POLITICS Roll v Wade II

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Tenacious D, May 16, 2019.

  1. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    in my opinion, you are watering down the term and diminishing genocide and its victims-- who actually lived and aren't hypothetical. again, words have meaning. genocide refers to an ETHNIC GROUP or NATION of PEOPLE. Abortion occurs across a groups and nations for all of human history and terminates pregnancies, before a person exists.
     
  2. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Disillusional Vol fan

    Hypothetically, why do you even need to abort a nonperson? So it won’t actually become a person?
     
  3. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    A fetus. you are the one getting philosophical right here. Again, if you want to get into specifics about a 6 month or more fetus and it's specific development, I can see many situations where I would personally object to terminating a pregnancy so far along. but these laws don't care about circumstances and seek to mandate blanket bans of a sometimes necessary procedure.you want to talk about an I month fetus like they are all future kindergarteners. they are not. some will not survive past the hospital or are already dead. these laws don't care.
     
  4. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Why do I need a condom then? If I use one, am I committing potential "genocide"?
     
  5. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Disillusional Vol fan

    The majority of 1 month old fetuses WILL become kindergarteners, if left alone. If the vast majority of pregnancies resulted in miscarriages or stillbirths when left to nature, there’d be little need for “safe & legal” abortion.
     
  6. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    yoy are aborting the pregnancy, not a person. because there are worse things than never being born. because carrying a dead or doomed fetus for 9 months is deeply traumatic. because you want to move on with your life past the tragedy of losing an expected child, or because you know you could never care for it. there are many reasons why and I bet you can find stories right now, because folks are sharing them.
     
  7. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Disillusional Vol fan

    Of sperm, yes.
     
  8. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Disillusional Vol fan

    But the vast majority of abortions don’t fit this category. Most are performed out of sheer convenience.
     
  9. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    you've got it twisted. you're talking about the majorities like every woman is lined up getting abortions as regular appointments. 3 months is a long time to carry something you thought would become your child but isn't going to be anymore. 2 years is a long time for a severely disabled and deformed baby to suffer before death. that it is uncommon shouldn't make it mandatory.
     
  10. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Except sperm, in that situation, can, or will become a person in the end, so does it fit the idea you are killing an eventual human being? What about something more direct, like an IUD, which doesn't allow for implantation in the uterus? Genocide, too?

    Sorry, I think it's silly to compare someone like Mengele, who did vivisections on live people, to terminating a pregnancy of something not yet a person and growing as, basically, an appendage of a woman's body at that stage. Now, I do agree the fetus does become something different as the development furthers along, which is why I agree on Tenny's statement of needing to determing personhood. A zygote, though, is not a person, yet.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  11. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    define convenience. what is convenient about an invasive medical procedure?

    Also, I can buy that the majority of 1st or maybe 2nd trimester abortions are due to not wanting to have a child. but 3rd, aka "late?" no way folks are getting to the size of a house and getting stretch marks as convenient. that's unviable fetuses, severe birth defects, etc.
     
  12. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Disillusional Vol fan

    Definining convenience is like defining personhood... until a clearly agreed on threshold of what constitutes “personhood” is arrived at (which will never happen) we’re chasing our tails here.
     
    NorrisAlan likes this.
  13. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Disillusional Vol fan

    Sperm still has to meet egg and the magic still has to happen so containing sperm from ever getting to the egg is a wholly different matter from terminating a fertilized egg, imo. It’s more like spraying for roaches before they can get to the pantry...

    I’ll agree that making any sort of correlation between Nazi’s and ANYONE seeking to terminate a pregnancy (rape, incest, disease, etc) is an unrealistic stretch but (again, in my opinion...) if terminating a pregnancy simply because it cramps your style or will cost more money than you’re willing to spend or interferes with your career... your casual disregard for the life growing inside you is entirely comparable to the likes of a Mengele, from the standpoint of not giving two shits about the morality of your actions.
     
  14. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    1. Shoot them in the head. Let them die by 1,000 paper cuts, or simple neglect. Hang them. Burn them. Lethal injection, etc. Whatever you want.

    2. How could it be murder of any sort, by anyone, using any method they choose, if we’re saying that consciousness is the critically necessary element to personhood? If consciousness is the key, as you believe it to be, then the absence of consciousness is the absence of personhood, and there can be no personal rights in the absence of personhood, and hence, there should be no more penalty to destroying a non-conscious human than anything else that also lacks the same, such as a rock, tree, cat, dolphins, cockroach, etc. By your own standard of consciousness, I should be able to walk into any hospital and just slit the throats of anyone in a vegetative state (coma, too?) and it not be murder. Maybe it’s vandalism, or trespassing or whatever, but it can’t be murder if it isn’t a person.

    What if a woman only drinks alcohol and does meth while she is certain that she’s going to abort the pregnancy, and this is when the damage is done. But later, she decides to Lee the baby, but only after irreparably permanent damage has been done? At what point must you think that she doesn’t have full and autonomous control of her body, and the non-human fetus living in it, IP? Because by this, surely some dividing line between the two must exist. Where is it, how is it defined and by whom?

    3. How do you reconcile the duplicity of belief that it’s a) not a human baby / person, and that the b) woman must have continuously complete and autonomous control of her own body and anything in it....and that she can legally terminate the pregnancy, but that she should still be legally prevented from also deciding to introduce drug and alcohol into her system, and which could similarly cause significant, permanent and irreparable harm to the non-human fetus, up to and including death? This is probably over-simplistic, but it’s like saying that I have total authority of anyone in my house, and as such, I can just shoot them dead whenever I like, and so long as they remain...but I can go to prison if I give them food poisoning, whether accidentally or intentionally. It’s her body, not a human and her autonomous choice to make, or not.

    4. First, why are you needlessly limiting this to large mammals? What about lizards? Penguins? Starfish? Chickens? Snakes? Sharks? Why can’t they simply be tortured and killed? Secondly, how could you possibly know that a born animal has more consciousness than something that was never born? Are you suggesting that consciousness must somehow be conveyed or amplified via the birth canal?

    If the spayed cat / dog lacks consciousness, and which singularly defines personhood, then it shouldn’t matter if I inject the mama
    animal with gasoline and use her extracted babies for pellet gun practice, because they are not conscious, are not persons, have no rights and their torture and murder not only don’t matter, but can’t - by your definition.

    Any honest and reasonable person must struggle with these mutually exclusive ideals, IP, but you seem to want things one way in one instance, but an entirely different and opposite way, in another, and I just don’t see how that’s possible.
     
  15. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    It’s an effective method and which can lead to genocide.
     
  16. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Damned excellent point.

    It’s like how these same white-hot and hardcore zealots for science start looking casually skyward and whistling a tune when people start talking about picking their gender.
     
  17. Savage Orange

    Savage Orange Disillusional Vol fan

    “Othering” has been a time tested method for justifying all sorts of horror throughout history...
     
  18. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Straw man.
     
  19. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    How many babies born in America don’t make it to kindergarten / age 5, IP? I’m sincerely asking, having no idea and trusting that you will?
     
  20. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    look up the word genocide
     

Share This Page