Abortion

[maddoggy00]

So why miscarriage again? The baby can't survive outside of the womb at week 14-20 anyway. If i'm correct miscarriage is not considered "abortion" and not exactly relevant at all...

I gather you're not a father then, or have experienced a miscarriage. Being sustainable outside the womb is irrelevant, but rather being sustainable under normal growth circumstances. Basically my thought process is, once the fetus has a >95% chance of survival (I never actually got a clear answer from the doctors I spoke to regarding this timeline, but most of them said generally around 14 weeks), that is when I consider it to be wrong.

Well the only reason I didn't answer your "questions" is because they were rhetorical. Not only that, a little bit off-topic as you were telling me about general law, and not the topic at hand. It's kind of the "let me ramble on and act like it proves a point" type of argument. Answering it would only distract from abortion into a topic of general law and it's creation. Which is fine, but make another thread for that.

-Please, don't make the same mistake people make here and just say "oh it's logical and relative" but not explaining why, especially when i'm explaining why not.

My apologies if they came of as rhetorical. While it could be another topic of debate, it's still relevant to comparing the eagle egg law, for reasons I already outlined. Your list of reasons is not clear to me at all, and is not explained well. Do not confuse poor communication with a lack of intelligence; if you feel I am missing your points, then you did not explain your logic well enough. Here we go.

You argued:

It's not relevant for several reasons.
1. It's not a law applying to humans.
2. It's a fine, even if we applied the same fine or more, you'd be arguing that "human life" has a set price.
3. It's also a ridiculous law to begin with, and only there for preventative measure. Doubt there is more than 1 person annually who breaks the law and is fined.
4. By logic you could compare that law to any number of things(speeding through a schoolzone), and it makes them seem petty by perspective.
Again, the eagle fine isn't an argument. It's taking a silly law and applying it to a moral issue.

1- why does this make it irrelevant? if you argue human life is equal in value to eagles, then it is relevant because a bird has a safety law and a human does not. If you argue human life is more valuable than an eagle, then by default why wouldn't any abortion at 0 weeks have a hefty fine or greater penalty? A greater potential loss should have a greater potential deterrent. I guess if you argue human life is less valuable than an eagle, I would agree it is not relevant. But I, and probably most, wouldn't agree with that.
2- All human life has a set price. How much would it take for you to be willing to kill someone?
3- Ridiculous to you. Probably not to someone who spends their whole life in aviation and understand the grave consequences that would happen should the species go extinct. Your ignorance blinds you.
4- What logic? I do not see the logic, because someone's opinion on the law is biased by their own understanding of each situation. A crossing guard might find it appalling, whereas a bird watcher might think the exact opposite.
If you define a moral issue as something relevant to only affecting humans, then it still applies. If the eagle goes extinct, it will have an ecological consequence to pretty much every animal, since the eagle sits at the top of the food chain. In direct consequence, you will starve people the opportunity to go bird watching and whatever else people do with eagles. If you consider this to be a lesser moral "wrong" than your speeding in a school zone example, then you are contradicting your example in #1.

Its like you read #2 and didn't understand why its a stupid idea to argue unborn eagles/humans have a set monetary value if you applied a fine to the law.

I thought it would be rather obvious, but it's apparently not.

Fines do not equal value, they are a deterrent.

In this case, since the egg would no longer have value after breaking/killing it, it is, in fact, buying what you broke. Therefore, it is a set value on the egg.

There are already laws on abortion and accepted weeks of doing so. If you want to argue against abortion that's fine, arguing against the laws is fine too.

Just don't be stupid and argue semantics. It's a waste of my time.

A common tactic for someone deficient in their logic is to attack the person, rather than the issue at hand. Rather than try to insult me, why don't we stick to the topic?

I guess I fail to see why you would argue about abortion and ignore the laws on abortion. Seems like a pretty meaningless conversation to me if you don't take into account real life application...

You might also want to look up the definition of semantics. Arguing the definition and suggestion of the word "law" is semantics. Arguing the purpose and existence of law is philosophy. Arguing if abortion is moral or not is ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. Related.

[Empire]

I gather you're not a father then, or have experienced a miscarriage. Being sustainable outside the womb is irrelevant, but rather being sustainable under normal growth circumstances. Basically my thought process is, once the fetus has a >95% chance of survival (I never actually got a clear answer from the doctors I spoke to regarding this timeline, but most of them said generally around 14 weeks), that is when I consider it to be wrong.



My apologies if they came of as rhetorical. While it could be another topic of debate, it's still relevant to comparing the eagle egg law, for reasons I already outlined. Your list of reasons is not clear to me at all, and is not explained well. Do not confuse poor communication with a lack of intelligence; if you feel I am missing your points, then you did not explain your logic well enough. Here we go.

You argued:

1- why does this make it irrelevant? if you argue human life is equal in value to eagles, then it is relevant because a bird has a safety law and a human does not. If you argue human life is more valuable than an eagle, then by default why wouldn't any abortion at 0 weeks have a hefty fine or greater penalty? A greater potential loss should have a greater potential deterrent. I guess if you argue human life is less valuable than an eagle, I would agree it is not relevant. But I, and probably most, wouldn't agree with that.
2- All human life has a set price. How much would it take for you to be willing to kill someone?
3- Ridiculous to you. Probably not to someone who spends their whole life in aviation and understand the grave consequences that would happen should the species go extinct. Your ignorance blinds you.
4- What logic? I do not see the logic, because someone's opinion on the law is biased by their own understanding of each situation. A crossing guard might find it appalling, whereas a bird watcher might think the exact opposite.
If you define a moral issue as something relevant to only affecting humans, then it still applies. If the eagle goes extinct, it will have an ecological consequence to pretty much every animal, since the eagle sits at the top of the food chain. In direct consequence, you will starve people the opportunity to go bird watching and whatever else people do with eagles. If you consider this to be a lesser moral "wrong" than your speeding in a school zone example, then you are contradicting your example in #1.




In this case, since the egg would no longer have value after breaking/killing it, it is, in fact, buying what you broke. Therefore, it is a set value on the egg.



A common tactic for someone deficient in their logic is to attack the person, rather than the issue at hand. Rather than try to insult me, why don't we stick to the topic?

I guess I fail to see why you would argue about abortion and ignore the laws on abortion. Seems like a pretty meaningless conversation to me if you don't take into account real life application...

You might also want to look up the definition of semantics. Arguing the definition and suggestion of the word "law" is semantics. Arguing the purpose and existence of law is philosophy. Arguing if abortion is moral or not is ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. Related.

Wait a minute. How is sustainability outside the womb not relevant? Or even more so, how is miscarriage statistics more relevant?

Well the reason the doctors couldn't give a direct answer is because it's a pretty stupid question. On a normal growth rate the ability to miscarriage and when that happens are very low to begin with 95% successrate is probably there from week 1, but it might also depend upon the country/health of the patient.
).

1. Again, you haven't even proven that abortion is immoral to begin with, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the eagle fine is ridiculous to begin with. Comparing it to abortion is just using it for the "shock value" and nothing more.
2. How are you trying to argue human life has a set price here? Is price for murder relevant or are you doing another shock value.
3. Really, you think it's because of aviation?(insert facepalm here) I'm starting to think you might not be that smart.
4. Oh for fucks sake. You are only defending the law because it serves to further your argument. You know jack shit about it, even it's fucking purpose or origin. Much less the about state/national laws for the protection species(of plant and animal), which is taught in elementary school.

Seriously, I can't tell if you are blindly thinking the law is always right, or just defending it so that it relates to abortion somehow.
-Either way, it's pretty fucking pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------

You want to debate the purpose of law, do it in another thread. That is not the topic. I'm not going to sit here and babysit you on the purpose of law and government just so you can skip ten steps to your answer and act like it's right.
--------------------------------------------



For #2 it's a deterrent. If you don't know what that means google it. It's not putting a price on the eagle eggs, How you understand this.....I have no idea. Eagle eggs are not worth 250k, they just aren't. Neither do fines or laws define a price for anything outside of the price you pay for breaking the law.
----------------------------


I feel like an idiot. I'm arguing with a moron on the internet about how breaking an eagle's eggs relates to abortion.

-100 faith in humanity today.

[[MPGH]Doc]

Ok, so for all the retards trying to equate killing an eagle egg to an abortion, you are very wrong and heavily misguided as to what constitutes as a valid comparison. Quite blatantly so.


1. The fine and associated punishments with killing an Eagle egg is due to the fact that you are killing a fucking bird's egg. The bird isn't killing its own egg. The bird isn't asking you to kill its egg for it. The bird isn't getting fucking fined for it. YOU are, because YOU are intervening. YOU are getting all up in the bird's shit without it inviting you.

2. Abortion is controlling one's own life. The reason why there are no fines is because it is almost always at the request of the mother. As in she is requesting termination of HER OWN FUCKING FETUS. Not someone else's. That's the fucking difference. For you to truly equate the two, then you are either implying that the eagle killed its own egg and is getting prosecuted for it, or you are suggesting that abortion's take place against the implicit will of the carrier (which happens to be illegal in all except the most extraordinary cases).

[maddoggy00]

It's a shame you guys feel you need to disrespect others in order to try to get your point across. Just because someone doesn't agree with your presupposed values makes them stupid?

How is asking the doc what the miscarriage rate is a stupid question? My best friend and his wife had to deal with 2 miscarriages before finally getting into the second trimester. It really sucked for them. Not to mention every person in whatever birthing class my wife signed us up for (mandatory for first time parents) wanted to know that info, and the touring nurse said everyone who goes through asks that, but it's difficult to answer because so many miscarriages happen without being monitored before 10 weeks to get an accurate statistic. I guess if that makes every concerned parent stupid in your eyes, good luck in life.

I do not agree that killing an eagle egg being wrong is ridiculous. So no, we can't all agree. If everyone did agree with you, it wouldn't still be a law. Deduction says that the astronomical fine associated with the act was just how much it took for poachers to stop doing it. I will surely concede there are differences between the nature of the two laws, borne from the fact that the bird cannot defend itself legislatively in any way, but what I find interesting is that someone down the line, probably in the 1930-40s when we started to realize the detrimental impact of species' extinction, proposed the law, it was passed, and is still guarded. I find it interesting that it still exists because that proves/suggests that it is, in fact, not ridiculous to enough people. I do not think they are exactly the same law, or one should be adapted to fit the other in the exact manner the other is. But I do think it is fair to compare them for sake of some sort of benchmark.

In regards to murder, I'm not really sure how else to say it. How much would it take for you to kill someone? Sort of a sidetrack here, but to help you understand what I'm trying to say from a different perspective: there was an episode on Law and Order or one of those types of shows that that gave an illustrative example to this. A wealthy father made some poor choices (gambling I think) and went massively in debt, and realized he would not be able to provide for his family. He up'd his life insurance to something that would support his family and be able to send his son to the college he wanted, and then committed suicide in a clever way to make it look like a murder. To him, his life was worth <less than or equal to> what his life insurance payout was. I don't think there are many publicly clear quantitative connections between a human's life and money, so I can't give you a story off the top of my head, but I think asking yourself, "would I kill whoever for $xxx" is a way to get to that, taking into account of course you'd try to do it without being caught.



@Doc the point for pro-lifers isn't who determines if a fetus gets to live or die. The entire point of the argument is that it is life. The idea is you are ending a life. Who does it matters not. What you need to argue against in this case is that a fetus is not life. I think you've completely missed the entire argument here (not mine, the generic "pro-life" argument) if you don't understand, or at least acknowledge, that viewpoint. In this case, I think it is valid because we are comparing a life for a life, or perhaps potential life for a potential life, however you want to look at it.

[Empire]

1. No its just a stupid question in how you disregard pregnancies and patients as being unique tbh. (and how you are still applying it to the topic).

2. Never said killing an eagle egg is ok, I said the fine for 250k is pretty ridiculous.
- Again, I don't know how you are missing this, it's not a huge ecological thing for the bald eagle to go extinct nor were there massive amounts of poachers either. It's only protected because of symbolism. Much like how every state bird/plant/whatever is protected with a similar fine/law.
(Again, you would know this if you did a tiny bit of research.).

3. Murder question is irrelevant to discussion. You want to keep asking it, feel free, not going to answer.(try making another thread).


4. Please, explain to us how it is "a life". or better yet(since sidetracking is all you've been doing) try explaining how life is sacred.

[αяgуяσѕ]

Well there are some good things and bad things when it comes to either.
In some reason you are still killing a human, but then again maybe not.
What people consider human is different, you know over a third of the whole world does unintended which is were the girl has sex and ends up pregnant.
Another big thing is that some abortions can lead the women to death if not done right, but the chances of that is about 20%.

One of the biggest brought up thing is the Right to Life, meaning that it exists, depends on conditions other than membership of the human species.
Just because something isn't fully developed doesn't mean its not human, it still has the DNA which is what classify if its human or not.

The good things about being pro abortion is the chance that if you are raped and it isn't your baby, sure, but only should be done with that intent.
Its Her and Her boyfriends fault that she got pregnant not the fetus.

Also fetus is still a developing mammal, so it has the right as well.
Weather or not, every living thing is still a live. It is up to society to think if abortions are right or wrong.

[Empire]

Another big thing is that some abortions can lead the women to death if not done right, but the chances of that is about 20%.
.

I'm sorry, you think the chance of death for every abortion is 20%?

*laughs*

[αяgуяσѕ]

I'm sorry, you think the chance of death for every abortion is 20%?

*laughs*

You don't believe me?
How many people do you think do abortions a year?
Over 40 million people do and about 20 Million are done as unsafe abortions.
You have to understand most countries are not like America....
Not even safe abortions are safe all the time. There is always the chance that it could go wrong.

[maddoggy00]

I do not understand really understand what your 1. means, particularly the use of "unique".

Actually, if you did a tiny bit of research you'd see that all endangered migratory birds have this $250k penalty, not just a Bald Eagle, which is why I referred to eagles generically, since many are on the list. Also, this research would reveal that in 2007 the Bald Eagle was taken off the endangered species protection act, and no longer has this fine applied to it. And further research would help you realize the ecological consequences in many situations are in no way small.

Murder is relevant if you equate abortion to murder. If you want to be ignorant and walk around with blinders on, go for it. Even if you don't agree with the relation because your personal values vary from others', it doesn't make it irrelevant for discussion. I would encourage you to wrestle with others' opinions more so you can learn not to just dismiss them, but rather directly address them with your own logically deduced conclusions, and presenting your train of thought therein.

I will use your word "sacred" then, though I'm not sure I would have initiated with that. It is sacred to me, or has value, because it would create emotional strife and a physiological imbalance in my own body, should I experience it, directly or indirectly. I would argue life is universally accepted to have value because every culture has laws in place to protect life itself. Throughout history wars were fought to protect life (not always exclusively for the initiator, of course). Every culture has media and art depicting in a positive light this protection of life. There will always be outliers, but I don't understand why you would even question if life is sacred.

And I think we'd all be dead if the delivering mothers' death rate was still 20% with today's technology. I'm sure it's higher in 3rd world countries than in NA/Europe, but I would guess it's still well below 1%.

[Empire]

I do not understand really understand what your 1. means, particularly the use of "unique".

Actually, if you did a tiny bit of research you'd see that all endangered migratory birds have this $250k penalty, not just a Bald Eagle, which is why I referred to eagles generically, since many are on the list. Also, this research would reveal that in 2007 the Bald Eagle was taken off the endangered species protection act, and no longer has this fine applied to it. And further research would help you realize the ecological consequences in many situations are in no way small.

Murder is relevant if you equate abortion to murder. If you want to be ignorant and walk around with blinders on, go for it. Even if you don't agree with the relation because your personal values vary from others', it doesn't make it irrelevant for discussion. I would encourage you to wrestle with others' opinions more so you can learn not to just dismiss them, but rather directly address them with your own logically deduced conclusions, and presenting your train of thought therein.

I will use your word "sacred" then, though I'm not sure I would have initiated with that. It is sacred to me, or has value, because it would create emotional strife and a physiological imbalance in my own body, should I experience it, directly or indirectly. I would argue life is universally accepted to have value because every culture has laws in place to protect life itself. Throughout history wars were fought to protect life (not always exclusively for the initiator, of course). Every culture has media and art depicting in a positive light this protection of life. There will always be outliers, but I don't understand why you would even question if life is sacred.

And I think we'd all be dead if the delivering mothers' death rate was still 20% with today's technology. I'm sure it's higher in 3rd world countries than in NA/Europe, but I would guess it's still well below 1%.

Well have you ever been to a doctor? He doesn't just go "oh, your a X-race X-gender person, you might have aids because there's a 20% chance" does he? No. Because every person and every medical condition is unique.

So the law you are arguing with doesn't even apply for the bald eagle but is an endangered species....ok so is there even a point in arguing this relation? Seems again, arguing that a fine defines worth or that somehow its similar to abortion law when it's clearly not(and fines=/= worth).

Does equating abortion to murder make asking how much it would cost me to murder someone relevant? No. Sorry, it's still not relevant. Just because you think abortion is murder does not mean people should answer a question that is obviously sidetrack material.

So you think life is sacred because:
1. It would cause you emotional/physiological harm?
-Dunno wtf to say to that. So many things could, doesn't really make it sacred or worth worrying about.

2. Culture has laws to protect itself(life).
-Most laws have nothing to do with anything outside of creating "order". Protection of life is also pretty much non-existent outside of deterrents/penalties, which don't protect life so much as assure vengeance/retribution. I.e. you can murder someone but you get the punishment for doing so. The person is still dead, so there isn't exactly "protection" as the primary.

3. Wars have been fought to protect life.
-No. No they have not. 99% of all wars ever fought were for nothing other than hatred, greed, misunderstandings, or stupidity. War has never has been for the "protection" or life.(maybe because war in and of itself is the destruction of said life, well, human that is). People try to justify war in so many ways, but protection of life is just completely lying to yourself.
------------------------------------------------

Again, you haven't directly argued that abortion is murder or that there is a solid reason why 14 weeks is the limit either.

Unless you count the miscarriage thing, which really is just your opinion and not really founded on anything outside of your "it's relevant" style of arguing(seriously, everything you've said needs to create a fucking bridge to the other.).

Bleh.

I mean arguing abortion is wrong is one thing.

But equating it to murder and going out of your way to relate it to the endangered species laws, that's just trying too hard.

[maddoggy00]

Actually, yes, doctors do warn you of your high-risks based on gender, race, age and life style. It's their job.

Why would in this case a fine =/= worth, when after killing the egg, there is no worth? Please elaborate. You've stated this numerous times, and have yet to offer a train of thought beyond "no, you're wrong". I brought up the whole background on an eagle egg for 2 reasons: firstly, to enlighten you that you need to do some more research yourself before throwing ideas around with the pointed assumption you're always right; and secondly to negate your claim that is a symbolism penalty.

I'm not sure how to respond to the middle section of your last post, because it appears you are psychotic lol. Maybe your perspective will change once you've experienced grief or get older, or hopefully I'm not reading it as intended...

So the people defending themselves in war is not to protect their own lives? Interesting.

I have offered plenty of reasons why I think abortion is wrong; you just do not seem to be understanding of what I'm saying, or blatantly not listening and decide to insult me instead. According to a quick google search, murder = kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. I think we can all agree abortion is premeditated, or at least the type of abortion we are talking about. Therefore we must investigate the law, which is why I brought it up in the first place. Yet you don't want to talk about it. So not sure where you want to go with the discussion from this vantage point. From another quick google search, kill = cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). So if we ignore "person", since that is usually the centerpiece of debate for this topic, I will move on with "other living thing". A cell is defined as the building block of every living thing, and therefore, everything that has cells is a living thing. The question next begged, is when is a fetus a separate living thing to the mother. My argument is when the fetus has a reasonably close to 0% chance of failure, it can be considered a separate entity, an thus my initial proposition for the ~14 week mark.

[Empire]

1.Fine =/= worth. It is a penalty, a punishment.If you break the law, it does not define items or people with money. It defines the amount of punishment only, it does not give worth to
Example: If you steal a candy bar, the candy bar is not suddenly worth up to $10k. It's still worth whatever amount it was.
-This is a simple concept. I'm not going to bother responding to this anymore though, because this isn't an argument but a request on your behalf.
------------------------------
2. Wars are not started in defense are they? It's naive to think wars are started in self-defense.
-----------------

3. *sigh* again, building bridges to connect your points.

Murder is premeditated, and done against the law.(as you defined yourself).
Abortion is under the law. Not really any "murderous intent", and is done by a licensed doctor.(meaning approved by society).

Sorry, just because you want to label it as murder, doesn't make it murder.
------------------------------

You do know that at the 14 week mark there isn't a 0% chance of failure right? I'm just saying, that belief is only based upon miscarriages(which isn't even 0% at week 14), not any of the dozen other problems there can be in a pregnancy.

Try also realizing that the fetus can't survive outside of the womb. Meaning you are forcing people to carry on their pregnancy, give birth, just because there is a "good shot".

Kind silly when modern science has a "good shot" from the get-go now.
-----------------------------------------

Just for note here: I don't see the point in labeling abortion murder or using the eagle law. I'm going to guess it's for some petty shock-value argument you can whip out, but it's really just so easy to see through that unless you were on fox-news or some shit, doubt anyone would take you seriously.

[maddoggy00]

Up until a few years ago, abortions in the 3rd trimester were allowed. Now it's considered murder. Don't be a 'murican and sit on your butt and not question our society's values. Laws can be changed, and we change them. Laws can stay static, but must be periodically reevaluated.

Let me get this straight:
The eagle egg law is ridiculous to you (and I'm assuming here, resultantly you believe it should be changed, else why would it be ridiculous), yet the thought of even rewriting the abortion law, and thus, discussing the redefining of murder in the case of abortion, shouldn't even be talked about because if the law says it, then it must be true? If you can't see that logic fail, then I guess my continuing this discussion is pretty pointless.

[Empire]

Up until a few years ago, abortions in the 3rd trimester were allowed. Now it's considered murder. Don't be a 'murican and sit on your butt and not question our society's values. Laws can be changed, and we change them. Laws can stay static, but must be periodically reevaluated.

Let me get this straight:
The eagle egg law is ridiculous to you (and I'm assuming here, resultantly you believe it should be changed, else why would it be ridiculous), yet the thought of even rewriting the abortion law, and thus, discussing the redefining of murder in the case of abortion, shouldn't even be talked about because if the law says it, then it must be true? If you can't see that logic fail, then I guess my continuing this discussion is pretty pointless.

What stupidity.

You are saying that you can label things as murder when it's not just because "we can change the law".

That's like how PETA labels Mcdonalds as genocide and only because the law could change for it to be.
----------------------------

I wouldn't have a problem if you labeled breaking the law as murder, though i'm not sure or not whether it is strictly defined such, but you are labeling abortion as a whole as murder.

That's just using murder for shock-value, which again, is all you've been doing(that and the eagle egg shit).

[Auxilium]

About 6 years ago, there was a certain female I knew named Chizuru. She was a fine Japanese girl. We knew each other for a while, and got closer and closer in what seemed to be a day it was so brief. Being 18 years old, hormones raging, after a party where we both sadly got intoxicated, we went to my place, and I am sure you can all tell what happened next.

About 2 months later, she comes up to me and said that she was pregnant. I was her first, and not gonna lie, I seriously thought you couldn't get pregnant the first time. (majide)

My legs felt like jello they were so weak, and I couldn't even muster up anything to say. I was literally sick, knowing that my life had just ended. I would stay up all night, get dizzy and nauseous, couldn't focus and looked extremely pale. This went on for weeks.

Seeing how distressed I was, she offered that she could get an abortion, and it would be for the better for both of us. After much contemplating, the next week she got one.

Now, I can't say my life instantly got better, but looking back I see it as the only viable option for both of us.

I am thankful for abortions.