New Abortion Law Wave

[DarkFlare69]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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)



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 ---------------------------



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.

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]

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]

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?



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.



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 is the termination of any life form with or without it's consent and valid whether or not it violates any laws or not.



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).



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.

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]

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?



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.



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 is the termination of any life form with or without it's consent and valid whether or not it violates any laws or not.



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).



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------



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.

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]

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]

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]

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.