It’s Just Easier To Care About Dead Lions Than Dead People

[the.hellion.]

It sounds like you think it should be the mothers choice up until the baby is born. In which case i assume you would also believe that life begins at birtht?

Sure, but I don't mind the fact that society has determined there to be (however arbitrary) restrictions upon abortion. Truthfully, I'm a little bored by this part of the discussion, but I walked right in so I feel like I kind of have to play it out.

The whole point behind my participation in this thread is that I am uncomfortable with the threat of the option, with whatever restrictions are deemed socially necessary, being removed. Further fleshing out of the issue is making me think a little harder about how hardline I've been here, mostly because, it's still a law and I am lucky to live in a place that won't remove abortion as an option any time soon.

 

[plyswthsqrrls]

I just spent about 25 posts very clearly articulating a defense of this statement.

sorry, but you spent 25 posts back-pedalling from a very clearly sexist, indefensible statement. I mean the rest of your posts make complete sense and I can't argue with you, but you DEFINITELY should have just left that last statement out, completely threw it off the rails

To pretty much every guy who thinks he can tell a woman what to do with her body.

just when I thought we might get along :'(

 

[onenerdykid]

Joking aside, when do human rights begin and why? What is it exactly that separates a few cells from a fully functioning human being? Because honestly a new born baby doesn't exactly have all functioning human characteristics yet. It doesnt have free will or self consciousness yet, but we protect it as if were. Why is that? Is it because it's going to be a human? If that were true then all of the biological steps prior to birth are similar.... It just seems you make a passionate case for your own rights but neglect or preserve the rights of something when it's convenient. If you can tell me when and why humans begin, I will better understand your position.

I have already articulated this position in previous posts, but I'll highlight it again for your benefit.

Abortion has been around for centuries; the classic case against abortion can trace it's roots back to the 1800s, a time of severe social conservatism (you couldn't even show table legs!). According to history and legal precedent, as early as 1115 in England, human personhood was described as a 'formed fetus', "a reasonable creature in rerum natura" (as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England.) Further in this post are various other perceptions of personhood, as pulled from a cursory wikipedia search.

"Aristotle, in his treatise on government Politics (350 BCE), condemns infanticide as a means of population control. He preferred abortion in such cases, with the restriction[119] "[that it] must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."[120] In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[121] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[13] Islamic tradition has traditionally permitted abortion until a point in time when Muslims believe the soul enters the fetus,[13] considered by various theologians to be at conception, 40 days after conception, 120 days after conception, or quickening.[122] However, abortion is largely heavily restricted or forbidden in areas of high Islamic faith such as the Middle East and North Africa.[123]"

Your response doesn't really address Sparta's question. His question is important because the answer could drastically change the outcome concerning the moral rightness of abortion. Many people follow his line of thought (which is not purposefully out to remove your rights) but it could be in favor of promoting human rights over reproductive rights. If they are right, then basic human rights would/could trump individual reproductive rights. You are very passionate about reproductive rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is obvious to everyone (even women), especially to those who place human rights above reproductive rights. It's simply not a matter of old white men trying to impose their views on women, and it's simply not a cut & dry scenario. No one debates obvious matters like 2+2=4, they debate over matters that are difficult, subtle, and complex. Abortion is a matter of human rights vs reproductive rights and where/when/why those rights come into existence, and to easily and clearly solve that is not obvious.

 

[deleted5]

A healthy fetus without a brain at 23 weeks will develop a brain and brain function.

Similarly if we knew a person would regain brain function after being brain dead, we would never " pull the plug" on them.

But developing some semblance of a brain is not how all doctors, and certainly not all people see the beginning of life. So it goes back to what popular opinion is on what constitutes human life.

They don't have brains to begin with so they don't exist, you clearly just don't understand it. They're not human beings, by that logic when I put on a condom, or if a girl says no to having sex with you. Youre stopping one sperm cell from one day getting a brain and that is also abortion.

 

[californiagrown]

They don't have brains to begin with so they don't exist, you clearly just don't understand it. They're not human beings, by that logic when I put on a condom, or if a girl says no to having sex with you. Youre stopping one sperm cell from one day getting a brain and that is also abortion.

Holy cow you are bad at forming rational thought! That's not the even close to the same thing hahahaha.

If that is the only counter argument you can come up with, you should stop now.

 

[deleted5]

Holy cow you are bad at forming rational thought! That's not the even close to the same thing hahahaha.

If that is the only counter argument you can come up with, you should stop now.

Before brain function the fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells with no purpose just like a singal sperm cell or egg or a sperm cell inside of an egg. Its the same thing thank you for pointing out how flawed your logic is. If we didn't stop the sperm cells going into the egg then that would have grown into something that had a brain too.

 

[californiagrown]

Before brain function the fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells with no purpose just like a singal sperm cell or egg or a sperm cell inside of an egg. Its the same thing thank you for pointing out how flawed your logic is. If we didn't stop the sperm cells going into the egg then that would have grown into something that had a brain too.

You don't understand how logical argument works, huh?

 

[Bombogenesis]

this is straight retarted, what right does a human have the health care "option" to abort a baby into the third trimester? and What right does that "health care" provider have to sell those aborted babies for parts?

The illegal selling of parts is what everyone is upset about, what is your opinion on that?

also the argument that men cant talk about issues related to women is dumb, based on that logic noone can have an opinion on lots of things. yea you never drive drunk so i refuse to hear your opinion that drunk driving is bad.

also way to be considerate of trans people who can get pregnant but have a dick

you probably shouldn't even bother...way way wayyy too far gone lol.