Abortion and the Death Penalty

[James R]

So what? It is still alive.

Many things are alive, but you don't care too much about them. Clearly "life" is not the important thing in this debate.

 

[Kadark]

JamesR,

How should men who knowingly have unprotected sex with women, with no intention to support the resulting child, be punished, in your opinion?

Indeed, very harshly. In addition, they must help look after the baby and pay for all of its finances. My punishment wouldn't be as simple as forcing the man to pay child support, because generating the money is simple, especially if you have a steady job. The man in question must also physically help take care of the baby.

But the fact is that you "liquidate developing life" every time you eat meat, and you seem to have no qualms about it.

That's because I don't equate the life of an animal to the life of a human being. You're the same way, James, as your response to my ant/child scenario would indicate. The fact is, killing an animal for food is different from killing another human for food. Humans are on a higher level than animals, for a variety of reasons. No animal would treat a human better than a member of its own species, which is why it's irrational to expect that from humans.

But most choices in life do not involve choosing between a human being and an animal. When you eat meat, it isn't a choice of kill the animal or kill the human. You just kill the animal for your own pleasure, not through any need.

I eat meat as a healthy food source. Women who undergo abortion do it because they're irresponsible or lazy (not to mention, they are ending human life, which to me is far more valuable than an animal's life).

Funny. I've never heard anybody justify a decision to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of irresponsibility or laziness.

98% of abortions in the U.S., as inzomnia pointed out, are done for "personal reasons". In other words, they're too lazy to raise a child, or they're not yet mature enough. Funny, though ... considering none of these factors stopped them for engaging in irresponsible sex in the first place. Ah well! Shit happens, right? You reap what you sow.

visceral_instinct,

Goddammit. THIS is why I use the fucking ignore function, but I came across this piece of crap in someone else's quote.

Admit it: you like me. It's hard not to.

So according to you Kadark, women should not have control over their own bodies? We're just vessels for keeping babies in until they're developed?

Women most definitely should have control over their bodies. One responsibility that goes along with that right, though, is having sex with committed individuals in a responsible manner. If a woman is impregnated, then yes, she is obligated to keep her child, barring rape/incest scenarios.

Ya, and as for the 'developing human being' shit. I wonder which is more valid as a human, a viscous blob of tissue, or a woman who can think, feel, have opinions and beliefs, etc.

That "viscous blob of tissue" will, in the matter of a few months, develop into a fully functioning human being. No woman has the right to deny this life's development, regardless of how much she doesn't want it. It's very convenient to simply get an abortion, but it's not the moral decision. What lesson will a mother learn if she simply has an abortion after every mistake she makes?

Married women have abortions too. What if she already has 8 kids and cannot afford another one? Ya, having a kid you cannot afford to look after is really responsible.

Then you shouldn't be fucking around, should you? If you have eight kids and you're struggling financially, then perhaps you need to give the dick a rest. And don't bring up the "condoms break!" argument, since inzomnia's link rendered it inert.

S.A.M.,

While I whole-heartedly agree with your opinions in this particular thread (regarding abortion, anyway), I'm curious as to why you feel others should be able to practice abortion if it's as barbaric as you make it seem? You seem to be arguing its brutality, and you have been equating abortion to the murder of a living, born child. While I don't disagree with this comparison, I'm curious as to why you think abortion should be legal to those who want it, despite how awful you make it seem? If you think abortion is as bad as killing a newborn child, then surely it should be illegal under all circumstances to all people, right? Doesn't sound right to me.

Kadark the Guerilla

 

[iceaura]

And I find the arguments that a child magically acquires rights after birth somehow strange.

Do you find somehow strange the argument that an egg magically acquires the status of a chicken after it has hatched ?

And in fact a child acquires more and more rights as it develops, so that in the eighth month (for example) it has almost (but not quite) the same status as a live born child.

And the born child continues to "magically" acquire rights and privileges (and lose them) right up until it is some specified arbitrary age, at which time it has the complete set and we call it an "adult".

To declare a fertilized egg to have the same moral, legal, or spiritual status as an adult human being is to be utterly disrespectful of human life and development, not only the child's but the actively participating gestating mother's.

In point of fact I simply don't believe anyone who claims to consider an 8 week embryo a human being equivalent to a child, because I have never met anyone who acts accordingly, supports the laws or customs contingent upon such a belief, or even notices unprompted the ubiquitous failure of any societies to behave according to such a belief. The only time the issue even comes up is when the behavior of women is in need of constraint by their betters, especially re abortion. Otherwise, you will search in vain for (as an example) a society that treats early miscarriage as the death of a child.

 

[James R]

Kadark:

The fact is, killing an animal for food is different from killing another human for food.

Why?

Humans are on a higher level than animals, for a variety of reasons. No animal would treat a human better than a member of its own species, which is why it's irrational to expect that from humans.

In your first sentence, you claim moral superiority for humans. In the next sentence, you contradict yourself by claiming that we ought only to expect normal "animal" morality from human beings.

So, which is it?

I eat meat as a healthy food source.

And ignore the messy and inconvenient fact that you are taking a life every time you do so.

Women who undergo abortion do it because they're irresponsible or lazy...

I don't think you have the faintest inkling about why women have abortions. I suggest you get yourself an education.

98% of abortions in the U.S., as inzomnia pointed out, are done for "personal reasons". In other words, they're too lazy to raise a child, or they're not yet mature enough.

Your conclusion does not follow. "Personal reasons" does not equate to "too lazy" or "not mature enough". You're reading in things that are not there, because you're either too stupid or not educated enough to imagine other possibilities.

Women most definitely should have control over their bodies. One responsibility that goes along with that right, though, is having sex with committed individuals in a responsible manner. If a woman is impregnated, then yes, she is obligated to keep her child, barring rape/incest scenarios.

What are the man's duties who is doing the impregnating? Why do you always focus on the woman, as if the fault was primarily hers?

That "viscous blob of tissue" will, in the matter of a few months, develop into a fully functioning human being. No woman has the right to deny this life's development, regardless of how much she doesn't want it.

Why not? Every time you eat lamb you deny a life's development, but that doesn't worry you.

 

[Kadark]

JamesR,

Are you purposefully being ignorant, or do you get a sadistic kick out of wasting my time? You're incessantly rehashing the exact same arguments over and over again, attempting to discredit my views on abortion by voicing the fact that I eat animals. Look, in case you haven't noticed, I have already heard and fully comprehended the comparison but, quite frankly, I see no equivalency whatsoever in the matter. Eating an animal is not similar to killing a baby through abortion, if for no other reason but the nature of the two entities in question. In one scenario, we're dealing with an animal, which will always get the shorter end of the moral stick when being compared to a human being (especially an innocent baby, at that). In the other scenario, we have a baby not yet born, being liquidated because the mother in question was overcome by queer "personal reasons". If you ask me, there is not a single "personal reason" worthy of justifying abortion. For whatever reason, this woman knowingly had sex, and this woman naturally became impregnated as a result. Regardless of the burden (barring fatal consequences related to health, of course) on the mother, this baby's right to live and develop triumphs all. I don't care whether the reason for the abortion is based on finances, immaturity, stress, or a mix of all three - nothing can justify ending this baby's life.

What are the man's duties who is doing the impregnating? Why do you always focus on the woman, as if the fault was primarily hers?

Are you serious? Look, I know you don't like me; to be honest, I seriously don't like you, either. I bet you think my posts are nonsensical, and you're free to think that way, James. But for the love of God, how could you ask me this question when I just answered it in my previous post? Don't play it off like you overlooked it, either - it was the very first paragraph of my previous post, positioned directly under the conveniently bolded "JamesR" text. I have already listed the punishment and responsibilities that the man who has done the impregnating must face. Even though you ignored it the first time, I'm willing to refer you to it again, although I'm losing more and more faith in you by the day.

Post #222: "Indeed, very harshly. In addition, they must help look after the baby and pay for all of its finances. My punishment wouldn't be as simple as forcing the man to pay child support, because generating the money is simple, especially if you have a steady job. The man in question must also physically help take care of the baby."

Kadark the Virus

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Lets please keep this on topic. If you wish to discuss vegetarianism, please do so in an appropriate thread. While James_R's comments about killing animals is taking a life is somewhat valid to this topic in that he is attempting to make a point, dietary needs of human beings is not.

 

[lepustimidus]

I'm really regarding this thread in disbelief at the moment. Some of the arguments put forward by pro-choicers are just plain ridiculous. Even more baffling, S.A.M is actually talking sense.

Since I can't be assed playing the 'quote reply' game, just a few comments towards a few people.

Inzomnia: Don't lump the retardation expressed by pro-choicers here in with atheism. I know of several atheists who aren't mindless radical left wing pro-choicers (myself for one, Dr Lou for another).

James R: Why are you obfuscating this issue with discussion about vegetarianism? Who cares if Kadark eats meat, it's hardly relevant. Even I can tell you that humans =/= non-humans.

Bells: Your assertion that you don't consider an unborn baby alive is just... laughable. A fetus (hell, even an embyro) fits the textbook definition of 'alive', and simply being dependent on another organism and/or at an early stage in its developmental cycle does not disqualify it from counting as 'alive'.

Your attempt to equate the fetus to some sort of non-entity is quite laughable, especially when we consider the rant you posted on sciforums a while back regarding that old fellow who hit you in the stomach with a cane. I specifically remember you (and your husband) being outraged, and full of fear of losing your unborn baby (from memory, you did call it a 'baby', despite being unborn). But from the way you're acting on this thread, perhaps it would have been more consistent for you to thank him for attempting to rid you of that parasitic non-entity.

Also note that the 'it's her body' argument isn't tenable, since it's not her body being killed.

To anyone here trying to equate a fetus to a blob of cells, that's a little of an oversimplification. After all, we could describe every living organism as a 'blob of cells'.

To the people who are trying to discredit the pro-life stance with the example of spontaneous abortion, please stop it. Trying to equate the pre-mediated conscious killing of a fetus with an involuntary natural process just makes you look retarded.

 

[Bells]

Bells: Your assertion that you don't consider an unborn baby alive is just... laughable. A fetus (hell, even an embyro) fits the textbook definition of 'alive', and simply being dependent on another organism and/or at an early stage in its developmental cycle does not disqualify it from counting as 'alive'.

A fingernail is also "alive". As is hair.

Do you view an 8 week old fetus as having the same rights as a newborn baby? What about the mother? Do you think an 8 week old fetus should have the same rights as the mother who happens to be carrying it so that the mother? Tell me, what is the right of the mother over her own body during those 9 months? Does she lose those rights completely?

Your attempt to equate the fetus to some sort of non-entity is quite laughable, especially when we consider the rant you posted on sciforums a while back regarding that old fellow who hit you in the stomach with a cane. I specifically remember you (and your husband) being outraged, and full of fear of losing your unborn baby (from memory, you did call it a 'baby', despite being unborn). But from the way you're acting on this thread, perhaps it would have been more consistent for you to thank him for attempting to rid you of that parasitic non-entity.

Yes. I was in the final stages of my pregnancy when that occurred. And by that point, it was somewhat a baby to me. And usually by that stage in pregnancy, the "baby" is afforded some rights at law. Before then, it is not. Why do you think that is? Was I angry? Hell yes. Why? Because I did not want to lose that child. I wanted that pregnancy to succeed. Had I wanted to have an abortion, I would not have done so by having some demented old man hit me in the belly with a stick.

And yes, a fetus is a parasite on the mother's body. It will leech anything and everything from the mother, so much so that if the woman does not increase her intake of certain foods and vitamins, she can be much worse for wear at the end of it or later on in her life.

To quote Robert Winston*:

"The baby in utero is almost the perfect parasite, and to this day the precise reason why it is not shed, like a transplanted foreign kidney, is not fully understood."​

Also note that the 'it's her body' argument isn't tenable, since it's not her body being killed.

But it can be. If she does not take better care of herself, eat properly, watch her blood pressure, blood sugar levels, etc, she can very well die as a result of that pregnancy.

To anyone here trying to equate a fetus to a blob of cells, that's a little of an oversimplification. After all, we could describe every living organism as a 'blob of cells'.

Ever seen what a 3 week pregnancy looks like?

Cute and cuddly, eh? That's what a blastocyst looks like at 3 weeks. You tell me that's not a blob of cells?

When a woman miscarries in the first trimester, it is usually expelled from her body surrounded by clots, so that the doctors actually have to run the blood clots under a microscope to try to find fetal matter (cells) in it to determine if she has miscarried or not. I found that little gem out when they thought I had miscarried my first born when I was 11 weeks pregnant.


--------------------------------------------------

* Robert Winston, Human Instinct: How our primeval impulses shape our modern lives, Bantam Books (2002) [page 227]

 

[James R]

Asguard:

im sorry thats just not correct, if a person eats a ballanced non vegan diet they are more likly to suffer less health problems than someone who eats a vegan diet. vegans (especially female vegans) are more likly to be aneomic to start with and deficiant in the esential fatty acids which make up your brain and are mainly obtained from seafood.

Vegans are only likely to become anaemic or deficient in certain vitamins if they are not careful about their diet. In the same way, meat eaters can get all kinds of health problems from failing to eat a balanced diet.

You speak as if there is something inherent in a vegan diet that is unhealthy. That is simply not true.


Kadark:

Are you purposefully being ignorant, or do you get a sadistic kick out of wasting my time? You're incessantly rehashing the exact same arguments over and over again, attempting to discredit my views on abortion by voicing the fact that I eat animals.

I'm merely pointing out your double standards. On the one hand, you claim that abortion is bad because you supposedly value life. But, on the other hand, you obviously don't value life in general, only specific kinds of life, which apparently includes unborn foetuses, for some reason you haven't articulated so far. You claim that human beings (and therefore human foetuses) are special without saying what makes them special. You claim, without any kind of argument or proof, that human beings are "higher" or "better" or more valuable than other animals.

Your argument against abortion based on the sanctity of human life is full of holes. Why is human life sacred, while animal life is not? Why is it ok to kill a human sperm cell and an ovum, but not a 1 cell embryo? What makes the difference?

Eating an animal is not similar to killing a baby through abortion, if for no other reason but the nature of the two entities in question.

What is important about that nature that makes the situation different? So far, you've suggested no defining characteristic other than membership of a particular species, which seems to me to be arbitrary and self-serving.

In one scenario, we're dealing with an animal, which will always get the shorter end of the moral stick when being compared to a human being (especially an innocent baby, at that).

Why?

In the other scenario, we have a baby not yet born, being liquidated because the mother in question was overcome by queer "personal reasons".

A 1 cell embryo, or even a 6 week old embryo, is very far from being "a baby".

If you ask me, there is not a single "personal reason" worthy of justifying abortion.

Obviously. But you're not just talking for yourself and your own personal reasons. You're presuming to prevent other people from making their own decisions.

For whatever reason, this woman knowingly had sex, and this woman naturally became impregnated as a result. Regardless of the burden (barring fatal consequences related to health, of course) on the mother, this baby's right to live and develop triumphs all.

Why? What makes a single-celled blastocyst so overwhelmingly important all of a sudden?

Also, you emphasise "naturally" as if that is important to you. If natural processes are paramount for you, are you for or against contraception?

Are you serious? Look, I know you don't like me; to be honest, I seriously don't like you, either.

I think you're immature and unworldly, like a number of other people on this forum. You pontificate on things you have no personal experience of and often no detailed knowledge of. I think you're foolish and naive. But please don't mistake any of that for animosity. I don't hate people just for being uneducated.

I have already listed the punishment and responsibilities that the man who has done the impregnating must face.

Fine. My apologies.

But it still seems to me that you continually want to assign some kind of blame to women who become pregnant, while completely and conveniently overlooking the fact that it takes both a woman and a man to produce a pregnancy.

 

[Norsefire]

As I said, the problem with abortion is in its ensuring a person. After conception, that is a future person, already pre-determined, already going to develop. It's a done deal.

To kill the fetus then, even though it is not a fully developed human, is robbing a person of their life, the life that was supposed to be. It's unfair, and it's the tyranny of the developed.

And what of pregnancies that are near birth?

 

[James R]

James R: Why are you obfuscating this issue with discussion about vegetarianism? Who cares if Kadark eats meat, it's hardly relevant.

I have clearly explained how Kadark's position is hypocritical. Please read my post immediately prior to this one.

Even I can tell you that humans =/= non-humans.

This is a straw man, and I happily concede the point.

Bells: Your assertion that you don't consider an unborn baby alive is just... laughable. A fetus (hell, even an embyro) fits the textbook definition of 'alive', and simply being dependent on another organism and/or at an early stage in its developmental cycle does not disqualify it from counting as 'alive'.

As I have already pointed out several times above, while pro-lifers like yourself constantly claim that the important factor is that a foetus is a living thing, this argument doesn't really work, especially in light of the hypocrisy shown by pro-lifers in their killing of hundreds of other living things with no compunction.

To anyone here trying to equate a fetus to a blob of cells, that's a little of an oversimplification. After all, we could describe every living organism as a 'blob of cells'.

So, now you and Kadark can both explain to me why one type of blob of cells is so important to you, while other types (some much more developed and sophisticated) are neither here nor there.

To the people who are trying to discredit the pro-life stance with the example of spontaneous abortion, please stop it. Trying to equate the pre-mediated conscious killing of a fetus with an involuntary natural process just makes you look retarded.

How do you regard pre-meditated contraception which prevents the potential conception of a beautiful bouncing baby?

 

[James R]

Norsefire

As I said, the problem with abortion is in its ensuring a person. After conception, that is a future person, already pre-determined, already going to develop. It's a done deal.

Do you know how many things can go wrong in a pregnancy? As I noted above, some estimates place the probability of spontaneous loss of a pregnancy in the first trimester at 1 in 4. So, conception is hardly a "done deal".

It's like arguing that Prince Charles is heir to the throne of England, and so the fact that he will be King is a done deal. He might get hit by a bus tomorrow.

To kill the fetus then, even though it is not a fully developed human, is robbing a person of their life, the life that was supposed to be.

"Supposed" by who?

And what of pregnancies that are near birth?

I suggest a sliding scale is appropriate. Abortion just after conception is of little consequence. It will happen in about 1 of 4 cases "naturally". Abortion just before birth is a dramatic thing, often potentially life-threatening for the mother as well as the child. Therefore, very different considerations apply.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire



Do you know how many things can go wrong in a pregnancy? As I noted above, some estimates place the probability of spontaneous loss of a pregnancy in the first trimester at 1 in 4. So, conception is hardly a "done deal".

It's like arguing that Prince Charles is heir to the throne of England, and so the fact that he will be King is a done deal. He might get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Then let nature and destiny have their domain. But it does not justify the taking of life by another life before that life has the ability to object. It's not murder, it's worse than murder. It's unfair. What if you were aborted?

"Supposed" by who?

Nature and common sense

I suggest a sliding scale is appropriate. Abortion just after conception is of little consequence. It will happen in about 1 of 4 cases "naturally". Abortion just before birth is a dramatic thing, often potentially life-threatening for the mother as well as the child. Therefore, very different considerations apply.

I disagree, and especially on a pregnancy just before birth. In such a case, it truly is murder, undeniably.

 

[Bells]

I disagree, and especially on a pregnancy just before birth. In such a case, it truly is murder, undeniably.

Abortions on request are rarely performed if it is towards the end of the pregnancy. It is only performed if the fetus has been found to not be viable or has some deformities or congenital defects. Or if the mother's life is at risk and again, the fetus is not viable in any way, shape or form.

But lets imagine abortions are illegal.. completely.. And the pregnancy puts the mothers life at risk and ultimately kills her. You view women who have abortions as being akin to being murderers. But what in situations where the pregnancy leads to the death of the mother? Who is the murderer then?

 

[Norsefire]

Abortions on request are rarely performed if it is towards the end of the pregnancy. It is only performed if the fetus has been found to not be viable or has some deformities or congenital defects. Or if the mother's life is at risk and again, the fetus is not viable in any way, shape or form.

It is understandable if the fetus is proven to be deformed or if there is risk to the mother.

however, many abortions are simply because the mother does not want a child, and in this case, it's unjustifiable.

But lets imagine abortions are illegal.. completely.. And the pregnancy puts the mothers life at risk and ultimately kills her. You view women who have abortions as being akin to being murderers. But what in situations where the pregnancy leads to the death of the mother? Who is the murderer then?

I am not saying the mother is a murderer or even close to it. The practice, however, is practically murder, but I'm not blaming the mothers any more than the doctors who allow it.

 

[Bells]

It is understandable if the fetus is proven to be deformed or if there is risk to the mother.

however, many abortions are simply because the mother does not want a child, and in this case, it's unjustifiable.

Can you see the contradiction there?

If you view abortion is being akin to murder, then the fetus' deformities or the health of the mother should not come into it. If you view abortion as being murder, then there should be no exceptions. Hence why I find so many pro-lifers to be highly hypocritical on this issue.

You blame the mother if she wants an abortion for any reason other than a deformed fetus or her health. What of her mental health? What if she cannot financially afford to bring up another child? What if she is in an abusive relationship? There are infinite circumstances where an abortion should be made available to the woman. While you may disagree with them and consider it an act of murder, it is not for you to judge those women as such because you simply do not know or understand their individual circumstances.

I am not saying the mother is a murderer or even close to it. The practice, however, is practically murder, but I'm not blaming the mothers any more than the doctors who allow it.

So she's not a murderer but the practice or the act of seeking and performing an abortion is? You're not making sense.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Then let nature and destiny have their domain.

But we're interfering with "nature" all the time. If you're such a fan of nature, why do you live in an "unnatural" house, wear "unnatural" clothes, use "unnatural" contraception?

As for "destiny", I don't know what you mean.

But it does not justify the taking of life by another life before that life has the ability to object.

But you happily take life all the time without giving the life the ability to object. What's special about this kind of life, in particular?

Nature and common sense

Nature and common sense are not active agents that can "suppose" things in the sense of making them "meant to be".

 

[Norsefire]

Can you see the contradiction there?

If you view abortion is being akin to murder, then the fetus' deformities or the health of the mother should not come into it. If you view abortion as being murder, then there should be no exceptions. Hence why I find so many pro-lifers to be highly hypocritical on this issue.

You blame the mother if she wants an abortion for any reason other than a deformed fetus or her health. What of her mental health? What if she cannot financially afford to bring up another child? What if she is in an abusive relationship? There are infinite circumstances where an abortion should be made available to the woman. While you may disagree with them and consider it an act of murder, it is not for you to judge those women as such because you simply do not know or understand their individual circumstances.

If such is the case, there is adoption. Death, however, is not a viable option.

So she's not a murderer but the practice or the act of seeking and performing an abortion is? You're not making sense.

What I mean is, there are many parties to blame.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



But we're interfering with "nature" all the time. If you're such a fan of nature, why do you live in an "unnatural" house, wear "unnatural" clothes, use "unnatural" contraception?

Not when that interference leads to death, then it isn't right.

As for "destiny", I don't know what you mean.

Leaving things to play out as they will.

But you happily take life all the time without giving the life the ability to object. What's special about this kind of life, in particular?



Nature and common sense are not active agents that can "suppose" things in the sense of making them "meant to be".

It's Human, concious, self aware, and again, human

 

[James R]

Not when that interference leads to death, then it isn't right.

So, interference in nature that leads to death is bad, according to you.

Have you ever swatted a fly or mosquito? I hope not.
Have you ever eaten meat? I hope not.
Have you ever taken medicine for a cold? I hope not.

Leaving things to play out as they will.

But you don't do that in most of your life. You're continually trying to control your life in many different ways.

Also, aren't you negating personal responsibility if you leave things to "play out as they will"?

It's Human, concious, self aware, and again, human

In other words, membership of a particular species somehow automatically confers on a foetus an extra-special set of rights, enforceable even against its parents. Interesting.

Why do consciousness and self-awareness matter? Isn't human enough for you?

I assume you have no problem with killing conscious, self-aware non-human animals, to eat for example.