To What Extent Do You Support Abortion?

Infidel Dog · July 6, 2022

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

For sure it is, but it is no more cognizant of anything than a tumour at conception. It's not until it's 15 weeks or so that it starts making choices based on external stimuli.

There's good argument as to why that shouldn't matter. Shapiro does a pretty good job of laying it out, so if you're interested here it is:

Dougie93 · July 6, 2022

when I was in my twenties I got my girlfriend pregnant

and we mutually agreed to end the pregnancy

but she got morning sickness right away, so this was very early on, the first month

if it had been four months into the pregnancy however

I do not believe she would wanted to have an abortion then

ending the pregnancy four months in would have been too late for me to have supported it

although I had no actual say at all in the matter

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dougie93

WestCanMan · July 6, 2022

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

There's good argument as to why that shouldn't matter. Shapiro does a pretty good job of laying it out, so if you're interested here it is:

I usually agree with Shapiro, but he didn't make sense there.

If someone's in a coma they have dozens of serious relationships with people, people love them and in a lot of instances rely on them. Then there's a complicated mess of what to do with their chattels after they die. Does the person pulling the plug profit the most from their death?

In the case of an abortion, there's sometimes only 1 person on earth who'd love that baby and knows of its existence. The grandparents might not know, aunts/uncles/cousins might not know... The father might want the abortion as well if he knew of the pregnancy. The fetus has never been aware of its existence, will feel no pain, is being spared a difficult life of being raised in a 1-parent home, etc, etc.

There's really no comparison between the two situations, and the debate doesn't need to be railroaded into the specific points that Ben wants them to be stuck in.

herbie · July 7, 2022

On 7/5/2022 at 3:30 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

there is zero scientific basis to the claim that it isn't a person

Let's just turn reality backwards to support our opinions.

And use proper Marecan for collective you instead of individuals

some of youse Moms's...

Edited July 7, 2022 by herbie

Infidel Dog · July 7, 2022

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I usually agree with Shapiro, but he didn't make sense there.

If someone's in a coma they have dozens of serious relationships with people, people love them and in a lot of instances rely on them. Then there's a complicated mess of what to do with their chattels after they die. Does the person pulling the plug profit the most from their death?

In the case of an abortion, there's sometimes only 1 person on earth who'd love that baby and knows of its existence. The grandparents might not know, aunts/uncles/cousins might not know... The father might want the abortion as well if he knew of the pregnancy. The fetus has never been aware of its existence, will feel no pain, is being spared a difficult life of being raised in a 1-parent home, etc, etc.

There's really no comparison between the two situations, and the debate doesn't need to be railroaded into the specific points that Ben wants them to be stuck in.

I believe Ben would ask you if you're saying it would be OK to kill somebody in a temporary coma who was penniless and alone. Would you require the coma or are those your criteria for legal murder in general? Possessions and connections to others.

I don't like the chances for happiness of the penniless, solitary individual when he comes out of his temporary coma either but I'd still call it murder if somebody killed him.

As to previous awareness of the organism's existence, at what point after birth would you call a murder legal or for that matter moral? As soon as he can express awareness of his being? When would that be?

Yzermandius19 · July 7, 2022

11 hours ago, Goddess said:

Who would determine what is a significant amount of risk that women should take?

And how much risk is acceptable? Is it a 50% chance of death? 75%? 100%?

I think each woman and her doctor are in the best position to determine how much risk she is willing to take. A woman with 2 or 3 children already may not want to risk it at even 50%, leaving her children parentless and in foster care or motherless. Another woman may feel 50% is an okay risk.

These decisions are best left to each woman to determine, based on her own circumstances in life.

50% is way too high

not allowing a woman to have an abortion in that case would be sadistic

Yzermandius19 · July 7, 2022

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I usually agree with Shapiro, but he didn't make sense there.

If someone's in a coma they have dozens of serious relationships with people, people love them and in a lot of instances rely on them. Then there's a complicated mess of what to do with their chattels after they die. Does the person pulling the plug profit the most from their death?

In the case of an abortion, there's sometimes only 1 person on earth who'd love that baby and knows of its existence. The grandparents might not know, aunts/uncles/cousins might not know... The father might want the abortion as well if he knew of the pregnancy. The fetus has never been aware of its existence, will feel no pain, is being spared a difficult life of being raised in a 1-parent home, etc, etc.

There's really no comparison between the two situations, and the debate doesn't need to be railroaded into the specific points that Ben wants them to be stuck in.

killing someone with dozens of relationships, not okay

killing someone with no relationships, okay?

WestCanMan world sounds rather cruel

Edited July 7, 2022 by Yzermandius19

WestCanMan · July 7, 2022

12 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I believe Ben would ask you if you're saying it would be OK to kill somebody in a temporary coma who was penniless and alone. Would you require the coma or are those your criteria for legal murder in general? Possessions and connections to others.

I don't like the chances for happiness of the penniless, solitary individual when he comes out of his temporary coma either but I'd still call it murder if somebody killed him.

It would definitely be murder, yes.

Quote

As to previous awareness of the organism's existence, at what point after birth would you call a murder legal or for that matter moral? As soon as he can express awareness of his being? When would that be?

I think that a fetus becomes a sentient being at some point near the end of the first trimester. I don't know exactly when.

Unless there are extreme circumstances, I would consider think that aborting an 8-month-old fetus is starting to look pretty murderish.

WestCanMan · July 7, 2022

11 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

killing someone with dozens of relationships, not okay

killing someone with no relationships, okay?

WestCanMan world sounds rather cruel

I never said that about an adult with zero relationships, I said that about a small group of cells in a woman's womb with no relationships.

It's no more of anyone's business what's inside my large colon than whether or not a 15-yr-old girl has a few cells in her womb. If you want to know, it's weird in both instances.

Yzermandius19 · July 7, 2022

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I never said that about an adult with zero relationships, I said that about a small group of cells in a woman's womb with no relationships.

It's no more of anyone's business what's inside my large colon than whether or not a 15-yr-old girl has a few cells in her womb. If you want to know, it's weird in both instances.

your can't say it's okay to kill something with no relationships and not another

if not having relationships is your justification for killing something

size of a group of cells doesn't work either

smaller humans are not okay to kill while larger humans are not

you are engaging in cognitive dissonance because you have no good standard to justify killing an unborn child but are grasping at straws to justify it anyway

logic is not informing your stance

your feelings and confirmation bias are

WestCanMan · July 7, 2022

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

your can't say it's okay to kill something with no relationships and not another

if not having relationships is your justification for killing something

size of a group of cells doesn't work either

smaller humans are not okay to kill while larger humans are not

you are engaging in cognitive dissonance because you have no good standard to justify killing an unborn child but are grasping at straws to justify it anyway

logic is not informing your stance

your feelings and confirmation bias are

You're literally comparing a glob of a few thousand cells to an adult in a coma.

The line between "a reasonable argument" and "what the fuck was he thinking" about 1,000 miles overhead right now Yz.

It's commendable that you're sticking up for fetal rights, I'm on your side, but we're still a long way apart.

I'm not gonna say that "Using spermicidal jelly is jizz genocide."

Yzermandius19 · July 7, 2022

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're literally comparing a glob of a few thousand cells to an adult in a coma.

The line between "a reasonable argument" and "what the fuck was he thinking" about 1,000 miles overhead right now Yz.

It's commendable that you're sticking up for fetal rights, I'm on your side, but we're still a long way apart.

I'm not gonna say that "Using spermicidal jelly is jizz genocide."

life begins at conception

not before

dehumanizing human life in it's early stages

is an odd way of sticking up for unborn children

the other side uses that same logic to justify killing babies you aren't okay with killing

if that logic applies then all abortions are justified

because you are unable to differentiate why it's okay to kill one but not the other with a consistent standard

Edited July 7, 2022 by Yzermandius19

WestCanMan · July 7, 2022

33 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

life begins at conception

not before

dehumanizing human life in it's early stages

is an odd way of sticking up for unborn children

the other side uses that same logic to justify killing babies you aren't okay with killing

if that logic applies then all abortions are justified

because you are unable to differentiate why it's okay to kill one but not the other with a consistent standard

If a girl is gonna have 2 kinds in her lifetime should she:

1) Have them by surprise when she's in grade 10 and 12, or

2) Do it as a married woman at 30 and 32 years old?

Which children are better off in that scenario?

Keep in mind that we'd like to have a happy, healthy country, with children that are loved and well-cared-for.

You're asking for a woman and her child to grow up in misery and poverty when it's not necessary.

eyeball · July 8, 2022

I support abortion to whatever extent a woman and her doctor have determined is most appropriate.

Yzermandius19 · July 8, 2022

On 7/7/2022 at 2:30 PM, WestCanMan said:

If a girl is gonna have 2 kinds in her lifetime should she:

1) Have them by surprise when she's in grade 10 and 12, or

2) Do it as a married woman at 30 and 32 years old?

Which children are better off in that scenario?

Keep in mind that we'd like to have a happy, healthy country, with children that are loved and well-cared-for.

You're asking for a woman and her child to grow up in misery and poverty when it's not necessary.

I am suggesting that life is more important than becoming a mother or growing up in such circumstances

you seem to think that this justifies an abortion

you can't kill people because they might have to suffer through poverty

this is a moronic standard to judge the value of life on

Edited July 8, 2022 by Yzermandius19

Zijlstra · July 9, 2022

Abortion before 20 weeks should be legal, safe, and something to be shamed and shunned for doing unless absolutely medically necessary.

WestCanMan · July 9, 2022

20 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I am suggesting that life is more important than becoming a mother or growing up in such circumstances

you seem to think that this justifies an abortion

you can't kill people because they might have to suffer through poverty

this is a moronic standard to judge the value of life on

Not killing a 'person', killing a blob of 3,000 cells which have no idea that they are even alive.

There are going to be 2 babies born in either scenario Yz, two babies born into a hot mess or two babies born into a loving home. Regardless which decision you make, 2 people get to be born and 2 people don't.

If you're driving a trolley down the track and you have the option of switching tracks to avoid a person, do you do it? Yeah, sure. What if there are 5 people on the track you're on and one on the other... Do you switch to the track with only 1 person? You'd kill 4 less people, but you'd choosing to murder the other one. What if you know & care for the lone person on the other track but not the 5 on the track you're on, do you switch it then?

2 babies get to live, 2 don't. It's her choice, because none of the babies are cognizant of their own future yet. If the fetuses are formed into little humans inside of a womb it starts to take on a different dimension imo.

It's not always easy to make these decisions, and TBH, if it's a really decision for the woman to abort a fetus, then she probably isn't the kind of person who would be bringing decent humans into the world.

Yzermandius19 · July 9, 2022

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Not killing a 'person', killing a blob of 3,000 cells which have no idea that they are even alive.

There are going to be 2 babies born in either scenario Yz, two babies born into a hot mess or two babies born into a loving home. Regardless which decision you make, 2 people get to be born and 2 people don't.

If you're driving a trolley down the track and you have the option of switching tracks to avoid a person, do you do it? Yeah, sure. What if there are 5 people on the track you're on and one on the other... Do you switch to the track with only 1 person? You'd kill 4 less people, but you'd choosing to murder the other one. What if you know & care for the lone person on the other track but not the 5 on the track you're on, do you switch it then?

2 babies get to live, 2 don't. It's her choice, because none of the babies are cognizant of their own future yet. If the fetuses are formed into little humans inside of a womb it starts to take on a different dimension imo.

It's not always easy to make these decisions, and TBH, if it's a really decision for the woman to abort a fetus, then she probably isn't the kind of person who would be bringing decent humans into the world.

one decision results in no baby being killed

the other results in a baby being killed

calling it a blob of cells doesn't negate the immorality of the action

WestCanMan · July 9, 2022

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

one decision results in no baby being killed

the other results in a baby being killed

calling it a blob of cells doesn't negate the immorality of the action

What's immoral: aborting a blob of 3,000 cells, or forcing a 14-yr-old girl to carry a baby to term after she was raped?

In your world a serial rapist could have dozens of babies if he doesn't get caught.

It's immoral for you to think that a woman should be forced to abide by your rules in a situation that is life-altering for her and has nothing to do with you or any other human being.

Yzermandius19 · July 9, 2022

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What's immoral: aborting a blob of 3,000 cells, or forcing a 14-yr-old girl to carry a baby to term after she was raped?

In your world a serial rapist could have dozens of babies if he doesn't get caught.

It's immoral for you to think that a woman should be forced to abide by your rules in a situation that is life-altering for her and has nothing to do with you or any other human being.

it is immoral to punish the child for the sins of the father

the child is innocent

it didn't rape anyone

Edited July 9, 2022 by Yzermandius19

Zijlstra · July 9, 2022

Abortion is good because it disproportionately kills black babies, just as Sanger intended.

WestCanMan · July 9, 2022

8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it is immoral to punish the child for the sins of the father

the child is innocent

it didn't rape anyone

It's not a child. You don't get to abuse the dictionary just because you're in an untenable position.

WestCanMan · July 9, 2022

1 minute ago, Zijlstra said:

Abortion is good because it disproportionately kills black babies, just as Sanger intended.

That would be the avowed racist Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton's role model. The first lady among alt-leftists.

Yzermandius19 · July 9, 2022

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not a child. You don't get to abuse the dictionary just because you're in an untenable position.

it is a child

you don't get to pretend that being in early stage of development renders it's life not valuable

and you don't get to say terminating that life isn't immoral

Edited July 9, 2022 by Yzermandius19

WestCanMan · July 9, 2022

10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it is a child

you don't get to pretend that being in early stage of development renders it's life not valuable

and you don't get to say terminating that life isn't immoral

It is not a child. It isn't even a fetus yet until it's 8 weeks old.

You don't get to pretend that a glob of a few thousand cells is more important to you than the entire life of a young woman is to her and her family.

And you don't get to say that forcing a young girl to carry the product of a rape to term isn't immoral.