Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[JBeukema]

Nope. I'm just honest and consistent, unlike you.

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

 

[syrenn]

I support someone's right to tie an anchor to your leg, throw you in the ocean, and let you live...


Just applying your own standard...

Far from the same standard jb and dishonest.

I am a stand alone living human. Try to wrap your head around that concept.

 

[Ravi]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

You're fucked in the head if you think someone's going to weed through 51 pages to find your opinion.

 

[JBeukema]

I am a stand alone living human.

As is a foetus. Even a blastocyst.

All are distinct organisms unto themselves.

Your standard: rip the baby out and let it suffocate; if I fail to killl it, it must've been alive- but if I can kill it, then I didn't kill it because it was never alive

 

[JBeukema]

I think the "Breath of Life" arguement advanced as the point where the baby becomes a human is inane. I think a better determining factor would be the point of viability and where a substantial majority of fetuses have the ability to survive outside the womb,

I disagree. Viability isn't really a set point or all that useful, as technological improvements allow us to save preemies that would have died ten or twenty years ago and there's always the possibility of a child developing slowly or having a medical condition that must be treated after birth to ensure survival. Thus,m I find the concept of 'viability' to be of limited usefulness. Additionally, a child with no midbrain or real head, but with a functioning brainstem can be 'viable' in that the brainstem can ensure that the heart and lungs function, yet we're dealing with a creature that has no consciousness- not only it effectively braindead, it never was and never will be aware of its own existence. This is why I think we should focus on consciousness and and the earliest point at which a conscious mind appears to develop.

Heres a scenario: a child is born premature at 25 weeks and his unable to breath on his own. Clearly, at this point the "my body my choice" argument goes out the window. So can a man actually have a "kill his premature baby thats 90 percent likely to survive but cant breath on its own" kind of abortion?

Or what of a child that can breathe but simply doesn't start of its own accord without some sort of stimulation of the lungs/diaphragm? Again, I've already shown how considering breathing as a necessary condition for personhood leads to absurdity.

.

 

[syrenn]

I am a stand alone living human.

As is a foetus. Even a blastocyst.

All are distinct organisms unto themselves.

Your standard: rip the baby out and let it suffocate; if I fail to killl it, it must've been alive- but if I can kill it, then I didn't kill it because it was never alive

Again you have devolved into an argument of "where life begins"

If it is a distinct organism unto itself, one that is alive and has life of its own, then it does not need a host to live.

 

[JBeukema]

I am a stand alone living human.

As is a foetus. Even a blastocyst.

All are distinct organisms unto themselves.

Your standard: rip the baby out and let it suffocate; if I fail to killl it, it must've been alive- but if I can kill it, then I didn't kill it because it was never alive

Again you have devolved into an argument of "where life begins"

If it is a distinct organism unto itself, one that is alive and has life of its own, then it does not need a host to live.

You fail biology forever.

A parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.


Ahmadjian, Vernon; Paracer, Surindar (2000), Symbiosis: an introduction to biological associations, Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-195-11806-5

The fetus is a biotrophic parasite; it's simply not usually referred to as such for the sake of sensitivity. Because of the negative association ascribed to the term 'parasite', it is common for people to say that a parasite must be a different species; this isn't based on any reasoning, logic, or scientific points, but rather on the desire to not call one's own child a parasite.

Your tired rhetoric won't fly here

 

[JBeukema]

Sy needs to take a remedial biology class.

 

[JBeukema]

A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life support is not available, now is it.

No baby survives if you leave it on a mountain to die. What's your point?

If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.

Kinda late to decide you don't want to have a baby when we get to killing your child after birth or morons like you crying that it's wrong for a woman to have to see what her baby looks like when she kills it at4 or 6 months gestation.

That's what birth control is for. There's only one wy a woman's ever een known to get pregnant.


Since we can't know whether you're sentient, that means there's no reason to object to me killing you, right?

You love to twist my words around dont ya... I said that we do not become alive until we breathe.

And the basic facts of biology prove you wrong. Nobody has to twist anything; there's no way we could make you look more stupid than you make yourself look.

She doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child,

That's what this is all about, isn't it? You not taking responsibility for something you've done because you can't face your own actions.

We've heard- and debunked- all your bullshit before

 

[JBeukema]

I am a stand alone living human.

As is a foetus. Even a blastocyst.

All are distinct organisms unto themselves.

Your standard: rip the baby out and let it suffocate; if I fail to killl it, it must've been alive- but if I can kill it, then I didn't kill it because it was never alive

Again you have devolved into an argument of "where life begins"

If it is a distinct organism unto itself, one that is alive and has life of its own, then it does not need a host to live.

=Why do so many people who want to kill their unborn children refuse to open a dictionary?

Because it's frigging hard to rationalize something you know is wrong if you're not able to blur definitions and distinctions.

 

[syrenn]

What ever are you talking about jb? Try to stick to one topic of conversation and not let your emotions get the better of you.

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

You're fucked in the head if you think someone's going to weed through 51 pages to find your opinion.

It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it.

I never denied that it's human. It's human by definition and any DNA lab can confirm that. I see this issue as being very similar to that of braindeath and 'pulling the plug'. If the mind is gone, the individual no longer exists. You're no longer caring for the person, merely for the body which once housed the person. Similarly, in early-stage abortion we're dealing with a human,, but no mind has emerged. There is no individual or sentience- the very thing that separates a human from a plant or a bacterium. In such a scenario we're dealing with a human animal, but not with a person.

While it's true that not being able to detect brainwaves does not necessarily mean they're not present, not being able to detect a heartbeat doesn't mean someone's heart's not beating (although such instances are rare with modern medicine). However, if the structures of the brain which gives rise to the mind have not developed, there can be no question that they are not active, for they do not even exist yet.

Babies didn't used to be able to survive if they were more than 8 weeks premature. Should we have been aborting them up to 7 months then, because technology hadn't caught up with their needs?

I never forwarded biological viability as an argument and have refuted it in this very thread as highly subjective and of little, if any, value, so I'm not sure whom you're you're referring to.

I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.

Should we, then, keep a body alive on life support forever? should we replace organs as they fail until we have little flesh at all and keep the machiones running for no intelligible reason? You reach a point where it's just absurd and I've seen no other meaningful measure than what I've forwarded (although I am by no means the only one to propose it). Your words may sound good, but they're not really meaningful and your ideals are neither pragmatic or useful in the real world.

 

[Ravi]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

You're fucked in the head if you think someone's going to weed through 51 pages to find your opinion.

I never denied that it's human. It's human by definition and any DNA lab can confirm that. I see this issue as being very similar to that of braindeath and 'pulling the plug'. If the mind is gone, the individual no longer exists. You're no longer caring for the person, merely for the body which once housed the person. Similarly, in early-stage abortion we're dealing with a human,, but no mind has emerged. There is no individual or sentience- the very thing that separates a human from a plant or a bacterium. In such a scenario we're dealing with a human animal, but not with a person.

While it's true that not being able to detect brainwaves does not necessarily mean they're not present, not being able to detect a heartbeat doesn't mean someone's heart's not beating (although such instances are rare with modern medicine). However, if the structures of the brain which gives rise to the mind have not developed, there can be no question that they are not active, for they do not even exist yet.
I never forwarded biological viability as an argument and have refuted it in this very thread as highly subjective and of little, if any, value, so I'm not sure whom you're you're referring to.

I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.

Should we, then, keep a body alive on life support forever? should we replace organs as they fail until we have little flesh at all and keep the machiones running for no intelligible reason? You reach a point where it's just absurd and I've seen no other meaningful measure than what I've forwarded (although I am by no means the only one to propose it). Your words may sound good, but they're not really meaningful and your ideals are neither pragmatic or useful in the real world.

So...it is your contention that a fetus is equal to a birthed baby when brain activity of some sort can be measured?

If so, is that your cut off point for a decision by either party to opt out?

 

[eagleseven]

I was actually wondering if we should start killing infants who we know will not survive to young childhood, due to genetic disorders.

I know 'infanticide' is not a popular idea, but why should we waste funds on not-self-conscious humans which cannot genetically survive? It's the logical thing to do.

The Romans practiced infanticide for a thousand years, without thinking twice.

 

[Madeline]

I was actually wondering if we should start killing infants who we know will not survive to young childhood, due to genetic disorders.

I know 'infanticide' is not a popular idea, but why should we waste funds on not-self-conscious humans which cannot genetically survive? It's the logical thing to do.

The Romans practiced infanticide for a thousand years, without thinking twice.

eagleseven, this is a fascinating topic and I'd be happy to discuss....but no one else will ever find the convo. Mayhaps a new Op?

 

[eagleseven]

I was actually wondering if we should start killing infants who we know will not survive to young childhood, due to genetic disorders.

I know 'infanticide' is not a popular idea, but why should we waste funds on not-self-conscious humans which cannot genetically survive? It's the logical thing to do.

The Romans practiced infanticide for a thousand years, without thinking twice.

eagleseven, this is a fascinating topic and I'd be happy to discuss....but no one else will ever find the convo. Mayhaps a new Op?

I have a funny feeling that everyone will call me a heartless bastard, and the topic will die. Meh.

 

[Madeline]

I was actually wondering if we should start killing infants who we know will not survive to young childhood, due to genetic disorders.

I know 'infanticide' is not a popular idea, but why should we waste funds on not-self-conscious humans which cannot genetically survive? It's the logical thing to do.

The Romans practiced infanticide for a thousand years, without thinking twice.

eagleseven, this is a fascinating topic and I'd be happy to discuss....but no one else will ever find the convo. Mayhaps a new Op?

I have a funny feeling that everyone will call me a heartless bastard, and the topic will die. Meh.

You want me to begin it? I get called a heartless bitch a lot already.

 

[Ravi]

I was actually wondering if we should start killing infants who we know will not survive to young childhood, due to genetic disorders.

I know 'infanticide' is not a popular idea, but why should we waste funds on not-self-conscious humans which cannot genetically survive? It's the logical thing to do.

The Romans practiced infanticide for a thousand years, without thinking twice.

eagleseven, this is a fascinating topic and I'd be happy to discuss....but no one else will ever find the convo. Mayhaps a new Op?

I have a funny feeling that everyone will call me a heartless bastard, and the topic will die. Meh.

You're a heartless bastard.

 

[Madeline]

eagleseven, this is a fascinating topic and I'd be happy to discuss....but no one else will ever find the convo. Mayhaps a new Op?

I have a funny feeling that everyone will call me a heartless bastard, and the topic will die. Meh.

You're a heartless bastard.

You're a heartless bitch.