The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[Nebuchanezzar]

BOS FEMINISTS: SLOW DOWN. ONE RABID FEMINIST CUNT AT A TIME

Thank you for a more measured, mature and quite frankly more insightful post - it makes such a refreshing change.

We've been through the motions before in another thread, that's why I cbf'ed about this stuff mostly.

However the fact that we have differences on this sort of proves my point that one should NEVER legislate against this because peoples views on these things (whether it is killing or not) differ so much. For instance you would come back with the (vague and stupid) argument that I would support murder or something. This is not the case.

Legislation in a democracy is about representing the interests of the informed majority, imo. If the informed majority want to legalise abortion, I'm not going to physically stop them. What I will do is argue against it. So yeah, I don't have a problem with legislating either way.

So you don't believe in the birth control pill then? It can stop a fertilised egg from implanting itself, essentially terminating it.

I do believe in the pill. I do not believe in the morning after pill.

If you're suggesting we leave an unviable foetus to die in utero, you're insane.

Why? Please answer some of my questions, pro-abortion folks.

Why isn't it permissable to terminate an unviable life? What would be more stressful to a mother. Terminating a pregnancy, or having a foetus die in utero? Why do you think an unviable life has more rights than that of the mother?

Wait. You advocate abortion because it might cause stress to the mother? Good God! I think you see what I'm getting at.

You're not killing it because it can't feel pain, stop twisting words. Certainly knowing that a foetus cannot feel pain eleviates guilt, but it's not the reason for the termination.

I think you've got your definitions mixed up katie. You see, killing doesn't depend on whether something can feel pain or not. Or am I misreading you?

Why would you have guidelines for humans before animals?

Because humans are a more reasoned, conscious and intelligent species and deserve to be treated as such.

As far as I'm concerned, there are guidelines for the two. And apparently we're willing to treat our dogs with a lot more respect.

I have to admit that I'm not a supporter of putting animals down. I'm all for euthanasia, but killing animals preemptively because they might be in pain isn't the most logical position to be in.

Why shouldn't parents decide. The mother is ultimately carrying the foetus, how do you think the emotional health of the mother will stand knowing she is carrying a defective foetus? They're the ones that will be stuck with the foetus for it's short and possibly miserable life, why shouldn't they be able to take a preemptive step by terminating the pregnancy?

Why don't you answer my question, since I'm the one who's been on the defensive thus far.

In answer to yours, the life of a human should be valued over the mental health of another in any and all circumstances. I believe in the right to a life. I believe that the right to life is more important than a right to mental health. And let's be honest, the impact on the mental health of the mother is going to be minor. The impact on the health of the baby will be irreversible: it will be dead.

No I don't think that is his position - lets give him a little credit.

I think it has more to do with the "killing" of something.

Not so much prevention of a life

Correct me if i am wrong neb?

Exactly. Prevention of life does not actively kill a pre-existent life.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Not at all. Do you honestly think on a pure biological level, we're any different from animals?

:rofl:

Why? Genetically, we're the third species of chimpanzee (alongside Pan troglodytes and even closer to Pan paniscus).

Yeah. A third. When you get to 100% of the framework in a chimp then contact me. Hell, I'll be lenient: Let's go 98%

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PILL (from what I know)

The Pill: Prevents fertilisation by doing something to an unfertilised egg. PERMISSIBLE.
MA Pill: Actively prevents a fertilised egg from developing. UNPERMISSIBLE.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm going to watch Australian Idol folks.

 

[black_kat_meow]

Exactly. Prevention of life does not actively kill a pre-existent life.

That doesn't make sense if you support the pill though. It does not always prevent the release of an egg, sometimes the egg is still fertilised, and because of the pill, the body aborts it, it can't implant.

If you believe the line is where sperm meets egg (as you stated earlier), how can you support this?

 

[black_kat_meow]

MA Pill: Actively prevents a fertilised egg from developing. UNPERMISSIBLE.

The pill can also do this, not just the morning after.

 

[katie tully]

Why? Please answer some of my questions, pro-abortion folks.

It's entirely unhealthy for a foetus that is going to die to remain in utero, both medically and psychologically. You wouldn't make a mother spend a week with her dead kid laying in bed, why would you make her carry a dying foetus?

Wait. You advocate abortion because it might cause stress to the mother? Good God! I think you see what I'm getting at.

No you sped. Stressful because she cbf raising a kid is different from being stressed because your kid probably isn't going to live are two different things. That said, if a mother wants to terminate early because she cbf being a mother, it's probably better she doesn't. That way she doesn't have to worry about drinking and doing drugs and turning the foetus into a fermented cabbage.

I think you've got your definitions mixed up katie. You see, killing doesn't depend on whether something can feel pain or not. Or am I misreading you?

Misreading you faggot. I said not being able to feel pain is not a reason to terminate, I said it eleviates guilt. It's entirely possible to abort a foetus after 29 weeks when it can feel pain, just anaesthetise it. But it's a viable life, thus I do not support abortion that late.

Because humans are a more reasoned, conscious and intelligent species and deserve to be treated as such.

lol do you really think so

In answer to yours, the life of a human should be valued over the mental health of another in any and all circumstances. I believe in the right to a life. I believe that the right to life is more important than a right to mental health. And let's be honest, the impact on the mental health of the mother is going to be minor. The impact on the health of the baby will be irreversible: it will be dead.

And my answer is that the exisiting life, i.e. that of the mothers takes precedent over the non viable life.

 

[Kwayera]

:rofl:



Yeah. A third. When you get to 100% of the framework in a chimp then contact me. Hell, I'll be lenient: Let's go 98%

I said the third species, you twit. Not "a third".

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PILL (from what I know)

The Pill: Prevents fertilisation by doing something to an unfertilised egg. PERMISSIBLE.
MA Pill: Actively prevents a fertilised egg from developing. UNPERMISSIBLE.

Actually, AFAIK, there are two types of The Pill. One prevents you from ovulating and prevents sperm from reaching the egg, and one prevents a fertilised egg from implanting. (There are also combinations thereof).

The MA pill does the latter, but contains a higher dosage of the hormones present in the normal CP.

 

[slickstar_01]

abortion should be made legal till 28-30 weeks.

 

[Empyrean444]

I would only support abortion if:
a woman who has been raped wants one
or if
we are Absolutely sure (with scientific evidence, etc) that the foetus wil die/miscarriage.

Otherwise i am against it. I regard it as murder (despite arguments about pain receptors etc - i have not read the 99 pgs of material bear in mind). It is also unnecessary, as contraception is easily available and easy to use. I do not think that someone's laziness in this regard should give them the right to kill another livng being that will develop sentience. I have to say the woman's right argument to me just doesn't cut it here - contraception is an easy choice, and they have the right/choice for This.

Something even more abhorrent i remember hearing about - some parents/people wanted to have their baby's gender tested in the womb, so they could have an abortion if it wasn't the gender they wanted. This is especially sickening.

 

[chicky_pie]

I read a story how a mother terminated her unborn foetus at 12 weeks, because doctors told her that it will not survive, turns out it was healthy and she's going to sue those 2 hospitals.

 

[supercalamari]

I support up to 20 weeks.

 

[slickstar_01]

in fact ill go one step further, and remove the rights for every mother the bear a child if she or her spouse are not financially/socially capable of doing so.

 

[Kwayera]

I do not think that someone's laziness in this regard should give them the right to kill another livng being that will develop sentience.

What's your stance if a woman uses contraception and is one of the unlucky minority for which it fails?

And what about other species with sentience?

 

[ASNSWR127]

I would only support abortion if:
a woman who has been raped wants one
or if
we are Absolutely sure (with scientific evidence, etc) that the foetus wil die/miscarriage.

Otherwise i am against it. I regard it as murder (despite arguments about pain receptors etc - i have not read the 99 pgs of material bear in mind). It is also unnecessary, as contraception is easily available and easy to use. I do not think that someone's laziness in this regard should give them the right to kill another livng being that will develop sentience. I have to say the woman's right argument to me just doesn't cut it here - contraception is an easy choice, and they have the right/choice for This.

Something even more abhorrent i remember hearing about - some parents/people wanted to have their baby's gender tested in the womb, so they could have an abortion if it wasn't the gender they wanted. This is especially sickening.

What if the circumstance was not right for the child to be born?

e.g if the parents knew they could not support the child (students for instance).

 

[katie tully]

It is also unnecessary, as contraception is easily available and easy to use.

Contraception is not infallible. Did you know that people have become pregnant after a woman has had her tubes tied?

I have to say the woman's right argument to me just doesn't cut it here - contraception is an easy choice, and they have the right/choice for This.

A foetus is a parasite. It is not a life. It cannot sustain life without the mother. It is unviable. What makes its rights paramount over the rights of an exisiting, viable life? Again, you're whole argument is based on the fact that pregnancies must be caused by laziness because contraception is infallible.

It isn't

 

[katie tully]

Something even more abhorrent i remember hearing about - some parents/people wanted to have their baby's gender tested in the womb, so they could have an abortion if it wasn't the gender they wanted. This is especially sickening.

It is sickening and irresponsible, but what is your opinion on genetically engineered children (forgetting abortion for a moment).

 

[Empyrean444]

What's your stance if a woman uses contraception and is one of the unlucky minority for which it fails?

And what about other species with sentience?

I thought someone would ask me your first point. It is quite tough. But the problem is it is both unlucky but also very rare. Its rarity and the inability to reliably and accurately verify its true would make me sceptical of allowing abortion in this scenario. This aside, however, i can recognise the ill fated nature of the situation, but i do not believe that the foetus deserves to die because of someone else's bad luck.

I am not sure of your second point: what about other sentient species do u refer to?

 

[ASNSWR127]

It is sickening and irresponsible, but what is your opinion on genetically engineered children (forgetting abortion for a moment).

That is a horrible concept.

never in a million years should we as a species go down that path...

Wars have been fought and millions died to prevent genetic selection.

 

[Empyrean444]

What if the circumstance was not right for the child to be born?

e.g if the parents knew they could not support the child (students for instance).

In this circumstance, i still don't support it, as i think foster parents could be found - regardless, i think that it is better the child/foetus have the same opportunity of life as we all have.

 

[ASNSWR127]

In this circumstance, i still don't support it, as i think foster parents could be found - regardless, i think that it is better the child/foetus have the same opportunity of life as we all have.

I wonder, would your views change if you were thrust in this position?

mmmm I bet they would