Abortion...

[Thurisaz]

A women choosing to have an abortion because they could not afford the cost of involved with pregnancy is not out of convenience. You are right that the reason ultimately does not matter, but you can't claim that it is out of convenience as you have no way of knowing.

Wave your hands all you want, it happens for reasons of convenience. There's no way around it.

No medical technology does not move the bar. When I'm talking about viability I'm talking about it without the help of medical treatment.

Where is this line exactly? Some babies can survive younger than others and we really have no reliable way of telling who would survive and who wouldn't. It sounds like you're basing it on the hunch of a doctor. Again, why is age of a human being the magic that grants them the right to life? Do you believe a right to live isn't fundamental and automatically granted to every human through virtue of being human? If you do, why do you call them human rights at all, since being a human being isn't enough?

It is also not an illogical idea.

Of course it is. Denying the most basic human rights from human beings is a parade example of illogical.

A fetus that can't survive outside the womb has not even developed to a point that it does not need the mother's body.

Neither is one year old. Why draw the distinction there? Why not just say that if the child isn't a net taxpayer it should not have human rights and can be aborted at will? After all, it doesn't sustain itself.

If you need an organ transplant does your right to life give you the right to take an organ from another person? No, of course not.

Your analogy is false. The right one goes: Does my needing an organ transplant give the other person the right to murder me with a goddamn meat grinder?

The right to life does not allow anyone the rights to others bodies.

Funny that you think the right to convenience gives some people rights to others bodies.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

You don't have the right to life until you can at least support the basics of life on your own. As long as a fetus in not viable, that is can't survive outside the womb there is no right to life.

I think that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. Human life begins at conception. I understand that you give no fucks about that. That's too bad.

Edit: after thinking about it, I realized infants are not able to live without support either. It is illegal to neglect them. A mother is legally required to care for her child (unless she gives up, obviously, which I'm totally ok with). There is no reason that a fetus shouldn't be granted the same legal protection.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

A women choosing to have an abortion because they could not afford the cost of involved with pregnancy is not out of convenience.

Wtf? In the United States medicaid and WIC cover everything necessary for a person who legitimately can't afford pregnancy. My wife's pregnancy with our first child literally did not increase our cost of living at all. It is absolutely out of convenience.

 

[Thurisaz]

I think that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. Human life begins at conception.

Yes, he has admitted as much.

I understand that you give no fucks about that. That's too bad.

That's true too.

 

[m52nickerson]

Wave your hands all you want, it happens for reasons of convenience. There's no way around it.

Okay, I did not realize you were the Amazing Kreskin.

Where is this line exactly? Some babies can survive younger than others and we really have no reliable way of telling who would survive and who wouldn't. It sounds like you're basing it on the hunch of a doctor. Again, why is age of a human being the magic that grants them the right to life? Do you believe a right to live isn't fundamental and automatically granted to every human through virtue of being human? If you do, why do you call them human rights at all, since being a human being isn't enough?
Of course it is. Denying the most basic human rights from human beings is a parade example of illogical.

There is no right that is absolute, including the right to life. Further more there are plenty of rights that people do not get until they reach a certain age. Does a 4 year old have the right of self determination, of course not.

Neither is one year old. Why draw the distinction there? Why not just say that if the child isn't a net taxpayer it should not have human rights and can be aborted at will? After all, it doesn't sustain itself.

If you take a one year old away from it's mother and give to others to care for can it survive. Of course it can. You know this, and understand it.

Your analogy is false. The right one goes: Does my needing an organ transplant give the other person the right to murder me with a goddamn meat grinder?

If you need a kidney to survive you would not even have to murder the other person. Again, you are smart enough to know this. You just want to avoid it.

Funny that you think the right to convenience gives some people rights to others bodies.

There is no right to convenience, there is a right to one's own body.

 

[m52nickerson]

Wtf? In the United States medicaid and WIC cover everything necessary for a person who legitimately can't afford pregnancy. My wife's pregnancy with our first child literally did not increase our cost of living at all. It is absolutely out of convenience.

Not everyone qualifies for medicaid. Many that don't still could not afford the hospital bills.

Also, I guarantee that your first child, even with medicaid and WIC increased your cost of living, and will continue to do so. Diapers alone are not covered by WIC, nor it clothing.

 

[m52nickerson]

I think that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. Human life begins at conception. I understand that you give no fucks about that. That's too bad.

Edit: after thinking about it, I realized infants are not able to live without support either. It is illegal to neglect them. A mother is legally required to care for her child (unless she gives up, obviously, which I'm totally ok with). There is no reason that a fetus shouldn't be granted the same legal protection.

Life actually continues at conception, but that point is moot. No I really don't care.

The support infants need is far different then the dependence a fetus has on the mother.

 

[Thurisaz]

Okay, I did not realize you were the Amazing Kreskin.

Yeah, when people confess making aborts out of convenience it takes a mental giant to realize that's one of the reasons they do it.

There is no right that is absolute, including the right to life.

True, one can get rid of it through heinous enough crime. What's the child's crime?

Further more there are plenty of rights that people do not get until they reach a certain age. Does a 4 year old have the right of self determination, of course not.

Why should a 4 year old have a right to life?

If you take a one year old away from it's mother and give to others to care for can it survive. Of course it can. You know this, and understand it.

You already ruled out medical treatment, which protection from starvation and freezing by outsiders ultimately is. If others can save the baby and the baby has thus a right to life, why the fuck does the baby not have a right to life and to get saved when it's medically possible?

If you need a kidney to survive you would not even have to murder the other person.

That's irrelevant. Does the person whose kidney I need to survive have a right to put me through a meat grinder?

Again, you are smart enough to know this. You just want to avoid it.

Says the guy who doesn't answer my question.

There is no right to convenience, there is a right to one's own body.

Funny that the right to one's own body grants also the right to other people's body, even the right to kill it if one feels like it.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Okay, I did not realize you were the Amazing Kreskin.




There is no right that is absolute, including the right to life. Further more there are plenty of rights that people do not get until they reach a certain age. Does a 4 year old have the right of self determination, of course not.




If you take a one year old away from it's mother and give to others to care for can it survive. Of course it can. You know this, and understand it.




If you need a kidney to survive you would not even have to murder the other person. Again, you are smart enough to know this. You just want to avoid it.




There is no right to convenience, there is a right to one's own body.

The organ donor argument is shit and everyone knows it. It's a prime example of the false analogy fallacy. The mother has an inherent responsibility to care for the person growing inside of her, almost always as a consequence of her own choices. The hypothetical donor has no such responsibility to another person. Growing a baby is also not removing any parts of the mother's body that she uses to function.

As a side note, what about fathers in the equation? What if he would want to keep it? She can deny him the choice to care for his child?

Or what if he doesn't want to keep it and she does? If he can't force her to have an abortion but she can get one against his will, then he should at least be able to say, "I didn't want this child to be born. I'm not paying child support."

 

[Based and White Pilled]

The support infants need is far different then the dependence a fetus has on the mother.

You're right, being pregnant is way easier and uses less of your time than actively caring for an infant. Yet, somehow that's the one that is legally required.

Source: wife who is currently in the middle of third pregnancy

 

[Thurisaz]

The hypothetical donor has no such responsibility to another person.

The hypothetical donor also doesn't have the right to murder whoever happens to be in need of his hypothetical kidney.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

The hypothetical donor also doesn't have the right to murder whoever happens to be in need of his hypothetical kidney.

Right, but in the shitty analogy denying a person access to your kidney is fundamentally the same as denying them access to a placenta and a womb. So, within the pretext of this fallacious analogy, either both are murder or neither are murder. The analogy is flawed, though, so it's conclusion is invalid.

 

[Thurisaz]

Right, but in the shitty analogy denying a person access to your kidney is fundamentally the same as denying them access to a placenta and a womb.

Yeah, but only one of those can be achieved without aggressive violence, which happens to not be a human right.

The analogy is flawed, though, so it's conclusion is invalid.

True.

 

[m52nickerson]

Yeah, when people confess making aborts out of convenience it takes a mental giant to realize that's one of the reasons they do it.

So, just making up your own narrative now...nice!

True, one can get rid of it through heinous enough crime. What's the child's crime?

What child...oh you mean the fetus. It committed no crime, it simply has yet to earn the right.

Why should a 4 year old have a right to life?

It can survive outside it's mother's womb.

You already ruled out medical treatment, which protection from starvation and freezing by outsiders ultimately is. If others can save the baby and the baby has thus a right to life, why the fuck does the baby not have a right to life and to get saved when it's medically possible?

...because it has not developed enough to survive outside the mother's womb. Is this a hard concept to grasp.

That's irrelevant. Does the person whose kidney I need to survive have a right to put me through a meat grinder?

Of course they don't, nor do they have a right to take, or use you body in any way to sustain their own life.

Says the guy who doesn't answer my question.

Which question was that?

Funny that the right to one's own body grants also the right to other people's body, even the right to kill it if one feels like it.

Not a all. We could just force labor and let the fetus die outside the womb. Of course the end result would be the same.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Not everyone qualifies for medicaid. Many that don't still could not afford the hospital bills.

Also, I guarantee that your first child, even with medicaid and WIC increased your cost of living, and will continue to do so. Diapers alone are not covered by WIC, nor it clothing.

The child absolutely increased cost of living. If you aren't prepared to do what you have to, to raise the child, then put it up for adoption.

People who do not normally qualify for Medicaid can often get it solely for the purpose of pregnancy and delivery and hospitals will allow payment programs for their costs. The cost of a child is great, but people aren't out there starving over the cost of a pregnancy. Sure, they might have to cut back some expenditures, but that's about it.

 

[m52nickerson]

The organ donor argument is shit and everyone knows it. It's a prime example of the false analogy fallacy. The mother has an inherent responsibility to care for the person growing inside of her, almost always as a consequence of her own choices. The hypothetical donor has no such responsibility to another person. Growing a baby is also not removing any parts of the mother's body that she uses to function.

As a side note, what about fathers in the equation? What if he would want to keep it? She can deny him the choice to care for his child?

Or what if he doesn't want to keep it and she does? If he can't force her to have an abortion but she can get one against his will, then he should at least be able to say, "I didn't want this child to be born. I'm not paying child support."

I agree on your last point. As for the responsibility of the mother, she does not have that responsibility if she does not want it. While pregnancy does not remove an organ, it does put a lot of stress on the body and the mothers organs are being used by the fetus.

 

[m52nickerson]

You're right, being pregnant is way easier and uses less of your time than actively caring for an infant. Yet, somehow that's the one that is legally required.

Source: wife who is currently in the middle of third pregnancy

You can give up kids if you choose to and eliminate that responsibility.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

What child...oh you mean the fetus. It committed no crime, it simply has yet to earn the right.

..........

Of course they don't, nor do they have a right to take, or use you body in any way to sustain their own life.

"nor do they have a right to take, or use you body in any way to sustain their own life"
You mean they don't have the right to do what every single other person ever born has done?

"Earn the right [to life]"
Do you realize how insane that sounds?

You obviously had your mind made up long before this conversation started and aren't interested in considering the other side. Have fun.

 

[m52nickerson]

"nor do they have a right to take, or use you body in any way to sustain their own life"
You mean they don't have the right to do what every single other person ever born has done?

"Earn the right [to life]"
Do you realize how insane that sounds?

You obviously had your mind made up long before this conversation started and aren't interested in considering the other side. Have fun.

Every other person that has been born had been so because the mother made the choice to carry them to term and for most of history decided to care for them after.

I have considered the other side. It really offers nothing but platitudes.

 

[Thurisaz]

So, just making up your own narrative now...nice!

I don't bluff. If I present an argument, I can back it up.

What child...oh you mean the fetus. It committed no crime, it simply has yet to earn the right.

Then it is not a human right.

It can survive outside it's mother's womb.

So what?

...because it has not developed enough to survive outside the mother's womb. Is this a hard concept to grasp.

It's easy to grasp. The why of it is what escapes me.

Of course they don't, nor do they have a right to take, or use you body in any way to sustain their own life.

Right. So people don't get the right to murder others to stop their dependency on them.

Which question was that?

The meat grinder one, which you did answer the second time.

Not a all. We could just force labor and let the fetus die outside the womb. Of course the end result would be the same.

Again you're using aggressive violence to end a human being's life. How is that not murder?