Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

There's more than one life involved.


Why is it people say, "It's the woman's choice because its her body," but conveniently forget the fact that we're discussing the choice of the mother to take the life and destroy the body of her child. It's rather sad, and telling, that you refer to the embryo as a "kid" when talking about the embryo developing, but refer to the embryo as "it", as if using genderless pronouns will somehow make it less of a human life and more of an insignificant cluster of cells.

So does that mean killing sperm cells is murder? What about morning-after pills?

Where do you draw the line - and why?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The development of a human life requires both a sperm and an egg, and as singular entities, the sperm and the egg can't do anything on their own. Since abortion is the aborting of a human life, a woman's period or male ejaculate isn't abortion.

If I had to draw a line, I'd say human life starts at one of two places... conception or implantation. You have rapid growth, cellular division, reproduction (in the event of twin development), processes to metabolize 'food' for growth, etc.

An embryo is no more viable on its own than sperm and eggs, nor is it any more capable of the qualities that make human life of moral value (excepting the late-term, as React pointed out).

If the measure of humanity is independent viability then how is the embryo more viable than sperm and eggs?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

we've had this discussion 100x before

eturnal believes that since at that point it has the potential for human life, it is considered human life and considered murder if you abort/terminate it.

Well, if this is about the measure of viability... is a newborn infant a living human?

If you want to use that argument then wouldn't it extend to anyone and everyone? No one can survive on their own without some sort of support from others.

To answer your question though, biologically the answer is pretty clear-cut. A newborn infant is a self-contained, independently viable organism. That it cannot feed itself is no more of a disqualifier than other organisms (or people) that for one reason or another cannot feed themselves.

That said, I do believe that infanticide should be legalized.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I know this may be a shock to someone who has been completely dependent and coddled by others their entire life, but people can survive on their own if they're developed enough. Infants aren't afforded that developmental luxury, but children, teens and adults could survive in the wild if they have the physical capacity, and will, to survive.


You're talking out your ass now. An infant can't survive on his or her own until they develop further. Biologically, until their digestive systems and reflexes have matured, infants are incapable of eating solid food so they need nourishment from a mother. To survive on their own they'd need the motor skills necessary to find food, pick up food, put it in their mouth, chew, etc. What that means is a child would die long before they developed the skills necessary to be 'independently viable.' As you know, because of their inability to survive on their own, the Romans would leave their infants to the exposure of the elements as a means of death.

Embryo - Human life, reliant on its mother for nourishment and incapable of surviving on its own due to lack of development... Abortable.
Infant - Human life, reliant on its mother (or another) for nourishment and incapable of surviving on its own due to lack of development... Not abortable... well unless you're Aestu, then Infantcide would be legalized.


Would you have made the cut? Weren't you born with a cleft lip/palate?

Why hasn't the point been brought up that women who are desperate for abortions will still have one anyways, except it will be in dangerous, unregulated, black market procedures as opposed to a professional clinic with things like emotional support for the mother?

Also, there's a shitton of compassion for sacks of cells, considering the second they become an actual human being many of the people who would like to see it to term also lose all interest in it, leaving an unwilling/unwanting/financially unstable mother to float the bill of their morality for the rest of her life.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

People don't mention that first part because to imply that a woman would do something illegal, unethical or immoral is political suicide.

And because we don't want to hurt their feelings.

Mayo, the slippery slope argument is retarded and tired out. If slippery slope is permissible, then we might as well negate seat belt laws because everyone's gonna do it anyway if they feel like it, drug laws because everyone's gonna do it anyway if they feel like it, insider trading laws because everyone's gonna do it anyway. We might as well give everyone a gun, because otherwise only the criminals will have guns.

This is why laws exist. The fact is that at some point the lines blur, and a reasonable compromise must be reached. Late term abortions are horrible and should not be legal under any circumstances beyond rape and out of medical necessity.

There's gotta be a cut off and a reasonable compromise. People shouldn't be subjected to raising children they can't properly raise. After a certain point, if a late term abortion is needed for convenience reasons, a heavy fine payable over time to weaken the financial blow. Two strike rule, then mandatory sterilization (applicable to men and women). Birth control should also be readily available and by and large unrestricted.

The United States should also implement policies similar to China's One Child policy, though One Child is extreme, and this would not apply to births of multiples. Upon meeting the allowed amount, mandatory sterilization.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

I don't buy the late term if its a rape argument.

You knew it was a rape long before it was late term.

Until recent times, despite men and women marrying early and having as many children as possible - ten or more - the overwhelming majority of people (~90%) did not survive to reproduce. Even factoring out stillborns and deaths in infancy, mortality was staggering. The objective reality is that most people can't survive without modern society, and certainly not without any society at all.

When you say "physical capacity" what you mean is physical strength and vitality. What you overlook is that your physical strength, as you know it, is dependent on a modern high-calorie diet, sleeping well each night in a bed, easy access to water, and a sanitary environment so you do not have to spend excess resources on immune function. Without access to those things your physical strength would quickly wane. The closest thing you will ever see to humans in their "natural state" are homeless people and rodents.

You say I have been dependent on others or coddled my entire life, yet I am not so out of touch with reality or myself to lose sight of the reality of human frailty. You, on the other hand, are apparently so mired in what society has done for you that you've completely lost sight of it.



As I already said, there are many people and creatures which never gain the ability to survive independently but are considered examples of their species nonetheless.



Not exactly. The Romans (and almost all other traditional societies, with the sole exception of the Hebrews) exposed infants that were unwanted or defective in some way. To this day, Roman brothels can be easily identified by piles of infant skeletons in the sewers below.

It was legal for a Roman father to kill not only unwanted infants but his children of any age - even into adulthood - because of patrias potestas. So in reality you are completely debunking your own point: the Roman world view was based on the premise that no man is an island, everyone is first and foremost a member of the community, the family and the state.



Yes. I think my stance is more logical.



This is an interesting question but not for the reasons you might think.

The short answer is no, I wouldn't have, for the reason you identify - and I am fine with this. I wasn't me when I was a newborn infant, I was a newborn infant struggling to breathe.

I freely admit (and my father can occasionally be provoked into saying something along the same lines although he will never coolly admit it) that a lot of my personal unhappiness and generally maladjusted nature stems from the complex developmental impact of a cleft palate, even one that has been fully corrected.

What makes your question interesting is the ironic reality that sometimes, simply being "a little off" - like Bernard Marx in Brave New World - can help someone see the world more clearly, or bring a different perspective to it. Many of history's greatest minds were people who suffered physical defects or other inadequacies that somehow impacted their behavior and ability to relate to the world.

Alexander the Great, for example, is typically portrayed in art craning his neck in an odd way. This is typically recast as a graceful or dramatic gesture, but in reality, his family suffered from a congenital spinal deformity (which may also have been why he died young). Julius Caesar suffered from epilepsy. Napoleon got picked on for being short. The trauma of losing one of his testicles may have been the decisive factor in Adolf Hitler deciding to take over the world.

The real question about eugenics is not whether any one person is fit to live or die but the possible ramifications of removing outliers from human society. Self-loathing is a deceptively influential social force.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

React got to the first half of Mayo's response before I did.

Yes, whether you're for or against abortion, the argument that if it's illegal people will do it illegally is silly because it contradicts the premise of all law which is that law is supposed to be driven by what is right or wrong and not what is easy or difficult.



This is a much better argument. It doesn't cost anything to say life is sacred, but is Eturnal or anyone else going to put their money where their mouth is and pay forward the costs of their moral viewpoint - feeding, clothing, housing, providing education and opportunity for teeming masses of unwanted children grown into disaffected adults?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Well, frankly, we already do.

Welfare is too much of a clusterfuck to NOT legalize abortion. It's all a mess anyway, might as well throw a few more brooms into the room and hope SOMEONE picks them up.