Roe V Wade has been repealed

[smf]

you have body parts which you can remove. These parts generally cease being alive as soon as that happens.

The same happens if you remove a fetus from their body.

You are arguing that the fetus isn't part of their body, I'm arguing it is.

All the other stuff you are saying, is to try to support that argument.

It is purely philosophical. The same reason that we justify eating animals, but not people. We share quite a lot of DNA with animals we eat, they are sentient. They just haven't learned to talk.

If you are vegan or jain then you can have a consistent argument against abortion, otherwise it's just cherry picked philosophy.

 

[Foxi4]

The same happens if you remove a fetus from their body.

Yes, when you remove a fetus from a woman’s body, it dies - you’ve cut off its source of nutrition deliberately (and mangled it in the process). It is your interference that killed it. It would’ve grown otherwise, but you interrupted it (by way of killing it).

You are arguing that the fetus isn't part of their body, I'm arguing it is.

All the other stuff you are saying, is to try to support that argument.

It verifiably is not. It’s a separate entity.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

From the party that brought us “birthing persons” comes the long-awaited sequel - “reactionary brains”. It’s almost a compliment.

You can take it how you prefer I reckoned "smooth-brains" would be redundant and obvious.

 

[Foxi4]

It is purely philosophical.

It is entirely, 100%, without a doubt, scientific. The “my body, my choice” argument refers to the woman’s ability to control whether she is pregnant or not, which is a state her body is in. Nobody in their right mind argues that the fetus is part of her body because it verifiably isn’t - it is only connected to it. If we had magical technology that could harmlessly transfer that fetus to an artificial womb, it would continue to grow and eventually develop into a full-grown human. Your fingernail cannot, and would not, ever do that.

 

[smf]

It verifiably is not. It’s a separate entity.

If it can't survive without the womans body then it is not. You're making a philosophical argument.

Your fingernail cannot, and would not, ever do that.

I'm sure if there was demand for fingernail transplants then that would one day be possible.

 

[Foxi4]

If it can't survive without the womans body then it is not. You're making a philosophical argument.

Things generally have trouble surviving without nutrition. If you remove a tapeworm from an intestine, it will also die as its method of extracting nutrients requires a host. Nobody would argue that a tapeworm is part of their body because it’s stupid - it’s a separate creature that saps the nutrients of the host.

 

[smf]

Things generally have trouble surviving without nutrition. If you remove a tapeworm from a colon, it will also die as its method of extracting nutrients requires a host. Nobody would argue that a tapeworm is part of their body because it’s stupid - it’s a separate creature that saps the nutrients of the host.

You're hand waving over the part about the egg coming from the woman's body in the first place.
The tape worm did not. Careful you don't build a strawman.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm sure if there was demand for fingernail transplants then that would one day be possible.

Let’s use an argument that isn’t stupid. If your liver is removed, it will deteriorate unless it is transplanted into another body capable of sustaining it. Once it is, the ownership of the organ has changed as it was transferred to another body. At no point is the liver a separate life form. It retains the DNA of the donor by the virtue of being grown by the donor, it continues to function as a liver, and in a cosmic way you “live on”, your genetic material is still “alive”, but you are not a person - you ceased to exist, on account of losing your liver, without which you have no doubt died.

You're hand waving over the part about the egg coming from the woman's body in the first place.
The tape worm did not. Careful you don't build a strawman.

The origin of the egg is inconsequential as the fetus is not an egg. Upon combining with a sperm cell the genetic sequence is recompiled and a new life is formed.

 

[tabzer]

You're hand waving over the part about the egg coming from the woman's body in the first place.
The tape worm did not. Careful you don't build a strawman.

Hey there smarty pants, he's arguing against the claims that you make. You are hand waving over basic biology. Careful that you don't make everyone look like an idiot by interacting with you.

 

[smf]

The origin of the egg is inconsequential as the fetus is not an egg.

The egg turned into a fetus, it has remained inside the woman's body the entire time.
That seems pretty consequential that it's part of her body.

Careful that you don't make everyone look like an idiot by interacting with you.

You give me too much credit, you do extremely well at that on your own.

You are hand waving over basic biology.

No, it's philosophy whether something is a thing or not.

Biologically you aren't the exact same person you were ten years ago.

 

[Foxi4]

The egg turned into a fetus, it has remained inside the woman's body the entire time.
That seems pretty consequential that it's part of her body.

It obviously isn’t, and you can verify that with the myriad of methods I already described. In fact, the woman *expelled* the egg from her ovary prior to it being inseminated, so there was a period of time when it wasn’t connected to her at all. It then was fertilised and nested in the womb as a now-separate entity.

 

[smf]

In fact, the woman *expelled* the egg from her ovary prior to it being inseminated, so there was a period of time when it wasn’t connected to her at all.

Your blood is not connected to you, it's your blood. The egg is still within her body.

 

[N7Kopper]

I know you’re being facetious, but I’ll humor you and “Explain like You’re 5”, as the Internet saying goes. Yes, *you* are a human life form (although some might have doubts about the human part) and you have body parts which you can remove. These parts generally cease being alive as soon as that happens. I don’t know (or care) how *you* define life, I posted the accepted definition that I (and NASA) use to determine whether something is alive or not. Your fingernails or hair have no means of absorbing nutrients and using them to grow/procreate. Moreover, a simple test can (again) determine the ownership of those fingernails and that hair - they’re yours. In conclusion, no, they’re not separate life forms.

Fingernails and hair are also already dead. They're designed to be trimmed on the regular. The living cells that grow new fingernails and hair are not so easily replacable.

Abortion is much like slavery. Can't be bothered to pick your own cotton? Point a rifle at some poor Irishmen and defeated African tribes the Barberrys and warlords sold you. Can't be bothered to keep it in your knickers? Rip apart the fruit of your womb, then say you were raped. (Okay, that's not too fair to poor Roe - she spent the rest of her life repenting the atrocity she had levelled upon the USA.) In fact, the super scary ideas of raaaeeeeeppppp and iinnncceeesssstttt are so vanishingly rare as to be statistically irrelevant: and induced labour is how you save the life of the mother. Abortion, in practice, ranges from casual baby murder to eugenics. It's even generally illegal either under government law or private broadcast guidelines to show people what an abortion is.

It is illegal to show it because seeing the dead babies will make the masses turn against the barbarism the progressives so readily support. The images are burned into my mind much like the USA's routine genital mutilation of baby boys. The insane echo chamber board for the alphabet mafia (my membership card has been long revoked for my loyalist tendencies: it's not about who you love, it's about the revolution, Comrade.) that this hacking forum has for some reason rages against the Church and the faithful for daring to defy them - I will tell you right here that the dead eyes of the most innocent played a large part in driving me to the Church. And the natural deflection of the militant abortionists is to pretend that those clearly human bodies are "just clumps of cells."

So am I. So are you. Without the soul, we are nothing more - and the soul has departed from those poor babies. I'll spare you the imagery, because your arguments have been picked apart already - and anyone who isn't convinced by the evidence and the corpses isn't interested in facts. The only deterrence for people like that is punishment; that is why they so fear babies having the right to choose. They all recoil from the executioner's tools. Here's some scary dissident evidence! Oh no!

 

[smf]

Abortion is much like slavery.

No, pregnancy is like slavery. Abortions are a low percentage of pregnancies, incest and rape are a low percentage of a low percentage. But that doesn't make it any better for the person forced to go through with a pregnancy that they do not wish to "I'm forced to go through with this pregnancy and look after this child, but at least I wasn't raped".

You talk about echo chambers, then come to an echo chamber.

The soul is a projection, it only exists as brainwaves. Most pregnancies are terminated before the fetus has what you would consider a soul.

Allowing abortion is about weighing the benefit to the mothers soul at the expense of a fetus that doesn't currently have a soul.

 

[Foxi4]

Your blood is not connected to you, it's your blood. The egg is still within her body.

Within her body, yes. That’s not what you’re arguing - you’re arguing that the fetus is *an integral part of her body*, which it isn’t - stay consistent. We know for a fact that your blood analogy is inconsequential because fertilisation can occur completely outside of the womb, IVF disproves your “philosophical” argument entirely. The egg being or not being physically inside the woman makes no difference as far as developing a new life is concerned, it could be on a different continent and implanted in a different womb after the fact, the result would be the same - a new human life form that is unique and different from both the sperm donor and the egg donor. It wouldn’t have the genetic material of the woman it was implanted into, it would have its own genetic material derived from a combination of the material from the original biological parents. The only thing it would “take” from the new womb is nutrition.

I can’t believe you’re arguing this point in earnest - you’re effectively saying that prenatal development is not part of human development and that until a child leaves the woman’s body through the birth canal, it is *a part of her body*, which is bonkers and on the level of Flat Earth. Not even abortion proponents argue this point - the bodily autonomy argument refers to the state of the mother’s body, not the fetus, which is not part of her body in any sense, it merely resides inside of it. An ice cube floating in a glass is not part of the glass, it is the content of the glass. I understand that you support abortion and that’s fine - I also find it permissible in certain specific circumstances we discussed earlier. What I don’t understand is why you’re arguing a point that you know is false.

I’m not going to continue this bizarre debate as it’s derailing the thread - you can’t seriously expect me to fill the gaps in your education, that’s not my job. Knowing basic biology is a prerequisite to participating in the debate - if you can’t accept it, there’s nothing to discuss here.

Fingernails and hair are also already dead. They're designed to be trimmed on the regular. The living cells that grow new fingernails and hair are not so easily replacable.

Correct, it’s not living tissue. It’s dead tissue, but the discussion was about genetic material, so I entertained the insane argument regardless.

Speaking of living and non-living tissue, treating the human life inside of the woman as part of her body implies that if she dies, so will it. That’s not the case - depending on the degree of development it can be saved despite the fact that the mother is deceased - you effectively end up with a preemie. In 2019 Czech doctors managed to deliver a healthy baby of a braindead mother after keeping her functions active for 117 days, nearly 4 months, specifically to allow the fetus to develop.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/03...ter-brain-dead-mother-kept-alive-for-117-days

The woman was, for all intents and purposes, dead - her bodily functions were maintained with machinery.

There are less extreme examples, obviously - the youngest preemie recorded survived after only 21 weeks of gestation. If a mother dies after that point, the baby can be successfully extracted and has a chance of surviving the ordeal. Medicine is pretty impressive nowadays, as it turns out. That doesn’t sound like “a part of the mother’s body”, that sounds like a separate entity contained inside of it.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

If it can't survive without the womans body then it is not. You're making a philosophical argument.

A newborn cannot survive without his/her parents or community. Does he/she share the same body?

Once the mother does not want the pregnancy, the unborn is unwanted and could be aborted. By the same argument, a newborn who does not have anyone in the community who wants to support him/her, he/she becomes unwanted. Is it okay to let him/her die?

I am taking a position. Just showing inconsistencies.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Abortion is much like slavery.

Tell me you know nothing about abortion or slavery without telling me you know nothing about them.

 

[Lacius]

Abortion is much like slavery.

Slavery in the US involved numerous violations of people's bodily autonomy rights. Making abortion illegal is a violation of people's bodily autonomy rights. You didn't think your analogy through.

 

[titan_tim]

So am I. So are you. Without the soul, we are nothing more - and the soul has departed from those poor babies.

Don't bring souls into this. There is no evidence for it. Seriously, when does a soul develop then? Not as the sperm. As soon as the sperm hits the egg? Then *Poof* soul? It's just nonsensical on any level.

They also aren't babies. I can prove that to you with my usual fun hypothetical. I used this previously and had a fun chat with someone else. But in the end, any points they tried to make didn't relate to our current situation in the world. So here's the situation:

You're in a fertility clinic. It's on fire and about to come down. You're in the middle of a long hallway. On one side, there's an old man in a wheelchair. On the other side of the hallway is a briefcase containing hundreds of viable embryos (Fertilized and good to go), which are scheduled to be implanted into women that week. You only have time to save one. Which do you choose? And please don't try to say something inane like "I'd save them both!".

I won't have to wait for your answer though, since there is only one single answer that isn't monstruous. A normal person would choose the old man in the wheelchair. Which should prove that you yourself don't consider hundreds of embryos equivalent to the life of a single person, even if that person is old and near the end of their life.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Jesus, I've never seen such a narcissistic and self destructive species like humans before. Anything to fit the agenda, huh? Even if it means cutting your own throats.

Slavery in the US involved numerous violations of people's bodily autonomy rights. Making abortion illegal is a violation of people's bodily autonomy rights. You didn't think your analogy through.

That's not the same thing. Like, at all. Go back to school and educate yourself more before you make more idiotic statements like that.