To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
ABORTION THREAD
Title says it all. There hasn't been enough vitriol on the forums lately and I figure this is a good topic to bring out the worst in everyone. I will fire the opening salvo by saying this:
The burden is on those who believe life begins at conception to make a case for this claim. So far the arguments I've seen are either a few bible verses or hysterical jabbering about how things look. "At X weeks it has a hair" is my favorite sound bite. Oh jesus fuck no, not hair, anything but the hair HOW COULD YOU MONSTERS POSSIBLY KILL SOMETHING THAT HAS HAIR."
Actually there is one more which is the argument from potential. i.e. The zygote has the potential to become a human being so even if it has no central nervous system or even the beginnings of sentience, robbing it of its potential future life is the same as murder. I think this is actually the most common argument, and if you're going to try and use it here there are two questions you need to answer. If you can't address these points you can either use a different argument or fuck off; I cannot stress enough that the argument from potential completely collapses if these questions are left open.
1. Why doesn't the potential right extend to before conception? Why isn't it murder for a woman to pass up a chance to get pregnant, and for every guy to make sure every load he ever shoots is directly into a fertile womb? How do you get conception as the place to draw the line on potential.
2. In light of modern technology literally any cell in your body could (in the near future) be used to create a full fledged human being. When that becomes the case, every single cell in anyone's body has the same potential to create a new life as the zygote people seem to be obsessed with. What do you do about that? Oh yeah, it's also retarded to begin with because the kid may be the next Einstein but he might also be the next Hitler.
Also if you oppose stem cell research of any kind you are ignorant scum. Oh yeah and many of the pictures that anti abortion organizations like to flash in people's faces are either mislabeled or actually fabricated.
Okay, there's my shot across the bow, let's see what the crazy side has to say.
The burden is on those who believe life begins at conception to make a case for this claim. So far the arguments I've seen are either a few bible verses or hysterical jabbering about how things look. "At X weeks it has a hair" is my favorite sound bite. Oh jesus fuck no, not hair, anything but the hair HOW COULD YOU MONSTERS POSSIBLY KILL SOMETHING THAT HAS HAIR."
Actually there is one more which is the argument from potential. i.e. The zygote has the potential to become a human being so even if it has no central nervous system or even the beginnings of sentience, robbing it of its potential future life is the same as murder. I think this is actually the most common argument, and if you're going to try and use it here there are two questions you need to answer. If you can't address these points you can either use a different argument or fuck off; I cannot stress enough that the argument from potential completely collapses if these questions are left open.
1. Why doesn't the potential right extend to before conception? Why isn't it murder for a woman to pass up a chance to get pregnant, and for every guy to make sure every load he ever shoots is directly into a fertile womb? How do you get conception as the place to draw the line on potential.
2. In light of modern technology literally any cell in your body could (in the near future) be used to create a full fledged human being. When that becomes the case, every single cell in anyone's body has the same potential to create a new life as the zygote people seem to be obsessed with. What do you do about that? Oh yeah, it's also retarded to begin with because the kid may be the next Einstein but he might also be the next Hitler.
Also if you oppose stem cell research of any kind you are ignorant scum. Oh yeah and many of the pictures that anti abortion organizations like to flash in people's faces are either mislabeled or actually fabricated.
Okay, there's my shot across the bow, let's see what the crazy side has to say.
Comments
so if your looking for an answer from me, i would say the potential exists at the 14 week mark. this is still a theory and not proven so i dont think it holds any validity in this argument. however, the process of creating a living being from a single cell of your body would border line genetic cloning more then creating a new person, as the creating of a new person would require genetic material from two parent sources. i dont appose stem cell research as it may provide the cure for almost every known disease that plagues man kind. including cancers and hereditery diseases. again you dont have to be hostile about it as your no longer posing a debate question but injecting your bias into the argument. technically isnt the phrase, "shot across the pond"?
btw, i guess to establish which "camp" i sit in, i would go with people supporting abortion.
abortion, while deemed "murder" in some peoples opinions is to me, a logical solution to certain problems. women who get raped is a prime example in my opinion. they didnt become pregnant by choice and shouldnt have to support a child that will most likely be put up for adoption or brought into the family with a stigma around the child. i know that a chance exists that the mother will learn to love that child however, i dont know if it'll be easy.
By all accounts, as it is the woman having to have the thing in her body, it is the womans property, as it entirely inside of her. Legally, the anti abortionists are so out of gas it is not even funny.
She is the one that has to live with what she has done, and people just need to mind their own business.
If people care about life so much, then they should spend their time growing and canning food, and sending it to one of the various nations where people are starving to death.
It just amazes me that people have nothing better to do with their time.
For those who don't actively protest abortion, if they are such humanists they should be offering to adopt children that are unwanted--oh wait there are already plenty of those in foster care and orphanages.
I have a feeling any of the anti-abortion crowd will be reluctant to jump in here with any logical responses, because it already looks like an ambush ;P Unless someone goes and posts a link to this on some christian non-sfu forum
I'm assuming one of the Christian groups is having a debate soon. Someone should write the link to this thread on those posters.
There are a few reasonable pro-life arguments out there (I recall reading about the one above), and all but the most ardent pro-lifers would be willing to accept abortion in some exceptional cases (e.g. rape, to save the woman's life, etc.).
To slightly digress, I feel that procreative fucking ought to be severely restricted to all but the most privileged or intelligent in society (these two groups should be encouraged). We'd get rid of so many social problems within two or three generations if such a policy were to be imposed.
But...
After the whole Octo-mom scandal, I have to agree with you. People (notice I am not using the word parents because parents take care of their kids) who have no capability to support their children should not be allowed to have children in the first place. Parents, not government, should be responsible for raising the kids. So, don't just leave a mess for us to clean up.
For the sake of proving my point that people who are incapable of having kids shouldn't have kids, did you know what the Octo-mom's house (it is more like her mom's house) is under the threat of foreclosure? She can't even raise herself, how can she expect to raise her children?
Good luck implementing this...
The costs incurred would be high for our government, but bear in mind that the overall clean-up would only take one or two generations. Moreover, the money saved in the long run--in the form of medical and law enforcement costs--would far outweigh immediate costs; think of it as a wise investment.
talksfu has changed
its not the same as the meebo days
Generations after Roe vs. Wade case allowed for abortion, but only up until the fetus is "viable," America's crime rates declined - after witnessing steady increase in crime all over. A pregnant lady would know whether or not she's capable of giving her kid a good life. Had anti-abortion laws forced the kids to be born to incapable mothers, the kids would've been more likely to grow up in the streets endangering themselves and maybe even innocent people. Least case would be they end up in jail.
If the lady can't afford to have a kid nor has nobody in her family is willing to support, either the anti-abortionists adopt the kid themselves and give it a good life or let the pregnant decide.
It could be argued that abortion is in the best interest of the child because of the harsh conditions they would face growing up, but this is essentially euthanasia.
The root of the abortion debate is whether or not the fetus/embryo/whatever is human and whether it's morally permissible to kill it.
When something is depending on the mother to keep it alive intrinsically, it is entirely her choice. You can't force someone to do something with their body against their will. Outlaw abortion, well, watch her just starve herself! Or kill them both! Noone has jurisdiction over anyones body, morally, or legally.
Ignore the wording of whatever the embryo or baby is; again, I'm not trying to get into the debate of when or when it isn't something, for me, its irrelevant.
2) Also, there is a risk of death to anyone carrying a child through biological reasons, or medical complications as a result-- it is small, but still exists. The right to live is a natural right each of us has, pregnancy has a chance to kill the mother, or cause harm to both her and the baby.
Biologically it is a part of her, this is uncontestable-- the baby can't be brought to term inside another mother, or outside with a few exceptions (maybe in the later terms when medical devices and support can help, but not at first).
I don't see any alternative but for a women to have to raise children full term to keep them alive. As far as I'm concerned, if something is biologically part of someone, it is noone else's jurisdiction as I don't see any other examples of people having to put their lives at risk legally.
...and lets say I entertain the whole 'moment of conception' is a living being argument, well then I'm going to claim that everytime a guy ejaculates or a women has a period, where she hasn't been impregnated, they have just committed murder. They are living cells, just as the embryo is from day one to the end of the ninth month, what is the distinction? We're all sinners for allowing so many chances to pro-create pass by, we've all committed pre-meditated manslaughter.
Fortunately some of you are also bringing up some good points. A few notable things though:
1. If the central premise of most pro-life positions is accepted, i.e. that every fetus is a human life and deserving of rights, no exceptions can be made for rape or incest. After all, tacking a murder on to either of those situations hardly makes them better.
2. The definition of human life is the central issue here- answer that question and you've answered the question.
3. The reason I'm telling people to do better or fuck off is that the vast majority of anti-abortion discourse runs along these lines. I don't want to talk about the merits of radiocarbon dating in a creationism thread and I don't want to deal with bible verses or fetus pictures in an abortion thread.
Seriously, watch the video I linked and any of the related ones. If someone can offer something that makes any sense to support an anti-abortion position fine. Until they do, being biased against them is the correct position since that bias is born of actual analysis, because lifers are by and large absolute scum.
More evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvauyrJ5Uf0
Do you not know the basics of biology?
I specifically said, I was not talking about when something is perceived to be a 'person'.
Did you know alone that they are living cells? Do you think sperm are just powered by god and that is how they move after ejaculation?
It's about the womans right to choose, because every cell along the way to conception and after conception are alive.
I think discussing the degree to which something is a 'life' is subjective and will never resolve the issue.
My claim is more definitive, and it is harder to make an anti-abortion stance against a womans choice. Murder they say? Well everyone better start having babies, since jerking off is a waste of living cells, and same with the end of the ovulation cycle.
And as usual, you don't reply to any of my points when you choose to express yours, you just choose to ignore them and say something else like Sarah Palin.
Maybe I taught you something, that life is present before conception.
And for you other two, in the spirit of being on the Jerry Springer show, or Maury, as the out of control teenagers say: "all yall can kiss my ass".
I don't care much for this debate. The tone of the thread is what bothers me
I agree that the moment the baby is born, it becomes immoral to kill the baby. But isn't it equally so to kill the fetus especially at the point in pregnancy when the mother can feel it move/kick inside of her? Wouldn't that give her an idea that there is a living being inside of her?
This is why I think the question of "when" is important as well. This basically gives an easy solution to the sperm/menstruation problem. At which point in pregnancy is it considered a human being? Obviously you don't get a human being the second the sperm and ovum touches, but it definitely becomes one sometime after that.
Every sperm and egg has the potential to become part of a human being if it is given the opportunity to meet with its counterpart. Denying them this opportunity is the same as killing the human being they would eventually create. The arguments are logically identical: Both say that because a given group of cells has the potential to become a human being under the right circumstances we have a moral obligation to ensure that those circumstances are in place. See also the comatose violinist thought experiment.
I'll deal with the technological issue (any cell having the same potential) later. As a final note to IVT and others, you might try actually debating the points I raised rather than simply grousing about how I don't want a real debate. I'm more than happy to address any real points you bring up.