Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[loaf]

I'm Pro-Life

and

Pro-Choice.

Because if you have life, you have choice.

[Clint]

At around six weeks, an ultrasound can detect signs of a heartbeat, indicating a living being inside of the woman's womb. You can dress it up at say that it's a fetus, and use that as an excuse to say, "well, a fetus isn't a human," and all that bullshit. But that's exactly what that is. It's bullshit. It's a human fetus, and if it has a heart beat, then it's a living thing, which means that it's a living human being.

Abortions can be performed usually up to 16 weeks into the pregnancy, but in rare instances, can be done up to 24 weeks. That's long after the fetus develops a heartbeat. In late-term abortions, the doctor will go into the womb and crack the fetus' skull, crush it's brain, and essentially suck the body out of the woman with a vacuum type of machinery. All of which paints a very disturbing picture of a form of euthanasia, which is illegal to perform on any human, unless if they're convicted of a crime and sentenced to death by execution, which fetuses are not.

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person in the world who sees things logically and ethically. Whoever agrees that a woman has the right to euthanize her child must be a real asshole with really, really shitty parents. Abortion is along the lines of population control. China does that. They will sometimes kill female babies, because of two reasons. One is that in their view, boys are superior and more likely to succeed in life, which is absolutely ridiculous, as gender has nothing to do with amount of success. And two, because of their ridiculous one-child policy. If parents can't afford to pay the hefty tax on the second child, the government will seize the child, and either abandon it, or kill it.

In the case of Chinese policy, and in the case of abortion, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except now, these slaves are helpless defenseless babies who get no support from anybody, because far too many people don't view it as wrong or immoral, even though it definitely is.

[Lacquer Head]

At around six weeks, an ultrasound can detect signs of a heartbeat, indicating a living being inside of the woman's womb. You can dress it up at say that it's a fetus, and use that as an excuse to say, "well, a fetus isn't a human," and all that bullshit. But that's exactly what that is. It's bullshit. It's a human fetus, and if it has a heart beat, then it's a living thing, which means that it's a living human being.

Abortions can be performed usually up to 16 weeks into the pregnancy, but in rare instances, can be done up to 24 weeks. That's long after the fetus develops a heartbeat. In late-term abortions, the doctor will go into the womb and crack the fetus' skull, crush it's brain, and essentially suck the body out of the woman with a vacuum type of machinery. All of which paints a very disturbing picture of a form of euthanasia, which is illegal to perform on any human, unless if they're convicted of a crime and sentenced to death by execution, which fetuses are not.

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person in the world who sees things logically and ethically. Whoever agrees that a woman has the right to euthanize her child must be a real asshole with really, really shitty parents. Abortion is along the lines of population control. China does that. They will sometimes kill female babies, because of two reasons. One is that in their view, boys are superior and more likely to succeed in life, which is absolutely ridiculous, as gender has nothing to do with amount of success. And two, because of their ridiculous one-child policy. If parents can't afford to pay the hefty tax on the second child, the government will seize the child, and either abandon it, or kill it.

In the case of Chinese policy, and in the case of abortion, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except now, these slaves are helpless defenseless babies who get no support from anybody, because far too many people don't view it as wrong or immoral, even though it definitely is.

Immorality doesn't exist. What does a heartbeat have to do with it? Regardless if something has a heart or not, it's still alive, so that's a pretty irrelevant reason to base a limit on abortion. As far as I'm concerned, population control has no real detriment, other than loss of control, but I'm a fascist. Perhaps if it was based on gender, race or looks or whatever, it might be a different story, but to be honest, I wouldn't exactly be against population control based on IQ levels...

Now, waiting til a child is BORN to be preventive IS ignorant, my idea would be forced sterilization or face fines, if we were to go down that road, but this is getting WAAAAY off topic.

Regardless of whether or not the child is a person with rights, by not legalizing abortion, you're putting the child's rights above the parents, and that's hardly fair.

[Sasquatch]

What does a heartbeat have to do with it? Regardless if something has a heart or not, it's still alive, so that's a pretty irrelevant reason to base a limit on abortion.

The heartbeat is a sign of life. As in, killing something with a heartbeat means you're actually killing it, instead of trying to get off on, "well, it wasn't really alive at that point".

As far as I'm concerned, population control has no real detriment, other than loss of control, but I'm a fascist. Perhaps if it was based on gender, race or looks or whatever, it might be a different story, but to be honest, I wouldn't exactly be against population control based on IQ levels...

Yeah, because we all can see that you of all people would never have to worry about having a substandard IQ, right? And of course there's no real detriment, you know, other than wholesale slaughter.

Now, waiting til a child is BORN to be preventive IS ignorant, my idea would be forced sterilization or face fines, if we were to go down that road, but this is getting WAAAAY off topic.

The aforementioned heartbeat issue was brought up to point out that a child is alive before it is born, so whether or not is has traveled a whole ten inches or so through the birth canal makes absolutely no difference.

Regardless of whether or not the child is a person with rights, by not legalizing abortion, you're putting the child's rights above the parents, and that's hardly fair.

You're willing to slaughter children for the sake of population control, or those you dictate are lower-quality humans, and to force parents to pay fines or force sterilization upon them, and now you're whining that a child's right to life may be protected more than an adult's right to irresponsible sex. Don't pretend that you care about individual rights.

[Lacquer Head]

The heartbeat is a sign of life. As in, killing something with a heartbeat means you're actually killing it, instead of trying to get off on, "well, it wasn't really alive at that point".

But it's alive, no matter what. Sperm cells are alive, a heartbeat doesn't make them any more alive, it doesn't change anything. The closest thing I could see that could POSSIBLY be relevant would be brain development. If there were some kind of consciousness or self-awareness, otherwise, it's still just a wad of living tissue living off the mother, heartbeat or no.

Yeah, because we all can see that you of all people would never have to worry about having a substandard IQ, right? And of course there's no real detriment, you know, other than wholesale slaughter.

Sorry, no LOGICAL detriment. Morality is ju...this thread already exists. Killing off inferior genes is the epitome of natural selection, it would only benefit the human race, in a natural way.

The aforementioned heartbeat issue was brought up to point out that a child is alive before it is born, so whether or not is has traveled a whole ten inches or so through the birth canal makes absolutely no difference.

Once again, it's alive inside of the dad's testicles, so if we were to go down "killing a living POTENTIAL human is bad" road, cumming outside is murder. Is there a way to determine when cognitive function begins, or is that after birth? Because THAT is what makes a person human.

You're willing to slaughter children for the sake of population control, or those you dictate are lower-quality humans, and to force parents to pay fines or force sterilization upon them, and now you're whining that a child's right to life may be protected more than an adult's right to irresponsible sex. Don't pretend that you care about individual rights.

It's not about individual rights, it's about hypocritical thinking. I never said anything about slaughtering children, I condone slaughtering parasites. A good example is when there are conjoined twins, but one didn't develop correctly. If left alone, the parasitic twin will kill them both, yet it can't survive on it's own. It has cognitive function, but it must be removed, and thus killed for the other to survive.

I remember this exact scenario on Ripley's Believe it or Not or something along those lines, was pretty interesting.

[Clint]

Perhaps if it was based on gender, race or looks or whatever, it might be a different story, but to be honest, I wouldn't exactly be against population control based on IQ levels...

Now, waiting til a child is BORN to be preventive IS ignorant, my idea would be forced sterilization or face fines, if we were to go down that road, but this is getting WAAAAY off topic.

I mentioned a new form of slavery in my post. I said, and I quote, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except that these slaves are helpless defenseless and innocent babies who get no support from anybody. Population control, in itself, is a flawed concept that under no circumstances could possibly work without turning the population into slaves. If you support slavery, that's fine, because you have every right to think like that, but simply given the right to think doesn't make you right. Both slavery and population control are immoral things, and they're ideologies that deserve to be allowed to die.

Regardless of whether or not the child is a person with rights, by not legalizing abortion, you're putting the child's rights above the parents, and that's hardly fair.

The child's rights are above the parents. Any parent would tell you that.

If there were some kind of consciousness or self-awareness, otherwise, it's still just a wad of living tissue living off the mother, heartbeat or no.

Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions, and motivations. Older children even have limited insight to understanding their own actions. Self-awareness is a developed ability, that takes place over the course of many years. It's not present as soon as you come out of your mother's womb. This completely defeats the purpose of your statement. You make the assumption that any born human possesses consciousness and self-awareness, and that anything else is simply a "wad of meat," and can therefore be disposed of like garbage. But since children have limited consciousness and self-awareness, you are arguing that they, too, can be disposed of like garbage.

Killing off inferior genes is the epitome of natural selection, it would only benefit the human race, in a natural way.

Except if people are the ones killing off unwanted genes, such as in processes relating to population control, then it isn't exactly natural.

Is there a way to determine when cognitive function begins, or is that after birth? Because THAT is what makes a person human.

A baby typically develops cognitive function at 24 weeks after birth. By your word, you are stating that a human baby younger than 24 weeks is not human, due to the fact that cognitive function is what makes a person human. So if a newborn baby, who's parents are both humans, isn't a human, then what is it? If the baby growing in the human mother's womb isn't human, then I wonder what species it is?

If a human fetus wasn't a human, then there would be no humans, since they would apparently be an entirely different species to begin with. If you are currently a human now, then you were a human while you were still a fetus. Are you even aware how reproduction works? I am getting pissed off and frustrated even explaining this, because it's common sense that a human fetus is a human.

[Lacquer Head]

I mentioned a new form of slavery in my post. I said, and I quote, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except that these slaves are helpless defenseless and innocent babies who get no support from anybody. Population control, in itself, is a flawed concept that under no circumstances could possibly work without turning the population into slaves. If you support slavery, that's fine, because you have every right to think like that, but simply given the right to think doesn't make you right. Both slavery and population control are immoral things, and they're ideologies that deserve to be allowed to die.

Immoral is just a concept I don't believe in. However, population control will ALWAYS be flawed, just like any good fascist system, no matter the intents, there will always be people to twist the purpose to their own wants or needs.

The child's rights are above the parents. Any parent would tell you that.

Well...Casey Anthony would disagree. I just don't believe that ANYONE should be able to force someone else to have a child, as I said earlier, if there's some kind of way to transplant a fetus into a tube or a donor woman, go for it.

Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions, and motivations. Older children even have limited insight to understanding their own actions. Self-awareness is a developed ability, that takes place over the course of many years. It's not present as soon as you come out of your mother's womb. This completely defeats the purpose of your statement. You make the assumption that any born human possesses consciousness and self-awareness, and that anything else is simply a "wad of meat," and can therefore be disposed of like garbage. But since children have limited consciousness and self-awareness, you are arguing that they, too, can be disposed of like garbage.

Infants most certainly have a form of awareness, they might not have the same cognitive functions as us, but they do know to cry when they need something. They do need comfort. I never argued anything about LIMITED function, I said ANY function.

Except if people are the ones killing off unwanted genes, such as in processes relating to population control, then it isn't exactly natural.

Natural Selection is the theory that the strong survive and the weak perish thanks to genetic traits, however, due to the way humans have developed, nature doesn't reward the strong, it just rewards whoever spreads their seed the most. If anything, it's unnaturally making things natural.

A baby typically develops cognitive function at 24 weeks after birth. By your word, you are stating that a human baby younger than 24 weeks is not human, due to the fact that cognitive function is what makes a person human. So if a newborn baby, who's parents are both humans, isn't a human, then what is it? If the baby growing in the human mother's womb isn't human, then I wonder what species it is?

What does species have to do with anything? I'm saying that if there were to be ANY defining line to draw between what someone wanted to consider a living person, brain function is much more relevant than a heart beat, and 24 weeks seems like a fair amount of time, unless there are health problems, it's more than enough time for a person to decide whether or not they want or need a baby, other than unforeseen circumstances such as health issues or whatever.

If a human fetus wasn't a human, then there would be no humans, since they would apparently be an entirely different species to begin with. If you are currently a human now, then you were a human while you were still a fetus. Are you even aware how reproduction works? I am getting pissed off and frustrated even explaining this, because it's common sense that a human fetus is a human.

Would you consider semen to be a human? Honestly, I'm not seeing the difference here.

[Clint]

Natural Selection is the theory that the strong survive and the weak perish thanks to genetic traits, however, due to the way humans have developed, nature doesn't reward the strong, it just rewards whoever spreads their seed the most. If anything, it's unnaturally making things natural.

If human development caused a reverse action in natural selection, that means that the reverse action is natural. Forcing natural selection is like digging a canal. You're creating an unnatural pathway as a means to a short cut. It's arrogant human reasoning to argue that you can force nature, yet still call it nature. Your reasoning is unnatural selection, not natural selection.

I'm saying that if there were to be ANY defining line to draw between what someone wanted to consider a living person, brain function is much more relevant than a heart beat, and 24 weeks seems like a fair amount of time, unless there are health problems, it's more than enough time for a person to decide whether or not they want or need a baby, other than unforeseen circumstances such as health issues or whatever.

If you argue that a brain, and not a heart, is what signifies a life form, then you should know that the brain develops in a fetus at around 18 weeks. Abortions can be performed up to 24 weeks, indicating, by your standards, that what is being aborted at that point is a living human being, and not a "parasite," as you so disrespectfully referred previously. Therefore, you condone the murder of unborn, yet living human beings.

As far as people being given the time to decide whether they want or need a baby, that's a moot point. They don't deserve the time. Any time you have sex, there's a risk that the woman may get pregnant, unless if she's really old, or has a hysterectomy. The time to decide if you want or need a baby is the moment before you consent to having sex. Abortion is a perfect example of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. The unborn child shouldn't be punished for his parent's cowardly decision to take a short cut through life.

Would you consider semen to be a human? Honestly, I'm not seeing the difference here.

Would you consider a pine cone to be a pine tree? Semen is an unfertilized seed. It's a living organism in the same way that a sunflower seed is a living organism. So no, it's not a human. I'm not sure why you're comparing babies to semen. That's actually a little bit creepy. Being ethically minded, I believe that semen should be kept away from babies.

[Lacquer Head]

If human development caused a reverse action in natural selection, that means that the reverse action is natural. Forcing natural selection is like digging a canal. You're creating an unnatural pathway as a means to a short cut. It's arrogant human reasoning to argue that you can force nature, yet still call it nature. Your reasoning is unnatural selection, not natural selection.

I would argue that when we became civilized and more or less conquered the planet, we created the unnatural canal. We destroyed all predators to keep us in check, we're steadily increasing our ability to fight disease and able to harvest our own food.

If you argue that a brain, and not a heart, is what signifies a life form, then you should know that the brain develops in a fetus at around 18 weeks. Abortions can be performed up to 24 weeks, indicating, by your standards, that what is being aborted at that point is a living human being, and not a "parasite," as you so disrespectfully referred previously. Therefore, you condone the murder of unborn, yet living human beings.

No, I don't believe that IS what signifies a life form, I believe that it's a lot more relevant than a heartbeat. It puts a life form on a higher level than single-celled organisms and such. It's kind of like meeting an intelligent life form from another planet, wouldn't it be more like murder to kill it than to kill an insect or something? (both have brains, but are on different levels of existence) What is it that separates us from animals? Cognitive function, that's it. Cognitive function isn't a steady level, it increases and decreases as we grow and as we die, but if we are aware of the fact that we are alive, that's what makes us a person. It's the same as a brain-dead person on life support, pulling the plug isn't murder.

As far as people being given the time to decide whether they want or need a baby, that's a moot point. They don't deserve the time. Any time you have sex, there's a risk that the woman may get pregnant, unless if she's really old, or has a hysterectomy. The time to decide if you want or need a baby is the moment before you consent to having sex. Abortion is a perfect example of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. The unborn child shouldn't be punished for his parent's cowardly decision to take a short cut through life.

As soon as you're promoted to omniscient being, your opinion on responsibility will be relevant to this discussion.

Would you consider a pine cone to be a pine tree? Semen is an unfertilized seed. It's a living organism in the same way that a sunflower seed is a living organism. So no, it's not a human. I'm not sure why you're comparing babies to semen. That's actually a little bit creepy. Being ethically minded, I believe that semen should be kept away from babies.

I'm not, I'm comparing semen to parasitic beings inside of humans

[Rowan]

I'm pro abortion. Nothing wrong with that. Sex is as much for pleasure as it is for creating life.

[Heartless Angel]

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration."

That's why they're allowed up to 24 weeks, because a fetus is physically incapable of sentience prior to that time. A non-sentient organism can not be considered a person in any meaningful capacity. /thread

[Clint]

I would argue that when we became civilized and more or less conquered the planet, we created the unnatural canal. We destroyed all predators to keep us in check, we're steadily increasing our ability to fight disease and able to harvest our own food.

The nature of the human mind allowed us to do those things. Human beings became the smartest species on the planet by natural evolution of the mind. The fact that we've invented medicine, provide a surplus of food, and protect ourselves from predators is not unnatural. We don't make ourselves a smart species. We're all born with the potential for intelligence. Intelligence is simply something that is naturally bred into humans.

What is it that separates us from animals? Cognitive function, that's it.

I see two mistakes here. One, humans are animals. We're a species called Homo Sapien. Our genus is Homo, our family is Hominidae, our order is primate, our class is mammalia, and our phylum is Chordata, all of which are classifications of animal life forms.

Two, animals have cognitive function. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to think. I'm assuming that you're trying to argue that humans are the only species on earth with a functioning brain.

but if we are aware of the fact that we are alive, that's what makes us a person.

A newborn baby doesn't know it's alive, because it doesn't know what alive is. By your argument, you're stating that slitting the throat of a newborn baby isn't murder, because the baby isn't a person, since it isn't aware that it's alive.

As soon as you're promoted to omniscient being, your opinion on responsibility will be relevant to this discussion.

I wasn't stating my opinion on responsibility. I was stating a fact. People do need to learn to take responsibility for their actions. If you're a woman, and you get pregnant, you are responsible for the life form growing inside of you. It is irresponsible to kill something that you could have prevented in the first place by being more responsible.

If life throws you a curve ball, you don't take a short cut. You grow some goddamn balls and you deal with it.

[Heartless Angel]

It's funny that you should use the analogy of a curve ball... because a well placed baseball bat would solve that too.

THIS POST HAS BEEN GIVEN A WARNING.

[Order]

I'm pro abortion. Nothing wrong with that. Sex is as much for pleasure as it is for creating life.

That's why contraceptives were created. If you aren't ready to have a baby, get your ass on the pill, use condoms and if you think you may have screwed up, go to the pharmacy and pony up for a morning after pill.
Abortion really should not be the go-to option, especially considering the women I have met that have done it all have admitted that they felt terrible about it and that it was a difficult experience.
That said, I would have to admit that I think it should remain an option. I really do feel like the ultimate injustice is for an unwanted child to start life out with no chance at feeling loved or happy in the first place.

But in a utopian society, it wouldn't need to be an option. I know one of the major arguments for abortion is in the case of rape, but still the morning after pill does not care who did or didn't want what, it will still do the job.
I think the real root of the abortion debate is that sexual education in public schools is absolutely laughable. The "scare them out of it" theory obviously hasn't worked, teens need to be taught how to practice safe sex, where to get the pills and condoms, how to use them and what to do if they screw it up.

because a well placed baseball bat would solve that too.

HAH! Oh, SNAP!

[Lacquer Head]

The nature of the human mind allowed us to do those things. Human beings became the smartest species on the planet by natural evolution of the mind. The fact that we've invented medicine, provide a surplus of food, and protect ourselves from predators is not unnatural. We don't make ourselves a smart species. We're all born with the potential for intelligence. Intelligence is simply something that is naturally bred into humans.

It's funny, I've been thinking about that lately, and based on this logic, since we're the ones sorting out the genes and using intelligence, it's natural

I see two mistakes here. One, humans are animals. We're a species called Homo Sapien. Our genus is Homo, our family is Hominidae, our order is primate, our class is mammalia, and our phylum is Chordata, all of which are classifications of animal life forms.

Two, animals have cognitive function. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to think. I'm assuming that you're trying to argue that humans are the only species on earth with a functioning brain.

I'm just not even going to address this, you know exactly what I mean

A newborn baby doesn't know it's alive, because it doesn't know what alive is. By your argument, you're stating that slitting the throat of a newborn baby isn't murder, because the baby isn't a person, since it isn't aware that it's alive.

It might not grasp the concept of being alive, but it does know how to stay alive to the best of it's ability. It instinctively knows it needs various things to live.

I wasn't stating my opinion on responsibility. I was stating a fact. People do need to learn to take responsibility for their actions. If you're a woman, and you get pregnant, you are responsible for the life form growing inside of you. It is irresponsible to kill something that you could have prevented in the first place by being more responsible.

It's your opinion that those are responsibilities

If life throws you a curve ball, you don't take a short cut. You grow some goddamn balls and you deal with it.

What Heartless Angel said.

~ AUTO-MERGED POSTS ~

That's why contraceptives were created. If you aren't ready to have a baby, get your ass on the pill, use condoms and if you think you may have screwed up, go to the pharmacy and pony up for a morning after pill.

It's also why abortion was "invented" if you can say that, I mean, people have been aborting fetuses for thousands of years.

Abortion really should not be the go-to option, especially considering the women I have met that have done it all have admitted that they felt terrible about it and that it was a difficult experience.

I agree 100% for that reason, people shouldn't RELY on abortion when there are easier alternatives for their own good, but it's not always a choice.

But in a utopian society, it wouldn't need to be an option. I know one of the major arguments for abortion is in the case of rape, but still the morning after pill does not care who did or didn't want what, it will still do the job.

Rape victims generally aren't in a solid state of mind right after a rape.

I think the real root of the abortion debate is that sexual education in public schools is absolutely laughable. The "scare them out of it" theory obviously hasn't worked, teens need to be taught how to practice safe sex, where to get the pills and condoms, how to use them and what to do if they screw it up.

I agree, but if schools and the government were to give practical information, the matrix would collapse upon itself.

[Rowan]

I want to make it a point that even practicing safe sex can result in pregnancy, and noone should be considered irresponsible for having an abortion under those circumstances. And also, the pill is not good for women. It is UNNATURAL to use drugs to control a menstrual cycle and therefor, no woman should ever have to choose the pill (nor suffer the side effects) over anything. Abortion isnt just a go-to option, it is the only option when you have an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy. Those who are responsible will take preventative measures, those who are irresponsible will not.

[Clint]

It's funny, I've been thinking about that lately, and based on this logic, since we're the ones sorting out the genes and using intelligence, it's natural

What the hell? You're talking about population control. Sorting out genes by either not allowing people with unwanted genes to reproduce, or killing carriers of unwanted genes before they're even born. That's not natural. The former is slavery, and the ladder is genocide.

It might not grasp the concept of being alive, but it does know how to stay alive to the best of it's ability. It instinctively knows it needs various things to live.

Instinct wasn't your point. Your point was that in order to be classified as a person, you have to understand what it is to be alive, which babies don't know.

It's your opinion that those are responsibilities

That pretty much states that you don't take responsibility for your actions.

I want to make it a point that even practicing safe sex can result in pregnancy, and noone should be considered irresponsible for having an abortion under those circumstances. And also, the pill is not good for women. It is UNNATURAL to use drugs to control a menstrual cycle and therefor, no woman should ever have to choose the pill (nor suffer the side effects) over anything. Abortion isnt just a go-to option, it is the only option when you have an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy. Those who are responsible will take preventative measures, those who are irresponsible will not.

I mostly agree with this statement, except for one thing. If people practice safe sex, yet still get pregnant, it's still irresponsible to have an abortion. The natural point of sex is for reproductive purposes, so if you plan on having sex, even if you're responsible and take preventative measures, pregnancy is always a risk, and that risk should always be accounted for before intercourse.

It's irresponsible, because if you have sex, you should be smart enough to know what you're getting yourself into.

[Order]

It is UNNATURAL to use drugs to control a menstrual cycle and therefor, no woman should ever have to choose the pill (nor suffer the side effects) over anything.

So are condoms. They are a pain in the ass, take too long to put on (SNAP!) and make sex feel like I'm ****ing a shoe. But I endure, because however uncomfortable that is, a child would be 1000X more uncomfortable under my care.
Moreover, the pill is generally not a problem. In fact most of the girls I have dated have preferred to be on the pill (usually after I dragged them, kicking and screaming to the doctor to talk about it). It lowers libido from wanting sex 10+ times a day to a reasonable (and still very athletic on my part) 4. In addition, the girls who I have dated who switched TO using the pill ended up surprised that their moods seemed much more stable from day to day and their period became much less painful.
So, there.
However, I understand that some women do have trouble with the pill or so they claim. I don't know, I don't care to know. I am aware that condoms alone can't hack it. I don't trust something that is 99% effective at best, and can simply tear (which you won't find out until after your power nap, haha).

It's irresponsible, because if you have sex, you should be smart enough to know what you're getting yourself into.

That's the bottom line.

[Rowan]

So are condoms. They are a pain in the ass, take too long to put on (SNAP!) and make sex feel like I'm ****ing a shoe. But I endure, because however uncomfortable that is, a child would be 1000X more uncomfortable under my care.
Moreover, the pill is generally not a problem. In fact most of the girls I have dated have preferred to be on the pill (usually after I dragged them, kicking and screaming to the doctor to talk about it). It lowers libido from wanting sex 10+ times a day to a reasonable (and still very athletic on my part) 4. In addition, the girls who I have dated who switched TO using the pill ended up surprised that their moods seemed much more stable from day to day and their period became much less painful.
So, there.
However, I understand that some women do have trouble with the pill or so they claim. I don't know, I don't care to know. I am aware that condoms alone can't hack it. I don't trust something that is 99% effective at best, and can simply tear (which you won't find out until after your power nap, haha).


That's the bottom line.

Theres a fundemental difference between condoms and the pill. The pill being a drug, for instance, can have adverse effects on mental and physical health, as where a condom only lowers the sensation of sex. I understand the pill can be helpful to some woman who suffer intense peroid pain, but moreover is not something I encourage my girlfriend to take. Ive been using condoms for years and had never had an accident. Therefor, in my experience condoms have been 100% effective the entire time.

And back to the clint eastwood, sex is as much for reproductive purposes as food is for eating. What I mean by this is that food is also for tasting and enjoyment and we dont always need to eat when we are hungry. Sex is as much for pleasure and an expression of love/lust toward another, than for the sole purpose of making kids. Things cant be so black and white. I fundementally disagree with you about abortion on an ethical level, so we could never see eye to eye. My stance remains the same. Responsibile people will take preventative measures and irresponsibile people will not.

[Lacquer Head]

What the hell? You're talking about population control. Sorting out genes by either not allowing people with unwanted genes to reproduce, or killing carriers of unwanted genes before they're even born. That's not natural. The former is slavery, and the ladder is genocide.

Like I said, it's your logic vOv

Instinct wasn't your point. Your point was that in order to be classified as a person, you have to understand what it is to be alive, which babies don't know.

Sure am glad you know my point better than I do

That pretty much states that you don't take responsibility for your actions.

In your opinion

I mostly agree with this statement, except for one thing. If people practice safe sex, yet still get pregnant, it's still irresponsible to have an abortion. The natural point of sex is for reproductive purposes, so if you plan on having sex, even if you're responsible and take preventative measures, pregnancy is always a risk, and that risk should always be accounted for before intercourse.

That's still just your OPINION, there's not only ONE point to ANYTHING, that's just silly.

It's irresponsible, because if you have sex, you should be smart enough to know what you're getting yourself into.

Once again, there are unforeseen circumstances, if you REALLY only want to have sex for procreation, go for, but the vast majority of people DON'T. We're civilized human beings, we don't HAVE to just blindly accept easily correctable mistakes just because we knew there was an ever so slight possibility that things could take a downward spiral, if that's how you wanna live, more power to you, but personally, I'm going to take preventative measures AND try to rectify mistakes.

[Alpha]

I've given one warning, but want to give more. My finger is warm. You know the rules, so play by the spirit of them. Write something intelligent so it's worthwhile contributing. Making semi-abusive and snide remarks is the opposite of being intelligent.

In response to the earlier discussion on sentience being self-awareness: that isn't the only definition of sentience. One is the ability to sense anything, particularly pain. Having this qualia is sufficient reason, according to many philosophers, for the sentient being to hold rights. Dogs are unlikely to have a subjective self-awareness of their existence. But they can experience pain, hunger, loss, regret, etc. Most of us accept that as sufficient reason to find animal abuse objectively wrong. It is not clear when foetuses begin to feel pain, but the general indication is around the 24th week mark. It is possible that sound in particular can be perceived earlier than this, and certainly the heart begins beating before this.

My position on abortion is essentially pro-choice, but it's not a choice I would be willing to make. I don't understand the relevance of 24 weeks. It feels arbitrary. Why not 25 weeks? Why is there a magic number? Moreover, if your justification for 24 weeks is based on a presumption that that is when a baby becomes 'sentient' (however you define that), wouldn't it be more relevant to develop a test for your definition of sentience, and then apply that to a foetus to determine whether the mother is entitled to an abortion? This is especially relevant given that a global "24 weeks" pronouncement clearly does not apply to every foetus ever, which all develop uniquely, only following general patterns. If your assessment of the ethics of abortion is based on a particular criteria, surely you need to test that criteria in each case, not draw a bizarre and very much questionable line in the sand.

To me it doesn't make sense to say before or after X months that abortion is not OK/OK. Either a woman has a right to an abortion, or she doesn't. Yes that's black and white, but all the shades of grey simply don't stack up for me. (However, it is because of all of those shades of grey that I accept others' right to decide for themselves; this is why I am pro-choice despite considering abortion to be killing a unique and alive human being... so my opinion is kinda confused and nuanced, I guess).

[Heartless Angel]

I've given one warning, but want to give more. My finger is warm. You know the rules, so play by the spirit of them. Write something intelligent so it's worthwhile contributing. Making semi-abusive and snide remarks is the opposite of being intelligent.

I do apologize really, after having posted so many quasi philosophical novellas in this forum I tend to forget it even HAS rules.

In response to the earlier discussion on sentience being self-awareness: that isn't the only definition of sentience. One is the ability to sense anything, particularly pain. Having this qualia is sufficient reason, according to many philosophers, for the sentient being to hold rights. Dogs are unlikely to have a subjective self-awareness of their existence. But they can experience pain, hunger, loss, regret, etc. Most of us accept that as sufficient reason to find animal abuse objectively wrong. It is not clear when foetuses begin to feel pain, but the general indication is around the 24th week mark. It is possible that sound in particular can be perceived earlier than this, and certainly the heart begins beating before this.

The primary definition of sentience, at least as far as I'm aware, is having sufficient ability to perceive and understand to begin to have interests to protect. So not simply the capacity for feeling pain, but the ability to CARE that you have felt pain. A dog may not understand its place in the universe, but it knows when it is suffering. The 24 week mark is actually an overestimate on the development of consciousness in most cases, as complete neuronal integration can take a couple months past that time, so 24 weeks is when we begin to have the potential for the minimal level of awareness required to constitute sentience.

My position on abortion is essentially pro-choice, but it's not a choice I would be willing to make. I don't understand the relevance of 24 weeks. It feels arbitrary. Why not 25 weeks? Why is there a magic number? Moreover, if your justification for 24 weeks is based on a presumption that that is when a baby becomes 'sentient' (however you define that), wouldn't it be more relevant to develop a test for your definition of sentience, and then apply that to a foetus to determine whether the mother is entitled to an abortion? This is especially relevant given that a global "24 weeks" pronouncement clearly does not apply to every foetus ever, which all develop uniquely, only following general patterns. If your assessment of the ethics of abortion is based on a particular criteria, surely you need to test that criteria in each case, not draw a bizarre and very much questionable line in the sand.

I would assume the limit is to silence some of the more intelligent pro-lifers who understand that there is a point up until which which a fetus is still not technically a person. Also testing each individual fetus for the development required to constitute sentience would be costly, and nobody wants to throw even more money into abortion, just because it is still a sort of social taboo. The 24 week mark again, is a generous estimate, the average fetus probably isn't really sentient until several weeks past that point. The line was drawn there because it seemed to the ones making the rule that it was the best balancing point between making sure minimal sentients were killed, and making sure a mother had adequate time to reach and implement a decision. Laws tend to favor simplicity over precision.

To me it doesn't make sense to say before or after X months that abortion is not OK/OK. Either a woman has a right to an abortion, or she doesn't. Yes that's black and white, but all the shades of grey simply don't stack up for me. (However, it is because of all of those shades of grey that I accept others' right to decide for themselves; this is why I am pro-choice despite considering abortion to be killing a unique and alive human being... so my opinion is kinda confused and nuanced, I guess).

I think the distinction exists because some consider abortion to be the termination of a potentially sentient being, rather than a sentient being. At which point the time limit becomes important, but I couldn't really say. I have long since given up trying to figure out what goes through the heads of policy makers.

[Lacquer Head]

I've given one warning, but want to give more. My finger is warm. You know the rules, so play by the spirit of them. Write something intelligent so it's worthwhile contributing. Making semi-abusive and snide remarks is the opposite of being intelligent.

In response to the earlier discussion on sentience being self-awareness: that isn't the only definition of sentience. One is the ability to sense anything, particularly pain. Having this qualia is sufficient reason, according to many philosophers, for the sentient being to hold rights. Dogs are unlikely to have a subjective self-awareness of their existence. But they can experience pain, hunger, loss, regret, etc. Most of us accept that as sufficient reason to find animal abuse objectively wrong. It is not clear when foetuses begin to feel pain, but the general indication is around the 24th week mark. It is possible that sound in particular can be perceived earlier than this, and certainly the heart begins beating before this.

My position on abortion is essentially pro-choice, but it's not a choice I would be willing to make. I don't understand the relevance of 24 weeks. It feels arbitrary. Why not 25 weeks? Why is there a magic number? Moreover, if your justification for 24 weeks is based on a presumption that that is when a baby becomes 'sentient' (however you define that), wouldn't it be more relevant to develop a test for your definition of sentience, and then apply that to a foetus to determine whether the mother is entitled to an abortion? This is especially relevant given that a global "24 weeks" pronouncement clearly does not apply to every foetus ever, which all develop uniquely, only following general patterns. If your assessment of the ethics of abortion is based on a particular criteria, surely you need to test that criteria in each case, not draw a bizarre and very much questionable line in the sand.

To me it doesn't make sense to say before or after X months that abortion is not OK/OK. Either a woman has a right to an abortion, or she doesn't. Yes that's black and white, but all the shades of grey simply don't stack up for me. (However, it is because of all of those shades of grey that I accept others' right to decide for themselves; this is why I am pro-choice despite considering abortion to be killing a unique and alive human being... so my opinion is kinda confused and nuanced, I guess).

I agree, as I said, I don't really believe in the lines, everyone has different reasons for believing them without any REAL reason for doing so, but it seems like that level of sentience is much more relevant than a heartbeat.