(December 1, 2015 at 1:49 am)Minimalist Wrote: The mother gets to decide what is in her womb..... not some pandering political asshole and certainly not a corrupt church full of perverts.

Proper Catholics have an out in this argument. They stuff collection plates supporting their local leaders who, as a significant percentage, like fucking young boys. Boys don't get pregnant, so what possible advice could these pricks possibly have to give regarding abortion?

Seriously though, how fucked in the head does one have to be to continue to give money to an organization that by action condones boy buggering, where there's no hope of impregnation, yet rails against the use of contraceptives in approved heterosexual relationships? There's simply no fucking excuse.

Being against abortion seems like a first world luxury problem to me. But I respect your take on things, Nestor. What exactly are you against? Are you against the killing of a fetus for any reason whatsoever .. life of the mother, rape? Personally I find the idea of telling a woman who has been raped or is in danger of not surviving the pregnancy that what grows in her womb is not up to her.

Anyhow, until it becomes a discussion about legislation, I don't expect complete agreement on every moral issue and certainly not this one.

(November 30, 2015 at 8:44 pm)vorlon13 Wrote:

(November 30, 2015 at 8:41 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: All cancer cells have the DNA of the animal carrying the tumor.

Um, not quite.

Tasmanian Devils spring to mind.

Never knew that. Got any info suitable (in length) for the thread here?

(December 1, 2015 at 2:26 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Being against abortion seems like a first world luxury problem to me.  But I respect your take on things, Nestor.  What exactly are you against?  Are you against the killing of a fetus for any reason whatsoever .. life of the mother, rape?  Personally I find the idea of telling a woman who has been raped or is in danger of not surviving the pregnancy that what grows in her womb is not up to her.

Anyhow, until it becomes a discussion about legislation, I don't expect complete agreement on every moral issue and certainly not this one.

I wouldn't pretend to answer for him, but I'm personally against it simply out of emotional bias, which I'd rather not go into here. I won't deign to dictate what another person does with their own body,though, so that and three greenbacks will get you a cuppa at Starbuck's.

Well hell, I'm against abortions too. So I'll never have one. My wife will most assuredly not be having one given she has no more womb for kids. Still, all in all, my preference would be for people not to make babies they don't want. Then there wouldn't be any need to terminate any of them. To that end why don't we make sure everyone has access to birth control and good actionable information.

But until that happy day gets here I'm not lending any support to any societal attempt to coerce women to accept their fate as growing fields for the sperm of any rapist who can force it past her defenses.

(December 1, 2015 at 2:08 am)Nestor Wrote: Being against abortion doesn't mean that you value the life of a fetus for religious reasons. It doesn't mean that you think it should be illegal. It doesn't even mean that you think it is in every situation immoral. I certainly don't care what a woman does with her body, though at some point when her pregnancy is far enough along that the fetus is viable I do think there is an ethical dilemma. Again though, morality doesn't always equal legislation.

Indeed not, but unless I'm mistaken, CL has said she wants abortion to be illegal. I'm not sure where Tibs and others stand.

And my question remains as to how this would be implemented.

(November 30, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 30, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I don't see why in regards to the woman's right to her own body a naturally occurring tumor or a naturally occurring fetus would make a difference? The woman still has a right to decide what happens inside of her own body.

So to clarify, if a woman decides she does not want to give birth to her baby, you see nothing wrong with her having an abortion for all 9 months, all the way up until birth?

I'm assuming the answer is that you see nothing wrong with this, but I just want to make sure. If that is your answer then this is where we split.

Yes, its a question of bodily rights, she should choose what happens in her body. Why would it matter if its 9 months? We don't grant the same rights to children who have exited the vagina, why should a fetus be any different? If a two year old needs an organ transplant he or she needs to have a donor, you cant just use someone elses body without their permission, even if that person is dead. What your suggesting is special rights for a fetus, rights that no birthed human has and your suggesting that a woman should not have same rights as a corpse.

(December 1, 2015 at 2:43 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 2:26 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Being against abortion seems like a first world luxury problem to me.  But I respect your take on things, Nestor.  What exactly are you against?  Are you against the killing of a fetus for any reason whatsoever .. life of the mother, rape?  Personally I find the idea of telling a woman who has been raped or is in danger of not surviving the pregnancy that what grows in her womb is not up to her.

Anyhow, until it becomes a discussion about legislation, I don't expect complete agreement on every moral issue and certainly not this one.

I wouldn't pretend to answer for him, but I'm personally against it simply out of emotional bias, which I'd rather not go into here. I won't deign to dictate what another person does with their own body,though, so that and three greenbacks will get you a cuppa at Starbuck's.

Generally speaking, I believe in the sanctity of human life. That something is "sacred" is one of those notions that I refuse to surrender to the religious. I think it's a meaningful and useful attribute to apply to those things that are in-of-themselves supremely valuable, and in my view if that can be said of anything it can certainly be said of certain classes of being. Though one could say that all sentient life in some way deserves to be treated ethically and with dignity, this especially applies to persons. At some point along in the development of a fetus, we have to demarcate between personhood and non, and I'm not comfortable treating the viable fetus as a nonperson for the same reasons that would be relevant to any other viable human being.
Further, my reasoning isn't only related to the ontology of beings; I also have concern for the dehumanization, desensitization, and devaluing of others which I think abortion can and does somewhat play a role, in terms of how society thinks, talks, and overall treats this issue. Morally, then, given my view, it doesn't matter to me if a woman is carrying her rapist's child, granting that it has reached the point of viability - before which I don't consider it an ethical matter. And even with that said, given the fact that it's in her body, I don't believe that we should try to police women. I would rather see antiabortion advocacy succeed in education and public opinion, not the court of law. So, I am still pro-choice.

I don't know what you mean by saying that to be against abortion is a "first world luxury," White.

(December 1, 2015 at 7:38 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(November 30, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So to clarify, if a woman decides she does not want to give birth to her baby, you see nothing wrong with her having an abortion for all 9 months, all the way up until birth?

I'm assuming the answer is that you see nothing wrong with this, but I just want to make sure. If that is your answer then this is where we split.

Yes, its a question of bodily rights, she should choose what happens in her body. Why would it matter if its 9 months? We don't grant the same rights to children who have exited the vagina, why should a fetus be any different? If a two year old needs an organ transplant he or she needs to have a donor, you cant just use someone elses body without their permission, even if that person is dead. What your suggesting is special rights for a fetus, rights that no birthed human has and your suggesting that a woman should not have same rights as a corpse.

That's what I thought. Ok, I was just making sure you were being consistent because I have seen some people use bodily autonomy as a reason why abortion is fine but then say it shouldn't be allowed after a certain point. Which makes no sense, because bodily autonomy applies for all 9 months of pregnancy. So if a person believes it is ok to abort an unborn at 5 weeks, then aborting him/her at 9 months shouldn't be any different with the bodily autonomy argument.

(December 1, 2015 at 3:00 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Well hell, I'm against abortions too.  So I'll never have one.  My wife will most assuredly not be having one given she has no more womb for kids.  Still, all in all, my preference would be for people not to make babies they don't want.  Then there wouldn't be any need to terminate any of them.  To that end why don't we make sure everyone has access to birth control and good actionable information.  

But until that happy day gets here I'm not lending any support to any societal attempt to coerce women to accept their fate as growing fields for the sperm of any rapist who can force it past her defenses.

Of course not. I'm not sure I read him as urging that, though; and anyone who has read my posting on the topic in this and other threads knows where I stand.