Abortion/Consciousness/Life

[The Grand Nudger]

The thought experiment asks you to assess the justifications for the claim from the situation of a 2 year old that requires the hookup - the same as a fetus. You have the option of saying no - of course, and that 2 year old will summarily die. -Law shouldn't be able to compel you to do so.

Similarly, the woman who refuses to carry to term can do so, for the same reason (no reason given) and the effect will be the same. Law shouldn't be able to compel you to carry the child.

To pretend that this isn't "doing something" is to stretch your credibility to the point of breaking. A condemnation of one is a condemnation of the other only so far as the analogy goes, and we have the flip side of that coin as well. I don't see the point of trying to square the circle for what was a bad justification from the word go.

[Dystopia]

Similarly, the woman who refuses to carry to term can do so, for the same reason (no reason given) and the effect will be the same. Law shouldn't be able to compel you to carry the child.

It's still different. In the first you just say 'No'. On the second you need to positively have a conduct that leads to terminating your pregnancy. Am I the only one seeing these are conceptually and physically different actions despite the same result?

[Losty]

Well, I think of it this way, in the case of abortion the mother never gave her consent for the fetus to set up shop in the first place. So, to make it fair, in your hypothetical hook up case the child would first be hooked to the mother without her consent.

Now, if the mother who is hooked up without her consent is legally permitted to unhook herself. Then the mother whose uterus was hooked up without her consent would also have to be legally permitted to unhook herself from the fetus.

[LastPoet]

I can feel your pain, social security checks poorly attributed are a fucking problem for us. Have you been to social security lately? It's full of 'minimum wagers lazy bums' as they are called here.

I work since my 11th, and I legitimately work(I mean, pay taxes) since my 16th. Yet, I got zero, nada, nyet from the fucking state, when I needed the most, when I got unemployed.

It's all jesusy to be a moral dipshit, but when responsability for the social contract is called in, everyone looks away and wistles like pigs wearing the finest robes.

It is all well and good to call the sanctity of an unborn childs life, but once they are born, they are fucked.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus Black, it's like a pattern with you...by forcing a women to carry to term (doing nothing to the child)

-we are doing something to the mother-.....

.....the only person who's experience and rights your arguments have been consistently shitting on or forgetting about.

[Dystopia]

Well, I think of it this way, in the case of abortion the mother never gave her consent for the fetus to set up shop in the first place. So, to make it fair, in your hypothetical hook up case the child would first be hooked to the mother without her consent.

Now, if the mother who is hooked up without her consent is legally permitted to unhook herself. Then the mother whose uterus was hooked up without her consent would also have to be legally per missed to unhook herself from the fetus.

That's true, but we were talking about someone voluntarily hooking up to a 2 year old, not someone who was plugged against will

[The Grand Nudger]

We are talking about someone who is compelled by law (or morality) to hook themselves up - and how this situation gives us insight into abortion that we not have otherwise dreamt up. Did you read that post before you started arguing against it, at all?

[Dystopia]

Jesus Black, it's like a pattern with you...by forcing a women to carry to term (doing nothing to the child)

-we are doing something to the mother-.....

Agree. Never said it wasn't like this. It goes both ways, either we do something to the child or the mother

.....the only person who's experience and rights your arguments have been consistently shitting on or forgetting about.

I wasn't forgetting about. Did I say I would support a law obligating women to carry pregnancies? Never. I was just saying what the parliament would probably decide. You have the nasty habit of putting words in my mouth, stop doing that. Never in my right mind would I consider someone should carry a pregnancy against will, I merely posed the question making effort of my impartiality considering a completely hypothetical scenario

---

We are talking about someone who is compelled by law (or morality) to hook themselves up. Did you read that post before you started arguing against it, at all?

You are talking about esquilax's response? Yes I did read, otherwise I wouldn't have answered and posed the problematic of a fetus being considered a person. I never said I supported someone being coerced legally to plug themselves.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, pointless. You win, wtf we're talking about. I'm done.

[Dystopia]

I can feel your pain, social security checks poorly attributed are a fucking problem for us. Have you been to social security lately? It's full of 'minimum wagers lazy bums' as they are called here.

I work since my 11th, and I legitimately work(I mean, pay taxes) since my 16th. Yet, I got zero, nada, nyet from the fucking state, when I needed the most, when I got unemployed.

It's all jesusy to be a moral dipshit, but when responsability for the social contract is called in, everyone looks away and wistles like pigs wearing the finest robes.

It is all well and good to call the sanctity of an unborn childs life, but once they are born, they are fucked.

It's a shame poor families are the ones having more kids. I call bullshit on the argument our country has less kids for financial reasons.