Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

(not that I'm for any type of abortion except in the case of guaranteed death of either the mother or the child).

... So you think mothers should be forced to carry rape babies to term?

Hurm.  No wonder we aren't getting along right now.

Truth be told, I'm on the fence about that. Being an adopted, unwanted pregnancy, I've put a lot of thought into it. That idea of not existing just because a person is inconvenienced or burdened is actually quite frightening.

Being forced against your will to carry to term the baby of someone who violated you in the most base way possible is somewhat more than being "Inconvenienced"

You are reminded every day for nine months and very possibly beyond that you were raped.... Beyond inconvenienced. Nevermind the health risks, the physical changes and limitations of being pregnant.... You might not be able to work (depending partially upon what you do). Yeah....

An inconvenience is having your ride/plane/train be late. This is far more.
___________________________________________________________________

Top executives never lose: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fannie-freddie-legal-fees-110-110700141.html

No matter how badly they do.... $110 Million in legal fees. Seriously that's something I'd make a career out of and happily do nothing but for that one case. I wouldn't care what the case was for $110 Million.

[Vector]

That sounds like "we should fertilize all zygotes because otherwise people who would be happy to live wouldn't exist due to (for example) 13-year-old girls being inconvenienced by and frightened of pregnancy."

Look, I understand the randomness of it all.  On the other hand, you wouldn't exist either if a different spermatozoa fertilized your mother's egg, and the "you" who exists today wouldn't exist if some piece of your environment had been different, or some piece of your past, or any number of other things.  We are each of us unique and, for the most part, pretty darned attached to the idea of living, of being, of existing.  And on the other hand, we have to realize that our coming into existence in the first place was totally beyond our control.

Fighting our own powerlessness to the death is ridiculous.  Better, instead, to recognize and appreciate it.  How horrible would it be if we really did control everything?

I'm saying this as someone who was told by my mother that I would have been aborted if they'd detected any prenatal birth defects; I have some traits that might have been considered in the "defective" range, for which they're currently working on prenatal tests.  I'm still pro-abortion.

And more than that: if I'm selfish enough to prioritize my own birth over the life and wellbeing of my mother when I'm nothing but an unfeeling, unknowing blastocyst, how will I live well and unselfishly later when I'm so attached to my own existence?

[MaximumZero]

Allow me to draw an analogy: You could say exactly the same thing about birth control or anything else that prevents conception/childbirth. The idea of not existing because my dad decided to wear a condom is pretty frightening to, but only on a personal existential level and not in a way that should actually affect my opinions about anything.

And I'm not personally against contraception. After conception, you're already on track to being a fully-fledged human being: that's what makes the difference to me. It fits my definition of human life.

The thing about the law and government is that it should not be shaped by individual definitions based on narrow viewpoints. The law should be able to let people make the choices that fit within their moral framework. Sure, you think that life begins at conception, but not everyone does. The law should account for that.

[MadocComadrin]

You are reminded every day for nine months and very possibly beyond that you were raped.... Beyond inconvenienced. Nevermind the health risks, the physical changes and limitations of being pregnant.... You might not be able to work (depending partially upon what you do). Yeah....

I said inconveniences AND burdens. Likewise, it is not the fault of the conceived child: is a potential human being worth less than 9 months of temporary pain? Likewise, that it could be a constant reminder (it could also be a noble effort in the mind of the victim, mind you), is somewhat less relevant than a few decades ago: a good psychologist can do wonders for these issues.

And for not being able to work, it would be a result of being raped, it's only the inefficiencies of the justice system that would allow someone in that condition to go uncompensated.

I can see both sides of this particular issue: as I said, I'm on the fence.

The thing about the law and government is that it should not be shaped by individual definitions based on narrow viewpoints. The law should be able to let people make the choices that fit within their moral framework. Sure, you think that life begins at conception, but not everyone does. The law should account for that.

You call my viewpoints narrow, yet I could call anyone's here the same as well. "Narrow" is the assumption that a person hasn't given a good deal of though to the issue. Anyway, the law, the government, society, is not a entity in and of itself: it is a collection of people. You could say the same thing about people who believe a life is not on the line. There is a bit of an issue here: if I believe a life is on the line, and I "keep it to myself," I have just committed an act of negligence--the preservation of rights in a society is the duty of each member of that society, and if I feel that life, the nearest right to being absolute, is being violated, I see no issue with trying to go beyond my personal thought-bubble. It is the same with those who support reproductive rights. Or would you simply have everyone keep quiet?

In the end, we are all trying to do what we believe is right. Telling any one side to keep their beliefs to themselves without telling the other side to do the same is foolish.

[GlyphGryph]

I pretty much fully support designer babies as a concept, I'm only against clearly abusive and harmful actions relating to it.

... You don't see the concept itself as abusive?

Yes, because the idea of wanting the best for your child is so incredibly abusive at its core. How dare parents want to select against Evan's Syndrome or Down's Syndrome or a host of other genetic flaws. How abusive it is for them to want a robust and healthy set of genetics for their child. And children with blonde hair are just so horrible discriminated against, that wanting that is surely abuse, right?

No, I do not see, in the slightest, how the "concept itself" is abusive.

Not only would it result in the upper classes (those who can afford such screening/treatments) to have a genetic leg up on the lower classes, you also run the very real risk of parents engaging in very prejudicial behavior in selecting which traits their children have. Parents are not geneticists, do not understand the issues involved, and should not be allowed to choose the genetics of their children, considering the potentially very difficult to solve ramifications.

a) You think they don't? You think this even matters compared to their environment and epigenetic advantages? So are you arguing that the children of the rich should be saddled with unhealthy genes, genes that could be avoided, simply because they have rich parents? Or that superficial changes give them an unfair advantage that even register compared to their other advantages? I find the idea that we should ban something beneficial because it benefits one group more than another (but overall benefits all groups) to insure certain people are worse off than they could be, simply because they have other advantages, to be outright hostile to any reasonable morality. This idea... err, it just... upsets me. To me, it is everything that is wrong with our society. We can't do things that benefit people because the OTHER GUYS will benefit more. Fuck that noise.
b) So? They make prejudiced decisions. What is the actual, legitimate negative effect of this. And preferably with evidence to back it up.
c) Parents don't have to be geneticists - I very much doubt any of them will be choosing genes. They'll be choosing traits, and leaving it to actual geneticists to figure out what to do about it.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

You are reminded every day for nine months and very possibly beyond that you were raped.... Beyond inconvenienced. Nevermind the health risks, the physical changes and limitations of being pregnant.... You might not be able to work (depending partially upon what you do). Yeah....

I said inconveniences AND burdens. Likewise, it is not the fault of the conceived child: is a potential human being worth less than 9 months of temporary pain? Likewise, that it could be a constant reminder (it could also be a noble effort in the mind of the victim, mind you), is somewhat less relevant than a few decades ago: a good psychologist can do wonders for these issues.

And for not being able to work, it would be a result of being raped, it's only the inefficiencies of the justice system that would allow someone in that condition to go uncompensated.

I've had years of therapy and I still have nightmares about it, I was thrown out by my foster parents as a result and had to spend 6 months living by eating half rotten food and selling my body just so I could have somewhere to sleep for the night, and all the government did for me then was take my daughter away from me after she was born.

Yeah, 9 months of temporary pain, sure.

[Criptfeind]

Allow me to draw an analogy: You could say exactly the same thing about birth control or anything else that prevents conception/childbirth. The idea of not existing because my dad decided to wear a condom is pretty frightening to, but only on a personal existential level and not in a way that should actually affect my opinions about anything.

And I'm not personally against contraception. After conception, you're already on track to being a fully-fledged human being: that's what makes the difference to me. It fits my definition of human life.

The thing about the law and government is that it should not be shaped by individual definitions based on narrow viewpoints. The law should be able to let people make the choices that fit within their moral framework. Sure, you think that life begins at conception, but not everyone does. The law should account for that.

Repeat that about 300 million times and we might as well do away with all laws!

I've had years of therapy and I still have nightmares about it, I was thrown out by my foster parents as a result and had to spend 6 months living by eating half rotten food and selling my body just so I could have somewhere to sleep for the night, and all the government did for me then was take my daughter away from me after she was born.

Yeah, 9 months of temporary pain, sure.

I think the thing here is, the idea is not that is not terrible, but rather death is worse. Which I can understand if not agree with.

[MadocComadrin]

I've had years of therapy and I still have nightmares about it, I was thrown out by my foster parents as a result and had to spend 6 months living by eating half rotten food and selling my body just so I could have somewhere to sleep for the night, and all the government did for me then was take my daughter away from me after she was born.

Don't you even pretend you know what that was like.

Oh don't you go there. We've all had our share of troubles. For years, my OCD has tormented me with thoughts of death and oblivion, as well as many other topics: waking up each morning knowing that your mind has become a hell while not being able to do a damn thing about it. All in all, is that really the fault of the child, or the inefficiencies of the surrounding society.

[Truean]

You are reminded every day for nine months and very possibly beyond that you were raped.... Beyond inconvenienced. Nevermind the health risks, the physical changes and limitations of being pregnant.... You might not be able to work (depending partially upon what you do). Yeah....

I said inconveniences AND burdens. Likewise, it is not the fault of the conceived child: is a potential human being worth less than 9 months of temporary pain? Likewise, that it could be a constant reminder (it could also be a noble effort in the mind of the victim, mind you), is somewhat less relevant than a few decades ago: a good psychologist can do wonders for these issues.

And for not being able to work, it would be a result of being raped, it's only the inefficiencies of the justice system that would allow someone in that condition to go uncompensated.

I can see both sides of this particular issue: as I said, I'm on the fence.

There's nothing the justice system could possibly do if the rapist is broke. Suing is one thing, if you even can, collecting on the winning judgment is another thing entirely (literally a whole 'nother lawsuit). Same thing with criminal law reparations. My undergrad degrees before law school were Economics and Psychology. From my last information, I'm thinking you are vastly overestimating the ability of psychology to deal with trauma of that nature.

Frankly, it is not the fault of the conceived child, but it is also not the fault of the mother. Assuming it is alive, why should she have to bear said burden to keep the child alive? Innocent people die all the time. This is true even when another person could keep them alive. They have no duty to do so. On the contrary, in the overwhelming majority of situations, US law imposes no duty to act. If an individual does act/help, then they may be liable civilly for any damage they cause or that a court concludes they cause.

"I can, without exaggeration watch someone die in an inch of water, having every ability to help them with no criminal or civil liability in most states in most situations. I can start a betting pool on how long it will take them to drown. Long as I didn't cause it." <--- This is a lecture I remember well from my law school torts teacher.

[GlyphGryph]

Cript,
No, he's saying /potential unlife/ is worse, since he admits we're talking about /potential/ human beings, not actual ones.

I think it's all a bunch of getting worked up over for nothing for what is really just a ball of meat at the point most abortions happen. I can understand opposition to late birth abortions, kind of, but I don't mourn the loss of potential, and I don't mourn the loss of meat. I only mourn the loss of minds, and a first term blastocyst, for an example, just plain doesn't have one of those.

[Truean]

I've had years of therapy and I still have nightmares about it, I was thrown out by my foster parents as a result and had to spend 6 months living by eating half rotten food and selling my body just so I could have somewhere to sleep for the night, and all the government did for me then was take my daughter away from me after she was born.

Don't you even pretend you know what that was like.

Oh don't you go there. We've all had our share of troubles. For years, my OCD has tormented me with thoughts of death and oblivion, as well as many other topics: waking up each morning knowing that your mind has become a hell while not being able to do a damn thing about it. All in all, is that really the fault of the child, or the inefficiencies of the surrounding society.

Not the issue. It's society's fault and wrong to force that cost entirely on the mother who might not be able to pay it. Society is going to demand she pay and won't help her at all.... So society has a say in what happens but won't pick up the tab at all? MoM's experiences are rather relevant here and a very graphic example that can't be ignored while still being called "fair." That society wants to force people do to things that will be very painful for them, as an understatement, but not share any responsibility for the things they force is wrong.

How about applifying some relaxed states [sigh]. Vector isn't even gone yet....

[G-Flex]

Frankly, it is not the fault of the conceived child, but it is also not the fault of the mother. Assuming it is alive, why should she have to bear said burden to keep the child alive?

Then why is negligent infanticide illegal, if the parent has no burden to keep the child alive?

[Vector]

Death is, by far, not the worst thing that can happen to a person.  Better to be dead than to torture another person for one's own benefit.

PTSD isn't a rape survivor's fault either, you know.

[MadocComadrin]

Cript,
No, he's saying /potential unlife/ is worse, since he admits we're talking about /potential/ human beings, not actual ones.

Actually, I personally view a zygote as human life. Sure, it's not a fully grown human, but given proper care (which for the minimum, isn't that much (definitely far below the ideal though)). I'm using the term as a neutral term for discussion.

I suppose it would be fair to offer an alternative solution: develop an (affordable) artificial womb: a mother then can decide to not go through with a pregnancy, and the child can be put up for adoption after artificial gestation.

Death is, by far, not the worst thing that can happen to a person.  Better to be dead than to torture another person for one's own benefit.

PTSD isn't a rape survivor's fault either, you know.

It's all the rapists fault. Yes.

[Criptfeind]

Cript,
No, he's saying /potential unlife/ is worse, since he admits we're talking about /potential/ human beings, not actual ones.

I think it's all a bunch of getting worked up over for nothing for what is really just a ball of meat at the point most abortions happen. I can understand opposition to late birth abortions, kind of, but I don't mourn the loss of potential, and I don't mourn the loss of meat. I only mourn the loss of minds, and a first term blastocyst, for an example, just plain doesn't have one of those.

Okay. Edited my post to reflect that.

And, I have to ask here: Are you going to insist it can only be potential? I mean. At that point the "potential" as you call is greatly increased. If nothing happens, it's a human.

I'm not 100% sure which words to use here to get my thought across, but saying even at that point it is just potential is not the only view.

Death is, by far, not the worst thing that can happen to a person.  Better to be dead than to torture another person for one's own benefit.

Okay. two things: Not everyone believes that, and as far as I am aware there is not such thing as a factually correct answer to that, it is a opinion. Also, even if I would rather die then torture someone, not everyone would, and parasites can not consent.

PTSD isn't a rape survivor's fault either, you know.

No one has said that anything is the survivor's fault you know? The world is not a perfect place where the only people punished are those who deserve it.