Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Shrunk · **#3161** by **Shrunk** » Apr 22, 2014 6:37 pm

michael^3 wrote:
purplerat wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

Yeah. I agree it's creepy, but I think once you die your body becomes the property of your family, within reason of course.

There was a situation in the US where a husband was forced against his wishes to keep his wife on life support because she was pregnant at the time of her death. That, of course, is a different situation, and thankfully the courts stepped in and stopped it.

The right to abort is something the family inherits when the mother dies?

Not using a dead woman as an incubator =/= abortion, FYI.

Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

It has to do with consent to medical treatment. If someone has already given a directive not to continue life support once she is clinically dead, or if her legal representative has made that decision, then those wishes must be respected. The existence of a fetus does not change that.

Shrunk · **#3162** by **Shrunk** » Apr 22, 2014 6:39 pm

Sendraks wrote:
michael^3 wrote:Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

And what claims can you make to the wellbeing of the fetus? After all, apart from existing, it doesn't have much in the way of quality of life until birth. At which point the pro-life crew seem to lose interest.

Why are the blobs of cells so important to you? When actual humans matters so little.

Correction: He doesn't care all that much about the well-being of the fetus, either. As far as he's concerned, it can be "killed" because of a crime someone else might have committed. And you don't even have to make sure there was an actual crime.

NineOneFour · **#3163** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:40 pm

Sendraks wrote:
michael^3 wrote:Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

And what claims can you make to the wellbeing of the fetus? After all, apart from existing, it doesn't have much in the way of quality of life until birth. At which point the pro-life crew seem to lose interest.

Why are the blobs of cells so important to you? When actual humans matters so little.

Sendraks · **#3164** by **Sendraks** » Apr 22, 2014 6:41 pm

Shrunk wrote:

It has to do with consent to medical treatment. If someone has already given a directive not to continue life support once she is clinically dead, or if her legal representative has made that decision, then those wishes must be respected. The existence of a fetus does not change that.

Yup. All the pro-life brigade are interested in here is to obtain a victory showing they can force their views on others. That their religion should override the rights of others. They care about the fetus as a means to this end only, particularly as they don't give two shits about the child which would otherwise be the end result.

NineOneFour · **#3165** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:41 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
michael^3 wrote:Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

And what claims can you make to the wellbeing of the fetus? After all, apart from existing, it doesn't have much in the way of quality of life until birth. At which point the pro-life crew seem to lose interest.

Why are the blobs of cells so important to you? When actual humans matters so little.

Correction: He doesn't care all that much about the well-being of the fetus, either. As far as he's concerned, it can be "killed" because of a crime someone else might have committed. And you don't even have to make sure there was an actual crime.

Right. The anti-choicers just shrug it off.

It really is about slut-shaming with them. It is their only reason.

michael^3 · **#3166** by **michael^3** » Apr 22, 2014 6:44 pm

Sendraks wrote:
michael^3 wrote:Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

And what claims can you make to the wellbeing of the fetus? After all, apart from existing, it doesn't have much in the way of quality of life until birth. At which point the pro-life crew seem to lose interest.

Why are the blobs of cells so important to you? When actual humans matters so little.

Why not save it if you can?

NineOneFour · **#3167** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:45 pm

michael^3 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
michael^3 wrote:Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

And what claims can you make to the wellbeing of the fetus? After all, apart from existing, it doesn't have much in the way of quality of life until birth. At which point the pro-life crew seem to lose interest.

Why are the blobs of cells so important to you? When actual humans matters so little.

Why not save it if you can?

Why not save sperm?

Sendraks · **#3168** by **Sendraks** » Apr 22, 2014 6:47 pm

michael^3 wrote:Why not save it if you can?

Why save something you don't care about?
Why save something you don't want?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you must or should.

purplerat · **#3169** by **purplerat** » Apr 22, 2014 6:50 pm

michael^3 wrote:
Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

What has the fetus done to you to demand that it be born motherless and likely with severe disabilities that will impact the quality of whatever life it may have? Seriously what's with your obsession with creating as many people as possible with apparently zero regard for what their lives may be like once they leave the womb?

NineOneFour · **#3170** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:51 pm

purplerat wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

What has the fetus done to you to demand that it be born motherless and likely with severe disabilities that will impact the quality of whatever life it may have? Seriously what's with your obsession with creating as many people as possible with apparently zero regard for what their lives may be like once they leave the womb?

michael^3 · **#3171** by **michael^3** » Apr 22, 2014 6:54 pm

purplerat wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

What has the fetus done to you to demand that it be born motherless and likely with severe disabilities that will impact the quality of whatever life it may have? Seriously what's with your obsession with creating as many people as possible with apparently zero regard for what their lives may be like once they leave the womb?

Because the same reasoning would excuse the killing of a child or an adult who has less than good prospects of a happy future.

NineOneFour · **#3172** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:55 pm

michael^3 wrote:
purplerat wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

What has the fetus done to you to demand that it be born motherless and likely with severe disabilities that will impact the quality of whatever life it may have? Seriously what's with your obsession with creating as many people as possible with apparently zero regard for what their lives may be like once they leave the womb?

Because the same reasoning would allow the killing of a child or an adult who has less than good prospects of a happy future.

Apparently life begins at misconception... :coffee:

michael^3 · **#3173** by **michael^3** » Apr 22, 2014 6:57 pm

NineOneFour wrote:Using women merely as fetus incubators is creepy, fucked up, illegal, sick, twisted, disgusting, invalidating, sexist, misogynistic, rapey, weird, fetishistic, disturbing, moronic, insane, selfish, wrong, immoral, and fucking nuts.

Please explain how this progression escapes you.

Is it OK if the mother gave consent before she died?

NineOneFour · **#3174** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:57 pm

It is illogical to believe that anything can be considered a person without brain function. If an adult without brain function is considered dead, a clump of cells without brain function cannot be considered alive in the legal or moral sense.

So knock it off with the "killing children" bullcrap. No one agrees with you. No one cares.

NineOneFour · **#3175** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:58 pm

michael^3 wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:Using women merely as fetus incubators is creepy, fucked up, illegal, sick, twisted, disgusting, invalidating, sexist, misogynistic, rapey, weird, fetishistic, disturbing, moronic, insane, selfish, wrong, immoral, and fucking nuts.

Please explain how this progression escapes you.

Is it OK if the mother gave consent before she died?

Of course, duh.

NineOneFour · **#3176** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 6:59 pm

We could cut abortions by 90% tomorrow with universal sex ed and access to birth control, but the anti-choicers won't support that because it fails to achieve their primary goal of turning women into public property.

Shrunk · **#3177** by **Shrunk** » Apr 22, 2014 6:59 pm

michael^3 wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:Using women merely as fetus incubators is creepy, fucked up, illegal, sick, twisted, disgusting, invalidating, sexist, misogynistic, rapey, weird, fetishistic, disturbing, moronic, insane, selfish, wrong, immoral, and fucking nuts.

Please explain how this progression escapes you.

Is it OK if the mother gave consent before she died?

Careful there, michael^3. You're dangerously close to saying the woman in whom the fetus resides should have the say over whether it "lives" or "dies." :mrgreen:

NineOneFour · **#3178** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 7:01 pm

Ok anti-choicers, let's take that idea to the next logical conclusion (yes, I know that logic and anti-choicerism are mutually exclusive, but work with me here). That means that every fertilized egg is the legal equivalent of a human being. Since fertilized eggs frequently do not implant in the uterine lining and are flushed with the menses (it's estimated that up to 70% of fertilized eggs fail to implant), and we do not have a reliable way to test the menses for the presence of a fertilized egg, ALL menstruation of sexually active women should be treated like a dead person's corpse. Used tampons and pads, the contents of menstrual cups, and the underwear and pants of those women who had a bit of an "accident" must be handled and disposed of in the same way a human body is. Further, every sexually active menstruating woman needs to contact the police after every period to inform them of the death of a human. Man, that's totally going to play havoc with our infant mortality and life expectancy rates. Can you imagine? We'd have an infant mortality rate of well over 50% and our average life expectancy would drop to somewhere around 12.

Of course, if all of that seems excessive and absurd, then maybe you do actually understand the difference between a fetus and a human being after all.

michael^3 · **#3179** by **michael^3** » Apr 22, 2014 7:05 pm

Shrunk wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:Using women merely as fetus incubators is creepy, fucked up, illegal, sick, twisted, disgusting, invalidating, sexist, misogynistic, rapey, weird, fetishistic, disturbing, moronic, insane, selfish, wrong, immoral, and fucking nuts.

Please explain how this progression escapes you.

Is it OK if the mother gave consent before she died?

Careful there, michael^3. You're dangerously close to saying the woman in whom the fetus resides should have the say over whether it "lives" or "dies."

If the woman did not abort before she "died" we have to assume she wanted to carry the pregnancy to terms. To respect her wishes the doctors should make a reasonable attempt to save the baby.

NineOneFour · **#3180** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 22, 2014 7:06 pm

michael^3 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:Using women merely as fetus incubators is creepy, fucked up, illegal, sick, twisted, disgusting, invalidating, sexist, misogynistic, rapey, weird, fetishistic, disturbing, moronic, insane, selfish, wrong, immoral, and fucking nuts.

Please explain how this progression escapes you.

Is it OK if the mother gave consent before she died?

Careful there, michael^3. You're dangerously close to saying the woman in whom the fetus resides should have the say over whether it "lives" or "dies."

If the woman did not abort before she "died" we have to assume she wanted to carry the pregnancy to terms. To respect her wishes the doctors should make a reasonable attempt to save the baby.

We absolutely do not know that. And it still is not a baby.

Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Re: Is there a secular argument against abortion?

Who is online