• “If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?” - Abortion Survivors Testify on Capitol
    128 replies, posted
[QUOTE=greasemunky;48662770]That has nothing to do with the argument though. It's merely pointing out the flaws of the "life begins at conception" mentality. You aren't even making a point, just stating the obvious and labeling the opposition as "sjw" even though this isn't even a PC / sj topic.[/QUOTE] Really because the abortion issue is something that the sjws I run into bring up pretty often And I was just pointing out the flaws with this analogy.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48662862]Really because the abortion issue is something that the sjws I run into bring up pretty often And I was just pointing out the flaws with this analogy.[/QUOTE] Yeah these sjw gangs are becoming a real nuisance in some parts of the country. Isn't it great how everyone has a new imagined entity they can blame everything on nowadays and there is no accountability at all. Just call whoever doesn't share your view a SJW and presto your argument is valid.
[QUOTE=Fetret;48662934]Yeah these sjw gangs are becoming a real nuisance in some parts of the country. Isn't it great how everyone has a new imagined entity they can blame everything on nowadays and there is no accountability at all. Just call whoever doesn't share your view a SJW and presto your argument is valid.[/QUOTE] By that logic that's what a lot of FPer's have been doing recently on other topics. What's so different about me doing it? Exhibit A: "Maaaaaan Obama's policies were so great but those durn REPUBLICANS just always have to come and ruin everything!" But I can guarantee you with a reasonable degree of certainty that if you were to go to the original poster's profile of that test, you'd find posts about "pro-lifers infringing on women's rights" and social-justicy stances on other issues outside of abortion. I have people exactly like this in my news feed so I'm just looking at trends here.
[QUOTE=greasemunky;48662770]That has nothing to do with the argument though. It's merely pointing out the flaws of the "life begins at conception" mentality. You aren't even making a point, just stating the obvious and labeling the opposition as "sjw" even though this isn't even a PC / sj topic.[/QUOTE] I think there are pretty big flaws with the life begins at conception arguments, but that situation doesn't point out any of them. To say that one is more valuable to the other isn't to say that they both don't have equal rights. For example, take the very well known trolley thought experiment where you are standing by a track switch and must decide to kill 1 person or 5 people. To say that I would rather kill the 1 person isn't to say that the 1 person has less rights than the 5 people. There are other things at stake and one must take it all into consideration.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48662554]Personally I'd choose the fully developed baby because if you drop a fucking embryo it's not going to fucking die lol Plus if the embryo is already out of the womb might as well consider it aborted Just another lame attempt by sjw pro-choicers to come up with a dumb analogy that attempts to look "intelligent" in justifying abortion, even late-term.[/QUOTE] And get this, right: you can't make a mountain out of a molehill. Because molehills are tiny and completely un-mountainous. How could anyone confuse the two? What a dumb analogy. Looks like another game point for me, SJW's.
[QUOTE=onebit;48660671]The brain functions from before it can be defined as a brain. It's a gradual change from insemination till death. So it feels "pain" from week one, just not how we feel it. Weak connections, but connections regardless. But why people value children above the old is a mystery to me. I understand the concept of evolution, but children are easier to create than the wisdom of the elder. Evolutionary progression is an interesting subject. [editline]11th September 2015[/editline] Genetic variation is vital to human survival.[/QUOTE] No actually the brain doesn't feel pain, those nerves that feel pain don't develop in week 1, they come much later, the brain itself doesn't have any pain receptors anyway and isn't even there at week 1
[QUOTE=Fetret;48662934]Yeah these sjw gangs are becoming a real nuisance in some parts of the country. Isn't it great how everyone has a new imagined entity they can blame everything on nowadays and there is no accountability at all. Just call whoever doesn't share your view a SJW and presto your argument is valid.[/QUOTE]Except it isn't imagined and there are people out there who literally believe abortion is a right up until contractions start? Hell, I've encountered people who have argued "hypothetically" for [i]retroactive abortions[/i] and yes, they were batshit insane radfems. You can't just pretend these people don't exist, but you'd maybe know that if you weren't [i]a Turk commenting to an American about Americans living in America.[/i]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48663605]Except it isn't imagined and there are people out there who literally believe abortion is a right up until contractions start? Hell, I've encountered people who have argued "hypothetically" for [I]retroactive abortions[/I] and yes, they were batshit insane radfems. You can't just pretend these people don't exist, but you'd maybe know that if you weren't [I]a Turk commenting to an American about Americans living in America.[/I][/QUOTE] Just take Peter Singer. He clearly believes that very young babies shouldn't have the right to life. I think it was up to 30 days after birth. There's a whole area of atheist moral philosophy that argues for that type of thing.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;48659511]You really want an irresponsible person like that contributing their genetic copy to society?[/QUOTE] So, a woman having abortion [I]once[/I] means that she is now by some universal standard an irresponsible person, and should never have a child in the future? Right. Like some other people have said, I don't really like abortion either. It costs money, and it's something we can pretty easily avoid. However it should still remain as a medical procedure, and be practiced with the best tools and the know-how for when needed. It's somewhat comparable to many intrusive medical procedures I'd say. Also, this largely comes down to [I]when[/I] exactly are we given our rights, or when are we considered a human being, so that aborting us would be against the universal human rights. Apparently people have pin-pointed it somewhere between 8 and 22 weeks into pregnancy, but that's not carved in stone anywhere, is it?
[QUOTE=cqbcat;48658260]You're right, but I think with proper use of a primary and secondary contraceptive, unintended pregnancy can become statistically insignificant. Insignificant enough that we doesn't really need to be a nation conversation or policy. Obviously make provisions for rape or life endangerment though. If a pill + condom or whatever else you use both fail, then congratlations! You're proton torpedo directly entered the exhaust port. You are true Jedi Master![/QUOTE] God damn I must be a Jedi Master then because I got a girl pregnant this way. Condom broke, pill failed. She got pregnant. Had to have the talk: do we abort or do we keep it? I was staunchly for abortion being in no condition to raise a child, but she had doubts. When she finally made the call, we scheduled an appointment. Miscarried before it happened, but it seemed like she was going to do it. While my case was a statistical anomaly, there are many others who don't use all the protection possible and end up with unwanted pregnancies. What do you want them to do then? Raise a child they can't afford to have? My father always had one question for anti-choice advocates: if you had it your way, who is going to pay for all of these unwanted children? Bonus points if you're a small government conservative and you say "the government". Will you take someone else's unwanted child into your care? Will you stand up for what you believe in? I doubt it very much. [QUOTE=RichyZ;48664073]im fucking done people are seriously calling pro-choice people sjws what the fuck is happening to the internet[/QUOTE] Relax, he has no idea what he's talking about. [QUOTE=sgman91;48663944]There's a whole area of atheist moral philosophy that argues for that type of thing.[/QUOTE] Do you even know anything about atheism? Serious question, because it seems like you really don't.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48663944]Just take Peter Singer. He clearly believes that very young babies shouldn't have the right to life. I think it was up to 30 days after birth. There's a whole area of atheist moral philosophy that argues for that type of thing.[/QUOTE] "atheist moral philosophy"? the fuck does that even mean?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48664077]"atheist moral philosophy"? the fuck does that even mean?[/QUOTE] It means that it's specific to people who hold to atheistic/naturalistic views. As these types of atheists would argue, it's a direct consequence of taking away the assumed human dignity found in religion. If you define a moral agent as something with self-consciousness, for example, then a 1 day old baby might not fall into that category. As a disclaimer: obviously I'm not saying all atheists hold this view.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48664102]It means that it's specific to people who hold to atheistic/naturalistic views. It's a direct consequence of taking away the assumed human dignity found in religion.[/QUOTE] The "assumed human dignity" is found in the universal human rights as well. They say that everyone is entitled to the rights [I]"without distinction of [U]any kind[/U]."[/I] I'm not even sure what that means, but it's probably good news for your 30-day or younger babies.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48664225]The "assumed human dignity" is found in the universal human rights as well. They say that everyone is entitled to the rights [I]"without distinction of [U]any kind[/U]."[/I] I'm not even sure what that means, but it's probably good news for your 30-day or younger babies.[/QUOTE] You say that like it's some scientific fact not up to review. Moral theory is far from being set in stone and there are people making many different arguments about it. The simple fact is that there exists a number of well respected atheist moral philosophers who argue against that concept. You're welcome to disagree, but pointing to a document doesn't really prove anything.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48664252]You say that like it's some scientific fact not up to review. Moral theory is far from being set in stone and there are people making many different arguments about it. The simple fact is that there exists a number of well respected atheist moral philosophers who argue against that concept.[/QUOTE] Well the human rights are not about scientific facts though. And they don't even focus on abortion in particular. Abortion just violates some of the listed articles, probably. Just to make things complicating, not to disagree with you. And to argue against or disagree with what now? That young babies lack conscience, ability to reason, progressed moral understanding etc., and therefor could be disqualified as moral agents? Sure. But even then, I'd like to see the reasoning behind the 30-day limit to killing babies, scientific reasoning this time.. (even though philosophy has a lot to do with both, societal and scientific studies.) Anyways. I may have forgot to mention this, but I consider the legal standpoint, and any [I]discrepancies[/I] that arise from all the laws&rights (that also change over time), to be much more of a complicating issue than the ethics/philosophy of abortion.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48664073]im fucking done people are seriously calling pro-choice people sjws what the fuck is happening to the internet[/QUOTE] To be fair not everyone who is pro-choice is an "SJW" but there are definitely SJWs who argue that things like contraception and abortion are a step in the direction of social justice against muh patriarchy and the person in the picture sounded like one.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48663944]There's a whole area of atheist moral philosophy that argues for that type of thing.[/QUOTE] What a snipe. There's nothing inherent to atheism or naturalistic philosophy that leads one to "Argue for abortion up to 30 days after birth." [editline]11th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=BFG9000;48662554]Just another lame attempt by sjw pro-choicers to come up with a dumb analogy that attempts to look "intelligent" in justifying abortion, even late-term.[/QUOTE] [I]Fantastic[/I] job both interpreting, and understanding the hypothetical there. The exercise was supposed to display the hypocrisy of most pro-lifers and their failure to understand the difference between an embryo, and a 3rd term foetus.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48665308]What a snipe. There's nothing inherent to atheism or naturalistic philosophy that leads one to "Argue for abortion up to 30 days after birth.[/QUOTE] You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. I'm saying that having that belief implies that you're an atheist, not that being an atheist implies that belief. People, including many atheists, would make the argument that you're insinuating, but I definitely haven't.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665357]You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. I'm saying that having that belief implies that you're an atheist, not that being an atheist implies that belief. People, including many atheists, would make the argument that you're insinuating, but I definitely haven't.[/QUOTE] One will indeed use different methods to justify their moral position on abortion of "up to 30 days after birth." that in themselves may preclude Atheism, but to allude that such moral stances preclude only Atheistic moral philosophy, is disingenuous. I personally think a case may be made for post-birth abortions, but It is not an argument I will myself entertain.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48665421]One will indeed use different methods to justify their moral position on abortion of "up to 30 days after birth." that in themselves may preclude Atheism, but to allude that such moral stances preclude only Atheistic moral philosophy, is disingenuous.[/QUOTE] I really don't see how it's disingenuous. Only atheists make those arguments and their arguments flow from atheist assumptions such as naturalism. It would be like saying that Jihad is based on religious belief. I, personally, don't hold to Jihad, but it's definitely an effect of a certain kind of religion.
I know it's kind of cliche, but if abortion is murder that means a period is murder too and male masturbation is genocide. As a previous poster notes earlier in the thread, the question of pro-life/pro-choice isn't a matter of naturalism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, social justice or human rights; it's a matter of how early in the life cycle we recognize embryos as human beings. There needs to be a line in the sand somewhere, if a zygote lump of flesh is considered to be human, then what's to say that a bucket or semen isn't considered human? What about unfertilized human eggs? I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's the kind of separation we're talking about here. At what point do you call something human and at what point is it simply a mass of chemicals? It seems obvious to me that the point in which an embyro becomes identifiably human is when synaptic activity begins to form, prior to that there's nothing actually alive there, just a pile of chemicals. A human being, as we identify it, begins to exist when there is brain activity, why else would we be so willing to kill animals that are so like us in every way except for the fact that they lack our brains? The brain makes us human, without it (or the capability of recovering it), we are nothing but either a corpse or an animal. We apply human morality to neither corpses nor to animals. I feel as though many of the pro-life people in this thread are reacting emotionally, using arguments about extremist atheists who want to eat babies, using pejorative terms and guilt by association instead of actually engaging with arguments put forward by people in the thread. I feel as though this is a bad faith argument, put forward to confirm one's own opinion instead of attempting to understand the arguments of people they disagree with. If you actually wish to engage in some form of argumentative discourse then I'd prefer you to address the actual arguments put forward in the thread rather than employ a verifiable form of the [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/]weak man fallacy[/url] and circle jerk about your moral righteousness.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665661]I know it's kind of cliche, but if abortion is murder that means a period is murder too and male masturbation is genocide.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but this is the worst point possible. Any argument made on the side of pro-choice starts at conception because that's where a new human is made. Neither an egg or seman are in any way a new human.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665675]I'm sorry, but this is the worst point possible. Any argument made on the side of pro-choice starts at conception because that's where a new human is made. Neither an egg or seman are in any way a new human.[/QUOTE] Why is that? You've stated something as a fact without any falsifiable reasoning behind it. What makes your belief that life begins as conception more correct than my belief that human life begins at neural activity? Also you missed the point of my entire post, that there needs to be not just a seperation of life from not-life (which you haven't clearly defined, why is egg+sperm alive and the individual egg and sperm not alive?) but also human life from not-human life. Are you a vegan? Do you carry the same belief in carrying human rights for animals and trees that you do for unborn zygotes? If not, why so?
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665691]Why is that?[/QUOTE] Because humans have rights and cells don't. The key is whether you think being human is enough to have rights or if you must meet some other requirement like personhood, consciousness, feeling of pain, etc. The question of abortion is hard because all of these requirements are fairly arbitrary unless you already have a set foundational moral theory. Once you have that moral theory that defines what makes something a moral agent, what is personhood, etc., then the answer of when the fetus meets those requirements is easy. Of course we don't have an agreed upon secular moral theory... so we're stuck with this issue of who and what should actually get rights.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665696]Because humans have rights and cells don't. The key is whether you think being human is enough to have rights or if you must meet some other requirement like personhood, consciousness, feeling of pain, etc. The question of abortion is hard because all of these requirements are fairly arbitrary unless you already have a set foundational moral theory. Once you have that moral theory that defines what makes something a moral agent, what is personhood, etc., then the answer of when the fetus meets those requirements is easy.[/QUOTE] Which begs the exact same question I asked before, why is that? As in, why does life begin at conception as opposed to any other time? How is the formation of life beginning at egg+sperm any less arbitrary than declaring life to begin at any other point? What makes it a superior theory to believing life begins during the start of neurotic activity or the first ability to sense pain as another use suggested, for example? And why is that belief superior to that of the consensus of medical professionals who believe in a set-period after conception before a zygote is considered to be human? [QUOTE]Of course we don't have an agreed upon secular moral theory... so we're stuck with this issue of who and what should actually get rights.[/QUOTE] We do have an agreed upon secular (not-moral, medical) theory. Remember this is a medical question not a moral (utilitarian, human rights, social justice, whatever) question. The consensus of medical professionals is that the zygote is not considered human until a set period of time after conception, abortion has been legal concurrently since the 1970s for this exact reason. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon, you are the outlier so you need to prove why you are correct and everybody else (including all of the assorted doctors, scientists and medical professionals) are wrong. This is not a matter of belief, either prove you are correct with reproducible, verifiable and falsifiable evidence or else you are wrong.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665461]I really don't see how it's disingenuous. Only atheists make those arguments and their arguments flow from atheist assumptions such as naturalism. [/QUOTE] Atheism and Naturalism aren't exclusive to each other. There can also be many cases made in Religion calling for Post-Birth abortion. I will yield that most modern western arguments pertaining to post-birth abortions will be put forward by naturalists. To clarify I say that claiming Atheists are the only group that puts forth these arguments was disingenuous. [QUOTE=sgman91;48665461] It would be like saying that Jihad is based on religious belief. I, personally, don't hold to Jihad, but it's definitely an effect of a certain kind of religion.[/QUOTE] Jihad is called for in the Qu'ran and is central to its dogma, Atheism has no dogma (You can argue Naturalism does, but Naturalism and Atheism aren't the same thing) [QUOTE=sgman91;48665675]I'm sorry, but this is the worst point possible. Any argument made on the side of pro-choice starts at conception because that's where a new human is made. Neither an egg or seman are in any way a new human.[/QUOTE] I have to agree with you here, an embryo is not on the same level as sperm or egg cells. [QUOTE=Zyler;48665710]Which begs the exact same question I asked before, why is that? As in, why does life begin at conception as opposed to any other time? [/QUOTE] As much as I hate the argument about "potential"; An unaltered zygote (When a sperm and egg meet) will produce a new life. A sperm or egg left alone (at least in a human) does not share this quality.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665710]Which begs the exact same question I asked before, why is that? As in, why does life begin at conception as opposed to any other time? How is the formation of life beginning at egg+sperm any less arbitrary than declaring life to begin at any other point? What makes it a superior theory to believing life begins during the start of neurotic activity or the first ability to sense pain as another use suggested, for example? And why is that belief superior to that of the consensus of medical professionals who believe in a set-period after conception before a zygote is considered to be human?[/QUOTE] I think there's a clear and non-arbitrary different between the fertilized egg, and the egg and sperm before fertilization as laid out by glitchvid. The zygote both has in individual and unique DNA strand, and will develop into a person is allowed to. The unfertilized egg and sperm neither have that potential nor contain a DNA strand describing a unique individual. After that point, I tend to agree with you. That's why I said that we would need to come up with a comprehensive secular moral theory as to what makes something a moral agent before choosing where to draw that line. Before we have that theory it's a fairly arbitrary decision. [QUOTE]There can also be many cases made in Religion calling for Post-Birth abortion.[/QUOTE] Really? I can't think of any modern religions arguments that support post-birth abortion. Would you mind giving a little more information. I'm interested in what line of argumentation they use. [QUOTE]Jihad is called for in the Qu'ran and is central to its dogma, Atheism has no dogma (You can argue Naturalism does, but Naturalism and Atheism aren't the same thing)[/QUOTE] I would argue that they in effect are the same. If you don't assume that the super-natural can't exist, then you can't really hold any position on the existence of the super-natural and would, at most, be an agnostic.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48665723] As much as I hate the argument about "potential"; An unaltered zygote (When a sperm and egg meet) will produce a new life. A sperm or egg left alone (at least in a human) does not share this quality.[/QUOTE] So? What difference does that make? A zygote could become a fetus, a sperm could meet an egg and become a zygote and eventually become a fetus or an egg could meet a sperm and become a zygote and again, eventually become a fetus. We're not talking about what something is, we're talking about what something might be in the future, which is all in all a rather pedantic and paranoid way of looking at things. [QUOTE=sgman91;48665747]I think there's a clear and non-arbitrary different between the fertilized egg, and the egg and sperm before fertilization as laid out by glitchvid. The zygote both has in individual and unique DNA strand, and will develop into a person is allowed to. The unfertilized egg and sperm neither have that potential nor contain a DNA strand describing a unique individual..[/QUOTE] But a sperm could potentially become a zygote and then a fetus if it meets an egg, an egg could potentially become a zygot and then a fetus if it meets a sperm. What difference is there if we're talking about what something 'potentially' is as opposed to what it actually is here and now. Any individual sperm can potentially be another human being, if we consider something that is potentially human to be human then it is indeed mass genocide anytime a man masturbates. Is an acorn a tree? No, it's far too small to have a tree and it doesn't have leaves or roots or branches. Could it be a tree in the future? Yes, potentially. Does that mean we should say all acorns are trees?
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665759]So? What difference does that make? A zygote could become a fetus, a sperm could meet an egg and become a zygote and eventually become a fetus or an egg could meet a sperm and become a zygote and again, eventually become a fetus. We're not talking about what something is, we're talking about what something might be in the future, which is all in all a rather pedantic and paranoid way of looking at things.[/QUOTE] You skipped over the word "unaltered." That's the difference. No matter how long you leave an egg or sperm alive they have no potential to become anything.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665762]You skipped over the word "unaltered." That's the difference. No matter how long you leave an egg or sperm alive they have no potential to become anything.[/QUOTE] Yes they do, they have the potential to become a zygote if they meet, and then eventually develop a fetus. 'Potentially' means 'in the future', if we're talking about the future that means we're also talking about the chance that things might happen in the future, that's the only way to predict human events. If we discuss the identification of humanness as being based on what something could 'potentially' be in the future, then it stands to reason that anything that has the potential to become human in the future is considered human.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.