Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 63 of 63

Thread: "Abortion addiction"

  1. #41
    the common sense fairy solecistic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    2,078
    Credits
    458
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    sometimes as many as eight can leave

  2. #42
    Merry fucking Christmas Atmosfear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,675
    Credits
    2,035
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    Neither babies nor foetuses are people, in any useful meaning of the word. The only physical/intrinsic difference between them is that one's in a box and the other isn't.

    Infanticide is different to abortion -- that is, infants are different to foetuses -- in one morally relevant way: when it's born, people in the world form attachments to it. From legal, societal attachments (like giving it a name, or status as a "person" by law) to loving, familiar attachments. In short... foetuses are different to babies because people like babies better.
    Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

    Wrong.

    Holy fucking shit you must be a high school student that is so wrong.

    The physical difference is negligible. It's a personal and, ultimately, cultural definition. Anecdotally, I know of people that have had miscarriages and the father memorialized his child's passing with a tattoo. Taken to the extreme you get those creepy miscarriage internet memorials that we laugh at in flames. On the flip-side, we have abortions (coincidentally, complete with their own set of emotions and guilt.) There are Pacific island cultures in which a child is not considered a person until 4 or 5 years of age. They don't even receive a name before that point. In our culture, women have names determined before they are even physically capable of pregnancy, much less completed mate selection.

    You can define when you think a collection of unique DNA starts being a person whenever you want, because it's ALL arbitrary. A new-born is no less of a parasite than a fetus. An adolescent is scarcely a larger contribution to society than a pre-teen. It's a complete farce to claim there is any logical reasoning behind making the determination at the 3rd trimester rather than 3 months after birth; your logic is based simply on how similar it looks to you.

  3. #43
    Merry fucking Christmas Atmosfear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,675
    Credits
    2,035
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    solecistic would you like to join my campaign to remove and save all of women's eggs and sterilize them so that they can be complete whores and never pay any consequences but then when someone fucks up and wifes them they can procreate?

    (it's a great idea until the procreation part)

  4. #44
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    but atmosfear, if you never procreate, how do you plan on getting into dad tavern?

  5. #45
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear View Post
    solecistic would you like to join my campaign to remove and save all of women's eggs and sterilize them so that they can be complete whores and never pay any consequences but then when someone fucks up and wifes them they can procreate?

    (it's a great idea until the procreation part)
    it would be a hell of a lot easier to do that with men and their sperm than women

    just sayin'


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  6. #46
    the common sense fairy solecistic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    2,078
    Credits
    458
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear View Post
    solecistic would you like to join my campaign to remove and save all of women's eggs and sterilize them so that they can be complete whores and never pay any consequences but then when someone fucks up and wifes them they can procreate?

    (it's a great idea until the procreation part)
    yep i am on board bro

  7. #47
    Merry fucking Christmas Atmosfear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,675
    Credits
    2,035
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    but atmosfear, if you never procreate, how do you plan on getting into dad tavern?
    by accident

    Quote Originally Posted by sycld View Post
    it would be a hell of a lot easier to do that with men and their sperm than women

    just sayin'
    yeah but part of the point is to restrict women's rights. things have really gotten out of hand recently with Obama's removal of the glass ceiling.

  8. #48
    Sexual Deviant Vengeful Scars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    My Ass
    Posts
    6,588
    Credits
    675
    Trophies
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm all for sterilization for at least one full generation.

    The next generation can figure it out from there
    lik dis if u cry evertim
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    yes
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    Oh I was expecting a guide to making meth

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    62
    Credits
    490
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solecistic View Post
    yep i am on board bro
    I never thought it would quite go that far, but i definitely approve.

  10. #50
    Senior Member DAVIDSDIVAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    657
    Credits
    418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    We should make all of her subsequent pregnancies result in abortions.

  11. #51
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear View Post
    The beginning of life is a culturally-defined point in time, not a medical one.
    The beginning of life as it's culturally defined is unscientific, arbitrary and useless. The point at which life begins is already defined objectively by biology - life begins when the first cell splits. Cultural opinions are irrelevant and little more than an excuse for relativist stupidity.


    That said, I don't have a problem with abortion. It's not something I would choose for myself, but I don't think the government should be making the choice either.

    Getting an abortion because the pregnancy was a mistake is one thing, because it shows something more like responsibility to make a decision about the consequences of carrying to term. But getting pregnant just to abort? I think abortion should be legal, but that doesn't mean I think getting an abortion is the same thing as getting a mole removed. It's not, or there wouldn't be such a debate.
    Agreed
    Last edited by ephekt; 11-05-2009 at 04:14 PM.

  12. #52
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    The beginning of life as it's culturally defined is unscientific, arbitrary and useless. The point at which life begins is already defined objectively by biology - life begins when the first cell splits. Cultural opinions are irrelevant and little more than an excuse for relativist stupidity.
    Well, we're talking about what defines a person here, because the issue against abortion is that it is seen as murder. Two cells do not make life, nor qualify as murder, lest penicillin become one of the biggest serial killers in recent history.

  13. #53
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    Well, we're talking about what defines a person here
    He said "The beginning of life" not "beginning of personhood." The former is defined by conception (when growth starts). The latter is arbitrary and has no bearing on the former.

    Two cells do not make life
    I honestly can't tell if you're being this obtuse or just creating a strawman.
    Last edited by ephekt; 11-05-2009 at 08:13 PM.

  14. #54
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    He said "The beginning of life" not "beginning of personhood."
    He obviously meant the beginning of a human life from a legal or ethical standpoint, i.e. the beginning of personhood, rather than simply the literal "beginning of life" from a scientific standpoint. Seems like you're being a bit obtuse yourself. It couldn't have been that hard to see what he meant.

  15. #55
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    He obviously meant the beginning of a human life
    Which is precisely what I was referring to. "Human life" and "beginning of life (created through human sexual reproduction)" are two ways of expressing the same exact thing. Human life does not start as part of another species and then magically become a human at some arbitrarily assigned point. Nor do philosophy, ethics or law define what human life is.

    from a legal or ethical standpoint, i.e. the beginning of personhood, rather than simply the literal "beginning of life" from a scientific standpoint.
    Basing the ethical and legal definition of a human life on anything but biology is patently retarded.


    Obviously the question ought to be "When does a human gain human rights?" but that's not what he said. But to be fair, I skimmed the first page so I may have missed some context. He did seem to reinforce a relative view of human life in post 42 though.



    To add something beyond the niggling... Gestation (around 8 weeks iirc) is when all the internal organs are in place and limbs and genitalia are nearly fully formed. This is also the point where a we start calling it a fetus rather than embryo. If there is a need for a bright line, it probably ought to be there.
    Last edited by ephekt; 11-05-2009 at 08:53 PM.

  16. #56
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    Which is precisely what I was referring to. "Human life" and "beginning of life (created through human sexual reproduction)" are two ways of expressing the same exact thing. Human life does not start as part of another species and then magically become a human at some arbitrarily assigned point.
    Wow, thank you for dropping that scientific truth bomb on me, I totally thought we started out as a different species.

    The reason I said "a human" life is because legally and ethically, "a human life" not does not necessarily begin at whatever point you are saying that biology tells us it begins at. I would have thought it was obvious that I wasn't trying to suggest that the embryo is actually a part of another species until a certain point. My point was that something which is biologically alive, and a part of the human species, still isn't necessarily legally or ethically a living human being. Which is what atmosfear was pointing out by saying that the "beginning of life" is a culturally-defined point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    Nor do philosophy, ethics or law define what human life is.
    Within the contexts of themselves and for their own purposes, yes they do. Whether that definition is 'correct' with respect to biological science is a different question, but legal and ethical systems do generate their own definitions of human life which are what are what will be used (and thus are what matter) with regard to the questions those systems address.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    Basing the ethical and legal definition of a human life on anything but biology is patently retarded.
    Maybe so; I don't necessarily disagree. Atmosfear's point--that in practice, such definitions are often made on a cultural basis--nevertheless is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    Obviously the question ought to be "When does a human gain human rights?" but that's not what he said.
    He wasn't asking a question, though. He was stating that legal and ethical definitions of personhood are culturally, not medically, set; again, I feel that this should have been obvious even though his language was a bit loose and he said "beginning of life".


    EDIT:
    To add something beyond the niggling... Gestation (around 8 weeks iirc) is when all the internal organs are in place and limbs and genitalia are nearly fully formed. This is also the point where a we start calling it a fetus rather than embryo. If there is a need for a bright line, it probably ought to be there.
    See, this is exactly where the cultural definitions come in. You think that the point of gestation is the obvious point to put a "bright line", but that's merely a personal and arbitrary judgment call on your part. Someone else might just as reasonably think that the obvious place to put the bright line is at birth, or at conception, or at implantation, or at whatever point the fetus can survive outside the womb (26 weeks at the absolute earliest, I think), or any other point really.
    Last edited by Syme; 11-05-2009 at 09:18 PM.

  17. #57
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    My point was that something which is biologically alive, and a part of the human species, still isn't necessarily legally or ethically a living human being.
    Indeed. And my point is that this is incoherent, as neither can define the term "living human being" without a biological grounding. Whatever society is doing when it creates this definition, it has nothing to do with what defines a human life. I guess I'm just annoyed at the intellectual dishonesty of the whole thing.

    And I was being rhetorical with the species bit, you know?
    You think that the point of gestation is the obvious point to put a "bright line"
    Actually, I don't really care nor do I necessarily agree with that definition. That just seems like the most reasonable stage to declare it "human" rather than just a ball of cells, to use your definition.
    Last edited by ephekt; 11-05-2009 at 09:28 PM.

  18. #58
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    And I was being rhetorical with the species bit, you know?
    Okay, sorry. I should have picked up on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    Actually, I don't really care nor do I necessarily agree with that definition. That just seems like the most reasonable stage to declare it "human" rather than just a ball of cells, to use your definition.
    Regardless, even if you don't care about or agree with that definition, your mere assessment of it as the most reasonable is subjective and arbitrary. It's just what "seems right" (or seems reasonable I guess) to you personally. I'm sure you realize that... my point is, there's no escaping this sort of arbitrariness when it comes to placing the "bright line". Hence the rightness of atmosfear's comment that the line's placement is culturally rather than medically or biologically determined.

  19. #59
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Regardless, even if you don't care about or agree with that definition, your mere assessment of it as the most reasonable is subjective and arbitrary. It's just what "seems right" (or seems reasonable I guess) to you personally. I'm sure you realize that... my point is, there's no escaping this sort of arbitrariness when it comes to placing the "bright line". Hence the rightness of atmosfear's comment that the line's placement is culturally rather than medically or biologically determined.
    I don't necessarily agree that there needs to be a bright line, which is why I said "if there is a need..." Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue. But anyway, the issue clearly isn't about when life begins; it's about when we grant the baby human rights. We already have precedence here so I don't see why abortion is a special issue (aside from some people's begging for special pleading). My whole point was that if we do rule on this legally, using social definitions is a horribly stupid thing to do, since as everyone seems to agree, they're all arbitrary.

  20. #60
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    It's all well and good to say that it's stupid to use social definitions since they are arbitrary and change with regularity, but what else do we have to go by to define where humanity begins?

  21. #61
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    My whole point was that if we do rule on this legally, using social definitions is a horribly stupid thing to do, since as everyone seems to agree, they're all arbitrary.
    So as coq says, what should we use? There's nothing else. You have talked about using scientific definitions, but as I said in my previous post, that doesn't in the slightest bit remove the need to make an arbitrary decision about where to place the line. Science can identify various points in embryonic/fetal development but it can't tell us which one marks the beginning of personhood because personhood is itself a socially constructed and defined concept, not a scientific one. THERE IS NO WAY to define a point at which it begins in any way that isn't arbitary and subjective. The definition is always going to be culturally determined. So no, using social definitions isn't a horribly stupid thing to do. It's the only thing we can do.

  22. #62
    Sheriff of Paddy's captain castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,357
    Credits
    603
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I've always maintained that people should be forcibly put on contraceptives at the age of 12, and should have to apply to be taken off. Then again, I favor a police state so. . .
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear View Post
    Yeah, the porn stars are the ones who are gross and creepy, not the guy who tells his girlfriends "I just like watching chicks getting their vag's pounded"

    Virgins who have never had a girlfriend are hereby banned from PS starting yesterday
    Quote Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries View Post
    You're probably the only person who be able to commit felony-level acts of violence in nerd rage.
    Quote Originally Posted by CyanideWyrm View Post
    Captain Castle: Now with the ability to fuck you into atheism
    Quote Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD View Post
    Holy shit you are unfunny

  23. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    50
    Credits
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This is pretty nasty, of course there should be a limitation. Why doesn't this hoe just get the ring?

    Anyways, I believe law should intervene, maybe some jail time or something. She is killing fetuses out of laziness, it's horrible. I mean, i'm for abortion rights, but this is taking it a few steps further.

Similar Threads

  1. Can't Spell "Stink" Without "Ink"
    By Cruz_15 in forum Video Vault
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 04:48 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 09:44 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •