They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Wrong. She is terminating a cluster of cells that do not have the same cognitive nor physical attributes of a baby. So in fact she is determining what is right or wrong for her and her alone. Her body, her rules, her choice. Not yours, not your religion's nor your government's choice. Her's alone. If you are a male and have no connection to this fetus then it is DEFINITELY not your choice!
Is a foetus a body part?
But it’s still human, cognitive function or not. It has human rights like you or me, and these rights exist regardless of a popular vote.
We’re talking about two lifes here, not one.So in fact she is determining what is right or wrong for her and her alone.
Not her body.Her body, her rules, her choice.
Guess i’ll just give up my democratic right.Not yours
Im not religious and have never brought up religious talking points.not your religion's
Should the government have no say on family matters at all? Even mistreatment, abuse, abortion?nor your government's choice.
Do you believe in gender equality? That the father should have as much of a say as the mother?Her's alone.
Doesn’t answer the question. If it’s a matter of ‘my body my choice’ then in what regard is a foetus a part of the body, and not a separate but dependent organism. A human organism. With shared parentage of the mother and father.
And if being male means I have no say in the matter, then why should I be able to vote at all?If you are a male and have no connection to this fetus then it is DEFINITELY not your choice!
Guess I’ll let the wamen do the talking.
Last edited by Aexodus; May 28, 2018 at 06:41 AM.
It's irrelevant. It's the woman's body, her choice. Obviously the father will have a say, but otherwise it's her choice. Would you men be happy with women deciding to intervene in your reproductive choices? Maybe withhold viagra from the limp dicks out there because they want to choose for men!!??
There we have it, just the dogmatic mantra if ‘my body my choice’. This isnt a rally, this is a debate, so you need to back this point up with evidence.
Why is it her body, its not the her choice part im disagreeing with, but obviously if its not her body, then it would follow its not her choice either, wouldnt it?
So the father has an equal say yes? If in a consensual relationship the mother wants to abort but the father wants to keep, you would respect hid paternal duty of care to his offspring, the natural right and instinct of every living thing in existence; the right to life, and the right to care for offspring?Obviously the father will have a say, but otherwise it's her choice.
There are no external lives at risk in viagra use.Would you men be happy with women deciding to intervene in your reproductive choices? Maybe withhold viagra from the limp dicks out there because they want to choose for men!!??
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Claiming "Its not her body." is reducing women to citizens of minor rights.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
Well actually, no she can't. Women do not get to choose when to fertile and not. Really what you are arguing is against being sexual when you don't want a child, which is archaic as .
I should also add that your focus seems to be on sexuality, but most fertilized embryos that are destroyed are not conceived sexually. Most are the rejected fertilized eggs used in vitro fertilization. Where is the outrage against that?
Last edited by The spartan; May 28, 2018 at 02:43 PM.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Abortions are an extremely ancient phenomena. It's just that with today's technology you can perform them at an Industrial scale.
With logic and morals from the 60s, to protect people from mistakes, abortion could be a fairly chill and liberalized thing, but with today's mindset, it will be consumed with same financial ease that is buying a new Iphone.
There's even the ocasional pics on instagrams of mothers taking pics of themselves in the mirror after the abortion to brag about how they just lost weight and became more fit. Plus ocasional art movements glorifying people who had abortions.
This is the mindset that's existant today, so what will happen is obvious. I don't stress much about it because people will do them regardless if it's illegal or not, it's high on demand and high on supply today.
If you had a legalized situation on this in the 60s it wouldn't even be an issue with the more Puritan sector, for it would be a seen as a last resort scenario rather than something you do fairly easily.
It will be seen that, as used, the word Fascism is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
-George Orwell
The point here is, the fact that you personally consider it 'ridiculous' to respect the human rights of unborn babies, isn't a valid reason to deny them their human rights. Many people also consider it ridiculous to respect the rights of certain groups of human beings; for instance, those belonging to a different religion, ethnicity, nationality, "gender identity", etc. This position is irrational to hold for anyone who claims to care for human rights. If you're a live human being, you have human rights. These are the only requirements. Additional, arbitrary criteria like ability to communicate, intelligence, appearance, popularity, etc. are completely irrelevant.
What you're really arguing for here, is that the more vulnerable and different an individual human is the less he deserves protection, which is the opposite of everything human rights advocacy stands for.
But that is precisely why advocating against abortion is so important. Unborn babies have no ability to defend themselves and are wholly reliant on adults for protection. The fact that millions of people view them as parasites worthy of being exterminated, is just more reason to fight for them. I'd guess that millions of people would rather save one member of their nationality, over 300 members of other nationalities. Does that mean members of other nationalities aren't equally human?This is a conversation we could seriously have, but I am trying to demonstrate the extremes of difference. I don't think anyone here would choose even hundreds of fertilized embryos over a teenager or child. That is to say, no matter the values we put on individuals as a society, we hold men, women, and children as being far more morally comparable than any are to a fertilized embryo.
Society generally has always believed that minorities were of less worth, but human rights advocates nevertheless fought the good fight (and eventually won), even though they had to fight alone, as a minority widely derided by society. The consensus of society doesn't determine right and wrong. Right is right and wrong is wrong, even if 100% of the population disagree.
The moral thing to do isn't always the easiest choice, but still it is the right choice, because one evil doesn't justify another. If you are harmed by somebody, and you react by harming another innocent person, all you're doing is ultimately perpetuating the very evil that was committed against you.
Although that's definitely easier said than done. Here is the experience of a woman who was in a similar situation:
If a pregnancy legitimately poses a serious threat to the life of the mother, then, from a moral standpoint, you could argue it would be self-defense to kill the baby, and therefore not immoral.
But these cases are extremely rare. In more than 90% of abortions, the pregnancy is from consensual sex and doesn't pose a special threat to the mother's life. Most reasonable people would support stopping those 96%+ of abortions, and allowing the ones where the mother's life is threatened.
Ignore List (to save time):
Exarch, Coughdrop addict
So it is just a red herring. You seem to be missing the point that not everyone is an agreement with what you define as a human, and not for petty reasons like "ethnicity". A lot of really smart people do not consider a freshly fertilized embryo as a 'human'. And no, those attributes aren't arbitrary and aren't irrelevant.
I think a non-cognitive entity is less deserving of protections, yes. So do you.
Woah, I don't think anyone here is advocating for "exterminating" anything; it's "Pro-Choice", not "Pro-Abortion". And you trying to ethically tie embryos to living individuals in minority groups is creepy and probably a bit offensive.
Your "moral crusade" comes off fairly oppressive, though. It isn't enough for you to make your own personal choices, you want others to not have a choice because you personally don't agree. If, like, all (or most of) the smartest biologists were in agreement that abortion was clearly similar to murder then I would be much more concerned, but that simply isn't the position. As long as the main motivation for "abortion=murder" is a religious one, then I am not impressed.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Sorry Spartan but where did he bring in religion? This is a moral argument, not a religious one. And religion doesn’t have a monoploy on morality. If we’re going to legalise abortion for superficial reasons, then why not allow parents to kick their kids out of the house before 16 years old. You’re pro-choice, right? Even if it means harming another human? Because if pro-choice is your principle, then you could at least be consistent.
Ok, which secular ethics framework is being used, then? Utilitarianism, Kantianism, or what? I say this because at least here in the US, pro-life advocates have an overwhelming religious representation. Not many secular ethicists speak out about banning abortion, though I am sure some exist.
No, we have been over this, I don't consider an fertilized embryo to have human rights. Sorry that is hard for you to hear. A 16 year old is much more human and has many more rights, and to "kick them out of the house" would be stresses on other parts of society. If the kid comes from a broken home, then I obviously think social services should be involved.
It should also be noted, however, that we don't consider a 16 year old to have the same rights as an adult, so lets not pretend we hold all people in the same standard of agency regardless of age. We are perfectly fine with restricting a 16 year old's freedom despite them being very much human.
Last edited by The spartan; May 28, 2018 at 06:17 PM.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.