• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Opinion To Be or Not To Be (An Abortion Thread)

This is exactly what I mean though.

you can't just say "when does life begin" is irrelevant. Whether you realize it or not, you are in some way using that judgment to form the rest of your opinions.

I mean, you have to be, because if you really did consider it irrelevant that means you're perfectly fine with the idea of letting a human being die, so as to prevent significant negative impact to another human being.

I don't believe most of you actually think that, I think that if you did believe as I do that live begins, for practical purposes anyway, at conception, you would realize how the rest of your deductions become inconsistent with other parts of your moral beliefs.

For instance, I assume you would accept that it is morally wrong for a parent to murder their 4 year old child. If they don't want to support it they have to give it up for adoption.

That 4 year old I still mooching of their parent though, it can't survive on its own. But you don't seem to think that fact means it's life has no relevance.

That's what I mean when I say that several of you are arguing that abortion is wrong because it is wrong. Because while your arguments make perfect sense and are logically consistent with the above position, that is ONLY the case assuming a fetus doesn't have the same worth as human life as a 4 year old.

So it is NOT irrelevant to the question, it IS the question.

Likely nearly everyone here has similar moral beliefs about human rights, it's the recognition that a fetus is entitled to them or not that ultimately leads to deriving different moral conclusions.

Please, one you guys on the pro choice side, at least tell me you comprehend what I'm getting at here?

Cause it's enormously frustrating to hear again and again pro choice types justifying their position... Using their position. You build moral positions on top of a few basic assumptions. You don't build your position out of your position. Which is what saying "I don't believe the fetus has rights because the fetus doesn't have rights" essentially is.

It's impossible to even have interesting if unsuccessful debate so long as so many can't even recognize that they arent actually making an argument, they are repeating uncontested moral positions such as "humans have a right to their body, and to do what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else".

That's not in debate, a debate would be arguing why or why not the fetus might be entitled to human rights, but arguing the conclusion based on an existing belief in the fetuses personhood is pointless. I think part of this assumption is the belief that all pro lifers just want to control women and so you think that's the position your opposing. I can't say that's not true of any pro lifer but it's certainly not true for all of them.

A lot of us really, honestly and in good faith believe life begins, for the purposes of law anyway, at conception, to at least some degree.

And because of that, we aren't seeing a womans rights infringed purely to punish her sexuality or something, we are seeing a regrettable situation where there are no good answers and someone's life is gonna be impacted anyway, we, or at least I, am just preferencing the lesser infringement of having to have the baby vs the infringement of end of life.

Which is why if the pregnancy carries high risk I consider that an exception, it becomes closer to a question of infringing life vs life, at which point morally I judge the existing life to have greater moral priority to the new one.

Get it? Even if you don't agree please for the love of God tell me you get it. :(
 
JessFR said:
This is exactly what I mean though.

you can't just say "when does life begin" is irrelevant. Whether you realize it or not, you are in some way using that judgment to form the rest of your opinions.

I mean, you have to be, because if you really did consider it irrelevant that means you're perfectly fine with the idea of letting a human being die, so as to prevent significant negative impact to another human being.

I don't believe most of you actually think that, I think that if you did believe as I do that live begins, for practical purposes anyway, at conception, you would realize how the rest of your deductions become inconsistent with other parts of your moral beliefs.

For instance, I assume you would accept that it is morally wrong for a parent to murder their 4 year old child. If they don't want to support it they have to give it up for adoption.

That 4 year old I still mooching of their parent though, it can't survive on its own. But you don't seem to think that fact means it's life has no relevance.

That's what I mean when I say that several of you are arguing that abortion is wrong because it is wrong. Because while your arguments make perfect sense and are logically consistent with the above position, that is ONLY the case assuming a fetus doesn't have the same worth as human life as a 4 year old.

So it is NOT irrelevant to the question, it IS the question.

Likely nearly everyone here has similar moral beliefs about human rights, it's the recognition that a fetus is entitled to them or not that ultimately leads to deriving different moral conclusions.

Please, one you guys on the pro choice side, at least tell me you comprehend what I'm getting at here?

Cause it's enormously frustrating to hear again and again pro choice types justifying their position... Using their position. You build moral positions on top of a few basic assumptions. You don't build your position out of your position. Which is what saying "I don't believe the fetus has rights because the fetus doesn't have rights" essentially is.

It's impossible to even have interesting if unsuccessful debate so long as so many can't even recognize that they arent actually making an argument, they are repeating uncontested moral positions such as "humans have a right to their body, and to do what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else".

That's not in debate, I think part of this assumption is the belief that all pro lifers just want to control women and so you think that's the position your opposing. I can't say that's not true of any pro lifer but it's certainly not true for all of them.

A lot of us really, honestly and in good faith believe life begins, for the purposes of law anyway, at conception, to at least some degree.

And because of that, we aren't seeing a womans rights infringed purely to punish her sexuality or something, we are seeing a regrettable situation where there are no good answers and someone's life is gonna be impacted anyway, we, or at least I, am just preferencing the lesser infringement of having to have the baby vs the infringement of end of life.

Which is why if the pregnancy carries high risk I consider that an exception, it becomes closer to a question of infringing life vs life, at which point morally I judge the existing life to have greater moral priority to the new one.

Get it? Even if you don't agree please for the love of God tell me you get it. :(
Click to expand...
The argument should be when does CONSCIOUSNESS begin
 
if life is going to kill a women during birth as happens in the natural world its simply natural selection and a process of nature to bring new life to the planet while old life creates new life and feeds said new life. Imo if the baby will survive and said women has no other kids i reckon the kid takes priority yet if said women has kids then the women takes priority
 
Zephyn said:
The argument should be when does CONSCIOUSNESS begin
Click to expand...

Well, that's again taking it a small step perhaps a little too far, at least to start off with.

The question is ultimate does the fetus have a right to live higher than the mothers right to her body for the duration of the pregnancies and all the risks and potential consequences that come with it.

Consciousness is certainly one criteria you can use to try and determine if the fetus has that right. But it's still that right that's at question here.

Consciousness is a bit of a problem though because we understand so little about it. It's difficult to say that a newborn baby is truly conscious in the way we would normally consider a human to be vs say an animal.
 
@cduggles thank you Agreed !! I feel as with so many things in this country USA ,more effort and funding should be delivered to education , for all citizens . The wealthy will NEVER have a concern with any choice they make with regards to a pregnancy!
 
JessFR said:
Well, that's again taking it a small step perhaps a little too far, at least to start off with.

The question is ultimate does the fetus have a right to live higher than the mothers right to her body for the duration of the pregnancies and all the risks and potential consequences that come with it.

Consciousness is certainly one criteria you can use to try and determine if the fetus has that right. But it's still that right that's at question here.

Consciousness is a bit of a problem though because we understand so little about it. It's difficult to say that a newborn baby is truly conscious in the way we would normally consider a human to be vs say an animal.
Click to expand...
Which leads to the question how does an unconscious zygote have rights? Its purely based upon your spiritual belief
 
I’m pro choice but after the 12 week mark I really find it hard to see someone go through that procedure. For both the woman and the foetus. I had a miscarriage when I was 20 and I didn’t know I was pregnant and it was absolutely traumatic. Even though it was early term I still had to go through a D&C and I was treated abysmally by the nursing staff. (After a strongly worded letter and long drawn out complaint procedure I got a lengthy apology from the staff/hospital involved.)

I watched my son at 12 weeks on an ultrasound swimming and moving about and he was very real to me. I do find late term abortions hard to accept. After 25 weeks the foetus could survive with medical intervention easily. It’s something I have issue with but if the mother can not carry on with that pregnancy then she should not be forced to. I think more should be done to support women who find out they are pregnant and let them access abortion easier. Ireland has a real issue with this. Women were forced to travel to UK for abortions. The abortion pill was handed out (illegally) by some organisations though. Abortion has just been legalised last year but there is still a big push back. Fuck the Catholic Church is all I can say to that.

In regards to disability though. Where do you draw the line? I believe disabled people add to the world just as much as able bodied people. Probably more in fact when taking into account those with autism. I find it really jarring to read what you write about disabled people @TripSitterNZ. On one side you’re advocating for a foetus that can’t survive outside the mother but saying people with disabilities shouldn’t exist and advocating for genetic engineering. Like fucking hell. Pick a moral and stick to it?
 
nothing is unconscious. Your are basing your beliefs to murder life in your own mind which said beliefs are wrong. Consciousness pervades the entire reality and is not bound to anything. everything is already aware and thus has life at the conception of its own cell and DNA coding. Life begins as soon as that sperm enters the egg.

Genetically engineering people so they can live a better life. You don't know my fucking stance on disabled people. I have grown up and cared for my sister her entire life after the hospital caused brain damage because the nurses are fucking dumb.

Disabled people have all rights and the duty of able bodied people to look after them. I never once said they should not exist. But ay if people still want to impose horrible illnesses on life in the future when we can give said people a cure then thats on you and not me.
 
Zephyn said:
Which leads to the question how does an unconscious zygote have rights? Its purely based upon your spiritual belief
Click to expand...

Mmm no there's some solid metaphysical justifications I have too :D.

Soo when do we define those rights to begin? Cause there's little difference immediately pre birth vs post birth and I don't see any of you advocating outright baby murder :D
 
MsDiz said:
@TripSitterNZ. On one side you’re advocating for a foetus that can’t survive outside the mother but saying people with disabilities shouldn’t exist and advocating for genetic engineering. Like fucking hell. Pick a moral and stick to it?
Click to expand...

Is that really what he's arguing? I wouldn't know I have him on ignore. I trust the reason is pretty self evident. :D
 
TripSitterNZ said:
nothing is unconscious. Your are basing your beliefs to murder life in your own mind which said beliefs are wrong. Consciousness pervades the entire reality and is not bound to anything. everything is already aware and thus has life at the conception of its own cell and DNA coding. Life begins as soon as that sperm enters the egg.
Click to expand...
Imean, I jizz on squiggles and call it chaos magick, I consider even inorganic matter part of the universal intelligence, but our spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with this discussion. For the sake of this discussion consciousness should be defined as "self awareness, the ability to form memories and react to stimulus", which an unborn baby even at 24 weeks, does not have.
 
Zephyn said:
Imean, I jizz on squiggles and call it chaos magick, I consider even inorganic matter part of the universal intelligence, but our spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with this discussion. For the sake of this discussion consciousness should be defined as "self awareness, the ability to form memories and react to stimulus", which an unborn baby even at 24 weeks, does not have.
Click to expand...
a fetus from day one is self-aware and has everything encoded to grow and become a full fledged human.
 
Since I see TripSitterNZ is saying it.

Calling abortion murder is silly. Murder, the way we usually use it in English, requires intent.

Ironically, the only people who can actually murder a fetus... Is us... Pro lifers. We are the ones who are aware that it's a life (if you'll excuse me presuming my side to be correct for a moment ;)) so only we can knowingly murder it.

Abortion is homicide! Now that's more accurate. :D
 
TripSitterNZ said:
a fetus from day one is self-aware and has everything encoded to grow and become a full fledged human.
Click to expand...
Id argue with you that you are stating your personal belief as fact, but it seems to apply to most of what you say
 
A fetus from day one most definitely is not self aware. :P

There are reasonable arguments that a fetus has a right to life, that it is self aware, literally from the moment of conception, isn't one.
 
TripSitterNZ said:
Disabled people have all rights and the duty of able bodied people to look after them. I never once said they should not exist. But ay if people still want to impose horrible illnesses on life in the future when we can give said people a cure then thats on you and not me.
Click to expand...
Where’s the line though? How do you ever define that? You can’t. I’ve cared for people with disabilities practically my whole life and each person I have cared for added something special to the world. Anyway, it’s going off topic so I won’t continue. Genetic engineering is a contentious issue and demands a more educated discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top