coughlan666
New Member
This should give you some pointers!
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Abortion!
- Thread starter Sir Pwn4lot
- Start date
TheFearmonger
New Member
Holy Hell!!! Its Richard "The Dick" Coughlan!!
He has spoken, argument over. Period.
Also, most of the fundies argument deals with a passage in john, in which he says god hast known you from conception. You can see where this goes...
He has spoken, argument over. Period.
Also, most of the fundies argument deals with a passage in john, in which he says god hast known you from conception. You can see where this goes...
Giliell
New Member
@Video
(almost) Totally agree. I hate nothing more than women who made the wrong decissions in their lives and therefore feel entitled to tell me how to live my life.
@tackling the issue
well, there's several ways.
1. Most likely, your teacher will base his anti-abortion views on his religion.
Easy to get him there: Why should anybody who doesn't believe in his imaginary friend be forced to stick to his rules? There's a seperation of church and state. End of argument.
2. Live begins at conception
It IS hard to draw a line when life begins, so all lines are to a certain extend arbitrary. To draw the line at conception might seem consequent and not arbitrary, but a few simple biological facts show that that line is even more arbitrary than most others. Between 50 and 60% of all fertilized eggs DON'T settle in the uterus. So to extend human rights to something that's going to be flushed out with the next period is as ridiculous as extending them to sperms (BTW I hate everybody who posts the MP song, because I alsways get it stuck in my head). Of those 40-50% who settle there, 15-20% are miscarried within the first 3 months.
That's why I, personally, draw the line for convenience abortions at three months gestation. I am aware that this is arbitrary, too. I base it on the fact that within those 3 months, everything is in a trial and error state. It can go either way.
3. "It's her fault she got pregnant, now she has to take the consequences"
First of all, that remarkt is a horrible insult to all victims of rape.
Secondly, having sex is agreeing to have a child the same way as driving a car is agreeing to get killed in an accident.
We don't deny help and care to the even most reckless driver who didn't wear a seatbelt, telling them that it's their fault and they have to cope with the consequences.
And furthermore, a baby should be the most womderful thing in the world, wished for and beloved by the parents. It's not a punishment.
4. "When a woman is pregnant, her body isn't only hers anymore"
Sorry, what? Where else in life is anybody deprived the right to decide when to let somebody use their bodily resources and when not?
There is no other case in life where that happens.
And that's what a fetus does: Use the mother's body regardless of any damage to her, even to the death.
Nobody can be forced to donate even one ounce of blood (totally harmless), stem cells (almost harmless, just a bit of trouble) or a kidney (potentially dangerous and with lasting effects) in order to save somebody else's life, not even if they were the one who endangered the life themselves in the first place (like in case of a car accident).
Why then should a woman be forced to let such a thing happen for 9 months, possibly resulting in dead?
5. "If abortions are hard to get, women will have the baby instead"
BS. If they can't have an abortion in a safe place done by a professional, they'll have it done with coathangers and by quacks. Or they'll carry to term and then abandon the child or murder them. Do we need more dumpsterbabies?
No, nobody likes abortions.
Do everything to prevent them in the first place.
Sex Education, real, compulsory, propper sex education.
"Abstinence only" taught kids are not less likely to have sex, they are only less likely to use protection
Create conditions in which women don't have to decide between a job or school and a child.
If an accident happens and a kid won't ruin your life, most women would have the kid.
(almost) Totally agree. I hate nothing more than women who made the wrong decissions in their lives and therefore feel entitled to tell me how to live my life.
@tackling the issue
well, there's several ways.
1. Most likely, your teacher will base his anti-abortion views on his religion.
Easy to get him there: Why should anybody who doesn't believe in his imaginary friend be forced to stick to his rules? There's a seperation of church and state. End of argument.
2. Live begins at conception
It IS hard to draw a line when life begins, so all lines are to a certain extend arbitrary. To draw the line at conception might seem consequent and not arbitrary, but a few simple biological facts show that that line is even more arbitrary than most others. Between 50 and 60% of all fertilized eggs DON'T settle in the uterus. So to extend human rights to something that's going to be flushed out with the next period is as ridiculous as extending them to sperms (BTW I hate everybody who posts the MP song, because I alsways get it stuck in my head). Of those 40-50% who settle there, 15-20% are miscarried within the first 3 months.
That's why I, personally, draw the line for convenience abortions at three months gestation. I am aware that this is arbitrary, too. I base it on the fact that within those 3 months, everything is in a trial and error state. It can go either way.
3. "It's her fault she got pregnant, now she has to take the consequences"
First of all, that remarkt is a horrible insult to all victims of rape.
Secondly, having sex is agreeing to have a child the same way as driving a car is agreeing to get killed in an accident.
We don't deny help and care to the even most reckless driver who didn't wear a seatbelt, telling them that it's their fault and they have to cope with the consequences.
And furthermore, a baby should be the most womderful thing in the world, wished for and beloved by the parents. It's not a punishment.
4. "When a woman is pregnant, her body isn't only hers anymore"
Sorry, what? Where else in life is anybody deprived the right to decide when to let somebody use their bodily resources and when not?
There is no other case in life where that happens.
And that's what a fetus does: Use the mother's body regardless of any damage to her, even to the death.
Nobody can be forced to donate even one ounce of blood (totally harmless), stem cells (almost harmless, just a bit of trouble) or a kidney (potentially dangerous and with lasting effects) in order to save somebody else's life, not even if they were the one who endangered the life themselves in the first place (like in case of a car accident).
Why then should a woman be forced to let such a thing happen for 9 months, possibly resulting in dead?
5. "If abortions are hard to get, women will have the baby instead"
BS. If they can't have an abortion in a safe place done by a professional, they'll have it done with coathangers and by quacks. Or they'll carry to term and then abandon the child or murder them. Do we need more dumpsterbabies?
No, nobody likes abortions.
Do everything to prevent them in the first place.
Sex Education, real, compulsory, propper sex education.
"Abstinence only" taught kids are not less likely to have sex, they are only less likely to use protection
Create conditions in which women don't have to decide between a job or school and a child.
If an accident happens and a kid won't ruin your life, most women would have the kid.
Lammington
New Member
When boiled down to its bare essentials, the abortion debate comes to a debate of at which point of the reproductive process a human life is formed. I'm neatly ignoring the "moral vs. immoral" side of things because that becomes a whole different debate in my view- the question of whether moral responsibility lies in ensuring a human is born, or in ensuring the best outcome for human lives, etc etc.
Religious views do seem to waver on this point- some see the act of copulation itself as part of the sanctity of the creation of life, thus claiming all birth control is sinful. To this I would argue simple chromosomes. Any one reproductive cell has not the chromosomes in and of itself to create a human, thus you can do with them as you will. If said cells end up in a piece of rubber, or indeed in a tissue, they're not tiny humans, they're bodily waste.
The most common argument, however, is that the point of conception is the point at which a life- sorry, a human life, for therein lies the rub, starts. Here's where the argument gets sticky. And at this point I realise how many sexual jokes could be made in my various statements, but we'll move past that before I break into the aforementioned Monty Python song.
It is very hard to rule a fertilised egg out of the claim of living tissue, but many fertilised eggs will fail to result in pregnancy- does this mean that human lives have been lost, or that in not proceeding any further, they remain mere tissue?
There are also the phases of gestation to factor into the argument- is the point at which the tissue becomes life at the end of the embryonic period, once the embryo becomes recognised at a fetus? At this point it has the precursors of the necessary parts to become a human, so this is definitely a point where it becomes a very heated debate. There is roughly a month between this point and the legal cut-off date for abortion in most countries, so that month is where you can get into really minute details for debate- how much potential for cognitive function is necessary to claim it's alive, etc etc.
The salient argument of the point at which a human life begins, and is thus protected under law, is one that is incredibly hard to debate, because there is no concrete answer. Before debating this point with someone, you really need to study your own views on it, as so much really is subjective and in the grey area that is morals.
Religious views do seem to waver on this point- some see the act of copulation itself as part of the sanctity of the creation of life, thus claiming all birth control is sinful. To this I would argue simple chromosomes. Any one reproductive cell has not the chromosomes in and of itself to create a human, thus you can do with them as you will. If said cells end up in a piece of rubber, or indeed in a tissue, they're not tiny humans, they're bodily waste.
The most common argument, however, is that the point of conception is the point at which a life- sorry, a human life, for therein lies the rub, starts. Here's where the argument gets sticky. And at this point I realise how many sexual jokes could be made in my various statements, but we'll move past that before I break into the aforementioned Monty Python song.
It is very hard to rule a fertilised egg out of the claim of living tissue, but many fertilised eggs will fail to result in pregnancy- does this mean that human lives have been lost, or that in not proceeding any further, they remain mere tissue?
There are also the phases of gestation to factor into the argument- is the point at which the tissue becomes life at the end of the embryonic period, once the embryo becomes recognised at a fetus? At this point it has the precursors of the necessary parts to become a human, so this is definitely a point where it becomes a very heated debate. There is roughly a month between this point and the legal cut-off date for abortion in most countries, so that month is where you can get into really minute details for debate- how much potential for cognitive function is necessary to claim it's alive, etc etc.
The salient argument of the point at which a human life begins, and is thus protected under law, is one that is incredibly hard to debate, because there is no concrete answer. Before debating this point with someone, you really need to study your own views on it, as so much really is subjective and in the grey area that is morals.
The best argument for the pro-choice side, is that sometimes an abortion is necessary to protect the life of the would be mother, because of this abortions should be easy to obtain.
It should be noted that pro-choice doesn't mean you are for abortion, I personally wish there were less abortions, however i recognize that the option is necessary, the proper way to deal with the issue of abortions for convenience is not to ban abortion, but to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive sexual education. Teenagers who do not receive proper sex-ed are not less likely to engage in sex, but are less likely to use protection, and as such more likely to end up with an unwanted pregnancy and more likely to seek an abortion. The irony is that most of the proponents that supports for this lack of sex-ed are also against abortion and as such are hurting one cause by pushing the other.
It should be noted that pro-choice doesn't mean you are for abortion, I personally wish there were less abortions, however i recognize that the option is necessary, the proper way to deal with the issue of abortions for convenience is not to ban abortion, but to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive sexual education. Teenagers who do not receive proper sex-ed are not less likely to engage in sex, but are less likely to use protection, and as such more likely to end up with an unwanted pregnancy and more likely to seek an abortion. The irony is that most of the proponents that supports for this lack of sex-ed are also against abortion and as such are hurting one cause by pushing the other.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
I've spent a few years pushing "There's good eating on a fetus!" as a pro-choice slogan for a couple of years now... not getting much traction, but I hold out hope. :twisted:
Giliell
New Member
DrunkCat said:
Hmm, maybe because that would mean you could suffocate a healthy, breathing newborn and still call it an abortion?
@Joe
Totally unreasonable
It needs about half a year to make one pound of fetus and that still is mostly bones. During that time, the woman has eaten so much more, it's just not economical
Giliell said:
And? Technically you're only suffocating a part of yourself so long as the umbilical cord is still functional. Also for the most part, this extremist example can only happen in a situation where the newborn would've been suffocated regardless(i.e. woman in a backalley) because I don't believe most delivery rooms give the baby to the parents without first cutting the umbilical cord.
5810Singer
New Member
DrunkCat said:
Interesting assertion.
Does it then follow that you haven't commited murder if you suffocate your conjoined twin?
Giliell
New Member
DrunkCat said:
Ehm, no
At that point, the child is outside the mother's body and no longer relying on the mother's heart and blood and resources.
The mother is no longer pumping blood through the umbical cord anymore (although it's still pulsating), else she'd bleed to death after it's cut.
And I had both my babies before the cord was cut by my husband.
And since we're talking about abortion, it is not about back-alley births but about a medical procedure done in hospitals
Giliell said:
Well there you go then; my answer would be no, suffocating a delivered baby would not be an abortion.
The reason I mentioned the back-alley because like I said, I don't feel smothering a newborn is something that would be allowed in a hospital setting.
5810Singer said:
Does it indeed? I'm surprised that this (conjoined twins) isn't brought up as often as it is in these types of debates.
However, can you really kill your conjoined twin via suffocation? Is causing your twin to enter a vegative state considered 'murder'?
Giliell
New Member
So it would be killing a living person, therefore I don't consider "When the cord is cut" a good line to drawDrunkCat said:
Agreed. And for me, to prevent babies, who are people with all human rights, from being smothered and killed by desperate women is to give them access to a safe early abortion.
5810Singer
New Member
DrunkCat said:
Did you notice the question mark at the end of my question?
I'll spell out my question again.
If, as you asserted, you haven't commited murder if you suffocate your newborn child before the umbilical cord is severed, (IE: when the child is still physically connected to you), then, in your view, does it follow that you haven't commited murder if you suffocate your conjoined twin, a twin who is likewise physically connected to you?
And if not, why not?
(please note that the above are questions, not statements)
Giliell said:
Well, how about, "When the cord is defunct."
5810Singer said:
No idea to be honest, never thought about it. To me, this is more of a question of what makes a person different from another person. I can't seem to draw the connection as you can, because you are comparing a tube to a human body. I dunno, to me that's quite the leap. Maybe I'll think of something else later.
5810Singer
New Member
@ Drunkcat.
You introduced the concept that the child was still part of the mothers body before the cord is cut, implying that the child is not a seperate entity until the physical connection is broken.
What immediately struck me was that conjoined twins are physically connected, and so I wanted to explore this concept that organisms are not seperate entities if they share a physical connection.
So I'm exploring the concept that you yourself introduced.
BTW I'm pro-choice, and I'm not being deliberately argumentative.
You introduced the concept that the child was still part of the mothers body before the cord is cut, implying that the child is not a seperate entity until the physical connection is broken.
What immediately struck me was that conjoined twins are physically connected, and so I wanted to explore this concept that organisms are not seperate entities if they share a physical connection.
So I'm exploring the concept that you yourself introduced.
BTW I'm pro-choice, and I'm not being deliberately argumentative.
That's of no worries to me, I like debating. Especially when it's a new concept I haven't churned yet (even though on the other hand I don't like being vocal about a subject until I have a solid position in it.)
I wonder though, are conjoined twins considered separate entities? For example, does a conjoined twin have two drivers licenses? Why would it need two drivers licenses? I guess it wouldn't be murder (or suicide?) but then, other people would see it as such. But why? Is it because of the essence of the other 'mind'? Does then the line get drawn at what constitutes 'sentience'? What ethereally separates the twins?
I see the 'ghost' or 'soul' or 'being' of an entity as the sum of its abstract memories (ruling out simple memory like breathing for hair splitters.) Is the difference herein that on one hand, you are debating the matter of physical connection on murdering two beings, and on the other, you are debating the matter of physical connection on stunting the opportunity of a secondary being.
A living being is self-sustainable. A fetus does not become self-sustainable till its umbilical cord is defunct (or at least, demonstrates if it is self-sustainable.) I just can't seem to wrap my head around how this can apply to conjoined twins. Help?
More thought this needs.
I wonder though, are conjoined twins considered separate entities? For example, does a conjoined twin have two drivers licenses? Why would it need two drivers licenses? I guess it wouldn't be murder (or suicide?) but then, other people would see it as such. But why? Is it because of the essence of the other 'mind'? Does then the line get drawn at what constitutes 'sentience'? What ethereally separates the twins?
I see the 'ghost' or 'soul' or 'being' of an entity as the sum of its abstract memories (ruling out simple memory like breathing for hair splitters.) Is the difference herein that on one hand, you are debating the matter of physical connection on murdering two beings, and on the other, you are debating the matter of physical connection on stunting the opportunity of a secondary being.
A living being is self-sustainable. A fetus does not become self-sustainable till its umbilical cord is defunct (or at least, demonstrates if it is self-sustainable.) I just can't seem to wrap my head around how this can apply to conjoined twins. Help?
More thought this needs.
TheFearmonger
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
I made you some downloadable signs for your cause
Good luck!!http://tinyurl.com/349ygu
Keep the good fight!
5810Singer
New Member
DrunkCat said:
I'll get back to you, busy right now.
Giliell
New Member
DrunkCat said:
Better idea.
I'd phrase it to "born or cord defunct", to make it water proof.
Which is, more or less, to my knowledge, the line drawn for medically indicated late term abortions. It is a bit a paradox and unhappy situation when you can spare a child a life of misery by putting it to death a month before delivery when it could already live outside the womb, but not 5 minutes after being born.
Well, I think we just have to accept that there are some things where there's no perfect reason for drawing a line where there's still one needed. For all the dates we've mentioned here (conception, 12 weeks, birth...) there are some reasons in favour and some against. And that's the difference I see between my position and some "know it all" anti-choicers: I accept that I don't have a perfect solution, I only have a working one.
BTW, I challenge the idea that the embryo/fetus is ever a part of the woman's body. It's a parasite by all definitions. It has different genes, it lives of the woman's resources, it doesn't care about whether it's damaging its host or even killing it and it has no benefits for the host. A woman may agree to host it, or refuse to host it, that's why it's her decission.