Abortion wars are heating up ahead of November midterms - Polidicks

Why do you care about the homeless if nothing matters and it's all the same in the end regardless? I get the feeling that you aren't truly a nihilist (which is a good thing, for the record).

If anyone is an active practicing nihilist they should probably be institutionalized as a psychopath. Doesn't mean it doesn't have merit as a point of argument when it comes to issues such as abortion or war. Unfortunately we need to manage the population, we also need to have the choice to reproduce or not and being impregnated is not some sort of moral contract, living beings are not inherently special however all life I would argue is precious, so you need to choose where you stand and where to apply these philosophies. There is no one way to do things, we have to best judge ourselves, and it appears many people who are for abortion have chosen the nihilistic approach to the issue.

I'm just reaffirming the conclusion to the person i replied to, not trying to convince anyone.

Thanks for clearing that up pal, was about to go and get my dad aborted

I know, I was just addressing the general mindset. I feel like saying that they don't have valid arguments is flat-out wrong. They have valid arguments, just not valid conclusions.

i was thinking more like one of those reality tv shows like storage wars

"Beb-dy-babda-debdy-twenty-babada-boobidie-babada twenty five! SOLD TO THE MAN WITH THE RED HOT COAT HANGER!"

Either that or a really disturbing Robot Wars spinoff.

Go ahead. According to the logic of some people in here, that would be OK for their mother to do because it's her choice, rights and laws be damned.

I never knew it was possible terminate a pregnancy that occurred decades ago.

It would really help the discussion if you wouldn't post such frankly untrue, unsupported, and ridiculous things to strawman your opposition. Or you could be a disingenious person and double down, up to you.

Well, if we aren't drawing the line where a fetus becomes a person, then it never becomes a person, and never has rights or the protection of law, does it? That's why we have to draw the line. Saying we can't do that only implies that it is completely human from conception, or never human. It would also really help if the person I quoted had added anything real to the conversation rather than a snarky shitpost that completely misses the point of the selection he quoted, but here we are. I'm not going to give maximum effort in response to a low effort post.

You can't abort a rocket launch that's already completed the mission.

You may not be able to abort a rocket launch after the launch, but you can still destroy the rocket. You don't abort the birth, you abort the fetus/baby.

I don't think people approach the argument about abortion correctly because there is actually 2 main arguments, is abortion right or wrong and should abortion be legal or illegal. If we tackle those separately we can come to a conclusion. Firstly is it right or wrong? well if we look at the results of abortion, not just the death of the human and all its associated potential when fully developed but the often emotional trauma that accompanies this for the mother and in some cases physical trauma we can come to the conclusion that the entire thing is objectively wrong the whole process is a terrible ordeal for everyone involved. Ok so it IS wrong I would argue, but should it be illegal? What about cases where the baby is the result of a sexual assault? or if the baby comes to term that this causes the death of the mother? or permanent disability? well I would argue that this is a case between who matters more? the mother and her already formed and developed life, with all her connections, potential and basically her future or the possibility of the new life that hasn't yet really begun? I would argue possibly controversially that the mothers life is more important as it has already been successful to that point and needs to be considered in the argument of legality, some times wrong things happen and we have to consider the pros and cons logically, it may be brutal but abortion is a wrong we may have to permit. (I am intentionally leaving out the argument of unwanted pregnancies and if women are "not ready" as its a weak argument and opens the door for some problematic moral conclusions).

End of the second trimester

We don't assign fundamental san rights based on whether sand is in a heap or not, but do assign fundamental human rights based on whether something is a living person or not.

Literally doesn't matter at all for the point I was making. But for the point you're making, the beginning of my last post hit on that. The second trimester is the farthest out into term that most places allow for abortions. There are a million reasons why this is that have been stated ad nausea .

But the launch is not what determines if is a rocket. When all components are there, and the software is functioning, it's a rocket regardless of if it's launched or not. And when it's a rocket, then there are certain federal regulations that must be followed that don't have to be when it's not a rocket. It's not my logic. It was another poster's logic. I was simply showing how easy that logic is to justify even the killing of people who have already been born because if we don't make the designation, then how can you say for sure that a fetus has turned into a person with human rights? My opinion is, and always will be, that we need to come to a consensus on a point at which a fetus turns into a human, and therefore has all of the rights that are guaranteed to humans (including the right to life). I agree that that point is probably somewhere around the third trimester.

For real man abortions close to birth are extremely rare and when they do actually happen, they're usually because the mother will die if the abortion doesn't happen. I don't know anybody. (in real life or on the internet) who would argue that abortions can happen whenever for whatever reason. You're arguing with basically nobody. Women should have the right to the abortion, if they so choose. most do so in the first trimester. This is a fact. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/112373/901a073b-3f6a-4b40-b52d-59fd527e0215/450px-US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg.png

People in this very thread have argued that very thing.

Kinda late for this one, but there isn't some singular "true nihilism". Nihilism is an umbrella term ranging from the denial of all value in the universe, to denial of certain objective values as anything more than subjective, meaning that concepts such as "right and wrong" occurring independently yet varying in infants may be taken as further proof of this point. That is to say, one can be a nihilist and care about the homeless for personal reasons, as opposed to some objective system. The rejection of all objective value does not necessitate the rejection of subjective value.

Many ladies had to have abortions after i was done with them

I doubt there will ever be a consensus that everyone agrees to. That said, imo 'personhood' begins at birth. That simple really - once a foetus has been birthed, and is capable of homeostasis, then it is a baby. Any time before that, when it is leaching from it's host and incapable of surviving otherwise, it is in the jurisdiction of that host.

The problem with this is that pre-mature births are common and with medical advances, they can develop reasonably well outside the body of the mother.

You missed this wntirely and fucked it up with your own comparison. Destroying the rocket after its done is like killing a baby after its birthed. Once the baby is out theres no reason to kill it. The birth and holding period are the actual parts that affect the mother the most. But considering your previous feels before reals argument about abortion im not surprised the point was, like a rocket, way over your head.

So what if the dad dies one week before birth - what if the baby had been two weeks premature instead and the dad dies the week after? The mother and baby will live with the exact same consequences. Pushing a baby out of a vagina is just a formality after the fetus becomes viable; the idea that that is somehow the defining point of when it's alright to abort and when not to is patently ridiculous. Should a mother be able to go into labour and then get an abortion before the baby's out? If you don't think so, what separates that from aborting it a few hours before she goes into labour? And what is the argument against killing newborns? Surely we could do so humanely, and if, as in your example, we might expect the family to live in poverty and the child to grow up in awful living conditions, why not? I'm a staunch defender of the right to abortion, but abortions for viable fetuses (>20-22 weeks or so and onwards) should only be allowed in extreme cases - if the pregnancy poses a disproportionate danger to the mother, or if the baby is so severely handicapped that its quality of life must be considered very low, as well to pose a large burden on the parents. This time frame poses more than enough time to figure out whether you want a kid or not, and as far as we know (and well, as well as I know the science), a fetus at that age would not be able to experience pain.

A woman should not be forced into medical procedures she does not consent to: this includes C-section and forced birth. Once a preemie is born it can't be aborted... So that's not an issue. If that's a response to my opinion on right to refuse care, then it still doesn't make a difference - if the baby can't survive without medical assistance then the mother should be given the same options as coma patients and their legal guardian.

So if a baby was 20 minutes away and the husband died, terminating it isn’t terminating a life?

I'm arguing that loads of people grow up in single parent homes. I don't buy that this is so awful a place for a kid to be as to justify killing babies so close to term - if it were, we'd be outlawing divorces. It's the most dangerous part of pregnancy, sure, but it's still very, very safe in modern countries. I doubt an abortion so close to term is any safer. Of course the bodily autonomy of the mother is important, but you have to consider the baby a part of the equation when it comes far enough along. You still haven't justified why plopping out a vagina is incredibly relevant to becoming a person - you mentioned autonomy, but is a baby really that autonomous? It's still reliant on the care of its parents, basically analogous to the way a fetus is "leeching" (as you put it) on its mother. Your definition also leads to some pretty absurd conclusions: As a baby very close to term is viable, if you did a c-section (or whatever) to take the baby out, by your definition, it'd be its own person, and thus worthy of protection. The only solution is to kill the baby while still inside the mother. The absurd thing is that per your definition, cutting the baby out and killing it would be wrong (basically murder), but killing the baby and then cutting it out would be perfectly fine. This shows how much of a formality your definition is - simply changing up the chain of events slightly changes whether the baby is a person or not. And as I said, why not sedate newborns and kill them afterwards? As you say, it'd be painless. I'll also dispute that a woman (or anyone else for that matter) always knows what's best for her body and family situation. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a thing. I'm not opposed to late term abortions if it turns out the fetus has significant defects, but the vast, vast majority of tests can be done reliably within the first twenty weeks.