The Abortion Thread

[Dak]

((Insects =/= Humans) = arbitrary)?

 

[CiG]

Being accused of applying concepts arbitrarily by relativists is the height of irony. You guys are the same people who think a human only attains rights (whether philosophically or legally) once it's not inside a womb. That is the very definition of an arbitrary application of humanism.

If I may, I think Grant is pointing out that you don't feel guilt or shame for killing insects despite some belief systems in which doing so is cruel. You do (or would) feel guilt/shame for aborting a fetus.

It's not about guilt or shame, I oppose the death penalty but would feel zero guilt or shame about a criminal being executed. I could have an irrational hatred for the fetus at the viability stage and still hold my position.

It may be the case that you value "property"--i.e. you don't think another's property should be infringed upon. But you're choosing how to deploy this value system. Presumably you feel that an unborn child's body is its property (although this is debatable), but don't feel that an insect's body is its property. Or maybe you do, but don't think this is an important analogy.

What Dak said.

Either way, I believe he's just pointing out the arbitrariness with which you apply your beliefs about abortion.

And he's wrong. But of course you would defend his weird position of trying to dismiss me via dismissing religious people and comparing opposing second and third trimester abortions to Jainists not crushing insects.

Is this part of the weird pro-abortion leftist rhetoric where they compare the fetus to parasites and insects?

 

[no country for old wainds]

I could have an irrational hatred for the fetus at the viability stage and still hold my position.

god i hate those fucking viable fetuses, argh they really get my goat

 

[CiG]

god i hate those fucking viable fetuses, argh they really get my goat

Did you see the episode of Colin Quinn's Tough Crowd where Pat Cooper starts ranting about the fetus? "Enough with the fetus, I'm sick of the fetus!"

 

[CiG]

Someone actually uploaded the episode.

 

[Einherjar86]

((Insects =/= Humans) = arbitrary)?

No. But we're not talking about humans vs. insects. We're talking about the notion of individual property. Why isn't an insect's body its property?

Being accused of applying concepts arbitrarily by relativists is the height of irony. You guys are the same people who think a human only attains rights (whether philosophically or legally) once it's not inside a womb. That is the very definition of an arbitrary application of humanism.

mmmmm no. I'm not saying anything about when a human acquires rights. All I'm saying is that you're making an arbitrary distinction about when to apply the value of property rights.

It's not about guilt or shame, I oppose the death penalty but would feel zero guilt or shame about a criminal being executed. I could have an irrational hatred for the fetus at the viability stage and still hold my position.

That's not what I mean. I'm saying you don't think anyone should feel guilty over squashing an insect but you think someone should be guilty for terminating a viable fetus.

And he's wrong. But of course you would defend his weird position of trying to dismiss me via dismissing religious people and comparing opposing second and third trimester abortions to Jainists not crushing insects.

He wasn't dismissing you via dismissing religious people. In fact, he said that you were an outlier, i.e. you weren't part of that demographic. He's simply pointing out that if we attribute property rights to unborn, non-socialized fetuses, what's to stop us from attributing property rights to actively living, non-socialized insects? It seems like a fair question.

Is this part of the weird pro-abortion leftist rhetoric where they compare the fetus to parasites and insects?

A fetus is a non-living, non-socialized organism. It's virtually no different than any other organism enjoying a symbiotic relationship with the human body. The only difference is that it's the same species as its host body.

If we're saying it's immoral (or whatever) to terminate a viable fetus, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be just as immoral to kill a bee buzzing around your head.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

A fetus is a non-living, non-socialized organism.

do you know when a baby/"fetus" heart starts beating = aka life? 6 weeks brah.

 

[Dak]

No. But we're not talking about humans vs. insects. We're talking about the notion of individual property. Why isn't an insect's body its property?

Two responses:

1. Insects (or more broadly, arthropods) do not grant intraspecies nor intraphylum rights.
2. Even if we (humans) granted arthropods rights, why would those rights be equivalent to human rights?

 

[CiG]

Why isn't an insect's body its property?

Why isn't every house or car an insect decides to inhabit its property?

 

[Einherjar86]

Two responses:

1. Insects (or more broadly, arthropods) do not grant intraspecies nor intraphylum rights.
2. Even if we (humans) granted arthropods rights, why would those rights be equivalent to human rights?

The more important question is: why wouldn't they?

The first point assumes that being able to grant rights means that rights should be restricted to the species that grants them.

do you know when a baby/"fetus" heart starts beating = aka life? 6 weeks brah.

Alright, so a fetus is non-living until six weeks. At that point, it's a living, non-socialized organism. Like an insect.

Why isn't every house or car an insect decides to inhabit its property?

Nope, don't do that.

You said a fetus's body is its property. We're talking about bodies. So why not an insect's body?

 

[CiG]

Alright, so a fetus is non-living until six weeks. At that point, it's a living, non-socialized organism. Like an insect.

Like someone in a coma.

 

[Einherjar86]

Like someone in a coma.

Your point?

 

[Dak]

The more important question is: why wouldn't they?

The first point assumes that being able to grant rights means that rights should be restricted to the species that grants them.

Right are an expression of intra-group power and values (feel free to disagree with this).

1. What are insect values?
2. What is the benefit to the group with right granting ability (power) for extending rights to those not only without such power, but potentially without said values?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Alright, so a fetus is non-living until six weeks.

so you dont even know what a fetus + unborn human baby is?

you should really just stop pretending to be so smart my man.

 

[CiG]

Your point?

People in comas shouldn't be terminated, they still have human rights.

Furthermore, to make it a more apt comparison, a fetus is almost guaranteed if left alone to become a fully grown human being, unlike an insect. It is a candidate member of the human race, so what we actually have is you thinking it's okay to terminate a comatose person even if we have a 90% chance they'll wake up in say, 9 months time.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

do you know when a baby/"fetus" heart starts beating = aka life? 6 weeks brah.

When Turks (allegedly) beheaded Armenians, their hearts could beat for up to a minute before expiring, despite the so-called "victims" being assuredly beyond the potential for self-sustainable life.

 

[Einherjar86]

Right are an expression of intra-group power and values (feel free to disagree with this).

1. What are insect values?
2. What is the benefit to the group with right granting ability (power) for extending rights to those not only without such power, but potentially without said values?

The logic of this statement is that rights aren't inalienable, but rather are purely opportunistic. If that's the case, then why do we value the potential livelihood of unborn children? If we're talking about benefit, then it strikes me that the greater social benefit would be to terminate all unwanted pregnancies.

To my mind, it looks like most of you here are interested in forcing women to give birth to unwanted children as a form of punishment. That has little to do with the value of human life. I think the greater social benefit would be to terminate all unwanted pregnancies, since many of those children would likely end up being a bigger drain on the national economy than the abortions that terminate them,

so you dont even know what a fetus + unborn human baby is?

you should really just stop pretending to be so smart my man.

I'm not pretending.

People in comas shouldn't be terminated, they still have human rights.

Furthermore, to make it a more apt comparison, a fetus is almost guaranteed if left alone to become a fully grown human being, unlike an insect. It is a candidate member of the human race, so what we actually have is you thinking it's okay to terminate a comatose person even if we have a 90% chance they'll wake up in say, 9 months time.

I think a family/guardian is fully within their rights to terminate a comatose person if they feel it's the best option.

 

[no country for old wainds]

you guys don't even want to know how many candidate members of the human race are stained onto HBB's pillows. such a waste.

 

[CiG]

I think a family/guardian is fully within their rights to terminate a comatose person if they feel it's the best option.

Even if they have basically a guarantee they will wake up in a few months?

you guys don't even want to know how many candidate members of the human race are stained onto HBB's pillows. such a waste.

Seeds need an egg to be a candidate (joke ruined lmao).

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I'm not pretending.

says the guy who typed out pages of posts and didnt know when life begins for an unborn baby. The same guy who typed up another wall of text to only prove that he doesn't even know what a fetus is. Get off that armchair, boay.