jmog;503722 wrote:Here's the other thing, if someone is raped and they go to the hospital for it, the "rape kit" cleans out all "stuff" in there and its impossible to get pregnant after a rape kit is done. Just FYI.

Because everyone who gets raped gets checked or reports it right?

^^^well they should, and allowing abortions only in the case of rape would be a good incentive to report the attack so that the rapist can be brought to justice and removed from society. I don't have a problem with abortion in case of rape. Everyone has a right to self defense, and a pregnancy due to rape is a manifestation of the attack. Better still, as jmog points out, a promptly reported attack and treatment can prevent the pregnancy.

jmog;503715 wrote:On a personal level I am against abortion in all cases. Modern medicine basically has reduced the "it will kill the mother" BS down to zero with c-sections and other in-utero surgeries.

That actually isn't true at all. There are situations--generally in the first trimester--in which failure to perform an abortion will certainly result in the death of the fetus and cause extreme risk to the mother. In a situation where the child has zero chance of living, and failure to abort early may kill the mother, would you still be against it?

I am against abortion except in the case the mother's life is in danger. If the baby has a chance to survive outside the womb at the time the mother's life is determined to be in danger, then the pregnancy should be terminated in a manner that allows the baby a chance to live.

Most that are pro choice claim they want to limit the number of abortions, yet preserve the right of the individual to chose to do what they will with their own body. The tax code has been used for quite some time now to promote desirable behavior and discourage undesirable behavior.

Perhaps we should levy a direct tax on abortions? I mean just like we feel we can't take away the right of the individual to inhale smoke into their lungs, we instead just directly tax the shit out of their means to do so. We feel we can't take away the right of individuals to shack up, we just give those who marry a tax break. These are just a few of the ways we use tax law coerce our fellow citizens into making the choices we feel are best. I could go on and on. The tax code is full of this kind of bullshit.

Maybe we tier the tax based on the reason for the abortion and the term of pregnancy. How about government forms to fill out? Maybe background checks or a waiting list. Maybe you should have to register to have an abortion. The left covets these tools for one of our rights specifically named in the bill of rights.

So how many of my friends on the left will hop on board with taxes and regulations on abortions? My guess is few.

I Wear Pants;505483 wrote:Because everyone who gets raped gets checked or reports it right?

I never said they did, matter of fact the woman close to me that was raped, it was a date rape and she never reported it. So I know it doesn't happen 100% of the time, probably not even 50%. I was just stating a fact that if a rape kit is performed, pregnancy is basically impossible.

fan_from_texas;506243 wrote:That actually isn't true at all. There are situations--generally in the first trimester--in which failure to perform an abortion will certainly result in the death of the fetus and cause extreme risk to the mother. In a situation where the child has zero chance of living, and failure to abort early may kill the mother, would you still be against it?

If you are talking about things like tubals? Of course not, that is a totally different situation.

I'm talking about the later term "the delivery might kill the mother" excuse.

For.

Against.

jmog;506747 wrote:If you are talking about things like tubals? Of course not, that is a totally different situation.

I'm talking about the later term "the delivery might kill the mother" excuse.

Just to confirm, so in a tubal (or other, more extreme ectopic) where the baby will certainly die, and the mother may die and will almost certainly experience extreme complications, you would be okay with an abortion?

I agree with you re the late term "delivery might kill the mother"--that is virtually never the case. But early in the term, there are certain "unviable" pregnancies that can kill the mother if not aborted. Would you permit an abortion in that case?

majorspark;506626 wrote:Most that are pro choice claim they want to limit the number of abortions, yet preserve the right of the individual to chose to do what they will with their own body. The tax code has been used for quite some time now to promote desirable behavior and discourage undesirable behavior.

Perhaps we should levy a direct tax on abortions? I mean just like we feel we can't take away the right of the individual to inhale smoke into their lungs, we instead just directly tax the shit out of their means to do so. We feel we can't take away the right of individuals to shack up, we just give those who marry a tax break. These are just a few of the ways we use tax law coerce our fellow citizens into making the choices we feel are best. I could go on and on. The tax code is full of this kind of bullshit.

Maybe we tier the tax based on the reason for the abortion and the term of pregnancy. How about government forms to fill out? Maybe background checks or a waiting list. Maybe you should have to register to have an abortion. The left covets these tools for one of our rights specifically named in the bill of rights.

So how many of my friends on the left will hop on board with taxes and regulations on abortions? My guess is few.

Perhaps we provide a non-refundable tax credit to those with low wages and get pregnant to have an abortion so we get fewer future leftists being born and fewer non-productive sloths living off others in society? Would put an end to incessant breeding to get a government handout, IMO.

fan_from_texas;507040 wrote:Just to confirm, so in a tubal (or other, more extreme ectopic) where the baby will certainly die, and the mother may die and will almost certainly experience extreme complications, you would be okay with an abortion?

I agree with you re the late term "delivery might kill the mother"--that is virtually never the case. But early in the term, there are certain "unviable" pregnancies that can kill the mother if not aborted. Would you permit an abortion in that case?

If it was my wife, absolutely. So in short, yes.

BoatShoes;507044 wrote:Perhaps we provide a non-refundable tax credit to those with low wages and get pregnant to have an abortion so we get fewer future leftists being born and fewer non-productive sloths living off others in society? Would put an end to incessant breeding to get a government handout, IMO.

Then you are just giving people a good reason to get pregnant on purpose and have an abortion

HitsRus;504222 wrote:posted by boatshoes:



Seriously, if you cannot accept a priori that a mother's body is different than an artificial life support device, there is little point in further discussion. If current ethical standards cannot be accepted as a valid premise in this arguement...if you are going to engage in hypotheticals worthy of Huxley....what's the point? I mean, do I really have to explain that a mother's body is different than an artificial life support device? Do I really have to explain that "pristinely removing" a fetus represents an active attack?.

Modal logic and hypothetical worlds are important tools in philosophy because they allow us to step back and strip away our embedded biases and assumptions. Hypotheticals like mine have allowed Alvin Plantinga to put a new spin on A priori arguments for the existence of God, Hilary Putnam to establish the prominence of the idea that the meaning of a word is established external the the thoughts of its utterer and David Chalmers to resurrect the case for dualism in the mind-body problem, etc.

(FWIW...they are much smarter than I and I am no where in their league....just saying that I'm reluctant to give up relying on what might seem like extreme hypotheticals).

A pre-week 30 old fetus, even if a living organism, is no more alive than a blade of grass, can feel no more pain than a can of pepsi and has no more potential for life than the millions of sperm splattered on tissues in teenage boy's trash cans nationwide or our teenage daughter's eggs that we'd much rather see float down our toilet than be impregnated and neither of which we feel deserve any special moral consideration.

Ultimately, our immovable differences reside in the fact, I think, that you believe that the one sperm out of a million that made it to that one special egg that didn't get flushed down the toilet is because God hand picked this to happen...the reason that one sperm got there was because this was in God's grand design and not the result of the mindless machination of biology churning on with no greater meaning. And on this, I disagree and for reasons I'm sure you won't find satisfying.

jmog;507057 wrote:Then you are just giving people a good reason to get pregnant on purpose and have an abortion

At least then people won't waste their money on condoms...a needless administrative cost burdening the efficiency of our economy IMO

jmog;506745 wrote:I was just stating a fact that if a rape kit is performed, pregnancy is basically impossible.

I was not aware that a rape kit would prevent pregnancy unless you combine it with a dose of RU-486 to chemically prevent a pregnancy. I would be interested in reading up on that. Do you have a link?

And speaking of hormones, it is hypothesized, though not well supported, that the pill may prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Is this a form of abortion and should the pill then be outlawed if abortions are ever outlawed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

analogkid;507304 wrote:I was not aware that a rape kit would prevent pregnancy unless you combine it with a dose of RU-486 to chemically prevent a pregnancy. I would be interested in reading up on that. Do you have a link?

And speaking of hormones, it is hypothesized, though not well supported, that the pill may prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Is this a form of abortion and should the pill then be outlawed if abortions are ever outlawed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

I think you're confusing the "Abortion Pill," Mifepristone which is an oral method to perform an abortion and the "day after pill" or "Plan B" which contains levonorgestrol which will prevent a pregnancy.

BoatShoes;507355 wrote:I think you're confusing the "Abortion Pill," Mifepristone which is an oral method to perform an abortion and the "day after pill" or "Plan B" which contains levonorgestrol which will prevent a pregnancy.

Yup, I was mixing them up although mifepristone can also be used as an emergency contraceptive at lower doses.

A pre-week 30 old fetus, even if a living organism, is no more alive than a blade of grass, can feel no more pain than a can of pepsi and has no more potential for life than the millions of sperm splattered on tissues in teenage boy's trash cans nationwide or our teenage daughter's eggs that we'd much rather see float down our toilet than be impregnated and neither of which we feel deserve any special moral consideration.

Ultimately, our immovable differences reside in the fact, I think, that you believe that the one sperm out of a million that made it to that one special egg that didn't get flushed down the toilet is because God hand picked this to happen...the reason that one sperm got there was because this was in God's grand design and not the result of the mindless machination of biology churning on with no greater meaning. And on this, I disagree and for reasons I'm sure you won't find satisfying.

Your propensity to hyperbole and 'colorful' metaphors aside, our ultimate immovable difference lies in the fact that you refuse to see a difference between a complete genome and a gamete....between a unique genetic combination, and a human product. Perhaps, in some way bringing 'God' into this, helps you rationalize away what is a violation of moral absolutes, universal laws and biologic law. ....E.g. since you've come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, then you are no longer bound by a morality that you perceive being derived from religious beliefs. Dispose of natural decencies...of ethics acquired from traditional civilization and you are free to dispose of life at will right up until the time of what?...consciousness?...the 210th day? Hence, you have no qualms picking arbitrary cutoff dates and likening unborn human beings to blades of grass and pepsi cans.

jmog;507056 wrote:If it was my wife, absolutely. So in short, yes.

I think we're on the same page, then. I'm pro-life, certainly, but when the pregnancy is not viable, and failure to abort causes serious risk to the mother, then I'm okay with abortion. Other than that, I oppose it, even in cases of rape or incest.

HitsRus;507417 wrote:Your propensity to hyperbole and 'colorful' metaphors aside, our ultimate immovable difference lies in the fact that you refuse to see a difference between a complete genome and a gamete....between a unique genetic combination, and a human product. Perhaps, in some way bringing 'God' into this, helps you rationalize away what is a violation of moral absolutes, universal laws and biologic law. ....E.g. since you've come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, then you are no longer bound by a morality that you perceive being derived from religious beliefs. You are free to dispose of at will right up until the time of what?...consciousness?...the 210th day? Hence, you have no qualms picking arbitrary cutoff dates and likening unborn human beings to blades of grass and pepsi cans.

Having a brain is not an "arbitrary" cutoff. No matter how many times you say it...it makes a meaningful difference between zombies, robots, persons of all kinds. Before 20 weeks a fetus has not one brain cell.

Violation of moral absolutes? Why is it not the case that I think it immoral to require a human being to be a slave to another human being and allow it to grow inside of them against their will? Why might it not be the case that I believe that to be a more crucial consideration?

You think that there lies a great moral difference between a mindless one cell organism with 23 chromosomes and a diploid cell with 46 chromosomes. You think that 46 chromosomes is sufficient for your most ardent moral angst. If this be murder to you, and you hope to be consistent, you would have to think the destruction of a human being, with 46 chromosomes, living via the support of another person, but lacking a brain to also be murder...you would be required to say that the "killing" of a person who is not alive by all reasonable scientific accounts is murder....

Yet, at the same time, if the harm of organisms with 46 human chromosomes concerns you so much as you would make it a crime when the destruction of which occurs; I can't imagine you might hold other views in regards to the harm of entities with 46 human chromosomes; For instance, you would require a woman to allow a human being to live inside of herself against her will because her personal autonomy and rights do not outweigh the life of the human being contingent on her body....yet you vehemently oppose such things as a modestly inconvenient tax increase that will be used to help pay for the healthcare of 20 million human beings with 46 chromosomes (human beings that actually feel pain, sadness, despair, etc.).

If the 46 chromosomes is the upshot for you....I don't know how you can explain how a). a modest impingement on personal autonomy that will help 20 million human beings with 46 chromosomes (that feel pain) is morally unjustified whereas b). an extreme and life altering impingement on personal autonomy that will help one human being (that feels no pain nor consciousness nor even has the required anatomy to do so) is morally unjustified.

But let's suppose it even is an actual homicide of a human being....there's still no reason to require a human being to provide for the sustenance for another human being, inside her own body no less, against her will....and you ought to at least agree with that considering your apparent views on social welfare, etc.; especially considering that it feels no pain and has never been alive in any real sense.

Even if it is a human being and an actual killing in the same way as any other...it is still justified as a defense of one's most intimate private property against an undesirable and harmful trespass.

You would abhor a law that required you to keep Boatshoes alive on your dime, a law that would require you to shelter me in your home and certainly one that would require that you let me live inside your body; big government at its tyrannical best. And yet, I can beg for my life, have memories and conscious awareness, experience pain and suffering, all things I have more in common with a junkyard dog than a microscopic diploid cell that shares the same number of chromosomes with me.

Even if Christ is risen, that fetus' hairs were counted in heaven above and a cruel eternity awaits me this much is also certainly true.

But anyways...as I said before; although I think it a violation of the most intimate personal property rights, I think it fair to require a citizen to carry a fetus to term after 20 weeks when its first neurological structures are formed thereby making conscious experience even remotely possible (the ceasing of which, we consider to make one "dead"). If I were king, I'd probably go til around 30 weeks when current neurology suggests real conscious experience and the possibility of "making dead" can happen...but I think it a fair compromise were I a policy maker and would also minimize the pair bonding between the host and the fetus.

If you think a brain so arbitrary you might want to go visit a morgue.

Having a brain is not an "arbitrary" cutoff

Again...there is a difference between a brain that has stopped functioning forever, and one that is developing ( with only a modicum of effort from the mother).


"Against her will"...nawwwww. She had consentual sex....and knew the risks. There's no 'invader' here....quit making a fetus/baby a boogie man.
If you read anything else I've posted, you'll see that I've allowed for 'self defense' from rape or life endangerment. We are talking about abortion for convienience here. There are plenty of birth control methods...and if for the sake of arguement, RU-486 was allowed as a compromise...how hollow is is your arguement now?

And to bring up my views on taxes and think that is at all relevant....getting desperate to defend your politics? Let's see...you'll defend trees and animal's rights, but you won't stick up for the most helpless of human tissues?. Fetal pigs have more rights than fetal humans? But you'll crucify me for saying that the government should control its spending before going to the taxpayers.
You want me to insure people? I already do. 10 people to be exact....at the cost of 6% of my GROSS income. Plus, you want to take another 6% out of my net.....just ' cause I've got a few more dollars in my DEEP pockets! Doesn't matter that I already give a lot to charitable causes either....Worse...that money you're gonna tax me and other small business is not going to necessarily go toward the uninsured, it's going anywhere they see fit to spend it (and spend it they will)...Afghanistan, Iraq, bailout of ABCDEFG, your girlfriend's latest abortion....etc etc. I got 10 people "in my house" and their 6 kids not including mine. How many YOU got?

Seriously, man...You need to get your head screwed on straight. Clean that gobbldygook out of your head and get real. I don't think it's wrong to ask the government to control its spending, before going to the taxpayers for more...and I don't see anything wrong with respect for human life at any stage.

^^^^Excellent post HitsRus. Hear Hear.

HitsRus;507667 wrote:Again...there is a difference between a brain that has stopped functioning forever, and one that is developing ( with only a modicum of effort from the mother).


"Against her will"...nawwwww. She had consentual sex....and knew the risks. There's no 'invader' here....quit making a fetus/baby a boogie man.
If you read anything else I've posted, you'll see that I've allowed for 'self defense' from rape or life endangerment. We are talking about abortion for convienience here. There are plenty of birth control methods...and if for the sake of arguement, RU-486 was allowed as a compromise...how hollow is is your arguement now?

And to bring up my views on taxes and think that is at all relevant....getting desperate to defend your politics? Let's see...you'll defend trees and animal's rights, but you won't stick up for the most helpless of human tissues?. Fetal pigs have more rights than fetal humans? But you'll crucify me for saying that the government should control its spending before going to the taxpayers.
You want me to insure people? I already do. 10 people to be exact....at the cost of 6% of my GROSS income. Plus, you want to take another 6% out of my net.....just ' cause I've got a few more dollars in my DEEP pockets! Doesn't matter that I already give a lot to charitable causes either....Worse...that money you're gonna tax me and other small business is not going to necessarily go toward the uninsured, it's going anywhere they see fit to spend it (and spend it they will)...Afghanistan, Iraq, bailout of ABCDEFG, your girlfriend's latest abortion....etc etc. I got 10 people "in my house" and their 6 kids not including mine. How many YOU got?

Seriously, man...You need to get your head screwed on straight. Clean that gobbldygook out of your head and get real. I don't think it's wrong to ask the government to control its spending, before going to the taxpayers for more...and I don't see anything wrong with respect for human life at any stage.

Sorry I hadn't replied sooner.

First off. As to the brain....what is the difference between an organism that has no brain whatsoever and one that has a completely dead brain....there is no fundamental difference....the fact that you expect there to be a functioning brain in the future falls mercy to Hume's problem of induction and is a morally irrelevant fact.

Second, as to self-defense....If I were living inside of you, and you put me inside of you in the first place...and I you decided that you don't want me inside of you anymore...by definition of the word "will" I am living inside of you against your will....even if you initially consented for me to be in there is irrelevant.

For instance, take "at-will employment." You are free to hire people at your desire...you bring them under your employment at your will and yet if you were disallowed to fire an employee that you no longer desired you would no longer be employing this person "at your will." I mean we are talking about basic definitions of words here.

I don't know what you were getting at as to Ru-486.

As to your views on taxes and social welfare...it is absolutely relevant because you find it a moral horror to choose convenience over the life of a human being that feels no pain yet you feel it not a moral horror to choose convenience over the life of human beings that feel great pain.

Your views cannot be compatible if we take your concern for human suffering and life seriously.

Where are you ascertaining my views towards fetal pigs and trees from??

I'm a guy here who's argued for the vicious torture of convicted rapists? What makes you think you know my views on such things? Why project the standard liberal veil on me?

And as to government spending...I never said anything about being consistent with your care for humans through government....give more to charity...Call Unicef and express your deep compassion for human life and deduct it from your tax liability.

It does matter that you don't give more to charitable causes because you've taken the position that all innocent human life is so deeply incredibly precious that we must violate the most deeply personal property to protect it and yet you do not act on this moral imperative consistently....this is your moral imperative not mine....I'm the selfish, hedonistic, agnostic who thinks gruesome torture of other humans may be justified.

I could not care less if you paid any single amount of taxes in order to be consistent with your apparent views on the sanctity of innocents....please keep that money away from the treasury and spend it more efficiently through private charity.

And back to the brain, etc.

46 chromosomes is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a human being to be "alive." Conscious awareness (or at least the requisite anatomy) is also a necessary condition.

As to the brain....what is the difference between an organism that has no brain whatsoever and one that has a completely dead brain....there is no fundamental difference....the fact that you expect there to be a functioning brain in the future falls mercy to Hume's problem of induction and is a morally irrelevant fact.

Hume! How silly of me. Because the sun rises everyday for as long as we can document, doesn't mean that it will again tomorrow. To expect that it will rise tomorrow also falls to Hume's fallacy. And of course we could apply it to what is expected future of the completely dead brain. Oh, the paralysis. Can't plan anything on past experience...logical fallacy, you know.

What is relevant to our present reality is that we are beings that travel linearly thru time in one direction only...and where we are on that time line makes a huge FUNDAMENTAL difference.