(September 30, 2015 at 10:31 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The real question is when is a person a person.  When sperm penetrates egg is obviously silly.  And it goes on being silly for a while.  A thing that can't think is not a person.  When does it become a person?

Hebrews thought is was first breath.  Romans thought it was when Daddy said so.  Supreme Court seems to think it's when it can live outside the uterus.

Yes Jenny this is really the crux of it.  I would argue life begins at conception because it is still human, just very early stage.  This was the point I was trying to make when I posted this:

"I understand that no one is advocating 3rd trimester abortions.  I'm not trying to appeal to emotion.  Where I have difficulty in understanding is why a first trimester abortion is ok for any reason, but a third trimester abortion is not.  Two weeks before a baby is born, is it ok to abort?  We are still talking about bodily autonomy of the mother and the baby is solely dependent on that mother's resources (same as in first trimester).  PT brought up brain waves and ability to think and reason.  So is the point of life when there is brain activity?  

My other point was that fetus/embryo/baby is also a part of someone else (aside from the mother).  So is the man not a father (and thus having parental rights) until that child is born and cord is cut?  Or is it when the baby has a reasonable viability outside of the womb?  

Amillia Taylor is the world's youngest premature baby ever to survive, and was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation, which was two weeks before the legal abortion cut off at the time in the US."

So....it should be fine then to induce labor if the mother doesn't want to be pregnant. Then whether or not the baby survives is up to nature (or in god's hands if you prefer to see it that way). Right?

(September 30, 2015 at 10:46 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: But you realize that a fetus made no choice in being created in your body, but is a direct result of a choice you made.  (again, notwithstanding cases of rape).

Irrelevant; see above.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:44 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:40 pm)Losty Wrote: I like how you completely ignored my point. If you think being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is a problem that only lasts for 10 months. You are wrong.

At no point did I say pregnancy was anything to be considered negligible. 
Apparently its you people who think fucking *AIDS* is not worthy of being considered worthy to be graced with pregnancies presence in the "Shit I wouldn't want to happen to me" league table. Judging from the response I'd have to come up with an STD that causes the genitalia to form a thermonuclear explosion to even remotely get close.

Sorry, my touché was mean to be me agreeing that yes men do have to deal with the consequences of sex because stds. Sorry should have written that out to make it more clear.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:46 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Losty Wrote: I disagree that that's the real question. No person has the right to my body even if they need it to survive.

But you realize that a fetus made no choice in being created in your body, but is a direct result of a choice you made.  (again, notwithstanding cases of rape).

Can you explain further because I don't see your point...

(September 30, 2015 at 10:49 pm)Losty Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:44 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: At no point did I say pregnancy was anything to be considered negligible. 
Apparently its you people who think fucking *AIDS* is not worthy of being considered worthy to be graced with pregnancies presence in the "Shit I wouldn't want to happen to me" league table. Judging from the response I'd have to come up with an STD that causes the genitalia to form a thermonuclear explosion to even remotely get close.

Sorry, my touché was mean to be me agreeing that yes men do have to deal with the consequences of sex because stds. Sorry should have written that out to make it more clear.

Except for the fact that women get HIV (and all other STDs) at the same rate men do, so it's irrelevant that men get them for the purposes of a discussion for who primarily  bears the burden of sexual consequences. They have to deal with the same shit men do and  the pregnancy issues.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this!

(September 30, 2015 at 10:50 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:49 pm)Losty Wrote: Sorry, my touché was mean to be me agreeing that yes men do have to deal with the consequences of sex because stds. Sorry should have written that out to make it more clear.

Except for the fact that women get HIV (and all other STDs) at the same rate men do, so it's irrelevant that men get them for the purposes of a discussion for who primarily  bears the burden of sexual consequences. They have to deal with the same shit men do and  the pregnancy issues.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this!

Keep calm. I'm with you. Just admitting that I was wrong when I said women are the only ones who have to deal with the consequences of sex.


It's more accurate to say the only time someone thinks we should have to suffer the consequences when there is a viable medical alternative is when we are women.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:48 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:46 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: But you realize that a fetus made no choice in being created in your body, but is a direct result of a choice you made.  (again, notwithstanding cases of rape).

Irrelevant; see above.

I don't think its irrelevant.  The kidney example, while I understand the point, is not the same in my opinion.  We don't know the circumstances and intent in that scenario.  We are talking the basics of human reproduction that everyone knows.  When you have consensual sex you go in to it knowing that a possible result is a pregnancy.  It is my personal opinion that you are willing to give up those rights to bodily autonomy knowing that the sexual encounter may result in the conception of a human being.  It may not be the intention but you certainly know it's a possibility.  

Again, though I would like to understand why people feel its ok to abort in the first trimester but not in the third.  Baby is still in utero and still living off the mothers resources.  Is it the heartbeat (as early as 18 days)? Is it because the baby moves (as early as 4 weeks)?  Because there is brain activity (10 weeks)?

(September 30, 2015 at 10:49 pm)Losty Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:46 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: But you realize that a fetus made no choice in being created in your body, but is a direct result of a choice you made.  (again, notwithstanding cases of rape).

Can you explain further because I don't see your point...

You said no person has a right to your body even if they need it to survive.  I agree, I can't force you to give me a kidney because I need one to live and you're a match.  My point was the fetus/baby did not make any conscious effort/request/demand to use your body.  Your actions created it.  That "person" is only using your body because you made it so.  That's a big difference.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:46 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: But you realize that a fetus made no choice in being created in your body, but is a direct result of a choice you made.  (again, notwithstanding cases of rape).

It also has no choice in the matter of being born as an unwanted child, mistreated or abused by unfit parents, knocked around in foster care system, ridiculed and beaten by kids from "normal" families and much, much more. Personally - if I could make an informed choice, ahead of time, between that and not being born - I'd choose the latter. Maybe that's just me, though...

(September 30, 2015 at 11:00 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:48 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Irrelevant; see above.

I don't think its irrelevant.  The kidney example, while I understand the point, is not the same in my opinion.  We don't know the circumstances and intent in that scenario.  We are talking the basics of human reproduction that everyone knows.  When you have consensual sex you go in to it knowing that a possible result is a pregnancy.  It is my personal opinion that you are willing to give up those rights to bodily autonomy knowing that the sexual encounter may result in the conception of a human being.  It may not be the intention but you certainly know it's a possibility.  

Again, though I would like to understand why people feel its ok to abort in the first trimester but not in the third.  Baby is still in utero and still living off the mothers resources.  Is it the heartbeat (as early as 18 days)? Is it because the baby moves (as early as 4 weeks)?  Because there is brain activity (10 weeks)?

Then let's assign circumstances and intent in that scenario. Let's make it as bad as possible-- far, far worse than the degree of culpability of simply following our sexual insticts, or experiencing a failure in our birth control.. 

Let's eliminate gender from the equation, so I'll use you and me as examples. 

Let's eliminate benefit of the doubt, and say that you did a truly amoral, immoral thing to me, and caused my kidneys to shut down. I, a fully grown adult, am lying there with my kidneys destroyed because you thought it was funny to swap antifreeze for my cough medicine. (Or whatever.) And now, here you are in jail for attempted murder, soon to be fully murder, and I'm lying in the hospital bed, slowly fading. You, it turns out, happen to have two healthy kidneys, and you are my only matching donor. 

Without one of your kidneys I will certainly die. Do we have the legal right to invade your body, take a kidney, and put it into me? Why or why not?