Unworthy of Life

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2021.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Equality is not the same as comparison. Let's review:

    Equality: the state of being equal

    Comparison: a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people.

    For example, if you said "mandatory vaccinations are equal to Hitler killing Jews" that would be an equality, and trivial to prove wrong. No vaccination is the same as the Holocaust. However, if you said "mandatory vaccinations have something in common with Hitler killing Jews" you would be able to defend that, since you could claim that one of the similarities was that people could not opt out. (Still a silly comparison, but more defensible.)

    See the difference there?

    Now let's compare the two in this situation.

    You claim that Sarkus equated a fetus to a wart. He did not, nor are they the same.
    Sarkus claimed that the definition of a growth was ambiguous, and he then compared several things that grow - cancer, a fetus, a skin cell etc. That is true. All those things grow, and that fact alone does not make any of them an individual human.

    See the difference there?

    Thus endeth today's lesson.
    Bells and Sarkus like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    A bit of the way through:
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    But you’ve already tied your boat to that dock.

    Unless you consider a human zygote to be inanimate. You seem to be implying that it’s not a question of human life, but a question of status as a human being. So at what stage in human development do you believe that science declares human life to be a human being?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    You really should go back and re-read what I said, in response to your comments and the context of your comments.

    What are you responding to, exactly?

    Here is what I said:

    As for your "temporary inconvenience".. For some women, being forced to give birth can cost her her life, her livelihood, her ability to have more children, it can render her disabled, traumatised, scarred, etc. Of course this is very easy for you to dismiss, because you will never be placed in a position where you could be forced to have your body play host for 9 months without your consent and against your will.​

    You are responding to something else entirely.

    Unless of course you are trying to say that her life is irrelevant? Which given the abortion laws passed in Texas and those your ilk are trying to pass elsewhere, that's pretty much the case anyway...
    Except you don't have to deal with 9 months of pregnancy without your consent and against your will. Women are going to have to. This isn't acceptable and is a breach of their human rights. A woman giving consent to sex is not giving consent to 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth and all the costs associated with it.

    You do understand this, yes? That consent, once given, is not a lifetime thing. And once again, a woman who elects to have an abortion because she does not wish to have a child is being accountable and responsible.

    Just as you conveniently ignore the man's accountability in this. He is under no obligation to financially help her during the pregnancy, nor is he obligated to financially fund childbirth and the ridiculous costs in involved with healthcare in the US. The complete and utter burden falls solely on her.

    If she does not wish to be pregnant for whatever reason, then by her human rights, she has the right to not be pregnant and terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses.

    As I noted previously, your issue (and those who think like you do) is that she's having sex. That is why there are no laws or amendments in abortion legislation that would dictate the father's role in financially supporting her during the pregnancy. Just as there are no laws or amendments that would dictate financial aid being made available to women denied their fundamental human rights and access to healthcare that should be made available to her in a free society. No, the issue for you lot is that she's sexually active and thus, must pay the consequences of her actions and choices. So only she is to be punished by being forced to remain pregnant against her will and only she has to bear the burden of the pregnancy, financially and physically. It's obscene and perverted.
    The continuing perversion..

    You have more rights to your guns, then women have over their own bodies.
    In the context of that discussion, you know damn well what I said, particularly given I then said it had the "potential" to be "human life". But troll gonna troll..
    Ah, the hypocrisy.. You're pro-life, until you aren't really "pro-life", which I will address shortly.

    What "human life" is she taking, that you see no issue with ending by taking the human after pill? As for the rest of your claptrap about accountability for her actions, that's already been addressed. You and your lot are the perverts who get off on forcing women to remain pregnant against her will.

    Men are only required to be financially responsible when it is born. If she puts it up for adoption, he is absolved of all financial responsibility. Only she bears the burden of pregnancy, both financially and physically. She bears the sole burden of the medical costs, time away from work, if she is not insured or adequately insured, then it's even worse. If she has a complication which requires her having to take more time off work, then it's also dire for her and any responsibilities she may already have.. If she has serious complications during childbirth, which believe me, are more common than most people realise, requiring extra care, emergency care, or surgery (for childbirth and any issues that may arise from those complications), then that's even more financial hardship for her and could leave her unable to work again. That's not a "consequence". You're all about potentially damning her for life because she had sex. And you think this is acceptable? If she did not consent to this, then you are abusing her human rights and her rights over her own body. That is, by any measure, unconscionable. This is the kind of crap you see despotic states do to their populace.

    You are literally treating her like a criminal for having sex, not just by the language you use, but also by the punishment you want to inflict on her.

    As I said, it's perverted and twisted.
    I understand fully how the morning after pill works. Some forms ensure that no implantation can occur.. You know, that little sack of cells that by your definition is a "human being", is unable to implant, which ensures its death.

    The issue now appears to be that you seem to be vacillating between when it becomes a "human being" and from what point you can punish the mother for having sex.

    The hypocrisy is glaring really.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    You really don't understand much about this.

    Oh, so now it's "human" when it develops a nervous system and not when its DNA becomes "unique"?
    Can you make up your mind? Because you seem to set arbitrary limits without actually understanding those limits.
    Yep. And when she discovers she is pregnant, a consequence of her decision to not want to be pregnant and give birth, is to have an abortion. We've been over this numerous times. What part of this don't you understand? And her consenting to having sex, does not mean that consent extends further than that. Do you understand how consent works?

    Also, once again, the "father's" support only applies after birth. He is under no obligation to bear any burden during the pregnancy. She bears the entire burden, physical, emotional, financial, completely alone as the man is under no obligation to do anything then. If she puts the child up for adoption, he still bears no responsibility or burden, while she has had to endure 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth and the long recovery afterwards. And you think it is acceptable to force women to go through this without their consent.

    You think it is acceptable for the State to dictate the contents of her womb for 9 months and her reproductive cycle, without support or help, without her consent.

    Legally acquired weapons are often used to kill people for a variety of reasons.

    For example, you deem your right to defend your property with a firearm to be essential and a right, but you don't think a woman should have any rights over her own body or her reproductive cycle. Why do your property rights that would allow you to kill someone if you deem it necessary, trumps a woman's rights to her own body?

    You still haven't been able to answer that question.

    What bodily autonomy does an unborn have, exactly?

    I mean, you've already designated that it doesn't have any autonomy or rights up to certain points.

    Why can't men use birth control? Why don't men get reversible vasectomy's?

    Abortion is a part of women's healthcare. Essential healthcare. You just don't think she's human enough to warrant any rights over her own body and instead assign rights to the contents of her uterus because you think she should face the consequences of having sex. That is literally the crux of your entire argument here. You wish to punish her for having sex.
    Dude, what are you talking about?

    The morning after pill can also work by preventing a fertilised egg from implanting - around 5 days after conception - you know - when you've deemed to be "human being" as it now has distinct DNA.. Do you understand how Plan B works? It has the capacity to work in 3 ways. Delay ovulation, preventing the sperm from meeting the egg and also altering the uterine lining, which would prevent any fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus. How it works depends on where she is in her cycle. Understand now? So if you think it's "human" when it has its own distinct DNA, then yeah, your supporting Plan B makes your position even more hypocritical.

    You should also be aware that Plan B and other forms of 'morning after pill' is not always effective and she can still end up pregnant. Given how the right has restricted access to Plan B and emergency contraception to begin with, a lot of unwanted pregnancies occur regardless - particularly amongst younger women and teenage girls. If you wish to reduce abortion numbers, then ensure that teens and women are able to access free birth control easily..

    Naw, you just don't think it's "murder" in some circumstances.. Killing the "human being" in some instances is acceptable to you, such as if I decide to take up residence in your home without your consent. Something something about competing interests applies here, which you completely missed multiple times.
    Do the women who sleep with you know that if she falls pregnant, you're calling dibs on her womb?
    Do you let them know this first? This is vitally important.
    No. She made the choice to have sex. That does not mean she's also consenting to having a child. You do understand that these are two separate events, yes?

    Consenting to one event, does not mean automatic consent to any other event. Do you understand this? Because this is very important.
    You didn't understand the crux of the article itself and the studies linked in it.
    Ironic, given the crap you are peddling in this thread.
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Why can't men? I mean, you want to make sure? Get a vasectomy. It's reversible.

    And in case you weren't aware, birth control does not offer absolute protection (the pill, for example, has a 10% failure rate), nor does the morning after pill (it is dependent on when it's taken and where the woman is in her cycle).

    Also, it is not that easily available in many places in the US, with limits imposed, age limits, consent, then you have pharmacists who use religious objections to refuse to provide it, it can be costly and not easily affordable for a lot of women. There is also the absolute risk of lack of education in the school system in the US on using birth control.

    If you want less abortions, make birth control free, ensure actual and proper sex education is taught, remove age limits on accessing birth control so that teenage girls have options. Ensure adequate access, particularly in rural and areas where women in particular are living on or below the poverty line, ensure adequate reproductive healthcare for all women, ensure free and easy access to the morning after pill.

    The barriers that exist to reproductive healthcare, is why women are often left with feeling their only option is an abortion.
    Why would I do that?

    If a woman chooses to get an abortion, then that is her right as it is her body. I'm not going to dictate what someone does with their body. Do you understand the concept of boundaries?

    I'm personally pro-life, in that I would never see myself having an abortion. The reason for that is because I had been told from a very young age that I would never be able to have a child. When I found out I was pregnant with my first, there was no way in hell that I would ever consider aborting it. And I crawled through glass, risked my own health on too many occasions to count, to bring that pregnancy to term and deliver a healthy child to the absolute detriment to my health. Then I had a second child and very very nearly died in childbirth.. was literally minutes from death. But while I am profoundly personally pro-life, my pregnancies and my experiences also made me even more pro-choice. Because no woman should be forced to endure anything or nothing like I endured if she does not want to. My first pregnancy saw me having to basically not able to work much at all around week 12 of my pregnancy. I was lucky, I was financially secure and stable, and I had a supportive partner. But not every woman is as fortunate as I was in that sense. I was rushed to hospital, requiring urgent care on a nearly weekly basis. The stress it put on my body, the sheer level of anaemia, so much so that walking up a flight of stairs would see me nearly pass out, I could no longer drive most of the time, because I was fainting at times, and don't even get me started on the pain.. For 7 out of the 9 months, the pain was excruciating and the depression it caused was horrendous. Natural childbirth required surgery afterwards to repair. And I consented to this, because I was so desperate to have that baby. I was willing to risk my life, my future, my financial future, everything for it. And then came the severe depression that followed. And it took me months to start to feel a semblance of normality. But that was my choice. I would never, ever, consider forcing that on another person against their will. If a woman does not wish to have a baby and if she wants to abort, then that is entirely her decision. Because that pregnancy, could see her entire future altered, physically, emotionally, financially. I am haunted by some of the things that happened during my pregnancies and childbirth. And I tell myself that I got two healthy kids out of it, that's my personal salvation, that's the rope that kept me tethered. If I was forced, if I didn't want to be pregnant, and I was forced to endure it, I'd have killed myself. And I say that, hand to heart. If I was made to endure my first pregnancy and the childbirth of my second without my consent, not by my choice, I'd have probably killed myself.

    So why the hell do you think I would be willing to ban all abortions except for whatever risk, rape, incest, etc? Why would I want to force any woman to experience what I experienced against their will? What kind of sick and twisted person would I be, if I ever wanted to force a woman to go through any of that without her choice?

    You're treating us like commodities. We are actual human beings. Our bodies are our own. I make the choice for myself. Not anyone else. And I sure as hell would not even consider making such a choice or imposing my own personal beliefs on the bodies of other women.
    And that right there, says is all about you as an individual. What is wrong with you?

    Yes. It's in her body. It is her body. She is the only one who gets to decide. No one else.

    I was going to address the rest of your points, but you're just repeating the same rubbish over and over again and I'm tired of dealing with your sexist bullshit.
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Noone disputes that a healthy fetus is alive. Similarly noone disputes that your bones are alive. Or any warts or moles you have are alive. Such things are not of a different species, so there is no refuting that they also are human either, being as they are of the DNA of homo sapiens. Thus: "human life". But are they "a life"?

    You seem to be inserting a hidden premise within your argument that a fetus is “a human life”, rather than just “human life”, and then equivocating on the meaning of “human life” to avoid revealing that ungranted premise.

    This becomes more evident here…

    Bells is clearly differentiating between “human life” (something alive and of human origin) and “a human life”. She is arguing that a fetus is certainly something alive of human origin, and has potential to be “a human life”.

    A healthy human femur is alive, and it is of human origin, and thus it is “human life”. It is not, however, “a human life”. Spot the difference yet?

    Your argument in this regard is clearly fallacious as a result of you equivocating on “human life”. In essence you are ignoring the difference between "a life" and "alive".

    Maybe you should seek to revise it, or drop that particular line entirely.

    What you need to focus on is why one type of “human life” is to be given special consideration compared to any other “human life”, such as a wart, mole, femur, tonsil, appendix etc, and from when.

    If it is because the fetus has the potential to become “a human life” on its own, admit that that is what you’re hanging your position on, and argue for when protection of that potential outweighs the right of the body in which it resides.
  11. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    My Mom desperately wanted children. So much so that she didn't stop trying, even after 9 late term miscarriages. I was the result of the 10th pregnancy.(Thanks to a small town doctor who figured out that it was Mom's thyroid that was causing the problem). And while she would have never considered getting an abortion herself, neither would she have denied anyone else that option.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    A separate embryo is not innocent. It is a threat to the life of the mother, and a certain agency of serious physical harm. Only a completely dependent embryo - one willingly nurtured as part of the woman's own body - is innocent.

    Any separate human being who attempted to do to a woman what a human embryo does to a woman could be killed by that woman in self defense in any State of the US, and that killing would be supported by essentially all prolifers - you among others (all the gun rights folks, for starters).

    Meanwhile, in the cemeteries and cremation ovens and medical waste disposal facilities of the entire prolife world - the evangelical and Catholic hospitals and churches in every town I ever saw, say - there are no indications that any first or second term miscarriage is treated as the death of a child. In most cases they are flushed down the toilet - still alive, for all anyone knows. In a hospital setting they are generally tossed into the ovens with the gallstones and tumors. A few weeks later and they get names, graves, etc - but timing is everything, to prolifers.

    The obvious fact remains: a sufficiently early miscarriage is not the death of a human being to those people, and never has been - in hundreds of years. The only question is when - what is the time limit of "sufficiently early". And that question seems to have been answered reasonably well by the Courts, in Roe vs Wade among others.

    The observation can be expanded - certain industrial procedures and environmental pollutants are known to cause miscarriages. There is no specifically prolife movement to ban or even regulate such industry, or oppose that mass slaughter of innocents in any way, and in the hundreds of years of the industrial revolution there has never been one.

    Clearly there's a problem here, with the way prolifers are going about things. It doesn't make sense.

    The problem appears to be one of simple honesty, or integrity. Prolifers seem to be fundamentally dishonest people, operating entirely in bad faith. They appear to be concerned primarily - even solely - with the sex lives of young women.
    Bells and James R like this.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    If you were my wife and we both decided that abortion would be best under the circumstances, if anyone should try to force you to bring that pregnancy to term, I would have the right to kill that person in defense of my wife.

    How's that?

    I always liked Carlin observation; " pro-lifers want to protect the unborn child, but if it grows up to become a gynecologist they may just have to kill it."
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    sculptor said:
    If that "right" were the law of the land, then all arguments as to when, during the development of the fetus, abortion would be legal become moot.

    occam's razor

    I'm a man
    As such, choosing abortion, or not, is not a dilemma that I am going to face.

    So what is the simplest approach to the question of legality?
    As James R posted---it seems barbaric---and so it is.........

    alternate perspective
    Much like a fetus, a newborn baby is just potential.
    Without nurturing and care, it will not live to fulfill that potential.
    So, is the difference between a baby and a fetus really all that great?
    Besides the story of "swollen foot", there are many other stories(myths?) of babies being abandoned, and having survived due to being nurtured by animals. Unfortunately, these stories seem most likely to be myth.

    This category goes under the heading/rubric of
    "I ain't completely confused yet.
    But I am working on it"
  15. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Human life ain't precious and never was. This is a brutal fact that everyone needs to deal with at some point of their life.

    I know that human life ain't precious because of the number of people who kill themselves every day.

    Lil Loaded killed himself because he was upset that his girlfriend is in relationship with another man and many men find themselves in a similar situation as Lil Loaded every day, eventually committing suicide because of a broken heart.

    You can read the story of Lil Loaded here:

    Lil Loaded - Wikipedia


    Lil Loaded's life story proves that unattractive men are the most disposable species.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  16. Bells Staff Member

    It was legal. And still is in most civilised societies who value human rights and view women as human beings.

    So why are you here?

    This is you, yeah?

    And let's not forget this gold standard level of trolling:

    For someone who is unconcerned about this as it does not affect you as it cannot affect you, you sure seem to have a lot to say about it and women who have abortions.
    It is legal in civilised societies that view women as human beings.. This is already established.

    Dear lord...

    If that's how you see it, well, you do you. But please stay away from maternity wards.

    And this doesn't really have anything to do with the subject matter of abortion.
    Don't worry. I think you're already there!
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Please keep your incel crap out off this website.
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Dude just save up the 5 grand and get yourself a realdoll and quit being so woe is me I’ll never get laid. There are better things in life than sex.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    From a purely objective natural perspective, human life is no more precious than any other life form.

    93% of all living organisms, including humans are now extinct or dead. Entropy (including death of living things) is a natural process .

    Life is precious only to higher life forms with few offspring.
    Nature has no such emotional attachment. This can be demonstrated.

    There are 2 statistics that may be pertinent.

    1) The more primitive the life form the less importance individual life has to the species.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Floating ant bridge (hundreds drown). Praying mantis eating mate's head

    2) The larger the numbers of any life form, the less importance individual life has to the species.

    How many dead humans are there?

    What percent of humans are alive today?

    Life is based on the law of probability and a few get lucky, for a little while. Enjoy it while you can!
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    For prolifers, that depends on whether the woman is choosing to abort her pregnancy or not. (If abortion is not on the table there are no prolifers - pretty much everybody has the same general opinion, which is that the degree of similarity between a baby and a fetus depends on the gestational stage).

    If she is, a fetus immediately becomes a human child (with the extra right that the pregnant woman is not allowed to defend herself against it, whatever it does).

    If some prolife male adult or employer or corporate exec or religious authority or simple accident is making the decisions, rather than the pregnant woman, a fetus is an uncounted, unnamed, and unimportant blob of medical waste with the unique feature that the pregnant woman - and only the pregnant woman - is legally bound to nurture it at all costs and regardless of circumstance.
    James R and pjdude1219 like this.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    But you cannot declare it as a dependent?

    What if the fetus causes the death of the mother, is that then "murder"? And what are the penalties for that? How are you going to enforce them? The death penalty?

    How about "manslaughter"? Wait until the child is 18 and then lock it up for 10 years?

    Interesting juxtaposition; a fertile human egg is a person, a fertilized chicken egg is an "omelette"!
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2021
  22. river

    The Eggs we eat are unfertilized , as far as I know .
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You have not lived on a small farm then. I had 100 Sex Link chickens and a big rooster and used to sell several dozen every day to our neighbors.
    Sex Links are prolific egg layers but won't brood much. They lay extra-large light brown eggs, sometimes with double yolkes. You can tell the difference in the yolk color which is a darker yellow in fertilized eggs.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What is a Sex Link Chicken?

    We also had a little banty (Mother Theresa) who would brood anything in her nest. When we wanted chicks we placed some of the big eggs in her nest. Once she hatched 18 chicks from 21 eggs. Poor thing, she looked like a cartoon hen sitting on top of a mountain of eggs. The chicks when hatched were about half her size.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Bantam – The Ultimate Survival Chickens
    Homesteading / By Tara Dodrill

    It seems that fertilized eggs have a somewhat greater food value than infertile eggs.

    Differences between fertilized and unfertilized chicken egg white proteins revealed by 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis-based proteomic analysis
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2021

Share This Page