Sometimes you really don't need to weigh the pros and cons of something on a spreadsheet - your gut will tell you if what you're doing is right or wrong, and that's not particularly quantifiable.


----------



## kuwanger (May 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It was "self-evident" provided you actually sat down and observed the sky.



This is sort of the core of it, though.  There's a point in "Groundhog's Day" when Bill Murray declares himself a god because he's had enough time that things are self-evident to him.  Yet in the end, he's still bound by the same limits as any mortal, no matter how many times he relives the same day and no matter how self-evident things are to him.



Foxi4 said:


> Sometimes you really don't need to weigh the pros and cons of something on a spreadsheet - your gut will tell you if what you're doing is right or wrong, and that's not particularly quantifiable.



Also from "Groundhog's Day", the point at which the cycle was broken wasn't when he was able to through simple pros and cons deduce the best way to seduce his co-worker.  The right and wrong of the day was a massive collection of things that were too difficult to do on purpose for a specific end, yet they produced the overall desired result.  One could make this a metaphor for science in general, morality, etc.  It's not enough, though, to argue that your gut knows right from wrong.  Clearly many people believe very different things based on their gut.


----------



## cots (May 26, 2019)

pustal said:


> People don't worship science and of course they use it as base of their decisions. It's the objective analysis and study of practical data - as oppodite of religion, that is the blind following of something that cannot be verified or contested. It's pure rationality as oppose to ratonalizations, so of course they use it and should definitely.



When you use science as a way to explain everything and justify everything and use it as a basis for your every action and then defend it as the only way there is all I see is worshipers. People put their faith in science all of the time. The same exact thing was done with Religions in the past. Changes some terminology, labels and faces have taken place, but the actual "believing this it the only way, the only truth" hasn't changed.



> You on the other hand are using actual faith to base your decisions. Nothing outside religious talk tells you that a fetus is sentient in any way shape or form, so I'm sorry, you rather decide on knowledge that we don't have rather than the one we do?



I'm not a fan of science or faith, but just like anyone else they are influencing my decisions (which I have no problem admitting). Even if I were using faith instead of science to justify my beliefs what makes using science instead of faith the superior or only considered method? What happens down the road when science is replaced by something superior? Where then, would you stand? 

Just, something in my gut tells me that killing unborn children is wrong. You can name "unborn children" however you like, or debate what exactly "life" is, but that doesn't matter to me. The act of aborting the child doesn't fit well with me and thus if you're using my money to perform one than that even ticks me off further. I'm going to go with my "gut" feeling over what the current science and the people that are interpreting it are saying and what various faith based groups are saying. I can try to use science and faith based arguments to justify my stance, but in the end of the day it's just "how I feel". Considering various popular groups stance on feelings you'd figure that would be enough, but apparently it only applies to them and in certain situations. For me, everything about it tells me it's wrong. 



> And also, I'm sorry, science very rarely contradicts previous concensus. A fetus brain activity is pretty much verifiable, it's not like String Theory or the Relativity Theory where it's based on some assumptions and widely believed do to mathematical corroboration. It's knowledge gained on hard observable facts.



Well, I'm not a fan of science, but just throughout my life (not to mention since the conception of science) consensus on various scientific data and issues have changed frequently and honest scientists themselves admit that they really don't know anything about the brain at all nor even know how to judge the percentage of how much they know versus how much they don't know. Anyone who claims they know it all is clearly a liar and the understanding of science is in a constant flux - which is why I don't put much *faith* into it (as others seem to do).


----------



## pustal (May 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The subject of race, as a general rule, is verboten in modern science. The commonly accepted consensus is that race is a "social construct" based on visual assessment more so than actual genetic differences,.



Is it? Because we have sometimes different medicine prescribed to different ethnicities or different marketing resulting of studies



Foxi4 said:


> Your mileage may vary, but if you proclaimed that you're researching IQ distribution through the lens of race, for instance, expect to see some people frowning because, no matter how pure and innocent your intentions might be, some groups will be statistically ahead of others.



Sure, but this has been done, and since the common conclusion would be that environmental factors have a much bigger impact on one's development than ethnicity, you'd expect frowning on insistency. But if done, again the result can be revalidated and the experience redone.



Foxi4 said:


> As for your comment on peer review, you're assuming that scientists are incorruptible, don't make mistakes and have no political alignment that may cause them to, intentionally or unintentionally, overlook evidence.



No, I'm staying that putting bad data and information out there will be contested elsewhere.



Foxi4 said:


> You might want to look into the recent social sciences hoax where three researchers wrote 20 completely fake, ridiculous papers and attempted to have them published in peer reviewed journals to check if they can be accepted purely on the merit of the jargon they used, as opposed to the strength of their evidence. 4 of the papers were successfully published, 3 were accepted and pending, 7 went into review and only 6 were rejected. The experiment led to much embarrassment and pearl-clutching in the "soft sciences" community. If you're looking for older examples of the system failing, there's always the Sokal Hoax. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true - you should always question and verify everything. Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first. Knowing the result is good, knowing and understanding how the researchers arrived at the results is better.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html
> 
> This kind of thing isn't limited to social sciences either, "hard sciences" produce an abundance of trash research, especially in the realm of fluff pieces for pharmaceutical companies, double-blinds with awful controls etc. - pretty much anything with a profit motive where the result of the study directly affects the product. It is not at all uncommon to find several studies that all contradict each other - the more complex the subject the larger the data set required to find the answer, and the larger the data set the more likely it is to become contaminated, so to speak. Then there's straight-up pseudoscience that can be popular at a given time just to be completely or partially disproven many years later - phrenology comes to mind, since we're talking about race. The _concept_ helped us advance neuroscience and psychology, but the actual 19th century findings were completely debunked.



There is a difference into being published and accepted. And what you said "Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first." This is what science is, and where consensus rise or not. And again, what we were discussed in this particular case is very easily verifiable


----------



## cots (May 26, 2019)

pustal said:


> It'd be good on time cut it as it is part of the oxygen <-> carbon dyoxide cycle, and we cut down too many trees an disturbed the balance. A fetus is not part of such balance or similar. But we do cut down some trees and plant them back for the purpose of building stuff or produce paper, etc. And it is perfectly fine if we keep the balance and cut down on polluting practices. And we eat plants and kill them all the time for it, and it is not wrong as long we keep the balance.



I'm pointing out that Liberals value the life of trees over unborn children and use mainly the "they aren't alive yet" arguement and use examples such as heart beats, brain development, brain activity, etc ... to defend their choices when yet, trees never develop these things, but are considered life forms none the less that should be protected. It shouldn't matter what "purpose" they serve. That's just another excuse.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



pustal said:


> There is a difference into being published and accepted. And what you said "Don't take the conclusion as gospel, look at the evidence first." This is what science is, and where consensus rise or not. And again, what we were discussed in this particular case is very easily verifiable



I don't believe that consensus should be a deciding factor, which is another reason I don't give much merit to the subject. Consensus, like anything else, can be influenced, controlled, changed, erased, etc ...


----------



## pustal (May 26, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm pointing out that Liberals value the life of trees over unborn children and use mainly the "they aren't alive yet" arguement and use examples such as heart beats, brain development, brain activity, etc ... to defend their choices when yet, trees never develop these things, but are considered life forms none the less that should be protected. It shouldn't matter what "purpose" they serve. That's just another excuse.



Again, trees serve a purpose on our survival on this planet, unborn children don't. They have the same feelings and sentience though, but you need the first to live. On that line, conservatives value unborn children lives more than already-born people. And nobody is putting people on prison for life for cutting a tree.



cots said:


> When you use science as a way to explain everything and justify everything and use it as a basis for your every action and then defend it as the only way there is all I see is worshipers. People put their faith in science all of the time.



As opposed to use what? Religion?



cots said:


> The same exact thing was done with Religions in the past.



And in the present. All these laws are based on religion. The Alabama marriage laws passed now are based on religion. Teaching that the World is only a few thousand years in US schools, religion. Etc.



cots said:


> Even if I were using faith instead of science to justify my beliefs what makes using science instead of faith the superior or only considered method?



For everything I wrote thus far: you're basing your decisions on imposed beliefs rather than hard evidence, you're worried about stuff that a priest says it's true than something it can be verified truthfulness.



cots said:


> What happens down the road when science is replaced by something superior? Where then, would you stand?



Science isn't something you can replace. If you burn all the religious books today and silenced every preacher and every believer, that religion wouldn't come back, was we've seen before in some cultures. If you did the same to every scientific knowledge, theories aside, the knowledge would be back in a couple of thousand years. Science isn't opinion, science is either theoretical and contestable or factual. Two plus two are always four.



cots said:


> Just, something in my gut tells me that killing unborn children is wrong. You can name "unborn children" however you like, or debate what exactly "life" is, but that doesn't matter to me. The act of aborting the child doesn't fit well with me and thus if you're using my money to perform one than that even ticks me off further. I'm going to go with my "gut" feeling over what the current science and the people that are interpreting it are saying and what various faith based groups are saying.



It's called thruthiness, the exact definition on it: facts don't matter, but your gut feeling. And people with that gut feeling are putting people in jail for life for it...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> I believe that consensus should be a deciding factor, which is another reason I don't give much merit to the subject. Consensus, like anything else, can be influenced, controlled, changed, erased, etc ...



Again, here we're talking about something easily verifiable. It's not a debatable theory, is checking hard evidence.


----------



## cots (May 26, 2019)

pustal said:


> Again, trees serve a purpose on our survival on this planet, unborn children don't. They have the same feelings and sentience though, but you need the first to live. On that line, conservatives value unborn children lives more than already-born people. And nobody is putting people on prison for life for cutting a tree.



I don't really care what conservatives value. If they were for killing the unborn (which some of them are) I would still disagree.



> As opposed to use what? Religion?



As opposed to something that will probably be discovered later down the road and replace science.



> And in the present. All these laws are based on religion. The Alabama marriage laws passed now are based on religion. Teaching that the World is only a few thousand years in US schools, religion. Etc.



They don't teach the world began only a few thousand years ago in schools (at least, not public schools). I never attended a Christian school and would have most likely been kicked out of more of them than the normal schools I was kicked out of.



> For everything I wrote thus far: you're basing your decisions on imposed beliefs rather than hard evidence, you're worried about stuff that a priest says it's true than something it can be verified truthfulness.



I'm not worried about what Priests say nor am I worried about what scientists say. I don't need them to make up my own mind. I had to learn how to learn the hard way as I've always had people trying to control me from birth and like most other kids wasn't taught how to think, but only what to think.



> Science isn't something you can replace. If you burn all the religious books today and silenced every preacher and every believer, that religion wouldn't come back, was we've seen before in some cultures. If you did the same to every scientific knowledge, theories aside, the knowledge would be back in a couple of thousand years. Science isn't opinion, science is either theoretical and contestable or factual. Two plus two are always four.



That's your faith in science lying to you. The theory behind scientific method seems sound, well, until you involve the human factor, then it all goes to shit. Don't trust it, never have, never will.



> It's called thruthiness, the exact definition on it: facts don't matter, but your gut feeling. And people with that guy feeling are putting people in jail for life for it...



Facts are debatable. I don't agree with how our legal system works either and you also must take into account that science is being used to justify both sides of the issue as it just depends on what science you use.



> Again, here we're talking about something easily verifiable. It's not a debatable theory, is checking hard evidence.



Verifiable by whom, for what reason, what will it be used for, what was their motive? It's horseshit. Try going 5 minutes without being lied to in some manner by yourself or society in general. I don't trust science as it's by nature flawed by design. You can't convince me otherwise.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Facts are debatable. I don't agree with how our legal system works either and you also must take into account that science is being used to justify both sides of the issue as it just depends on what science you use.
> 
> Verifiable by whom, for what reason, what will it be used for, what was their motive? It's horseshit. Try going 5 minutes without being lied to in some manner by yourself or society in general. I don't trust science as it's by nature flawed by design. You can't convince me otherwise.



I dont agree with you in this matter of abortion @cots; but the whole worship of science-part I am to some extent sceptical to as well.

In general: Wouldnt it be nice if people wrote shorter posts? Made an effort to concentrate their arguments rather than painting wall of texts.


----------



## SG854 (May 26, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't really care what conservatives value. If they were for killing the unborn (which some of them are) I would still disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


cots-Ow Ow I’m in extraordinary pain. I sure hope medical science can help me!


----------



## Xzi (May 26, 2019)

cots said:


> That's your faith in science lying to you. The theory behind scientific method seems sound, well, until you involve the human factor, then it all goes to shit. Don't trust it, never have, never will.


Yet you're typing this on a PC or smartphone and you probably aren't worried that it's going to explode on you.  That's the result of a whole lot of mathematical and scientific calculation.  Humans are indeed flawed, but the scientific method is built to discard flawed results in the long-term, anyway.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yet you're typing this on a PC or smartphone and you probably aren't worried that it's going to explode on you.  That's the result of a whole lot of mathematical and scientific calculation.  Humans are indeed flawed, but the scientific method is built to discard flawed results in the long-term, anyway.


Boeing 737 MAX is also the result of research, and some science. 350+ people died for scientific and economic reasons.


----------



## Xzi (May 26, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Boeing 737 MAX is also the result of research, and some science. 350+ people died for scientific and economic reasons.


Purely economic reasons.  When issues get reported and they're ignored, that's a decision made entirely out of greed.


----------



## notimp (May 26, 2019)

Now compare 350+ (big plus) against the amount of economic growth that was generated since JFKs 1962 'We'll get a man on the moon' speech - trough technological advancements. 
--

To compare and contrast - technological opportunity gains for the 500 largest investment fonds in the upcoming 15 years - if we pivot onto a 1.5°C climate target - now, if we assume they invest in a 'broad' societal portfolio, is 8 trillion USD. (Value taken from the UN report in the 'indoctrinated' thread. 

Thats 533 billion USD per year.

350 people with an average US gross income of 59160 USD a year -

Thats 20 million USD per year.

Science wins.

By a factor of: 26.650 (= times more important that those lives in terms of value generation in USD).

And there we are only looking into technological advancement, not into "current overall value" which is much larger. (Over horse and cart?  )

Such calculations are silly - but just to give you a feeling for perspective.

(In terms of world population divided by 350 you get a factor of 22 million.  If total loss of loss of life is your angle. )
-

Also technology was fine afair - and I dont want to look it up right now, it was a software error. (Programmers get less gud  )

edit: To your credit, if one of those people that died on that plane would have invented the cure for cancer in the future - entirely different story, economically.


----------



## Rolf12 (May 26, 2019)

notimp said:


> Now compare 350+ (big plus) against the amount of economic growth that was generated since JFKs 1962 'We'll get a man on the moon' speech - trough technological advancements.
> --
> 
> To compare and contrast - technological opportunity gains for the 500 largest investment fonds in the upcoming 15 years - if we pivot onto a 1.5°C climate target - now, if we assume they invest in a 'broad' societal portfolio, is 8 trillion USD. (Value taken from the UN report in the 'indoctrinated' thread.
> ...


Not so many deaths perhaps in total and over time. But quite a lot if you consider it was on the same plane model and 2 crashes within 6 months. Technology was flawed, new big engines and wings out of aerodynamic centre, which was why a software "fix" was implemented. Which had the opposite effect. 
Agree that science has made progress. But what has progress done? Is it inherently good? All the way until the throughput economy makes everything collapse?


----------



## notimp (May 26, 2019)

Management decisions.  (and  )

But then 26.650 times more (economical) value creation, and now _two_ planes.

But thats not the real argument.  The real argument is something along the lines of human value, or emotional value (a human being is more that just their income over a year), vs economic value.

And then on the other side, technical advancement (science) also is more than only economic value.

And if we now do the stupid thing and try to compare them economically - we end up at "science" (in this case technological advancements in the field of climate change ('carbon reduction')) - we end up at stupid values like - science more important than 26.000 times a planecrash with 350 people dying.

The entire thing is stupid, but it gives you some perspective. "Felt" emotional value of a human being is immensely high. 350 of them dying is a tragedy of a high magnitude. Now how do you imagine a tragedy 26.000 times worse. Answer - you cant.

Those are the limits of "emotional truths".

Or to put it simple - if you are in an advisory council of lets say the president of the United States. You dont care about the 350 people dying in a planecrash. You cant. You have so much more impactfull stuff to deal with, that you start to think in abstractions, that allow you not to care emotionally about that incidence. Later on you have moments where you will care - but, on the job - you cant. At that point you start decisions based on minimizing risks or harm. And it partly also comes from empathy. (If you are good at your job.  ) But then, at that abstraction level its also really easy to make mistakes. 

Is it sciences fault? Is it religions? No - but then abortion rights is a discussion about more than just saving babies. If you start to think about it on a different level (micro vs. macro). And you have to have people that think about that on different levels. Because it impacts more than just your local community for instance.


----------



## pustal (May 26, 2019)

cots said:


> As opposed to something that will probably be discovered later down the road and replace science.



I don't get where you are taking this idea that science will be replace with something else. Science is the study and analysis of our world. There is no replacing of that.




cots said:


> That's your faith in science lying to you. The theory behind scientific method seems sound, well, until you involve the human factor, then it all goes to shit. Don't trust it, never have, never will.



What are you talking about? Having your feelings cloud your judgement? Let your urges and impulses lead over critical analysis? Does that really sound good to you? That's insanity...




cots said:


> Facts are debatable. I don't agree with how our legal system works either and you also must take into account that science is being used to justify both sides of the issue as it just depends on what science you use.



A fact's a fact. It isn't, by definition, debatable, although half the World feels otherwise this days. You can have counterpoints, but I don't see what would support anti-abortion.





cots said:


> Verifiable by whom, for what reason, what will it be used for, what was their motive?



Literally any medical personal with a PET scan and a MRI. To a certain stage an ultrasound is enough, as it'll show a lack of a brain.




cots said:


> I don't trust science as it's by nature flawed by design.



Flawed why, because it disproves your points?


----------



## SG854 (May 26, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Not so many deaths perhaps in total and over time. But quite a lot if you consider it was on the same plane model and 2 crashes within 6 months. Technology was flawed, new big engines and wings out of aerodynamic centre, which was why a software "fix" was implemented. Which had the opposite effect.
> Agree that science has made progress. But what has progress done? Is it inherently good? All the way until the throughput economy makes everything collapse?


Extending human life, TV’s, Internet, increasing our standard of living, increase faster ways of producing stuff, making our lives so much comfortable and better, compare us to third world countries and you’ll see what science and technology has done.

Just because it’s not perfect is no reason to dismiss it, nothing is ever perfect because humans are flawed, not because the laws of nature changes, and we are trying to figure out how to use those laws to our advantage. But with our modern technology compare that to what our ancestors had in the past it’s a lot better now. I am glad to not live in the stone ages and can listen to music on my smart phone thanks to science.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

pustal said:


> I don't get where you are taking this idea that science will be replace with something else. Science is the study and analysis of our world. There is no replacing of that.
> What are you talking about? Having your feelings cloud your judgement? Let your urges and impulses lead over critical analysis? Does that really sound good to you? That's insanity...
> A fact's a fact. It isn't, by definition, debatable, although half the World feels otherwise this days. You can have counterpoints, but I don't see what would support anti-abortion.
> Literally any medical personal with a PET scan and a MRI. To a certain stage an ultrasound is enough, as it'll show a lack of a brain.
> Flawed why, because it disproves your points?



Your underlying faith in science disallows you to open your mind to further possibilities beyond it and if you're using a flawed instrument to justify the fact that you believe that it disproves my points you are even more blind. Insanity? I thought blind faith was insanity? You're no better than the generations of people that used faith instead of science before you. Label me what you want with your science, but when you're proven wrong I'm sure you won't even be able to acknowledge it.



SG854 said:


> Extending human life, TV’s, Internet, increasing our standard of living, increase faster ways of producing stuff, making our lives so much comfortable and better, compare us to third world countries and you’ll see what science and technology has done.
> 
> Just because it’s not perfect is no reason to dismiss it, nothing is ever perfect because humans are flawed, not because the laws of nature changes, and we are trying to figure out how to use those laws to our advantage. But with our modern technology compare that to what our ancestors had in the past it’s a lot better now. I am glad to not live in the stone ages and can listen to music on my smart phone thanks to science.



Nuclear bombs, abortions, guns, mass produced dangerous drugs, chemicals, plastics. All in all more people have been killed in the "name of science" than any natural disaster in our modern time. Third world countries are a great example of what the negative impact of science has been and I'll tell you where you can put that smart phone. You won't see me walking around with a radiation producing device, that tracks my location, listens and records my conversations just so I can see what some other idiot who is doing the same thing had to eat for breakfast. Paranoid? Tell that to the people who have been lied to about mostly even other Government program (ie, what the purpose is for, what the funds will be only used for, what will never happen, etc ...).


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> Your underlying faith in science disallows you to open your mind to further possibilities beyond it and if you're using a flawed instrument to justify the fact that you believe that it disproves my points you are even more blind. Insanity? I thought blind faith was insanity? You're no better than the generations of people that used faith instead of science before you. Label me what you want with your science, but when you're proven wrong I'm sure you won't even be able to acknowledge it.



Yes insanity. It is not blind faith, it's literally taking evidence as a basis, that is Science and everything else is BS. You fail to completely understand what Science is in your blindness for you to believe what you want to believe. You don't care what the truth is, you rather bend the truth to your beliefs rather than the other way around. Not taking evidence into account is the madness and the blind belief. You are literally saying to disregard reason, proof and evidence because there may be something better than truth - this is the definition of delusioness. You and these lawmakers are condemning people for life on the basis of you disregarding reason, proof and evidence - so yes this is madness or, malicious control of the population with poverty, if you disregard Hanlon's razor.



cots said:


> Nuclear bombs, abortions, guns, mass produced dangerous drugs, chemicals, plastics. All in all more people have been killed in the "name of science" than any natural disaster in our modern time. Third world countries are a great example of what the negative impact of science has been and I'll tell you where you can put that smart phone.



Nothing of this is "in the name of Science". Eisenhower bombed Japan for military / political reasons. Massive gun deaths in the US is a result of the economical incentive the NRA and gun makers have. The pharma industry goes off rail for monetary reasons as well. Etc.

Third world countries are a great example of what mislead human politics and religion can do. The belief that led to slavery that white people were superior to black people was religious alone, the Cruzades in northern Africa and later Jihad's were religiously driven. The spreading of AIDs in Central and South Africa are the result of the religious misonformation spread that condoms are bad.

Science has no will and makes no judgement or has any moral rule set. Again, you completely fail to have a grasp of what Science is.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

pustal said:


> Yes insanity. It is not blind faith, it's literally taking evidence as a basis, that is Science and everything else is BS. You fail to completely understand what Science is in your blindness for you to believe what you want to believe. You don't care what the truth is, you rather bend the truth to your beliefs rather than the other way around. Not taking evidence into account is the madness and the blind belief. You are literally saying to disregard reason, proof and evidence because there may be something better than truth - this is the definition of delusioness. You and these lawmakers are condemning people for life on the basis of you disregarding reason, proof and evidence - so yes this is madness or, malicious control of the population with poverty, if you disregard Hanlon's razor.
> 
> Nothing of this is "in the name of Science". Eisenhower bombed Japan for military / political reasons. Massive gun deaths in the US is a result of the economical incentive the NRA and gun makers have. The pharma industry goes off rail for monetary reasons as well. Etc.
> 
> ...



Another "true believer". I chose not to believe. Label me what you will. Just don't try to change me - it's not going to happen.


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> Another "true believer". I chose not to believe. Label me what you will. Just don't try to change me - it's not going to happen.



You don't even realize the irony of what you just wrote, do you...?


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

pustal said:


> Nothing of this is "in the name of Science". Eisenhower bombed Japan for military / political reasons. Massive gun deaths in the US is a result of the economical incentive the NRA and gun makers have. The pharma industry goes off rail for monetary reasons as well. Etc.



Funny how you drew up examples of what I was referring to and I didn't even have to name them. Those things happened because of science and the way science was being used back then. Science enabled creating atomic weapons, science is used to justify the use of them just as the same way science is being used in the abortion argument. Science is used to create guns with, science is used to justify murdering with guns. You realize if you worship science so much that it can explain everything then according to that logic it should also be to blame for everything. Well, now we have abortions happening (you know, the mass murdering of unborn children) in the "name of science". You can't deny this fact as you simply need to read the replies in this thread - science is being used to justify abortions so it's happening "in the name of science". Same shit that has happened in the past. People don't seem to learn from their mistakes. So go ahead, worship your science and kill babies. You're sick in the head and nobody can fix stupid.


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> Funny how you drew up examples of what I was referring to and I didn't even have to name them. Those things happened because of science and the way science was being used back then. Science enabled creating atomic weapons, science is used to justify the use of them just as the same way science is being used in the abortion argument.



There is no comparable here. Science enabled us to split the atom, but what we used the splitting for is not of Science business. Science is the knowledge, humanity applies it regardless in the ways it chooses to. Poor choices as such aren't backed by Science, but greed, fear, malice, etc. Better yet, Science told us that there would be consequences for millennia to come for detonating the bombs and humanity disregarded it 

In the abortion issue Science simply tells you there is nothing sentient there, no person yet, and the choice to still penalise it is simple disregarding the knowledge we have.



cots said:


> Science is used to create guns with, science is used to justify murdering with guns. You realize if you worship science so much that it can explain everything then according to that logic it should also be to blame for everything.



No, I don't know what is so difficult for you to grasp that Science has no will, it's simply the method of gathering knowledge. What you do with the knowledge it's your responsibility.



cots said:


> Well, now we have abortions happening (you know, the mass murdering of unborn children) in the "name of science".



No, I rather know it's not murder. I've shown you evidence that a fetus - that is not a child yet - has no sentience, the very core attribute of being a person, and therefore it isn't murder. That's the whole point.



cots said:


> You can't deny this fact as you simply need to read the replies in this thread - science is being used to justify abortions so it's happening "in the name of science".



Yes I can, and I have, and have presented evidence, again. You're whole "point" is that evidence doesn't matter to you because it goes against your gut feeling .There is no arguing against that, because there is no logic in that, you dwell outside the fields of logic, but that proves nothing to no one.



cots said:


> Same shit that has happened in the past. People don't seem to learn from their mistakes.



Yes it has, people disregarded evidence and made mistakes. And yes, people like you don't learn from history or science and will make mistakes again.



cots said:


> So go ahead, worship your science and kill babies. You're sick in the head and nobody can fix stupid.



Oh, I'm sick in the head? I'm not the one who negates facts willingly, on a self admitted delusion. I'm not the one who lives in such a hatred that want to imprision people for life when proven innocent of inflicting harm no anyone. And I'm certainly not the bigot in this conversation.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

pustal said:


> No, I rather know it's not murder. I've shown you evidence that a fetus - that is not a child yet - has no sentience, the very core attribute of being a person, and therefore it isn't murder. That's the whole point.



So you're taking the information obtained by your science, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify the fact that you're killing babies.

Could the information you're basing "what is life" on be inaccurate? Even if you answer "no" - which, by the way, is the wrong answer, you're still acting on science, and this action is killing an unborn baby. It's the same thing as people using the atomic bomb. You now admit it was wrong, and it's not sciences fault as science doesn't actually bomb the people - we do. So, could it be that science isn't to blame for abortions, but the people who are doing them? Of course, they are using science the justify their actions, which in all reality, the science is in a constant state of flux and is going to change. What won't change is the loss of life - you can't take it back.

Of course, you're disillusioned with your faith. I understand. I get it.

Heil Science! Kill babies!


----------



## WeedZ (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> So you're taking the information obtained by your science, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify the fact that you're killing babies.
> 
> Could the information you're basing "what is life" on be inaccurate? Even if you answer "no" - which, by the way, is the wrong answer, you're still acting on science, and this action is killing an unborn baby. It's the same thing as people using the atomic bomb. You now admit it was wrong, and it's not sciences fault as science doesn't actually bomb the people - we do. So, could it be that science isn't to blame for abortions, but the people who are doing them? Of course, they are using science the justify their actions, which in all reality, the science is in a constant state of flux and is going to change. What won't change is the loss of life - you can't take it back.
> 
> ...


So you're taking your stance on morality, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify thinking controlling other people is ok.


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> So you're taking the information obtained by your science, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify the fact that you're killing babies.



No.


Science is not inacurate;
Facts reviewed by Science are, in this case, not men-made;
Facts are immutable;
Again, you're killing it as much as an appendix



cots said:


> Could the information you're basing "what is life" on be inaccurate? Even if you answer "no" - which, by the way, is the wrong answer, you're still acting on science, and this action is killing an unborn baby.



I'm starting to think you are just a troll, because there is no way a normal person would go around like this.


I'm not debating or even base my arguments on the notion of life, but on sentience. Do you even read?
If you don't take factual evidence bas base for an answer what makes whatever you were thinking wrong? Oh yeah, your personal gut feeling on the matter... Nice..





cots said:


> It's the same thing as people using the atomic bomb. You now admit it was wrong, and it's not sciences fault as science doesn't actually bomb the people - we do. So, could it be that science isn't to blame for abortions, but the people who are doing them? Of course, they are using science the justify their actions, which in all reality, the science is in a constant state of flux and is going to change.



Science evolve, factual evidence given by it no. Facts are universal truths, by definition. If a fetus does not have a brain or brain activity on a given period of time, that truth won't change for that period.



cots said:


> What won't change is the loss of life - you can't take it back.



Exactly, so don't take it away from sentient people by locking them up for life. You're valuing the life of a human-to-be over a human-that-is. The human-to-be is no human at this point, it isn't a person, it isn't self-aware, it isn't sentient. The human-that-is is and is being punished out of delusion and biggotry and hatred.



cots said:


> Of course, you're disillusioned with your faith. I understand. I get it.
> 
> Heil Science! Kill babies!



LOL, troll.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> So you're taking your stance on morality, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify thinking controlling other people is ok.



I never said controlling other people is okay. I don't think it's okay to control people or kill babies.

My point is that science is just as flawed as religion or basic moral beliefs. I mean, exactly what science are you using to justify your stance for or against abortions? What makes the science you're using superior to the "other sides" science? So you might dismiss science based on prejudices and then chose the science that fits your agenda. You're doing the same thing as the other side. Look, killing babies is wrong. Science is not the answer to everything. Faith is flawed.

If you're taking my money to use to kill babies with then I do have a say in it. You can call that trying to control other people, but who is doing the controlling? You're trying to control me via taking my money and then trying to control the women at the same time? Now, who is the common enemy? It's the motherfuckers taking the money and telling the women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies and their using science to justify it all with.

So I chose a fixed stance and won't change. I have the balls to do this. I don't have floating standards. I made my choice. This is something required in life that you do, if you try to skirt your way out of everything and not chose you're just a fucking coward that kills babies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



pustal said:


> Science evolve, factual evidence given by it no. Facts are universal truths, by definition. If a fetus does not have a brain or brain activity on a given period of time, that truth won't change for that period.



So what happens when another sort of energy or presence is detected in the brain? I mean, scientists admit they know little to nothing about it. So what happens down the road when the entire understanding of the brain changes and the bar changes when you are sentient or not? How do you bring back all of the babies you murdered? You can't, you made a mistake - just like the other millions of people killed "in the name of science". I guess it also depends on what science you're using. Of course, the science you're using is superior or better to the other sides science, right? Lol. Call me a troll and then throw some Liberal buzz words at me. I can't help it you're confused. I mean, it must be nice being able to have faith in something that can explain everything and you can never be wrong or never have to make a stance (as your stance is in a constant state of flux). 

So take the cowards way out and support killing babies. I'm not going to try to control you - just call it how I see it.


----------



## WeedZ (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> I never said controlling other people is okay. I don't think it's okay to control people or kill babies.
> 
> My point is that science is just as flawed as religion or basic moral beliefs. I mean, exactly what science are you using to justify your stance for or against abortions? What makes the science you're using superior to the "other sides" science? So you might dismiss science based on prejudices and then chose the science that fits your agenda. You're doing the same thing as the other side. Look, killing babies is wrong. Science is not the answer to everything. Faith is flawed.
> 
> ...


Science would be what is responsible for discovering that new energy. And as we always have, we would evolve with our new understanding and the world would change again. Thanks to science.

You keep saying you have an opinion on the subject because your tax dollars are being used. It doesnt work that way, but for the sake of argument, how much do you donate for research into birth defects? How many unwanted children have you fostered? How many single mothers and rape victims have you helped house and feed? How have you contributed to any better solutions?


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> So wshat hapens when another sort of energy or presence is detected in the brain? I mean, scientists admit they know little to nothing about it. So what happens down the road when the entire understanding of the brain changes and the bar changes when you are sentient or not? How do you bring back all of the babies you murdered? You can't, you made a mistake - just like the other millions of people killed "in the name of science". I guess it also depends on what science you're using. Of course, the science you're using is superior or better to the other sides science, right? Lol. Call me a troll and then throw some Liberal buzz words at me. I can't help it you're confused. I mean, it must be nice being able to have faith in something that can explain everything and you can never be wrong or never have to make a stance (as your stance is in a constant state of flux).
> 
> So take the cowards way out and support killing babies. I'm not going to try to control you - just call it how I see it.



We do know thoughts are produced through the communication of synapses. If there is no brain acrivity there are no thoughts. That much is known and is enough to settle the issue.

And it's not a matter of courage or cowardness. It's a matter of Justice. You can't judge people on the basis of what you don't know, but on what you know. Can you prove that there is not an invisible energy around you that kills people somewhere each time you take a breath? Should we arrest you for life because you took a breath and there is a endlessly remote possibility that you are killing people on the off chance? It makes no sense.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (May 27, 2019)

Orangy57 said:


> I'm pro choice because it has LITERALLY nothing to do with us. We're guys, we don't have a uterus to plop babies out of, so why should it be our decision? Also you're not killing babies, it's literally the equivalent of removing a parasite until it's over 21 weeks old. I swear you all are like "life is precious oh how sweet a little baby" until it's born without a loving family that can't even afford to take care of the thing, in which case you guys couldn't give a single flying fuck about them. It's better to have a """"""living thing"""""" gone than give it an awful life. Also you said that "something inside you tells you that killing babies isn't right" yet forcing a woman to give birth to a child after she's been raped is fine to you? You literally make me sick, the world would be better if you were aborted too.



it is to do with you thou, everyone has a choice to wear a condom or not, simple as that.

abortions because of rape and medical reasons are valid unlike those who had a choice to use contraception or not.

parasite or medical waste?


----------



## AkGBA (May 27, 2019)

@pustal I like you, man. Nice thinking. You're perfectly explaining the scientific method, reasoning.
Don't take any offense about this, I don't want to do any generalization, but you're the first Portuguese person I didn't have to argue about all-powerful faith. Refreshing.


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2019)

AkGBA said:


> @pustal I like you, man. Nice thinking. You're perfectly explaining the scientific method, reasoning.
> Don't take any offense about this, I don't want to do any generalization, but you're the first Portuguese person I didn't have to argue about all-powerful faith. Refreshing.



Thank you. What kind of Portuguese people have you been talking to? Older generations are very religious but newer ones not so much.


----------



## AkGBA (May 27, 2019)

pustal said:


> Thank you. What kind of Portuguese people have you been talking to? Older generations are very religious but newer ones not so much.



Mainly students in my french town. Surely wasn't a representative sample.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Science would be what is responsible for discovering that new energy. And as we always have, we would evolve with our new understanding and the world would change again. Thanks to science.



So, the current understanding would be altered or changed and the senseless killing found to be wrong - just in the case of most loss of life in the past. I'm basing this on what has happened before, which is a good indicator on what will most likely happen.



> You keep saying you have an opinion on the subject because your tax dollars are being used. It doesnt work that way, but for the sake of argument, how much do you donate for research into birth defects? How many unwanted children have you fostered? How many single mothers and rape victims have you helped house and feed? How have you contributed to any better solutions?



So the Government takes my money (taxes) and then uses this money to pay for a cocaine addict who likes to get knocked up and abort her babies abortion (because she can't afford it on her own, she already spent her welfare checks and food stamps on more cocaine). If you're going to use my money to do this with then I am part of the equation and have a say in the matter. What can I do? I can vote against the practice and also be vocal about the situation. If you find this to be controlling over women you're looking at it from the wrong perspective - I'm trying to control what my money is used for. The people that are trying to control others are the ones that are taking my money and then telling women they should or shouldn't have an abortion. Remove them from the equation and the problem would not be such a problem. I would still disagree with abortions, killing babies is wrong and my mind isn't going to change, but then I wouldn't be a part of decision making process thus my votes wouldn't mean jack shit - because there would be nothing to vote for! I wouldn't have to fund abortions and women could do as they please.

I haven't spent any more money than what is taken out of my taxes to assist research (which is enough already), nor have taken any unwanted children into my home, haven't helped any rape victims, but I have been contributing to a better solution via voting against taking my money and I don't plan to because it's not my responsibility. Just because I don't help in the matters you listed, which in all reality you did list to gain sympathy and make an emotional statement to help your cause, doesn't make my opinion and the fact my money is being used to kill babies with any less valid. I don't have to help in the ways you listed and don't care if you find that offensive or being part of the problem. Stupid people will end right there, but I don't fall for that sort of emotional rational.


----------



## SG854 (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> I never said controlling other people is okay. I don't think it's okay to control people or kill babies.
> 
> My point is that science is just as flawed as religion or basic moral beliefs. I mean, exactly what science are you using to justify your stance for or against abortions? What makes the science you're using superior to the "other sides" science? So you might dismiss science based on prejudices and then chose the science that fits your agenda. You're doing the same thing as the other side. Look, killing babies is wrong. Science is not the answer to everything. Faith is flawed.
> 
> ...


Science doesn’t tell you when it’s okay to kill a fetus anymore then it tells you when it’s okay to kill an aging old man. It just explains things, like how a baby would develop and how it’s brain develops. When its okay to kill a fetus is a human moral decision. They can use science to make arguments for or against moral decisions, but when it’s ok  and not evil to kill a fetus is not something science tells you.


Science is not the same as religion because you can test it. It has to be falsifiable. And repeatable. If one single thing shows it wrong then the whole hypothesis is tossed out. Religion tells you to believe in faith, where science you have to provide evidence. And people in Japan got to see how real Einstein's theory’s were in WW2. It’s don’t believe till you have evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a God. So science is not the same as Religion.

I have no idea what you mean by others science as a criticism. If it’s testable, repeatable, even against others hypothesis then it’s a well established theory. It is under constant battle against other ideas/science, and the one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Science doesn’t tell you when it’s okay to kill a fetus anymore then it tells you when it’s okay to kill an aging old man. It just explains things, like how a baby would develop and how it’s brain develops. When its okay to kill a fetus is a human moral decision. They can use science to make arguments for or against moral decisions, but when it’s ok  and not evil to kill a fetus is not something science tells you.



Which is why using science to justify abortions is not correct. It's a moral decision you're making based on something that is likely to change. How many times have you heard "We did the best with what we knew at the time"? Well, that didn't ever solve the senseless death, did it?



> Science is not the same as religion because you can test it. It has to be falsifiable. And repeatable. If one single thing shows it wrong then the whole hypothesis is tossed out. Religion tells you to believe in faith, where science you have to provide evidence. And people in Japan got to see how real Einstein's theory’s were in WW2. It’s don’t believe till you have evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a God. So science is not the same as Religion.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by others science as a criticism. If it’s testable, repeatable, even against others hypothesis then it’s a well established theory. It is under constant battle against other ideas/science, and the one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away.



Tossed away? Correct. Today's understanding of what equals "is the baby alive" might be "tossed away". Science is also open to interpretation and as you can see conservatives have use their own science and democrats another to justify their stance on abortion? Who's is more correct? Who is the say one is better than the other? Who makes the judgment to "toss away" incorrect science? The entire concept and process is flawed by design. Sure, I don't see anything better option at the moment for some of the stuff science can answer (I said some, not all), but to insist it's the only way and then admit that "new stuff comes along and we toss out the old" is contradictory.

People decide, based on more factors than pure science, on "which one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away." You can see clearly how this process is not valid nor ever will be.

If you truly believe in science then you should understand that it's not perfect and what you consider to be "correct" now is probably going to change. It comes down to if you value human life or not. As a person of science you'd have to realize that the definition of when human life actually is human life changes (as it's different now than what is used to be) and also that different sides use different scientific systems to decide - and what makes one side better over then others? Does your science say it's the only right way, but what if their science says the same thing? Then it comes down to what we think vs what they think, a human involved, faulty system of conclusion.

If you truly value human life than you would protect it, at any stage. That includes before birth, during birth, after birth, near death and after death. You can't pick and chose which ones you support and then say you support life - when you're not supporting the entire process (from start to finish). Basically, if you don't value human life you support abortions.

... and while all of this is going on unborn children are being killed.

Personally, I'm going to use common sense and my own judgment as guidelines to the way I live my life. This, at times, might involve science and/or religion, but I'm not going to say any of these imperfect systems are better than another and I'm not going to limit myself to only one of them or one side of the issue, but that also doesn't limit me from having to decide, one way or the other, one an issue and sticking with my decision.

You you chose to solely live you life based on science, a flawed human creation and you won't budge then you would clearly see that we share a common way of thinking. You choice is flawed, my choice is flawed - and I'm OKAY with that. Just please, stop killing babies.


----------



## SG854 (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> Which is why using science to justify abortions is not correct. It's a moral decision you're making based on something that is likely to change. How many times have you heard "We did the best with what we knew at the time"? Well, that didn't ever solve the senseless death, did it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The difference is hypothesis and theories. Hypothesis are ideas. And we test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis is wrong then it is tossed away.

If a hypothesis is well tested it becomes a theory. The word theory in the scientific field is used not the same way everyday people use it. Theory of relativity, theory of gravity, theory of evolution. They all have been tested and well supported.

Einstein’s theories improved on Newton’s theories that failed to predict certain things, but that doesn’t mean Newton’s theories are useless. Because they worked well for many years and helped kick start the industrial revolution. They have been tested and repeatable theories and that part isn’t going to change when new science comes out. It’s just that Einstein improved on certain things Newton’s theories had limitations on. But Newton’s theories is still used today even with the existence of Einstein’s theories.


The same can be applied for any other scientific field, psychology, biology, medical science which we all rely on nowadays.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’s just that Einstein improved on certain things Newton’s theories had limitations on.



What happens when the definition of when life starts "is improved upon"?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> The difference is hypothesis and theories. Hypothesis are ideas. And we test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis is wrong then it is tossed away.



Also, you realize, that the questions that are being asked are not being asked in any logical sort of order. Issues are being addressed on a personal bias order. People research into what they want to research into. It's not like there is some logical process involved when it comes to the discovery of new stuff - I mean, you start at X and then go to the next step, but where you start and each step is influenced by emotion, or feeling. It's not like we're starting at the atom and moving out in every possible direction of research. It's targeted, therefor, it's biased and flawed.


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> Which is why using science to justify abortions is not correct. It's a moral decision you're making based on something that is likely to change. How many times have you heard "We did the best with what we knew at the time"? Well, that didn't ever solve the senseless death, did it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



an unborn child isn't being killed as it has no live on it's own to begin with.
sience isn't perfect as is the conservative consept.
conservatives we're the main reason of abortion, a non visible life used to be not calculated as being life. 
the consept was even worse then we do now, castration for those who got pregnant but no father...
adoption (or something alike) for a a child with a mother with no means to keep the father in the picture.
killing even alive children up to 4 years old for they we're so called sperm of the devil.

the beginning of life starts either by thinking on it's own or by the function to breath and pump blood through itself.
both these consepts don't apply to a Proteïn bomb in a mother untill week 7.
funtction to pump blood on it's own isn't there as it has no heart, it's still a vessel if there's no breathing so it needs lungs, the brain isn't there either.
it's just a growing mass of proteïn. 

so why for god's sake would any thinking animal claim the right to say they should know better what to do with a proteïn bomb in a womb than the carrier.

what makes you a better person to think good and wrong so clearly?

is it your life we're talking about? no!
is it the child's life we're talking about? no!
is it the mother's life we're talking about? yes!

so go back to that cave of justiuce you belive in!
it's not science, it's not god's will, it's not conserrvative to any standard i've ever read or seen.

the reason abortion should be an option till we talk about a living beïng, is that the living should go before.
the living is only the mom, not the proteïn bomb you call unborn child.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (May 27, 2019)

Everyone has the CHOICE to use a fucking condom or birth control. Democrats that are pro-choice seem to not understand that. You do not have the right to make an irresponsible choice and then end a potential life because of it. Make your choices wisely. No one is forcing anyone to have a baby. If you are pro choice then make the right choice the first time and you wouldn't be in the situation of having to have an abortion or not. It's really simple.


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

JaapDaniels said:


> an unborn child isn't being killed as it has no live on it's own to begin with.



What is considered "human life" is different, depending on your interpretation of the current science available, of which depends on what science you choose to look at and you must realize that the these different definitions have changed over time and will likely keep changing. So out of these many different explanations to the same problem, all presented by the scientific process, do you then chose to believe in? I chose to preserve the cycle of human life - the entire cycle, including the unborn child part of it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DarkFlare69 said:


> Everyone has the CHOICE to use a fucking condom or birth control. Democrats that are pro-choice seem to not understand that. You do not have the right to make an irresponsible choice and then end a potential life because of it. Make your choices wisely. No one is forcing anyone to have a baby. If you are pro choice then make the right choice the first time and you wouldn't be in the situation of having to have an abortion or not. It's really simple.



Well, we are dealing with irresponsible, greedy, power hungry, we need a quick fix, drug using people here. It's not like Liberals are known for their wise choices.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> It's not like Liberals are known for their wise choices.


That's exactly why they shouldn't be making decisions that affect the whole country. It's scary how many of them there are. Common sense just flies out the window. Not only with the abortion issue, but with things like feminism too


----------



## SG854 (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> What happens when the definition of when life starts "is improved upon"?


People can say life starts when there is brain activity or pain is felt. And use science to find out when that activity starts.



cots said:


> Also, you realize, that the questions that are being asked are not being asked in any logical sort of order. Issues are being addressed on a personal bias order. People research into what they want to research into. It's not like there is some logical process involved when it comes to the discovery of new stuff - I mean, you start at X and then go to the next step, but where you start and each step is influenced by emotion, or feeling. It's not like we're starting at the atom and moving out in every possible direction of research. It's targeted, therefor, it's biased and flawed.


That’s not how science is done. It’s not about only looking at some biased stuff. You should always continue to disapprove of your beliefs and prove yourself wrong rather then confirm. If you don’t do that then your not doing actual science.


----------



## Garro (May 27, 2019)

DarkFlare69 said:


> Everyone has the CHOICE to use a fucking condom or birth control. Democrats that are pro-choice seem to not understand that. You do not have the right to make an irresponsible choice and then end a potential life because of it. Make your choices wisely. No one is forcing anyone to have a baby. If you are pro choice then make the right choice the first time and you wouldn't be in the situation of having to have an abortion or not. It's really simple.


Yes because not wanting to use a condom is the only cause of unwanted pregnancy. /s


----------



## FAST6191 (May 27, 2019)

DarkFlare69 said:


> You do not have the right to make an irresponsible choice and then end a potential life because of it.


Except in just about all of the developed world these days you very much do. The onus is then on you to demonstrate why such a position is wrong.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (May 27, 2019)

Garro said:


> Yes because not wanting to use a condom is the only cause of unwanted pregnancy. /s


You do know that less than 0.5% of abortions are done because of rape, right? In that off chance, I think it should be the mothers choice to have the baby or to get an abortion. Physical health problems of the mother if they are unknown prior to the pregnancy are the only other reason I see suitable for getting an abortion. In total, that makes up less than 4.5% of all abortions. The other reasons, such as would interfere with education or career, can't afford baby, not ready, etc, are all preventable pregnancies and not suitable reasons. They made the choice.






Source: https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/


----------



## cots (May 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> People can say life starts when there is brain activity or pain is felt. And use science to find out when that activity starts.



Yes, but if the theory of when life starts changes then the time frame of when the life starts would also change. I'm saying that right now a group of people say life starts at a certain time when another group of people say it starts at a different time and both back up their beliefs with science. Then you also have to understand that the theory of "when life begins" has changed throughout time. So you have two points of views, both backed by science, that change over time. Even if only 1 point of view was correct and if there was only 1 true answer (which, there isn't), the answer has changed and will most likely change again (which you admit, the scientific process provides). So you don't have a definite answer to the question, you only have the popular one that you chose to believe and it's going to change again and again.

So, basically, there is never going to be a correct answer. Just theories, that are proven with a bias intent. If you don't agree with a theory you can just come up with something to disprove it. Which leads me into this ... (below)



> That’s not how science is done. It’s not about only looking at some biased stuff. You should always continue to disapprove of your beliefs and prove yourself wrong rather then confirm. If you don’t do that then your not doing actual science.



People pick what they research. If you don't like a current scientific theory you would invest your time researching into something that would disprove it so you can have what you want. It's no different than anything else. It might be structured in a certain way, follow certain processes, but at the core you have a human picking with they want to investigate and discover. We wanted to go the moon, so we researched on how to do that. Maybe, the scientific process, in theory, is not supposed to be biased, but when you start with a bias position as your framework and then include human emotion and decision making into the process it's not going to be perfect thus it won't provide the only accurate solution.

Science is flawed by design and the definition of life changes. So if you're using it to justify abortions you're wrong. Support the cycle of life!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DarkFlare69 said:


> You do know that less than 0.5% of abortions are done because of rape, right? In that off chance, I think it should be the mothers choice to have the baby or to get an abortion. Physical health problems of the mother if they are unknown prior to the pregnancy are the only other reason I see suitable for getting an abortion. In total, that makes up less than 4.5% of all abortions. The other reasons, such as would interfere with education or career, can't afford baby, not ready, etc, are all preventable pregnancies and not suitable reasons. They made the choice.



Regardless if you justify the murdering of unborn children, it's still murder. It's sad that we don't have the technology (yet) to prevent these awful things that happen, but I don't see how openly contributing to allowing it to happen on a frequency even greater than the very minute percentage that it is deemed justifiable is going to help the situation.

If the mother is going to die if you don't remove the baby and if you remove the baby from the mother and it's going to die you're going to have to chose which life to save. Although, you could chose to end both lives. Honestly, it shouldn't be up to a group of people whether or not the mother decides to save herself, save the baby or end both of their lives and it surely shouldn't happen with funding from my taxes.


----------



## Garro (May 27, 2019)

DarkFlare69 said:


> You do know that less than 0.5% of abortions are done because of rape, right? In that off chance, I think it should be the mothers choice to have the baby or to get an abortion. Physical health problems of the mother if they are unknown prior to the pregnancy are the only other reason I see suitable for getting an abortion. In total, that makes up less than 4.5% of all abortions. The other reasons, such as would interfere with education or career, can't afford baby, not ready, etc, are all preventable pregnancies and not suitable reasons. They made the choice.
> 
> View attachment 168285
> 
> Source: https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/


The data in the picture is from 2004, which is kind of dated, also, your source is heavily biased so I'm taking that data with a grain of salt (not that the info was edited, but only info that coincides with the website narrative is posted). I'm too tired to look for more sources but I do not intend to change your posture, and since apparently you're agreeing to abortion under 3 grounds that's okay by me.

I do think childs should not be used as punishment for women because they were irresponsible during sex, and neither is good for anybody (neither the mother or the child) to bring a child to a family that is not prepared to have him. Nonetheless, abortion is a subject that concerns women and families, its not up to me to decide what the right thing to do.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 27, 2019)

cots said:


> Yes, but if the theory of when life starts changes then the time frame of when the life starts would also change. I'm saying that right now a group of people say life starts at a certain time when another group of people say it starts at a different time and both back up their beliefs with science. Then you also have to understand that the theory of "when life begins" has changed throughout time. So you have two points of views, both backed by science, that change over time. Even if only 1 point of view was correct and if there was only 1 true answer (which, there isn't), the answer has changed and will most likely change again (which you admit, the scientific process provides). So you don't have a definite answer to the question, you only have the popular one that you chose to believe and it's going to change again and again.
> 
> So, basically, there is never going to be a correct answer. Just theories, that are proven with a bias intent. If you don't agree with a theory you can just come up with something to disprove it. Which leads me into this ... (below)
> 
> ...





What are these different times and justifications? Looking at this thread the popular picks are "conception/implantation is somehow the point" and "other than in serious cases about the time certain developments with the mind" aka what most laws say already. Some have gone for other options but those were the big two looking at here. 
From where I sit the general lines of thought are fairly fixed* and future developments are going to be down to a matter of specificity -- might be that some future ultrasound scan or whatever can detect certain features of development that today only an incredibly risky biopsy or out and out slice it up and figure out what goes would be able to tell.

*said future developments might also include a transplant of sorts (we have real world examples of it working for complex mammalian life forms) or means of accelerating, or indeed decelerating, growth phases for some reason so probably less timeframe and more .


Yeah I hate gravity. Going to have to do some research to prove it wrong. Except that is not how it works.
Certainly you have the "no amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong" thing but for a lot of that you also have the related thing of you need to bring serious ammo if you are going to go up against a time tested concept. Here I might note that abortion seems to be decades tested under law, medical ethics and all things in between. To adopt a radically different position then needs radically robust evidence of why it should be so. At the same time one need not follow the law -- nothing in the law says I can't be drunk off my arse for the next 50 years if I have the funds to do it, however it would not be hard to make a case why that is not a great plan. Similarly one can look at the laws on weed and make a reasonable case on the basis of harms done, practicalities of the law enforcement and personal choices able to be made that the older laws might have been too harsh so you are also free to try to make a position as to why the laws on abortion are not so well thought out. I have not seen either particularly attempted thus far, let alone done robustly.

"but when you start with a bias position as your framework and then include human emotion and decision making into the process it's not going to be perfect "
Couldn't have summarised what I reckon your position to be myself. Hopefully we can get some stuff from the paragraph above and I can be demonstrated to be wrong about that.

Murder = unlawful killing. One questions if an abortion is a) a killing (see most of this thread for reasons why it is not) and b) unlawful (it seems to be protected and justified at the highest levels and justified by fundamental aspects of it).

Assuming muh taxes is something I care to ponder here then where do you draw a line? Government funded student loan for a doctor to learn it? Development grant for an area including it? Tax break for a hospital that features it? Tax break for a hospital that features it but the abortion wing is run at a loss (money is fungible* and all that)? Hospital that outsources their abortion stuff but still has it as a service they offer? Hospital where abortion giving doctors have admitting privileges? Do you care if your private health insurance offers it to one of their customers? What if said private plan is offered to different customers or the massive pool of funding/investment money that insurance works as sells different schemes variously featuring it? All of these are lines I see in the real world as far as charities and wills, laws designed to frustrate things (many of the same states we are talking about here have had things like that) and all that.

*occasionally you see people leave money to a hospital in a will but specify no abortion stuff with it. Fair enough. In those cases hospitals will not have earmarked funding for some aspect of the place but in reality have money in the budget for it. Said donation appears, says no abortions and thus gets used to fund the new MRI scanner or whatever (complete with engraved plate and dedication ceremony), and then the money that would have otherwise gone on the MRI actually funds the new womb vacuum or whatever.

"it shouldn't be up to a group of people whether or not the mother decides to save herself, save the baby or end both of their lives"
Other than cases of lack of capacity then is it now? I am not aware of any cases where an ethics panel or equivalent gets convened to decide or anything. Similarly what is life saving? If the would be mother is likely to stroke out and spend the rest of her life in a coma (albeit one breathing and some measure of neurological activity) do we call that alive and say none for you?


----------



## cots (May 28, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> What are these different times and justifications? Looking at this thread the popular picks are "conception/implantation is somehow the point" and "other than in serious cases about the time certain developments with the mind" aka what most laws say already. Some have gone for other options but those were the big two looking at here.
> From where I sit the general lines of thought are fairly fixed* and future developments are going to be down to a matter of specificity -- might be that some future ultrasound scan or whatever can detect certain features of development that today only an incredibly risky biopsy or out and out slice it up and figure out what goes would be able to tell.



Well, for one, depending on which scientists you ask, simply "what is life" can't be agreed upon, using the scientific process.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wrong

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin?



> *said future developments might also include a transplant of sorts (we have real world examples of it working for complex mammalian life forms) or means of accelerating, or indeed decelerating, growth phases for some reason so probably less timeframe and more .
> 
> Yeah I hate gravity. Going to have to do some research to prove it wrong. Except that is not how it works.
> Certainly you have the "no amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong" thing but for a lot of that you also have the related thing of you need to bring serious ammo if you are going to go up against a time tested concept. Here I might note that abortion seems to be decades tested under law, medical ethics and all things in between. To adopt a radically different position then needs radically robust evidence of why it should be so. At the same time one need not follow the law -- nothing in the law says I can't be drunk off my arse for the next 50 years if I have the funds to do it, however it would not be hard to make a case why that is not a great plan. Similarly one can look at the laws on weed and make a reasonable case on the basis of harms done, practicalities of the law enforcement and personal choices able to be made that the older laws might have been too harsh so you are also free to try to make a position as to why the laws on abortion are not so well thought out. I have not seen either particularly attempted thus far, let alone done robustly.



You see, you have various groups of scientists, that use scientific theory, to try to explain an issue and all of the groups disagree to some extent. That's a perfect example of why science is flawed. Sure, we can all agree that gravity exists, but you should also agree that some discovery could come along that would upend that belief. I mean, anything is possible, correct? You shouldn't really use "impossible" as an answer. Like my previous debate with the True Believer, who said the definition of life in finite and can't change. Well, he's wrong, as with more understanding of science the definition of what life is, even the general consensus, changes.



> "but when you start with a bias position as your framework and then include human emotion and decision making into the process it's not going to be perfect "
> Couldn't have summarised what I reckon your position to be myself. Hopefully we can get some stuff from the paragraph above and I can be demonstrated to be wrong about that.



You start off with a hypothesis - great! What made you chose that particular hypothesis? Was it to be able to mass produce an unhealthy addictive food source cheaply to profit from? Ultra-processed high-carb food came to be because of this type of thinking and we're seeing the benefits from that, aren't we? When you involve the "human factor" in the scientific process you're going to have to account for a margin of error. This error could be the bias present in the reasoning for the research or the final process where the majority of a group of peers, who share like interests, pick which theory to go with and which ones not to go with.



> Murder = unlawful killing. One questions if an abortion is a) a killing (see most of this thread for reasons why it is not) and b) unlawful (it seems to be protected and justified at the highest levels and justified by fundamental aspects of it).



Murder is the termination of any life form with or without it's consent and valid whether or not it violates any laws or not.



> Assuming muh taxes is something I care to ponder here then where do you draw a line? Government funded student loan for a doctor to learn it? Development grant for an area including it? Tax break for a hospital that features it? Tax break for a hospital that features it but the abortion wing is run at a loss (money is fungible* and all that)? Hospital that outsources their abortion stuff but still has it as a service they offer? Hospital where abortion giving doctors have admitting privileges? Do you care if your private health insurance offers it to one of their customers? What if said private plan is offered to different customers or the massive pool of funding/investment money that insurance works as sells different schemes variously featuring it? All of these are lines I see in the real world as far as charities and wills, laws designed to frustrate things (many of the same states we are talking about here have had things like that) and all that.



I'd say using my money directly to fund abortions should be included. This is giving my money to any hospital that offers the service on a normal non-emergency basis. That means if a hospital starts using "we have emergencies every day so we need to abort babies" they should start to be excluded from government funding. Does your organization or company directly refer patients to or perform abortions? Does any of my money fund this? If so, then they should be cut of all government (my money) funding. If a privately owned company wants to privately charge private individuals for an abortion in their own privately owned establishments then my tax dollars aren't directly involved then I have no say in the issue. I mean, if somehow $0.0002 gets spent on a gauze pad due to some weird process in which the company obtained one, indirectly, using my money, I wouldn't rationally care (which is why when you're counting the total number of women who have abortions for rape or incest, you know the 1-4%, it's also an pretty useless argument).



> "it shouldn't be up to a group of people whether or not the mother decides to save herself, save the baby or end both of their lives"
> Other than cases of lack of capacity then is it now? I am not aware of any cases where an ethics panel or equivalent gets convened to decide or anything. Similarly what is life saving? If the would be mother is likely to stroke out and spend the rest of her life in a coma (albeit one breathing and some measure of neurological activity) do we call that alive and say none for you?



Well, you have the Government deciding if a mother should abort or not abort a baby. I don't know how to put this nicely, but if you're deciding whether or not someone lives or dies you're on a "death panel". I listed that as an example because it shouldn't be up to me or you what the women does. Remove the Government involvement, which is funded by my money, without my permission and let the women do what she pleases. I mean, she can murder all the babies she wants - at that point I still won't agree with it, but as I wouldn't be personally involved the in process I'd have no say in it.

Now, if I had a girlfriend who got pregnant and wanted to abort that baby I would have a say in it because it would be 1/2 mine or if my Sister asked me to help her pay for an abortion I'd also have a say in it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, for one, depending on which scientists you ask, simply "what is life" can't be agreed upon, using the scientific process.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wrong
> 
> ...



What is life there is something of a red herring for this. Stuff there is more along the lines of is a virus life and all the things that follow from that. This would be something of a different question, though again I am less concerned with life as much as suffering of things. Might still come down to margins or have margins making calls or lines in the sand harder (here we see a difference between things which will medically affect the mother vs general will, to say nothing of the more philosophical things we are pondering) but I don't see it changing too radically here.


"Why science is flawed"
Once again science is the pursuit of knowledge and has means by which to achieve that. Beyond that it has limited scope for anything. Many people that pursue knowledge are quite capable of also pondering ethics and such, some are not. It is not a requirement for the former and while I am sure there is a greater proportion of people that have science as a focus in life able to contemplate ethics at high levels it is not the same thing.
As for gravity the yes it is possible, however it is vanishingly small that it will and much like the Newtonian physics vs quantum mechanics/relativity stuff the former is still quite useful in day to day life.

I am not sure where we got my starting with a hypothesis from that. My reasoning has been fairly plain in this thread and the previous, and further explanations available to anybody that cared to ask (the latter I am still lacking from those that would claim the current setup of the world is an abhorrence). To state it once more though, or perhaps more succinctly. Suffering seems like a good thing to avoid enduring myself, or at least needlessly, and further avoid causing in others or see others endure if possible. Using that as a general concept to work from I see no reason why a person should endure a pregnancy (a fairly traumatic thing as far as things go, with the potential to be especially traumatic in lots of scenarios). This especially where ending it will see no suffering to the thing being carried, the capacity to even achieve suffering in the thing being carried then coming at a predictable time window for which a safety factor can be determined. You can make further iterations on this if the thing being carried is likely to endure lots of suffering, or the carrier is similarly likely to endure suffering not of their will (extreme deformity or something). Many fuzzy edges possible there but none that would seem to preclude it wholesale at earlier stages, just how long that can be waited in various scenarios.

On murder is the lack of consent.... No the definition used by law, dictionaries, languages since ancient times, English since hundreds of years ago (possibly longer - my dictionaries only go back to the late 1700s, they in turn referencing works from earlier still), common parlance and everything else really does concern the lawfulness of things. One might debate the righteousness of the law in a given case but the definition stands. Self defence, executioners (where applicable), aspects of soldiers in war, aspects of law enforcement, euthanasia (where applicable), organ harvesting and more count here as justified killings and thus not murder. Similarly does a foetus even have a will to be unwilling (before a certain point anyway, that point likely being where the law is presently set)? 


On answers to my hypothethicals, a bit extreme for me and much like I don't pay the local policeman as much as pay taxes which go to fund them as a society I would find issues with the underlying logic but skipping that for now then that is a basis to play with. What sort of auditing would be necessary here? I similarly mentioned some of the financial walling off tricks that accountants and lawyers use all the time to skirt existing regulations and provisions.
Could someone similarly object to paying taxes that go to armed police, military, euthanasia?
Go another what if the government mandates you have health insurance (private or government run) and thus you end up contributing that way? If a government mandated and law backed expense, one not taken as a punishment for something, is not a tax then I don't know what is.

Your hypothetical aborting girlfriend. I agree it is a bit of a dick move to not involve the father if they are or could be expected to remain in their life. As a basis for law though then I don't see it, at least until the risk of transferral to an artificial womb is comparable to that of the abortion or otherwise vanishingly small. Throughout that I would still maintain limits similar to current ones too. Your private money is free to be spent as you will. If that means not funding your sister's abortion much like I won't fund a car without me or someone that knows cars first looking at it then so be it, not entirely sure that it is all that relevant here.
Got another hypothetical as well. IVF treatment. Many times multiple eggs will be fertilised and implanted knowing a few won't take, moreover we also know pregnancies in older women also don't take well. Would doing that for an older woman knowing there is an incredibly high chance of miscarriage count here as essentially abortion?

On governments deciding or not then please point to where that happens in the US, European countries or anywhere nice to live in the world. The only scenarios I expect to see that in are where the women involved can't give consent -- some arsehole rapes a mentally handicapped person, pregnant and now comatose Jane Doe in a car crash needs an abortion to then have a procedure to save her life or possibly stand a better chance of recovery. The sorts of things we have thousands of ethics panels for every day. If we are apparently dismissing things because of a vanishingly small occurrence rate now then that would surely be one for that list too.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 28, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, for one, depending on which scientists you ask, simply "what is life" can't be agreed upon, using the scientific process.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wrong
> 
> ...


it is my understanding that the brain doesn't develop until later in pregnancy so it has no consious until it develops (the brain) (which is what makes it a person or a living organism (free will), it's basicly a parasite until then if how you feel is the case shouldn't the death penalty or terminating care for the brain dead be illegal too?


----------



## cots (May 28, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> it is my understanding that the brain doesn't develop until later in pregnancy so it has no consious until it develops (the brain) (which is what makes it a person or a living organism (free will), it's basicly a parasite until then if how you feel is the case shouldn't the death penalty or terminating care for the brain dead be illegal too?



The cycle of life starts before brain development and ends even after your heart and mind cease to function. When it comes to being brain dead, you can have a living will, power of attorney (like your spouse) decide whether or not to keep your body alive as there is a chance you might recover (although, slim, it does happen). Take for example, my mother, who was declared brain dead due to a blood clot that gave her a massive stroke. She wasn't 100% brain dead as her mind was still controlling her bodily functions, but she was unresponsive otherwise and the doctors couldn't say if she would ever regain consciousness. 

Scans of her brain showed minimal activity, but there was still activity non the less (well, for what the scans can pickup, who knows what other forces or nature are at work that our scans don't reveal). It wasn't their choice to end her life - it was my Fathers and like I previously stated ending a life for any reason (other than the natural death process) is murder. If they would have removed her from the machines she would still be alive and we're not sure what happens in those sort of circumstances - who knows, maybe she knew exactly what was happening around her and couldn't respond? Scientists admit they know little to nothing about the brain, but she at least had the chance to live her life, grow up, get married, have kids. By killing the unborn you're most likely denying them this experience.

Back to death - If a Doctor doesn't honor your wishes (living will or power of attorney), in most cases, they are committing a crime. Death is part of life and I admit no one is sure, not even science, what happens after it. It's all part of the cycle, but if you deny the child a chance at the cycle then you are dying life and if you're doing so by forcibly removing the developing child from a mothers womb and then grinding it up into waste matter you're committing murder. The people who are declared completely brain dead and require 100% life support from machines at least had, in most cases, had a chance at life.

Now, your argument, that there is no brain development or when there is there is no visible (for what we know or can tell - as of now using today's technology) brain activity doesn't mean to me that the person is any less human. Their body and mind are in the process of being built - they aren't not working or have stopped work or have died. Also, if the past is any indication, you know, all of the senseless murdering done being justified by the current science they had the time, the definition of what you're using as a basis of "should we kill this life form or not" will more than likely change (and when it does you'll hear "We did the best we could at the time using what we knew") and you'll be judged by history just as they judge any other murdering bastard.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2019)

cots said:


> but if you deny the child a chance at the cycle then you are dying life


So what is the difference between an abortion and using a condom, or having enough of a hysterectomy that eggs might release but have nothing to implant in, or said IVF for someone in their late 40s wherein the same fertilised egg(s) implanted in a healthy 20 something would stand a considerably better chance of making it?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> So what is the difference between an abortion and using a condom, or having enough of a hysterectomy that eggs might release but have nothing to implant in, or said IVF for someone in their late 40s wherein the same fertilised egg(s) implanted in a healthy 20 something would stand a considerably better chance of making it?


Everything depends on how far back the ladder of hypothetical life you want to go. Most pro lifers limit themselves to the point of conception, when  the genetic material from the two gonads is combined into one brand-new string of human DNA. That's, in their minds, a new human life. I'll push that point a little further by adding the stipulation that the fertilised egg must be nested in the womb because I'm reasonable - accidents do happen, and there is no real guarantee that the egg would've nested and would've developed further. Most don't. If you can prevent the egg from nesting, technically speaking pregnancy never took place. Arbitrary, but at least fair.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 28, 2019)

cots said:


> What is considered "human life" is different, depending on your interpretation of the current science available, of which depends on what science you choose to look at and you must realize that the these different definitions have changed over time and will likely keep changing. So out of these many different explanations to the same problem, all presented by the scientific process, do you then chose to believe in? I chose to preserve the cycle of human life - the entire cycle, including the unborn child part of it.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I thought this quote was pretty funny and spot on at the same time.I remember a thread here about legal marijuana and people were defending it like you insulted their mother.Liberals really think smoking pot is good for you and some were even defending other drugs. I've met plenty of liberals that have children and spend 5 hours a day on twitch or just playing games instead of raising their kids,they think this is a god given right unfortunately.I wonder why gaming communities are predominantly liberal by a long mile.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I thought this quote was pretty funny and spot on at the same time.I remember a thread here about legal marijuana and people were defending it like you insulted their mother.Liberals really think smoking pot is good for you and some were even defending other drugs. I've met plenty of liberals that have children and spend 5 hours a day on twitch or just playing games instead of raising their kids,they think this is a god given right unfortunately.I wonder why gaming communities are predominantly liberal by a long mile.


Defending access to drugs and being a Liberal doesn't necessarily correlate. I'm about as far from a Liberal as you can get and I think the government shouldn't dictate what you can and can't buy or ingest, at all. I expect a modicum of personal responsibility from grown adults, they can spend their money however they want. If soneone wants to buy bricks of dope and be stoned 24/7, more power to them.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Everything depends on how far back the ladder of hypothetical life you want to go. Most pro lifers limit themselves to the point of conception, when  the genetic material from the two gonads is combined into one brand-new string of human DNA. That's, in their minds, a new human life.


I would still use suffering as the notion of choice to base the ethical ponderings on but we can try for the life thing for the hypothetical. What reasoning do we have to adopt either the combination or implantation points as something so special as to count as a serious moral failing to destroy things having gone past that stage (and possibly mourn them like some might mourn a miscarriage)?
I would additionally be curious if it turns out to be the better path to find out how we got to such a failing in the system of laws -- for many things we can point to lobbyists for rival fields, moral panics, overreactions to events, failings in society at large (the pervasive isms of the time)... and I haven't the first clue how that might have arisen here. Similarly if abortions and such have been an option since ancient times (though well into recorded history) with things like silphium then when did the shift in morality happen?


----------



## Kigiru (May 28, 2019)

You people have hundreds of thousands of way of anticonception that usualy can be used in various combinations to secure you from pregnancy. Calling for abortion, especialy paid by goverment is just plain dumb, lazy and irresponsible.
Sure, there are few cases in which abortion is justified but few things:
- It needs to be proved to be the case. Woman should not get abortion for screaming "omg i was raped" just because.
- It needs to be done with respect to human life. Simple as that, you have little human developing inside of you and they deserve to be treated on the same footing as you and others, even if their existence must be ceased for various reasons.
- It needs to be done fast, which kind of contradicts with my first point but oh well, both are equaly important so go figure it out.
- If there need to be this kind of legal option and you want to abort a healthy children that is not conceived by crime and does not threatens your health and life? Pay for it, be an responsible adult. Also, in this case is father is available he also needs to consent. There's no such thing as "it's just woman's choice", you need two people of different sexes to make children lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I would still use suffering as the notion of choice to base the ethical ponderings on but we can try for the life thing for the hypothetical. What reasoning do we have to adopt either the combination or implantation points as something so special as to count as a serious moral failing to destroy things having gone past that stage (and possibly mourn them like some might mourn a miscarriage)?
> I would additionally be curious if it turns out to be the better path to find out how we got to such a failing in the system of laws -- for many things we can point to lobbyists for rival fields, moral panics, overreactions to events, failings in society at large (the pervasive isms of the time)... and I haven't the first clue how that might have arisen here. Similarly if abortions and such have been an option since ancient times (though well into recorded history) with things like silphium then when did the shift in morality happen?


Looking at the historical record just the mere act of coitus out of wedlock was already a moral failing in and out of itself. Women in the past weren't looking to abort pregnancies for economic reasons, they did it so that they would not be cast out by society, or to prevent scandals, which is essentially the same thing. I think the act of abortion itself became more shameful once we had a better understanding of how the reproductive system works, or how unique and special our genome really is. To take it back a bit, according to the Torah, a fertilised egg is "merely fluid" until 40 days from conception have passed, at which point there are some more obvious signs of pregnancy present, besides a missed period. In other words, a pregnancy "wasn't viable until it was", so to speak, and that's a document that's thousands of years old. Nowadays we know that every person's DNA is completely unique - as such, any loss of this one-of-a-kind material is more tragic to us. It's not "mere water", it's what makes "us" into what we are. Losing "mere water" is something you can rationalise, losing a unique human life is different, especially if done intentionally. People face moral quandries regarding frozen embryos, let alone abortion - we identify with out genetic imprint, with good reason, seeing that each and every one of those combinations of genes is effectively one-of-a-kind. It's also worth noting the kind of language people used to use - women were "with child" rather than just "pregnant" - they had it all figured out without clever wordplay once the symptoms were obvious.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Defending access to drugs and being a Liberal doesn't necessarily correlate. I'm about as far from a Liberal as you can get and I think the government shouldn't dictate what you can and can't buy or ingest, at all. I expect a modicum of personal responsibility from grown adults, they can spend their money however they want. If soneone wants to buy bricks of dope and be stoned 24/7, more power to them.



That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.*" *- George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2019)

Might have to look into this historical economic reasons thing. Given there were tax breaks for having kids though then economic considerations were surely a thing to ponder. I would also wonder if it was some variation on what we see in developing countries today with no social safety nets -- my five kids are a financial drain (first result of a search says $233,610 to raise a kid to 18, multiplied by 5 is over a million, or maybe a million if I can have some hand me downs going on, but enough money to note in this or a load more free time if not working) but someone's five kids in a third world shithole are probably the reason they are not going to starve when they can no longer do the whole subsistence farming thing because of age or injury.

Also are economic reasons and being run out of town not the same thing? Albeit with a harsher penalty (if you can't rock up in the next village or one three away and start over you are probably going to starve).

As far as unique and special I would return to the just because you are unique does not make you special concept. Similarly does that mean those that don't have kids, or have fewer kids, are somehow depriving the world of something? Is it worse if the people involved are clearly capable and theoretically suited to the deed? Going further do those that do not seek to maximise returns (or simple go with baseline biological urges, which do fairly well but most like most biological urges can lead down bad paths) on their DNA in mate selection are doing bad?


Looking at https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634.php then I am also curious what I am supposed to do for friends that might have those. One that might make it to the showing stage and picking names stage before failure probably warranting a different response to a few weeks in.

On when we had a better understanding. Going to have to put together a timeline for this one, and much like the Romans (noted fans of silphium) with their tax breaks wanted people to fill their empire's new lands and such then I would also ponder if the religious also knew nobody converts so you have to breed new ones and went in for the rationalisation of a premade view. Still the malleus maleficarum goes on about abortion quite a lot and in the late 1400s I think the rediscovery of Galen and such was still the hot news. The UK's big boy first laws on abortion coming in the 1800s, lasting maybe 150 years before vanishing again, and they seemingly go with the quickening (first feelings, some 16-20 weeks) as the point at which they draw a line. http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/history-of-abortion-law-in-the-uk/ seems like a fairly neutral lister at least of the historical things of note here.
Anyway seems research time is in order. https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Embryology_History looks like a good start here for me.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 28, 2019)

Garro said:


> The data in the picture is from 2004, which is kind of dated, also, your source is heavily biased so I'm taking that data with a grain of salt (not that the info was edited, but only info that coincides with the website narrative is posted). I'm too tired to look for more sources but I do not intend to change your posture, and since apparently you're agreeing to abortion under 3 grounds that's okay by me.
> 
> I do think childs should not be used as punishment for women because they were irresponsible during sex, and neither is good for anybody (neither the mother or the child) to bring a child to a family that is not prepared to have him. Nonetheless, abortion is a subject that concerns women and families, its not up to me to decide what the right thing to do.



The source supports the right to abortions, if anything the numbers to support your argument won't be getting better.

This is the most recent stuff I found: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/



> In most countries, the most frequently cited reasons for having an abortion were socioeconomic concerns or limiting childbearing. With some exceptions, little variation existed in the reasons given by women’s sociodemographic characteristics. Data from three countries where multiple reasons could be reported in the survey showed that women often have more than one reason for having an abortion.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.*" *- George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.


Oh, that doesn't enter the calculus. 10% of the population have below average IQ's, I'm not worried about them, I'm worried about me.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.


Oh?

People, animals, birds and such all like getting off their heads, or modifying their perceptions and neural states. This means you have an inbuilt market for it all, one made from the very fabric of life. It is similarly not the sort of thing you might break the desire for by having it absent for a generation or two.

Being animals as well then many of the same chemicals work here.

Chemistry is such that you can turn useful everyday chemicals into other things. TiHKAL and PiHKAL are two books which cover this extensively. Also serves to show that we don't know everything to ban it -- the "legal highs" thing popular a few years back being a culmination of this.

Even if by some miracle that was stopped, everything was known, every combinatorial effect and digestion effect* was known for essentially all of the population** (you get things like certain people are immune to certain things -- painkillers are a fun one here, see history of laughing gas for an early one, and today certain people are noted as being immune to various other painkillers, by similar extension you also get people hyper sensitive to various chemicals) you still have the borders to contemplate. How do you propose to secure them from everything from seeds, yeasts and spores of plants and fungi to importers with obscene financial incentives to get around them (as it stands many of the cartels have money to burn here on all sorts of terrifying cool stuff, in that scenario... hard to even imagine how much)?

*there was an interesting patent case a while back. In it an unarguably new chemical was made but it was noted that upon ingestion it reverted to a known and patented chemical, thus was deemed patent infringement.

**at this point you have such an understanding of biology and medicine that it is probably tantamount to the biological equivalent of the unified theory of physics but we will assume it anyway. Would also yield some interesting things, and possibly some of the drug vaccines like we saw floated a few years back ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936703/ https://www.asam.org/resources/publ...le/2014/10/15/cocaine-vaccine-research-review ). To say nothing of people then being able to piss off abroad or something to get a nice drug producing implant.

Said chemicals do also have more than just "illicit" uses -- see some of the work done with MDMA and grief. As you presumably can't lock everybody up that is taking them with a massive layer of checks and balances on usages of substances then much like people sell their prescriptions now then what goes here?

To say elimination is possible very much overlooks the reality of things.


----------



## cots (May 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.*" *- George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.



Well, I'm not a Liberal and I'm also not for controlling what a person puts in their body. In the other thread, I was pointing out, that marijuana is not a benign substance that should be taken lightly. Addiction is devastating. It just so happens that I was attacked by a hoard of Liberals. Conservatives smoke their fare share of grass. Drugs don't discriminate - they are an equal opportunity life destroyer.

A lot of gamers are Liberals because they are still young and it's the trendy thing to do (and most of their education has come from the Left's point of view). A lot of them will grow out of it. They probably won't flip to being conservative, but they'll be way less radical and far left. More like normal Democrats. I mean, you do group the far left with the far right (Liberals are indeed very comparable to real Neo Nazi's). Of course, from the twisted Liberal point of view any Republican must be conservative and then must be a white supremacist (when all reality that's 3 different groups of people, the far reaching being the least popular and populated). They are so deluded they can't even judge reality. I don't support real racism and bigotry nor do I support the people who are abusing the terms to control other people with.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, that doesn't enter the calculus. 10% of the population have below average IQ's, I'm not worried about them, I'm worried about me.



The average IQ is 100 in the USA.IQ has a normal distribution therefore median and average are the same.Which means 50% of people are below average IQ's.Most non white and non Asian countries are way below 100 IQ on average.Where is the source that only 10% of people are below 100 IQ?Seems like a made up fact.
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> Oh?
> 
> People, animals, birds and such all like getting off their heads, or modifying their perceptions and neural states. This means you have an inbuilt market for it all, one made from the very fabric of life. It is similarly not the sort of thing you might break the desire for by having it absent for a generation or two.
> 
> ...



You can do as many drugs as you want,you don't need to write me an essay on why you think drugs are good for you.There is a reason drugs are highly illegal in countries like China and Singapore.Asians are not stupid people.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> You can do as many drugs as you want,you don't need to write me an essay on why you think drugs are good for you.There is a reason drugs are highly illegal in countries like China and Singapore.Asians are not stupid people.



Point me at where I espoused the virtues of drugs in my post you quoted. I was detailing the difficulties in creating and enforcing policy against them in an effort to demonstrate how silly a statement to the effect of "the USA could easily get rid of drugs" is. Didn't even go into the more high end science either -- we can get animals to produce human insulin and human sperm these days, bacteria to generate any number of very complex molecules and the means to do it are not beyond a cartel that is willing to spunk serious money on a submarine, speaking of which maybe have a look at what said cartels did for stealth technology.
We could also go look at the more lenient places too though if you wanted -- Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands. All places that variously have relaxed laws here or treatment rather than prison based, but are otherwise comparable to the US population in terms of wealth, history and genetic makeup, and times after their introduction of things and the subsequent rates of use, abuse and ability to fit within society.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> The average IQ is 100 in the USA.IQ has a normal distribution therefore median and average are the same.Which means 50% of people are below average IQ's.Most non white and non Asian countries are way below 100 IQ on average.Where is the source that only 10% of people are below 100 IQ?Seems like a made up fact.
> http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


The IQ _scale_ is obviously designed with 100 as the average, that's not what I meant though. The average per population, it differs from country to country - in the United States it's actually 98, which is close enough. What I meant was that 10% of people have an IQ _below 83_, which effectively means they're too stupid to live. It's harsh to say and I feel bad for them, but it's true - they can't work, let alone do anything productive. Even the military will not let anyone with an IQ that low through their standardised battery - these people have trouble with something as simple as following written instructions.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 28, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Point me at where I espoused the virtues of drugs in my post you quoted. I was detailing the difficulties in creating and enforcing policy against them in an effort to demonstrate how silly a statement to the effect of "the USA could easily get rid of drugs" is. Didn't even go into the more high end science either -- we can get animals to produce human insulin and human sperm these days, bacteria to generate any number of very complex molecules and the means to do it are not beyond a cartel that is willing to spunk serious money on a submarine, speaking of which maybe have a look at what said cartels did for stealth technology.
> We could also go look at the more lenient places too though if you wanted -- Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands. All places that variously have relaxed laws here or treatment rather than prison based, but are otherwise comparable to the US population in terms of wealth, history and genetic makeup, and times after their introduction of things and the subsequent rates of use, abuse and ability to fit within society.



I did not know animals could produce human sperm.I simply said that the USA lets people do drugs and lets drugs get into the country.I didn't really see in your post where you talked about that point.I know that opiates destroyed China for a long time and have personally seen the effects of drug addiction in people that I used to be friends with.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2019)

It lets them into the country but how do you propose it keeps them out? That is where I was heading. They can be manufactured from basic chemicals if you are good enough, and easy enough to come by chemicals if you are a bit more creative (or reckless, or have more money), if you need to produce them inside the country then the seeds/spores/whatever can be arranged to come in easily enough, even without that then one man's vital medicine is another man's drug, the borders can't be closed to it and the people seeking to get things through have basically unlimited money and top tier research (see their submarines, submersibles, drones), said unlimited money and top tier research also means such things could be vat/lab grown with what is today fairly basic (undergrad level really) techniques and a lab that could be found or assembled in fairly short order with a DNA sequence sent via email if you really cared.


----------



## cots (May 29, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I did not know animals could produce human sperm.I simply said that the USA lets people do drugs and lets drugs get into the country.I didn't really see in your post where you talked about that point.I know that opiates destroyed China for a long time and have personally seen the effects of drug addiction in people that I used to be friends with.





FAST6191 said:


> It lets them into the country but how do you propose it keeps them out? That is where I was heading. They can be manufactured from basic chemicals if you are good enough, and easy enough to come by chemicals if you are a bit more creative (or reckless, or have more money), if you need to produce them inside the country then the seeds/spores/whatever can be arranged to come in easily enough, even without that then one man's vital medicine is another man's drug, the borders can't be closed to it and the people seeking to get things through have basically unlimited money and top tier research (see their submarines, submersibles, drones), said unlimited money and top tier research also means such things could be vat/lab grown with what is today fairly basic (undergrad level really) techniques and a lab that could be found or assembled in fairly short order with a DNA sequence sent via email if you really cared.



So legalize drugs and put meth vending machines on every street corner. After each "drugs are harmless" moron dies from ingesting a concoction of battery acid and drain-o in the given area remove the vending machine. I'm in no way against not allowing people who wish to die their freedom. There would be the initial impact of having to pay for their burial services, but there would be no repeat offenders. Also, don't involve the Government in paying for any of this. Allow private companies the freedom to do what they are asking to do now - legalize drugs. So, in a nutshell, that would be what would basically happen if we legalized all drugs anyway. I know marijuana doesn't have a chance to kill you after a single use (which meth, herion, coke, etc ... do), but you're still going to suffer from the addiction cycle. Oh, and before you scream bloody murder because I am supporting murder in this instance and not in abortion. I'm not supporting it. I support the right to live and the freedom to make your own mistakes (which, using recreational / illegal drugs, is going to end up being a mistake - whether if you're too stoned to realize this or not isn't going to change reality for the other people who can still grasp onto it).


----------



## Xzi (May 29, 2019)

Maluma said:


> That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.*" *- George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.


Not to stray too far off topic, but "the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country" is a pretty ridiculous statement.  Humans have been using drugs for thousands of years, the pharmaceutical industry is deeply entrenched in nearly every facet of American life, and many illegal drugs are made outside of the US and then imported anyway.  Even going full Duterte isn't going to make people in general need/want drugs any less.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 29, 2019)

cots said:


> So legalize drugs and put meth vending machines on every street corner. After each "drugs are harmless" moron dies from ingesting a concoction of battery acid and drain-o in the given area remove the vending machine. I'm in no way against not allowing people who wish to die their freedom. There would be the initial impact of having to pay for their burial services, but there would be no repeat offenders. Also, don't involve the Government in paying for any of this. Allow private companies the freedom to do what they are asking to do now - legalize drugs. So, in a nutshell, that would be what would basically happen if we legalized all drugs anyway. I know marijuana doesn't have a chance to kill you after a single use (which meth, herion, coke, etc ... do), but you're still going to suffer from the addiction cycle. Oh, and before you scream bloody murder because I am supporting murder in this instance and not in abortion. I'm not supporting it. I support the right to live and the freedom to make your own mistakes (which, using recreational / illegal drugs, is going to end up being a mistake - whether if you're too stoned to realize this or not isn't going to change reality for the other people who can still grasp onto it).



The problem is that once those addicts die off new ones will experiment.Eventually the drug addicts start affecting quality citizens when they start stealing to fund their habit or doing robberies.Drug addicts are a useless drain on society and they don't really contribute anything.Even in pothead circles they are mostly focused on fake friendship and finding out ways to get their "friends" to pay for their weed habit.The whole hippie "share" culture always results in mooching from "friends" that purchase the product,there are usually 10 moochers for every 2 people that actually buy their own supply.If they get told no,they become the bad guy in the hippies eyes.Drugs promote degenerate behavior even with something as mild as weed.

Which brings us back to the subject of abortion,which again facilitates humans being degenerate at the expense of an innocent babies life.I just do not think that we should promote degeneracy in our society.I understand freedom,but at what expense?Or better yet,who's expense?Real accidental pregnancies get aborted,while fake "whoopsies" pregnancies are used to coax men into relationships that they no longer want to be a part of.Liberals love controlling every aspect of everyone's lives but when it comes to drugs they want a free for all.It is proven that people were much happier when things were more traditional and it wasn't a free for all for social degeneracy.Homosexuality played a large part in destroying Rome,yet people here on GBAtemp actively encourage it as if it were the best thing since sliced bread.

Why are we as a society encouraging things that have clearly been proven time after time to destroy us?

https://www.leaderu.com/common/nationsdie.html


----------



## cots (May 29, 2019)

Maluma said:


> The problem is that once those addicts die off new ones will experiment.Eventually the drug addicts start affecting quality citizens when they start stealing to fund their habit or doing robberies.Drug addicts are a useless drain on society and they don't really contribute anything.Even in pothead circles they are mostly focused on fake friendship and finding out ways to get their "friends" to pay for their weed habit.The whole hippie "share" culture always results in mooching from "friends" that purchase the product,there are usually 10 moochers for every 2 people that actually buy their own supply.If they get told no,they become the bad guy in the hippies eyes.Drugs promote degenerate behavior even with something as mild as weed.
> 
> Which brings us back to the subject of abortion,which again facilitates humans being degenerate at the expense of an innocent babies life.I just do not think that we should promote degeneracy in our society.I understand freedom,but at what expense?Or better yet,who's expense?Real accidental pregnancies get aborted,while fake "whoopsies" pregnancies are used to coax men into relationships that they no longer want to be a part of.Liberals love controlling every aspect of everyone's lives but when it comes to drugs they want a free for all.It is proven that people were much happier when things were more traditional and it wasn't a free for all for social degeneracy.Homosexuality played a large part in destroying Rome,yet people here on GBAtemp actively encourage it as if it were the best thing since sliced bread.
> 
> ...



Liberals want to do as they please and indulge in pleasure in excess without consequence at other peoples expense. You clearly see how their logic doesn't apply to their stance on drugs, but you also must understand that they've created a floating logic that changes per circumstance. I suppose that's what they call utter made up bullshit these days, but you just simply rename something and for some reason, even though the thing doesn't change it becomes acceptable (you know, a mentally ill person who used to called a retard is still the same person, the only thing that changed is what you call the person). Or calling someone a n**** is offensive, so we call them black, but nothing else has changed other than what word we're using. I'm not sure how that removes stigma - it's the same fucking thing no matter what you call it. So it's utter completely made up bullshit with no logical value used to justify doing whatever the hell they "feel like doing" and need to resort to drugs to keep that delusional high otherwise they'd have to actually deal with reality. Liberals are also usually not that educated, so with what happened in Rome, they probably have no idea about history. I mean, they are pushing for a system of government that has been tried, and failed each and every time it was implemented.

I agree that they are going to hurt society even further, as they are drug addicts, and like you said will do anything to get high.


----------



## JeepX87 (May 29, 2019)

I'm from Alabama, also born and raised in the South, so yike!!! I'm all for women to make a decision with their pregnancy.

Anti-abortion laws are going drive the illegal abortion up, so it won't fix the moral as evangelical Christians expect women to stuck with pregnant, but after baby was born, so women and their child are on their own. Illegal abortions were common before 1970s and it was difficult to get caught or tracked.


----------



## Xzi (May 29, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I just do not think that we should promote degeneracy in our society.





cots said:


> Liberals want to do as they please and indulge in pleasure in excess without consequence at other peoples expense.


You guys know who's president, right?  I hope both of these statements were meant to be ironic.


----------



## Bonehead (May 29, 2019)

If God didn't want us to abort babies, he wouldn't have made them so delicious.

Checkmate, theists.


----------



## Owenge (May 29, 2019)

Agh adulthood sucks


----------



## Bonehead (Jun 4, 2019)

Hey, guys, don't forget about this reasonable discussion!


----------

