The Abortion Thread

I dont like abortion, in fact I fucking hate it, one of the many more horrific side effects of being a biological organism for a temporary amount of time. However, the fucking STATE should have no right to FORCE someone to do something with their own biological processes that they shouldn't have to do, so I am anti-abortion but pro-choice
 
The murder of the parasite in the mother's womb is fine, so long as two (2) conditions are met:

A) All gene donors agree or abstain to the death of it.

B) The parasite must not have yet achieved person-hood.

Please note, I use the term parasite because that is what the pre-child mass of self dividing cells is.
 
The murder of the parasite in the mother's womb is fine, so long as two (2) conditions are met:

A) All gene donors agree or abstain to the death of it.

B) The parasite must not have yet achieved person-hood.

Please note, I use the term parasite because that is what the pre-child mass of self dividing cells is.

No, it's not. That's pseudo-biology which ignores the fact that that's how human reproduction works, the child is supposed to be there. They're not parasitizing anything.
 
in my experience there are basically three positions on abortion

Pro-Life: Fetus/Zygote is alive and a human being, killing the Fetus/Zygote is murder.
Pro-Choice: Fetus/Zygote isn't a person and doesn't matter as much as the whims of the person.
Get Government Out: may or may not morally agree with either of the above but wants the government to stay out of as much as anyone can muster the slightest argument against the government's presence and so oppose's legislation about it.

since all of these positions lean hard on foundational moral principles there's honestly very little point to talking about it.

Personally I find that every definition that excludes Fetus/Zygote from "Human with rights worth protecting" also excludes me, or can very easily turn into excluding me.
 
Last edited:
in my experience there are basically three positions on abortion

Pro-Life: Fetus/Zygote is alive and a human being, killing the Fetus/Zygote is murder.
Pro-Choice: Fetus/Zygote isn't a person and doesn't matter as much as the whims of the person.
Get Government Out: may or may not morally agree with either of the above but wants the government to stay out of as much as anyone can muster the slightest argument against the government's presence and so oppose's legislation about it.

since all of these positions learn hard on foundational moral principles there's honestly very little point to talking about it.

Personally I find that every definition that excludes Fetus/Zygote from "Human with rights worth protecting" also excludes me, or can very easily turn into excluding me.

I agree with you completely. We have plenty of evidence that the slippery slope is quite real in human society... Once you start defining rights away from one group of humans it becomes much easier to define rights away from the next.
 
We have plenty of evidence that the slippery slope is quite real in human society
it's not that far a step from "cannot survive without medical intervention/parent" to "cannot survive without parental interference"

I'm 24 and by any reasonable interpretation utterly dependant(even the American Courts agree, I am legally incompetent and remain a dependent as far as every institution that isn't entirely age based is concerned), I MIGHT last a few days before stressors accumulate and higher thought functions shut down.

Ah, the "joys" of needing a structured existence to remain saneish and functional.
 
Eh, if there is nothing that functions as neural tissue, or an analog of such, how can there be a person?
If a brain matter equivalent is totally absent then surely it is fine to slay a being, a creature, yes?

When a seat of thought, of mind, begins forming, that, that is when the killing becomes more questionable.
 
Depending on how much brain activity you think is enough that is somewhere between six and twenty-four weeks... Either way you just admitted abortion is murder in the third trimester.
 
When have I ever not referred to it as murder in some form or another?

Oh, that's quite fair and true, you never said it otherwise, but generally lawful killing isn't called murder, so I was colloquially using murder to refer to unlawful killing. I do apologise.
 
It's fine, though to create a social construct such as lawful/unlawful is both foolish and common.

Killing is killing, no point using words to pretty it up.
 
Killing is killing, no point using words to pretty it up
...there's a disctinction between sustenance hunting and trophy hunting, there's a difference between killing for the heck of it and killing in a moment of anger, a distinction again between both of those and killing to protect yourself or someone else, a distinction again between all three of those and killing for personal gain, a distinction again between all of those and killing because orders.

there absolutely is a point in "using words to pretty it up".
 
A life ending is a life ending.
If one kills anything, they need to accept that. Death is death and it is permanent, no take-backs.

All that reasoning and rationalization does is emotional support, it does not change facts, the first murder marks you as an individual capable and willing to slay others for your own personal reasons.

Now the reason I have this stance is this: morality is subjective, physical actions are not.
Once you do something it is permanent.

I've just realized that explaining myself and my beliefs is actually rather difficult to do in detail.
 
the first murder marks you as an individual capable and willing to slay others for your own personal reasons.
And yet a police officer is not a serial killer(by default) and a soldier is not one either. Nor is the man who shoots the home invader or the woman who shoots her mugger.

The reasons you do something MATTER, the context MATTERS. To reduce it to a single word is to reduce the world to barbarity.
 
These things you say that matter, they are not factual, they are a subjective construct that humanity has created to make it self feel better. The world is barbarity, we just make it seem less so by playing the great game of pretend that we call civilization.

In the end context is a subjective thing, take a soldier and let us say they gun down an opposing combatant, they and their comrades will say that this is a good thing they have done, regardless of the reasoning, but the friends of that hostile combatant? They'll be both saddened and angry, perhaps hateful. The only thing which has actually happened is the death of an individual, their killing, such as it is, everything else is just a subjective experience.
 
@LunaLoyalist , I profoundly disagree with that kind of Nietzschean philosophical atheism, but this may not be the right thread for that discussion.
 
There are things which are subjective, but universally subjective based on the human condition. The universe doesn't distinguish between two different electrons, but to a human the electrons in his brain are way more important than ones in a rock and that is a phenomenon that any human will agree to. It's a bit silly to call something subjective when all humans everywhere agree to it.

All human cultures that have ever existed draw a strong distinction between justified and unjustified killing. If you're walking down the street and some crazed killer tries to murder you, any civilization that has every existed would agree that killing that person in self defense was justified. This would apply to modern America, ancient Greece, Nazi Germany, the ancient Inca Empire, tribesmen in the Congo, medieval Europe, and so on. Many of those societies allow for killing under conditions which we do not approve of, yet they still condemn murder under mostly the same circumstances. Of course, there are gray areas and where various cultures draw the line has been different, but the basic idea remains and it is effectively universal.

Of course, killing being lawful isn't the same as being moral and that is another philosophical Pandora's Box.
 
Okay, I'm not going to win this debate and as the good Captain-General said: this is not the spot to have this disagreement, no matter how much I am enjoying it.

So getting back on topic, should or should not a pregnant female have the right to terminate any life growing within her womb?
I say yes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top