New Abortion Law Wave

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.

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
View attachment 167581

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.
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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

"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?

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.

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

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

New Abortion Law Wave

Makin Temp great again

Nyah!

Techromancer

Deleted User

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Nyah!

Techromancer

Makin Temp great again

Techromancer

Deleted User

Guest

Deleted User

Guest

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

Hail Mary

Deleted User

Guest

Deleted User

Guest

Possibly an Enlightened Being

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum