Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[tackattack]

Regardless of the order they're in, they're both part of societal views on your decisions and thus the basis for their judgement.

[KichigaiNeko]

Regardless of the order they're in, they're both part of societal views on your decisions and thus the basis for their judgement.

Let's just get some things straight here...

A FEMALE is the one left with the babe; wanted or unwanted is the next question ...YES??

Financial capability to raise said "babe" to fully functioning (tribal) adulthood is the next question ...YES??

Society is not favourable to supporting this 'unwanted pregnancy' so ---> abortion.....YES??

since WHEN does a mother NEED fucking TRIBAL approval as to when she does or does not breed??

That is something a SLAVE MASTER would consider...NOT a free economy of people with EQUAL RIGHTS!!....

Sorry Tacky your argument is flawed..... and American.

[tackattack]

It's not flawed it's how American society tinged by religion operates. I don't personally agree with it and would let whomever make their own choices . I'm not anti-life I'm pro-informed-choice. Haven't you figured out equalityis a myth here yet

[KichigaiNeko]

It's not flawed it's how American society tinged by religion operates. I don't personally agree with it and would let whomever make their own choices . I'm not anti-life I'm pro-informed-choice. Haven't you figured out equalityis a myth here yet

Thankyou for supporting my argument tacky...American society is flawed...there is no land of the free.

[tackattack]

you're welcome.

[Minimalist]

Spotted this in the paper this morning.

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20...10117408.h

An innovative next-generation emergency contraceptive pill “ella” that is supposed to be a longer working alternative to the ‘morning-after pill’ is being offered by French pharmaceutical company HRA Pharma of Paris.

The company hopes that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would grant approval for the marketing of the pill in the U.S.

Now, you'd think that the general use of this product would put a serious crimp in the number of abortions needed which ought to make the religious shit wits who oppose abortion happy.

But....

Because of similarities in its chemical makeup to the so-called abortion pill RU-486, which can terminate a pregnancy for up to nine weeks, pro-Life groups are opposing this new pill not as a contraceptive but a form of abortion.

The truth is that nothing short of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child full term and then be forced to care for it for a minimum of 18 years is going to satisfy these fuckheads.

They are not pro-life. They are anti-woman, as George Carlin noted so many years ago.

[Edwardo Piet]

If you really want to boil it down to rights, at what point does one have to enslave their body to the growth of what is functionally a parasite for 8.8-9.2 months against their own will?

I think my point still stands. And that is that you wouldn't abort a baby a few minutes before labour - and, on the other hand, you obviously would be retarded to think there's anything wrong with aborting right after conception!

So for me the question IS "Where is the cut-off point?".

I don't see how you have responded to my point, which is simply a question based on the fact that both of the above (being anti-abortion right after conception, or pro-abortion right a minute or two before birth) are retarded options so the question is where to draw the line.

And the further question is "wtf does it matter that the parasite is no longer directly connected to the host?"... it remains in dire need of support from birth to several years after said birth. Someone (or something) must be that support if it is to survive. Frankly... i don't see how it's being a baby changes much at all. Now the parasite walks and causes more trouble than it is initially worth... and it isn't a very wise long term investment in many cases either.

??

Are you advocating abortion after birth?

My whole point is nothing magical happens immediately after birth... the baby is no longer dependent but it's still just as physically developed right before birth.

Right before birth abortion is obviously wrong unless the mother might die or something like that I reckon. And abortion is obviously completely harmless right after conception... so my question is "When does the foetus become developed enough that it starts to get more immoral to abort it - just as it would be immoral to abort a baby that was just about to be born for no good reason?"

Laws shouldn't enforce morality, they should protect rights and freedoms. Big difference.

Some rights are strictly freedom based though... they are more ethically based right?

Torture of animals for instance. Since animals aren't considered members of society this isn't about not restricting their freedom, this is about not torturing animals because it's unethical. I would think that's why it's illegal.

Torturing invertebrates doesn't count, that isn't illegal. That's because they are considered less close to human or less able to experience pain or suffer or whatever - so you see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

EvF

[Violet]

Are you advocating abortion after birth?

Advocating it? No... I think it is brutal, and that it is a massive waste of 9 months of pregnancy. I do not, however, see how it is ethically wrong.

My whole point is nothing magical happens immediately after birth... the baby is no longer dependent but it's still just as physically developed right before birth.

Not dependent? It needs the diaper change, the milk, the shelter, the time and money of a person that they might not have. Nothing magical ever happens... and although i think adoption or the like might be a better use of resources: killing the thing after it is born is not unethical. What gives a baby value is the amount of time and effort another person has put into having that baby. Without that value... why should it live except for a socialistic system willing to take it instead?

I don't see how you have responded to my point, which is simply a question based on the fact that both of the above (being anti-abortion right after conception, or pro-abortion right a minute or two before birth) are retarded options so the question is where to draw the line.

I do not see either option as factually retarded. Rather, I see killing a baby as an economical burden lifted... if that is so desired by what gives that baby its life in the first place. I say that there is no "cut off point"... and rather there is an individually decided concept of when a thing begins to develop 'right' of its own

Right before birth abortion is obviously wrong unless the mother might die or something like that I reckon. And abortion is obviously completely harmless right after conception... so my question is "When does the foetus become developed enough that it starts to get more immoral to abort it - just as it would be immoral to abort a baby that was just about to be born for no good reason?"

I disagree with it being 'obviously wrong'. Nothing about pregnancy is harmless. It is not a fetus that killing would be immoral (unless the person values it, and you value it because of their value of it)... nor a baby. Nor necessarily a full grown adult. It is simply killing... nothing necessarily immoral about it

---

Some rights are strictly freedom based though... they are more ethically based right?

That is likely why Meatball said,

Laws shouldn't enforce morality, they should protect rights and freedoms. Big difference.

That a thing does or does not is independent of wether a thing should or should not

Torture of animals for instance. Since animals aren't considered members of society this isn't about not restricting their freedom, this is about not torturing animals because it's unethical. I would think that's why it's illegal.

Non-human animals aren't considered members of society? :S My pet dog is a member of my society... are you suggesting that this does not often apply to other people? Also... how is torturing animals necessarily unethical? I think it is illegal because a few people made emotional arguments in court and managed to pass laws into place. :Sleepy:

Torturing invertebrates doesn't count, that isn't illegal. That's because they are considered less close to human or less able to experience pain or suffer or whatever - so you see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

And why is it not? A poor man is less able to buy out a country than a rich man... should he get fewer rights because he is less able to do a thing? WHy deny things rights because they are different? "Too different" seems very subjective to me...

[Minimalist]

Follow up.


I can hear the fuckwits screeching already!

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2010061...7LOG0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal health experts say a new type of morning-after pill that works longer than existing products is safe and effective.

The Food and Drug Administration's panel of reproductive health experts voted unanimously that the pill ellaOne successfully reduces the chance of pregnancy for up to five days after sex.

Soon the 'pro-lifers' will have to burn down pharmacies instead of blowing up abortion clinics or shooting doctors.

[Paul the Human]

Soon the 'pro-lifers' will have to burn down pharmacies instead of blowing up abortion clinics or shooting doctors.

There will always be good Catholic girls to keep the abortion clinics in business. Someone has to blow them up... it may as well be the 'pro-lifers'.