HOME | DD
MonocerosArts — Crisis Pregnancy Babies Have Homes
#36 #abortion #adopt #adoption #adoptive #babies #baby #birth #cost #crisis #families #family #fetus #hotline #life #list #lists #money #mother #mothers #option #options #parent #parents #pregnancy #price #prochoice #prolife #single #truth #wait #waiting #women #pregnancies #help
Published: 2016-04-27 23:53:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 4456; Favourites: 63; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
What I am about to tell you is a secret that the abortion industry does not want you to know. They have worked very hard to conceal the data, wipe the evidence, and keep the truth from the public, especially from pregnant mothers.Have you ever heard that unwanted fetuses should be aborted because the adoption system is too full, that the babies won't have homes, etc.? Have you ever heard that a crisis pregnancy baby will be born into the system and live there for a huge chunk (if not all) of its childhood? Rest assured, THIS IS A LIE.
The facts speak for themselves. There are more adoptive families who want a baby than there are babies in the system to give them. This means there are waiting lists for newborns. Couples seeking to adopt a baby often wait years for a baby. The waiting list for babies with disabilities and deformities such as Downs Syndrome is approximately a year and a half long. Approximately 36 families wait for every one baby put into the system. If a mother puts her newborn up for adoption, it is almost guaranteed to have a family within a month. If she put her baby up for adoption before birth, her baby will go straight into its adoptive parents' arms, no wait at all. (Another bonus to putting a crisis pregnancy up for adoption is that the birth mother can have the adoptive family pay for her medical costs and other help, thus making it less expensive to put her baby up for adoption than for her to abort.) The idea that crisis pregnancy babies languish in the adoption system is a myth.
Of course, the abortion industry and many in the prochoice camp do not want you to know this. Why? Well, I can't think of a good reason why anyone who professes to be proCHOICE would want to take away a woman's choice of adoption or not, especially since it's less expensive for her, but the reason the abortion industry wants to conceal the fact that adoptive babies don't stay in the system is simple: The more women there are who don't know this, the more women there will be who believe their baby will suffer. The more women there are who think their baby will suffer, the more women there will be who will seek abortions. And the more women getting abortions, the more money the abortion industry will get. That's right: the abortion industry is deliberately lying to mothers in order to take their money. Heck, it's actually less expensive for the mother to choose adoption over abortion (as I explained above.) But the abortion industry doesn't care about women: unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
If a mother wants an abortion because she's afraid her baby will go un-adopted, her rights demand that she be given the whole story.
But wait, you might be thinking: how can this be true when there are obviously so many children waiting to be adopted? The answer is simple: the vast majority (if not all) of children living out their lives in the system were put there when they were older than 2 years. Most were put there at about 4 to 6 years old. Children waiting to be adopted are rarely ever from crisis pregnancies. They are from cases of child abuse, neglect, parental death, and, sometimes, because the parents couldn't afford them (although almost every single child from a financial situation is put into foster care, not up for adoption, so that the parents can get them back after they've gotten a better job, etc.) On top of that, the people who want to adopt babies are not the same people who want to adopt older children. More people want babies than older children. Babies bond better, they don't have the emotional baggage older children have, people like to "pretend" that it's their own kid (or something weird like that...). While I personally think those reasons are a little bit selfish, the truth remains that most adoptive parents want a baby and a baby only, and if there are no babies available (because the abortion industry got to them first), these potential families would rather wait for years rather than adopt an older child. So yes, there are lots of children waiting to be adopted, but putting your baby up for adoption will guarantee him/her a home, and it won't hurt older children.
Sources:
www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/th…
www.americanadoptions.com/adop…
Related content
Comments: 130
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Honestly putting your already born kid up for adoption simply for the reason for not wanting them at all (irresponsibility) or having a hatred of children is better than having them... you know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yup. It would be best if people like that just didn’t have sex in the first place, but that’s not something that can be ethically controlled.
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need adoption. Babies would only be born to families who want and can care for them, and no one would be infertile. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
It's hard to get a baby on the list. This why you should support abortion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All you need to do is leave it at a fire or police station, and the baby is automatically put up for a closed adoption. The officers there are trained to take care of the baby and get it where it needs to go. It’s not hard at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes there are wait list for people waiting to adopt newborns, no one denied that ever. Most families want an newborn because there is no baggage (that's usually included with an older child) and they are easier to bond with
But take in the world wide perception.
It is estimated that 153 million children worldwide are orphans.. (UNICEF). reference www.sos-usa.org/our-impact/chi…. I don't understand something. If there are this many orphans worldwide - why don't the adoption agencies wide world ban together to help solve this problem. Their are really nice couples (or single people - single mom or single dad who adopted a kid can be awesome parents too out) on the wait list for years.
Lets not forget to take in to account all the abandoned newborns worldwide - newborn baby girls are abandoned in Asia and India every day because sons are more desired. If the adoption agencies were united worldwide, As soon as an abandoned newborn is found any where in the world it should be placed with its new adopting family within 24 hours.
My father's neighbor was on the wait list for an kid for over 10 years. The neighbor - an man and his wife who ran an very successful convenience store for many years - applied for and were approved by social services for adoption all within an few months. But they still had to wait. The neighbor told me that if he know how long the wait would have been from the get go, he would have applied for adoption with another country. He had just retired from work that month when he got an call from the agency saying they had an baby for him. They loved this little boy so much and they made great parents but, this was ridiculous long wait period.
On the other side of the coin abortions should not be banned either.
Before you jump down by throat, listen up! My parents were thrilled when they discovered they were pregnant with their second child. They wanted an big family. but at the 4 month mark doctor appointment the child had no heart beat. They ran many tests and scans - the little boy had died in the womb. She was given medication to induced labour - the doctor didn't want her carrying an dead baby - too high an risk of sepsis or infection. After this happened many of her Roman catholic relatives shamed her "for getting an abortion" that "she should have waited for her body to miscarry naturally". I'm not willing to ban abortions because if an women's life is in danger or if the child is dead or severely deformed to the point wouldn't survive any longer in the womb, let alone out in the world - then yes in these cases abortion should be allowed, no questions asked.
Yes I agree when an woman has an unwanted pregnancy She should be told all the pro's and con's of both the adoption plan and the abortion plan at equal importance. Yes AlMOST all HEALTHY newborn babies are adopted immedialy and go on to live happy healthy lives with their adopting families.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I don’t recall claiming that the adoption system worldwide is perfect. I’m China, for example, the situation is entirely different, but you’ll notice that the stamp isn’t aimed at the Chinese. This stamp is aimed at the US primarily, and also other nations where a newborn who is put into the system is adopted into a new family within days, such as Great Britain, Australia, most of France, most of Germany, I’m fairly certain in the Netherlands, and others. Even “unhealthy” newborns are adopted within days, especially in the US, where Christians actively seek out the babies that the rest of society supposedly sees as “unfit,” such as babies with Downs Syndrome. Mothers are often advised to kill babies with Downs Syndrome because “no one will want them,” but that’s also not true, just like the myth that crisis pregnancy babies have no homes.
I’m confused why you kept bringing up the wait time for parents who want to adopt a baby, because that’s what this stamp is all about. I honestly get the impression that you’re against adoption in general, and that’s pretty disturbing. I hope I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I got from your comment. Is that what you meant to say? I don’t want to misunderstand you, so I’m asking you if that’s what you meant.
As for your last statements, I think you’ll find these helpful:
unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not from the states, Newfoundland, Canada. I'm not against adoptions in general, - but I have seen and heard of so many unfair cases.
Example A: young unmarried couple living together - working class jobs. Young lady gets pregnant - young man finds an bigger apartment to rent at a great price, and finds an relative that's willing to babysit while they are at work after the baby is born. Young lady goes behind his back and put the baby up for adoption - because they weren't married - he had NO SAY in the matter. (yes this case is a little old but its still unfair).
Example B: A married couple - the mans an soldier, the wife an homemaker. He goes off on his tour and leaves the wife and their newborn child behind. While he's gone the wife can't handle the baby so she puts it up for adoption. He comes home to find his wife has left him and his kid was put up for adoption while he was away.
Example c: Around here about 30-40 years ago if a women was pregnant and unmarried, she was deemed unfit to raise an child (simply because she was unwed) - so after said child was born it was given to the most suitable married couple in her family to raise - like either her parents or her married sister. On the other side of the coin 30-40 years ago if the wife died, the husband had to find an new bride right away or else his kids were given to the next suitable couple in his family to raise.
There are no adoption agencies here, per say - if you want to adopt an child or put an kid up for adoption- you have to contact social services directly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No offense, but those cases really have nothing to do with the subject at hand. The last one is painfully outdated and is completely irrelevant. Would you mind explaining to me exactly what you’re trying to say? Because right now all I’m getting is that you think adoption is a bad thing and shouldn’t be promoted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There are many *kids* in the adoption system who don't get a chance, what about them? Any kid will be happy to have a loving home, it's rare that children don't bond with an adoptive family. It's a bit hypcritical when people say they want a child to love, but won't have take a child over an infant...so they can pretend it's their own. A child is a child...why do they not deserve a chance when they're a few years older than a barely born infant that so many already want for those reasons... A child put up for adoption over a traumatic family event that caused it to be necessary deserves as much of a chance for a loving childhood as that infant.
And... If someone doesn't want to, or can't go through pregnancy, they should never be forced to on behalf of someone else. We don't force people to be organ donors either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's exactly how I feel about adoption. An older child is every bit as important as a baby, and considering their background, may be in even more need of an immediate family than a newborn. In the US, at least, if only half the people waiting for newborns were to adopt the other children, there would be no children waiting for adoption, and crisis pregnancy babies would STILL have homes. And people expect me to believe that there aren't enough people who qualify?
No one is forcing anyone to get pregnant: unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar… (except for rapists, but that's a different issue)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, people are not forcing anyone to *get* pregnant, but it sure sounds like some people want to force people to *remain* pregnant. Bit of a difference there. 
It's the foundation that has been laid, not a brain that has the capacity to support neuroligical activity for awareness, i.e. a person. That is the 'beginning' of life that matters. At least to me. We as humans kill so many animals, plant life, and flying spaghetti monster knows what else. Why is it somehow so wrong to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in a stage where the blastocyst/zygote is so underdeveloped, that calling it a 'mass of tissue' is not too far off. I can understand why some people might take umbridge with this though, it's not a particularly eloquent thing to call it. But I get the feeling that the clinical terms aren't much better for a portion of those people either. Calling it a baby doesn't make it a baby in any other sense than affectionate. Someone who doesn't feel enthusiastic about their pregnancy (and worse, childbirth), should not be forced to go through it. If it worsens, the womans health is very much an issue...maybe not physically, but certainly mentally. Mental trauma can affect everything from life-style to life quality. Nobody should have their life fucked over in this fashion when it is easily, and safely remedied; terminating the pregnancy early with an abortion in a safe environment.
What anyone's intentions are, doesn't matter. It's having control over our reproductive rights when it is safe, and biologically ethical to do so, in terms of abortion. Basing on morality is a very poor decision, as people have morals all over the place. Some people think abortion should be outlawed, others think it should be viable up until birth...which I personally think is utterly barbaric. Technicalities aside (since 'abortion' at that stage would be inducing birth, not abortion), they have had ample time to take a decision and act upon it (or not act, to keep the pregnancy). I definately prefer pregnancies to result in a child reared with parents (and potentially siblings) in a happy and loving environment, not ofrced out to adoptions because the mother never wanted them. I'd much rather have early, safe abortions happening than women who get abused or mentally scarred over a forced pregnancy and birth to satisfy someone else, effectively reducing her to a brood-mare for that period of time. We have our bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights for *ourselves*, not everyone else. If someone relents and agrees to carry the pregnancy to term for someone else, that should be entirely permissable (via legal contract, otherwise shit like that can be abused...), with the caveat that there are no other options, or that the pregnant woman changes her mind on her own and goes looking for an adoptive family.
Being pro-choice myself, I don't care what anyone's motives are in regards to the subject, as long as it isn't to force legislation that makes the process of abortion so difficult to obtain that it might as well be outlawed, or outright outlawing it. Nobody should be forcing anyone to remain pregnant, and nobody should force anyone to get rid of a pregnancy. It's up to the individual themselves what to do with their lives. There are people who regret abortion, and there are people who regret being parents. I would much rather have a small percentage of people regretting an abortion, than people regretting having a child and being tied to that for life...and worse, regrets it and puts the child up for adoption, potentially fucking an innocent life up for the remainder of it. The child has no choice when it's born, the parent/s do/es. Thus it is their responsibility to make sure that children aren't irresponsibly put into the world. Being irresponsible means different things to different people, and forcing your own perception unto others on such a sensitive matter such as this only leads to disaster for someone else. People will have abortions either way, so the best solution is to have official facilities with medically trained staff, and legally accessibly means to carry out the abortions, not outlawing to it to satisfy a portion of the population...forcing women to take to the internet for home remedies to abortion, or illegal drugs that may be unsafe. That way, abortions can be monitored and regulated, not the cause of witch-hunts in certain communities to be kept as dirty secrets...
That is just my opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, people are not forcing anyone to *get* pregnant, but it sure sounds like some people want to force people to *remain* pregnant. Bit of a difference there.
Actually, no, there is no difference. It was her choice.
Aaanyway, a lot of people who get pregnant are people who're trying to avoid it. Either by pills, condoms or v-sec.
Reasons for not wanting a child doesn't matter, as pregnancy is quite an ordeal, and nobody should be forced to go through one if they don't want to. But let's avoid the bodily autonomy argument, it makes things rather boring, since it kinda rules supreme in these conversations...
Of course no one should have to undergo pregnancy if they don't want to, which is why people (both men and women) must act responsibly so as to not risk it when they don't want it.
Why do you ask you avoid the bodily autonomy argument when your entire comment is about that?
It's the foundation that has been laid, not a brain that has the capacity to support neuroligical activity for awareness, i.e. a person. That is the 'beginning' of life that matters. At least to me. We as humans kill so many animals, plant life, and flying spaghetti monster knows what else. Why is it somehow so wrong to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in a stage where the blastocyst/zygote is so underdeveloped, that calling it a 'mass of tissue' is not too far off. I can understand why some people might take umbridge with this though, it's not a particularly eloquent thing to call it. But I get the feeling that the clinical terms aren't much better for a portion of those people either. Calling it a baby doesn't make it a baby in any other sense than affectionate.
Even the Pro-Choice Know it's a BabyIn this blog entry, I'll be adding cases I come across where pro-choice people refer to unborn humans as "children," "babies," or anything of the like. This is to show that even those who claim that the unborn should have no rights still know deep down what these individuals are, even though they work so hard to convince themselves otherwise.
I'll be adding quotes as I come across them, so undoubtedly there are many more than I'll have posted below. Check back for updates! Please comment with any quotes you have come across! And please, they must be direct quotes (or as close as you can remember them,) and I would appreciate a link to the quote or some other kind of proof to show that it is a legitimate quote. Thank you!
Be warned that some of the following quotes contain foul language.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IF abortion wasn't legal, not only would we kill babi
Why is it somehow so wrong to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in a stage where the blastocyst/zygote is so underdeveloped, that calling it a 'mass of tissue' is not too far off.
Since when does size determine value? Is a toddler worth less than a teenager because the toddler is smaller? What size determines our personhood and who determines that? We agree that fetuses are less developed than we are. But should we kill them because they are so? People in their sleep, on anesthesia, or with certain health conditions don’t feel pain. Can we kill them? Why does level of development determine value? Does degree of dependency determine value? Infants are completely dependent on others for sustenance. Can we kill them because they are dependent on us? Why does viability outside the womb determine value? Since when does location determine value? Am I worth more inside a house than I am outside on the lawn? There are many pro-abortion advocates who believe we should value the baby in the womb — but only at a certain age. So which is it? Inside or outside of the womb?
Someone who doesn't feel enthusiastic about their pregnancy (and worse, childbirth), should not be forced to go through it.
...which is why she should have been responsible with her actions in the first place. This was her choice. Now she and the father must act like adults and clean up their own mess.
If it worsens, the womans health is very much an issue...maybe not physically, but certainly mentally. Mental trauma can affect everything from life-style to life quality. Nobody should have their life fucked over in this fashion when it is easily, and safely remedied; terminating the pregnancy early with an abortion in a safe environment.
Also, I can't tell exactly what you mean by mental health, but this may also apply:
What anyone's intentions are, doesn't matter. It's having control over our reproductive rights when it is safe, and biologically ethical to do so, in terms of abortion.
So...you're allowed to talk about bodily autonomy, but I'm not? How about we stop Special Pleading and discuss this in fair manner?
Assuming I'm allowed to speak, yes, I do agree with you that women should have control over their reproductive rights. That's why we're allowed to say "no" during any stage of intercourse (except in North Carolina, where consent cannot be withdrawn).
Basing on morality is a very poor decision, as people have morals all over the place.
...Except your entire argument is based off of morality. Earlier, you even said: "That is the 'beginning' of life that matters. At least to me." You acknowledge that peoples' morals are all over the place, and yet you demand that the world follow YOUR morals and allow the killing of underdeveloped humans for convenience. That is Special Pleading. If you're going to state that we can't argue from morals, then you can't state your opinions, because they're based off of your morals. You've stated that we can't discuss bodily autonomy and we can't discuss morality, but all you've done is preach your morals on bodily autonomy to me. Why are you allowed to talk but I am not?
The pro-abortion industry uses the personhood argument because science has proven beyond all doubt that zygotes are members of the human race. So pro-abortion advocates had to come up with some other reason to kill unborn humans that wasn’t based on science. They made arbitrary (and frequently changing) definitions of personhood in order to advance their abortion agenda.
With all due respect, thisis a ridiculous and uninformed claim because that is one of the primary functions of laws — to legislate and enforce morality. Why can’t we steal money from a bank? Because it is wrong to take money from other people. Why can’t we beat our children? Because child abuse is morally wrong. Why can’t we shoot and kill our noisy neighbor? Because murder is wrong and against the law. Of course we legislate morality. Government exists to do just that for the protection and defense of its people.
If a woman exercised her right to choose to beat her toddler to death, would we say, “We’re just trusting her to make the right decision for herself and her family” and “We wouldn’t want to entrust that decision to anyone with governmental authority”? No, we’d want the government to step in and protect the child. We’d want the government to enforce the law and impose morality on the mother — whether she wants it or not. In other words, we want the government to legislate morality.
not ofrced out to adoptions because the mother never wanted them.
Did you even read the stamp you're commenting on? I'm really trying hard to stay polite.
Also:
Adoption is Not a Trash Can or a Pet Shop by Unicornarama
We have our bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights for *ourselves*, not everyone else.
So you DO believe you're allowed to break your own debate rules. I'm sorry, but logic doesn't work that way. Either we can both discuss bodily autonomy, or this discussion ends. I've respected your initial request not to discuss bodily autonomy, but if you won't follow your own standards, this conversation can't continue.
People will have abortions either way, so the best solution is to have official facilities with medically trained staff, and legally accessibly means to carry out the abortions, not outlawing to it to satisfy a portion of the population...forcing women to take to the internet for home remedies to abortion, or illegal drugs that may be unsafe.
If something is wrong, no amount of regulation and legislation will make it right. We should not make rape "safe and legal" to protect rapists. We should not make murder "safe and legal" to protect murderers. We should not make child molestation "safe and legal" to protect child abusers.
Don't like human trafficking? Don't do it. Don't like murder? Don't do it. That kind of logic makes no sense. If something is wrong, then it is wrong, and it should never be made "safe and legal."
_________________________________________________________
I'd rather we don't become enemies here, so I think it's best that we agree to disagree. Even though you didn't follow them, your statements of "let's not discuss bodily autonomy and morality" tell me that you're not interested in having a lengthy discussion. I'm really not interested in a fight, either! I think it would be best if we just agreed to disagree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
**Let me start off with this; I have no intention of making enemies, I never do with any debate. I don't judge people on a single subject, things aren't that one-dimensional. I did genuinly try to avoid just outright say bodily autonomy durr hurr, but it is a big part of the argument, so... Free game there I suppose. Apologies.**
Consent to sex is not content to remain pregnant if the accident happens. Having an abortion is not 'shirking responsibility' because you don't like that it exists as a safe, legal way of handling the situation. Sex is a normal, healthy thing humans do for fun, recreation and bonding with their partner, it's not at all just for procreation.
Likening pregnancy to obesity is ...inaccurate, to put it mildly. Growing obese is an ongoing process that you don't break off. Over-eating -once- doesn't make you obese. If you over-eat all the time, or more than you exercise, you will become obese. People don't at all have sex as much as they eat. However, while purging yourself is very unhealthy, and a chronic case of it is an eating disorder, an abortion is not something people do often, nor do they usually want to have one.
Consent to risk carries a risk of pregnancy, same as going onto the road carries a risk of someone running me down and I break something...should the ambulance and medical staff not save my leg/life because I consented to that risk and thus should deal with the consequences? By your logic, that is the case. Except my broken leg won't spawn another human being 9 months after.
As for responsibility...using protection is taking responsibility, but it is not 100% covering yet, so accident unfortunately happen. Some areas have poor sex ed. as well, and people don't know that they can get pregnant, how to use protection, etc. You realize that likeling having a child with responsibility is basically trying to punish people with a child because they 'did a naughty'...and then following up with 'but adoption' is needlessly punishing *to the child* if that doesn't turn out well. That is needlessly cruel to an innocent child. That child, which is aware and reacting to its environment etc, is not a plaything or a punishment because people had an accident, even with precautions. It is not even close to this stage during elective abortion, this it is permissable to abort it to prevent any of these potential outcomes, and that is the woman who carries the pregnancy's choice, and ONLY hers. She's not obligated to let a fetus highjack her uterus and body, same as we don't force people do donate blood, time, or any other resource because it'll save someone's life (pianist argument/bodily autonomy).
I'm not only using bodily autonomy, even if I could do so, as that is technically all that is required to settle the argument. Technically. I don't like doing that though, and am interested in a discussion. Challenging my own ideals and viewpoints is an exercise in either adjusting my viewpoints to something I learned was better, or re-inforcing my opinion. Otherwise I wouldn't be so long-winded with everything else. I'm trying to reason out why I think what I think instead of just saying "Bodily autonomy lol #Winning ". You can talk about bodily autonomy all you want. I prefer to not mention it directly because some previous discussions I've had, has people rolling their eyes back into their skulls.
Bodily autonomy doesn't exist in terms of the fetus though, as it cannot exist without using, and being inside the woman. The viability of that fetus is 0% before 20 weeks. An abortion doesn't need to aim to kill at all, and most don't nowadays...it just flushes the pregnancy out, and it dies as a consequence. It's a very evident and documented result, and it's accepted. But there's no malicious intent.
Law isn't based in morality, it's equalizing them if anything, to ensure our survival in an orderly fashion. People in the society do not all have the same morality, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion. Law doesn't concern itself with that on an interpersonal level, it tries to determine what is permissable and not permissable with rationality and objectivity, as much as it is possible within the chaotic nature of the human species.
Also, there is no pro-abortion industry. There are nihilists. And they exist everywhere. There are work ethics and regulations in place, and if someone breaks those due to tampering or maliciousness towards a patient, it should be reported, followed up on, and the person who did it should be dealt with appropriately. A woman should only get an abortion if she thinks it's the choice to take.
A woman beating her toddler is a child abuser and can be prosecuted as such, and the child can be removed to another home if it is necessary. Because the child is not a fetus. And a fetus is not yet a child. That's why we use different words for different entities and things.
The problem with murder, child abuse, human trafficking etc, is that innocent persons are involved. That a blastocys/zygote is not a person, due to its brain not being near enough developed to facilitate that level of cognitive functions, and that it cannot in any way survive without making direct use of the woman's body, does matter. Potential ultimately doesn't matter, but since it is brought up, both positive and negative outcomes exist. However, I also find it distasteful if that is a gamble people should be forced to take if they are indeed forced to carry a pregnancy through, be it through choice or accident. A little anecdote; I have an aunt who was a result of an unwanted pregnancy. She wasn't even put up for adoption through normal means. She was left at the doorstep of the local fire-station, because her mother wanted to keep it hidden. She was caught in foster cares, and has not had a fun life. This is a possible life for an unwanted child forced in to the world. My mother found her through a looot of digging. Aunt's mother denies her existance to this day.
I legitimately do not understand what the obsession-like petitioning to protect a blastocyst/zygote is about. The value given to it is only relevant to the woman (circumstantially the man), and it is only the immediate value that matters on that subject. Raising a child is a huge ordeal, and it's not something people should be forced to go through. Nor should the child be forced through parents who either don't really love it, being abandoned, or risk a troubled adoption process. I'm happy for the kids who do get loving homes through adoption, all children should have the best possible upbringing, as they did not choose to be put in to the world, they are innocent. We have to make the decision for them otherwise, and that decision is pre-viability. Either abortion to have a kid later, or not having any children at all. Abortion is a legal, safe way of doing so. Sometimes even safer than carrying the pregnancy through. I'd prefer there to be no need for abortion at all, but until sex ed. and 100% covering protection can guarante that it is unnecessary to have aboritons available, then that is how it should be. Pregnancies are terminated, the pregnancy does die, in the sense that the biological processes of the blastocyst/zygote ceases to function... But it does not kill a person. Pro-life advocates likes to equate it to murder, which specifically requires the unlawful killing of a *person*, which by that definition cannot apply to that young a fetus, as it doesn't even have the infant beginnings of those brain processes until after 24-ish weeks at least. That is technically also a personhood argument from the pro-life side, not just pro-choice that is 'guilty' of that. And viability is at 20-21 weeks. That is a pretty fair restriction if you ask me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, I'm not going to go through your comment line-by-line because it's 1:30 in the morning and I need to sleep, but I will say that your statements about consent to sex not being consent to pregnancy/remaining pregnant, and your statement about how the alagory eventually breaks down (like all alagories...), have already been addressed in my stamp's description that I linked you to, so I ask that you at least bring something new to the table. Not to be rude, but I'm tired and I don't really feel like repeating myself. The same goes for your statements about abortion not killing anything (merely "flushing out a pregnancy"), adoption as punishing a child (did you even read this stamp's description?), etc. Essentially everything you've said has already been addressed in something I linked you to. With all due respect, I sincerely doubt you've taken the time to read all of them in the time between my last comment and when you posted this one (I was online during that time, so I'm aware how long it was). I've been talking to pro-abortionists long enough to have heard all of your arguments. Not trying to be rude here, but I ask that you bring something new to the table.
The only new idea that you brought was your statement that the law doesn't legislate morality because it doesn't work on an interpersonal level, but it very clearly does. That is the entire purpose of laws. Laws against murder, rape, hate crimes, theft, etc., are all laws relating to interpersonal morality. Although, I'm not sure what this has to do with abortion. It feels like you're rambling long about random topics to throw me off. I've had people do that to me. I don't know if that's what you're doing, but all the same, that's another reason why I'm not answering you in a detailed word-for-word response. Let's keep this simple and manageable.
I want to at least make sure I'm understanding you correctly. All of your arguments seem to be coming back to two beliefs: First, that a human is not a person until an arbitrary point in development that YOU have decided on, and second, that people are not capable of practicing sexual self-control. Am I correct?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not going to adress every single point on several stamps, otherwise we'll be here until next year (from now). Many of your points have been common arguments used in live debates, and they only hold merit on the basis of pregnancy being completed, wich is the problem that is being contested to begin with. That you think a zygote/fetus is a child is your opinion. A child mainly refers to a born offspring of human descent.
What makes a conception so special, instead of a documented stage in fetal development that warrants its basic protection over the womans bodily autonomy? DNA? Purpose? Species? Special pleading and speciesism. Yes, the conception is most definately human in origin and development, nobody sane has ever denied that, what of it? We kill other humans in wars, we remove cancer cells, we take cell tests of zygotes, removing 1 out of 8 cells to test...can I remove an 8th of you for testing? I am by no means likening a pregnancy to cancer or a parasite, but putting what is ostensibly a clump of cells (at such a young stage) to a born person, is intellectually dishonest. Later than that stage (Heartbeat bill as an example, that's around 6 weeks in) the heart begins beating. So what? A heartbeat doesn't indicate life, it indicates that the heart is working and in use. The hallmarks for defining the life of human *beings* (a person) is the brain. If the brain is dead, it doesn't matter how long you keep body functions going, that person is dead, and they're not coming back. The life of a human being, a person, begins and ends when the brain can facilitate it. Therefore, it is not at all arbitrary that elective abortion limits are set to not exceed the point of viability, as that is when the fetus starts to develop that brain capacity and the capability to survive outside the womb. What makes 'human' and 'human being/person' different, and why so many pro-life advocates use it interchangably, is because they're either ignorant, or refuse to seperate the two for what they are; Descent, and stage of life.
Do you know how many conceptions fail to implant, thus die? 'Yes but that is a natural thing' yes it is. But it's still a conception, fully capable of potentially developing into a child. I say possibly, because complications can arise necessitating a termination anyway. 'If given time to grow it will definately develope into a child' unless complications happen, they are a factor. Not terribly pressing, but they are. Are women to be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter in that case? Or something akin to that. It may or may not be her fault that the pregnancy didn't implant, thus died. I cannot remmember verbatum what people say, but answering this question, they're basically saying 'yes, women should be charged with some form of murder' when it comes to abortion. How do you wish to police this, other than the overbearing threat that women who don't want children should be scared of ever being in that situation where they need one?
And do not tell me what my position is, or misrepresent it. I am not for abortions, that's ridiculous. I don't care if people have one or don't have one, it's their choice to decide if they need one or not. Pro-choice. I'm not misrepresenting you, I ask you for the same courtesy.
You're still entirely ignoring the fact that many people are exercising birth-control. Those who aren't are either careless or under-educated. Do you want under-educated/careless people taking care of a child when they're forced to have them, hm? Or are you going to wait and see if they maybe fuck up so grossly that the government takes them away? Unless they do it themselves in some fashion. That's the pro-life you are? You don't seem to care what happens to the child when it's born, as long as it is. Life is not such a splendid experience that every suffering on someone else's behalf is worth every new life being born. That's naive beyond belief.
I'll tl;dr it a bit;
- A blastocyst/zygote is most definately human in terms of descent, DNA and that doesn't change.
- Why age of viability matters is because human *beings*, i.e. persons, are characterized by the brain functions developed at the start of viability, it is not present before that.
- Yes, a pregnancy will result in the death of blasto/zygote, nobody sane will deny that. It may or may not be the active intent of the abortion in question. Flushing it out has the intent of flushing it out, that it dies is a byproduct. Another method may kill it directly.
- A person is not killed, thus not violating any laws when it comes to abortion, nor should it, unless you want to violate the basic human rights of the woman.
Also merry christmas/happy holidays, hope you have a good one!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So basically that was just a long-winded and overly-complicated way of saying that you belive a human is not a person until an arbitrary point in development that YOU have decided on, and you acknowledge that other pro-abortionists don't hold to the same point of development that you do, which means that all this is just your opinion. You claim I'm basing my arguments off of opinion but that yours are somehow facts, even though both of our arguments are based off of the same facts. Basicslly the only difference between us is that I'm not willing to kill (person or not) over my opinion and you are. We don't know when personhood begins, so I believe in erring on the side if life. From what I understand, you just don't care. ...Along with some strawmen attacks about things you wrongly think I believe (if you'd read my writings, you'd see that I am VERY supportive of education and birth control, and notice that I never said that I nessecarily believe life begins at conception, as you've assumed about me; you've spent this entire time assuming things about what I believe, whereas I've been asking questions to make sure I understand what you believe). You also didn't answer my second question.
I can't tell if you want a discussion or if you just want an audience. If you just want to talk, I'll listen.
And merry Christmas! 🎄 I hope you're enjoying your holiday!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, bioligically provent that a fetus is not anywhere close to being a person. Post-viability is the foundation, and cutting elective abortions off a while before then is more than fair. I haven't decided anything for biology. That biology is factual, and has been studied at length. A person is when a brain has reached a certain stage in development. Personhood begins, if you want to be very strict about it, when you have achieved sentience and self-awareness. Which is well abive toddler stage. That's why we don't put it there and allow for killing toddlers and infants. It is not only personhood that matters, but I believe it to be important, so does many other pro-choicers. The ones that are more extreme are extremesists, and we don't tend to like those. There are extremists on both sides. There are pro-lifers who do not 'allow' abortions even if the mother's life depends on it. Personhood and viability are stronger arguments than just human dna. Even unique human dna. Teratomas (a type of cancer) can contain unique dna and even organs...it's creepy as fuck. Now, granted these aren't fetuses. It is to illustrate a point though. We give value to things because they're different, and it's not on such a simple basis as dna.
I got the impression that conception is what mattered from your replies and word usage. My apologies if that was an error. What does matter then?
That you don't want to end a pregnancy is entirely fine, and it's your choice, and I fully support your choice to not have one. I don't support trying to enforce that over other people. What you're saying now contradicts your support of BC. You're structuring your points so that, true or not, you assume that everyone who wants/needs an abortion don't use it. That's very untrue. The problem with BC is that nothing we have is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Abstinence is abstinence, not BC.
I'm all for discussion, just trying to structure my replies coherently... Speaking of, please space out your sentences more? 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you're arrogant enough to believe that your opinion is undeniable fact, everyone else is an extremist, and you're willing to kill based on it?
Okay, if that's what you want, then it's clear nothing anyone will say will get through that wall.
People who kill without reason cannot be reasoned with.
I'm curious at what moment exactly you think a human becomes a person.
Since this is a matter of life and death, you need to have a definitive time.
Something vague like "when the brain develops to a certain point" is not good enough.
I need the exact moment.
And I already addressed your "don't like abortion, don't have one" standpoint.
Again, please bring new material to the table.
My arguments are not structured as if anyone who wants or needs an abortion did not use birth control.
If you had read what I've written, you'd see the exact opposite.
If you saw anti-birth control sentiment or the belief that people only want abortions when they don't use it from my words, it was preconceived by you.
Although that said, around 46% of women who obtain abortions in the U.S. report not using birth control during or prior to sex:
www.guttmacher.org/journals/ps…
But all in all, I am very supportive of birth control and sterilization.
I'm tired of you assuming falsehoods about me and strawmanning my arguments.
You even assumed that I support violence towards and killing of animals, and I cannot express how wrong that is!
I'm not trying to be rude or hurt your feelings, but so far you have done nothing but preach your opinions, claim them to be facts, tell me not to talk about the subjects you're talking about, and then assume falshoods about me / strawman my arguments.
You should reread what I sent you about myths about prolifers, because you clearly believe a lot of them.
I don't know what you mean about spacing out my sentences, but I put a space between each one if that's what you meant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You continue to assume and missrepresent my position as well. We're not going to keep a decent debate going, so gonna call it quits here.
But I hope you have a good new years, and have a good new year to come.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I've misunderstood you, please explain how I did. I've given you the respect of explaining how you've misunderstood me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I doubt it will change anything if I tried, and I've been as clear about my opinion as I could be from the start. No point in wasting any of our time further. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Isn't it a good thing that they have homes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't really care what happens in the world, Its Cruel and I've learned that long ago, if I do not consider you a friend I really don't give a shit
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Adoption lists for babies is really long and usually families are lucky to adopt two. It's not too hard to adopt young children but adopting babies is another matter. Abortion not deprives a developing human of a chance but cheats a deserving family for a child.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
If we outlaw abortion, more people who want to adopt children will be able to do so.
God Bless You for making this stamp.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
You need to thank Unicornarama for making this stamp not me. I greatly appreciate positive feedback but I shouldn't take credit for something I took no part in creating.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well said! Abortion not only deprives a developing human of a chance but cheats a deserving family of a child.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It just occured to me to point out that your stamp doesn't specify whether it's the parents or the children that are put on waiting lists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"To adopt" would mean parents, because if it was babies it would say "to be adopted." I'm not against changing it if you have a clearer idea that would fit on a stamp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Instead of saying "there are waiting lists in adoption," you should say "there are waiting lists full of parents trying to adopt" if it's not too much trouble
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's only the case with babies. I'll try to think of something short enough for a stamp. I think it's clear enough, and if people want clarification, the title and description will clear it up. Thanks, though!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Only with babies? that has shameful implications about people who adopt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It really does. They just want the cute little babies. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
With older kids you don't have to worry about diapers, having to get out of bed in the middle of the night every night, or if and when to tell them they're adopted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's how I feel, but people like babies. They like to pretend they're theirs. You also generally don't have to deal with the emotional baggage that child abuse/neglect can bring. Seeing as any child can grow up and develop bizarre emotional issues, it's hardly a reason to allow older children to suffer, but that's their reasoning. They think babies are easier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Older kids in orphanages need to be adopted, too. I hate how most will go straight for the cute, cuddly baby and completely ignore the poor, traumatized orphaned child waiting desperately for a family.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's about bodily autonomy, not the potential suffering of babies. It's about the woman, not the fetus- always has been.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'd like to point out that you basically just claimed that someone's personal comfort is more valuable than a human life. you also failed to actually back that claim up. you yourself once told me "you made the claim, you provide the evidence."
you also need to remember to critically examine your own beliefs (at least if you expect other people to do it). For example, if you were my parasitic twin and did not posses all the necessary organs to survive on your own, would you argue that "bodily autonomy" gave me the right to have you removed? (and for clarification, in this scenario you are a parasitic twin who has a fully-formed brain and head, and are just as capable of speech as I am. also remember that you don't have all the organs needed to survive on your own, so me having you removed would have the same effect as putting a bullet in your head.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually it's not "your personal comfort", it's your right to decide what happens to your body. AKA bodily autonomy. Which, by the way, is an ideological position, not a scientific one, and as such it isn't typically backed up by hard data but by arguments of an ethical/philosophical nature.
Firstly: your example is bizarre and unrealistic. But yes, that would indeed be your right. Whether it is right to do so is another question entirely. Of course, a twin- a fully formed human being- would actually be entitled to human rights, something a fetus is not.
Now, let me posit to you a bizarre indulgence of my own: You are kidnapped and strapped to a table. On the table next to you is another man, dying of illness, who can only survive if he gets a small blood donation from you every day. But worry not, your captors say; in a year he will be cured and you will be free to go. However, you discover that the straps that hold you down have come loose, and the door is unlocked. You could leave. Now: you were not asked for consent to this situation. Your opinion was not considered. It just happened to you. If you choose to leave, the man will die. Are you obligated to stay?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Actually it's not 'your personal comfort', it's your right to decide what happens to your body. AKA bodily autonomy. Which, by the way, is an ideological position, not a scientific one, and as such it isn't typically backed up by hard data but by arguments of an ethical/philosophical nature."
yeah, personal comfort as regards the hunk of atoms my soul (self) inhabits.
"your example is bizarre and unrealistic."
bizarre, indeed. but parasitic twins are a real medical phenomenon, and they are capable of having a head. google image it of you don't believe me (on second thought don't type it into images, it's rather disturbing to look at).
"But yes, that would indeed be your right. Whether it is right to do so is another question entirely."
That's a contradiction in terms. However, I'm going to assume that you meant that your right to life would override my right to bodily autonomy, in which case you should word it the way I just did from now on.
"Of course, a twin- a fully formed human being-"
I don't think you've grasped the situation. a parasitic twin is by definition not fully-formed, even if the head itself is.
"would actually be entitled to human rights, something a fetus is not."
Your initial argument was that a woman's rights to what she wants (as regards the body that happens to be hers) somehow overrides a baby's right to life (don't tell me that it's not a baby when you used the word "baby" yourself), not that the latter does not have them to begin with. the fact that you had to defend your first argument by appealing to the claim that a fetus is not sapient proves that the issue in fact does hinge on the fetus (specifically whether it is sapient or not). No matter what you might claim is the central concern of the issue, you're always going to fall back on "the fetus isn't sapient" in an attempt to defend it. If it really were bodily autonomy that was the crux of the issue, then that would be the thing you always fell back on. observe:
person A: "Bodily autonomy is the central issue of the abortion debate"
person B: "but doesn't the child's right to life have greater importance?"
A: "No. it doesn't have one to begin with since it isn't even sapient"
B: "then the sapience of the fetus is the central issue."
If the fetus is sapient, then it has a right to life on the same level as a parasitic twin that develops a fully-formed brain, and there is therefore no way your position can be defended. If the fetus is not sapient, then it has no more right to life than a parasitic twin with no brain at all (which is basically a tumor composed of the normal specialized tissues), and there is therefore no way the other position can be defended. (btw, I could have finished this paragraph by claiming that the atheist claim that it's impossibly to prove a negative would mean there's no way pro-choicers can win, but I won't since I realize the hypocrisy of that action).
btw, I am in no way saying that pro-lifers aren't guilty of this too. 95% of the people who discuss politics could be torn apart by any first year philosophy student, as exemplified by the fact that my ethics textbook, despite being thinner than a pencil, proves the exact same point I just did, and I go to a state college.
"Now, let me posit to you a bizarre indulgence of my own: You are kidnapped and strapped to a table. On the table next to you is another man, dying of illness, who can only survive if he gets a small blood donation from you every day. But worry not, your captors say; in a year he will be cured and you will be free to go. However, you discover that the straps that hold you down have come loose, and the door is unlocked. You could leave. Now: you were not asked for consent to this situation. Your opinion was not considered. It just happened to you. If you choose to leave, the man will die. Are you obligated to stay?"
that depends. would the donations pose a greater risk to my right to life than leaving would to his?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You flat out ignored my point about bodily autonomy. "Comfort" is not the point.
I don't doubt you.
There is no contradiction at all. The rights you have are separate from what the right thing is to do. One pertains to human rights, the other pertains to ethics/morality. While they are not unrelated topics, they are not one and the same.
So the parasitic twin isn't even a fully developed human being? Even better, then. Far less moral compunction about having that removed.
Not "somehow" overrides, it flat out overrides it on the merit of your own body belonging to you first. Secondly, it's not a "baby", it's a fetus. It lacks the defining characteristics of a human being, particularly in the earlier stages of the pregnancy. I don't have to "appeal" to the fetus not being human either- it's irrelevant. Even if it could logically be considered worth the same as a grown human, the right to bodily autonomy would still win out. They are two separate, equally valid arguments for choice.
Not "fall back" on. It's an argument and I'm not seeing you come up with any reason to refute it. I'll admit that it's something of a crutch to choice defenders, but to me autonomy is the more important point. Nobody but you owns you.
Your example is a false dichotomy- it assumes that only one of them can be true, when in fact both are legitimate. See above.
Scientifically speaking- as in evidence-based- "sapience", self-awareness, abstract thought, personality, knowledge, these are things that do not develop until the child is well past one year old. Hence, the sapience argument is dead, null and void, pointless. But it remains the same: your body, your choice.
I won't deny that most politically inclined people, regardless of ideology, are poorly informed.
You are robbed of freedom, robbed of choice, but your life is not in danger.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You flat out ignored my point about bodily autonomy. 'Comfort' is not the point."
If a woman who had to resort to the bodily autonomy argument (i.e. was not raped, was not related to the father, is in no danger of being killed by the pregnancy, is of a sufficient economic position to give the child a good life, etc.), wasn't uncomfortable with the pregnancy, then she wouldn't be trying to get an abortion in the first place, now would she?
The philosophy of bodily autonomy didn't exist before roe vs. wade, and isn't really considered in any other issue. This is indeed circumstantial (if I'm using that word right), but it's still worth considering.
"I don't doubt you."
very well then. (I'm putting this one in purely so that we can both keep track of eachother's arguments)
"There is no contradiction at all. The rights you have are separate from what the right thing is to do. One pertains to human rights, the other pertains to ethics/morality. While they are not unrelated topics, they are not one and the same."
Let's say you're in an ethical dilemma over whether or not to engage in a course of action that involves me. If you don't take my rights into account, then how can you determine what the right thing to do is? There's a reason they have the same root word. If you want to take away my X, shouldn't you consider if I have a right to X?
Or to put it more simply, the entire position of pro-choicers is: "Women have a right to bodily autonomy, and a fetus does not have a right to life, therefore letting women get abortions is the right thing to do.
yes, they are slightly different concepts, but it's a meaningless distinction to make (at least outside of debates on ethical theory in philosophy classes).
"So the parasitic twin isn't even a fully developed human being? Even better, then. Far less moral compunction about having that removed."
Technically, neither is someone born without, say, legs. (before you type your response, remember that our analogy presumed that the parasitic twin happened to have a fully developed brain, and was therefore capable of having an opinion on the matter.)
"it flat out overrides it on the merit of your own body belonging to you first."
And I still have yet to hear an explanation for how "but it's mine! I don't wanna!" being used in response to "Give us that! someone's life is on the line!" goes from being a horrible response to a good response when the thing in question becomes one's collective anatomy. If bodily autonomy ("my body, my choice") is more important than human life, then why shouldn't monetary autonomy ("my money, my choice")? or temporal autonomy ("my time, my choice")?
or to put it more simply: To say that someone's right to their body matters more than their right to their life implies that a man who, say, chopped the toes off of six million people would be worse than Hitler. Hitler violated six million people's right to their lives, but the other guy violated six million people's right to bodily autonomy.
put it more simply still: if someone pointed a gun at you and said "your bodily autonomy, or your life," which would you surrender? also, nobody who gets mugged pleads "Take what you want, but spare me my bodily autonomy!"
yet still more simply: let's say you got knocked out with drugs and wake up with a catheter in your dick. nobody told you that this would happen. over the next two weeks they stick lots of stuff into you. after those two weeks you are given the opportunity to rewrite time so that instead of them sticking any of that stuff in you after they knocked you out, they simply kill you instead. I seriously doubt you'd take that offer.
There's a reason that murder is a felony and sexual harassment isn't.
"It lacks the defining characteristics of a human being"
Neither would the members of an alien civilization. but that hardly prevents Their sapience from granting them a right to life, now does it?
Come to think of it, what exactly are you defining the "characteristics of a human being" as? because I feel like an ancient spartan who left his newborn infant out in the streets to starve could make the exact same argument simply by using narrower (or even identical) criteria. Yes, that was a thing they did. and yes, it was hotly debated, and both sides even used almost the same arguments we do today. The only difference is that they set the "moment of humanity" to eight days after birth. "...but until then, it's pretty much a plant."
"It's an argument and I'm not seeing you come up with any reason to refute it."
That simply wasn't what I was trying to argue with that particular point. I wasn't arguing that a fetus is sapient, merely that whether or not it is sapient is the crux of the issue.
but since you asked, I have these three 1)the fact that the electrical activity in the brain becomes indistinguishable from that of an adult at six months of development. 2)the fact that any mother could recount to you an event where their child jumped in excitement in recognition of the voice of their father or older sibling. 3)lastly, the fact that many children report remembering their time in the womb. I myself do as well.
"Nobody but you owns you."
except your conscience. Could you seriously look your lover in the (crying) eye, her face showing how crushed she is, and watch her die as you tell her "No! I won't give you the kidney! my body, my choice!"?
"Your example is a false dichotomy- it assumes that only one of them can be true, when in fact both are legitimate. See above."
Since I have enough faith in humanity to think that not even an SJW (not that I'm accusing you of being one), could be dumb enough to think that a fetus could be both sapient and non-sapient, I'm assuming you're talking about what "the crux of the issue" is. Well the fact of the matter is that the bodily autonomy clause was invented before anyone was smart enough to go "Hey hold on. These other guys think that a fetus [is/isn't] sapient. That would render all our arguments null and void. maybe we should try to convince them otherwise." and Nobody started saying that murder was okay if bodily autonomy was a factor until it started coming to light that feti are sapient. The denser folk on your side just refused to admit they were wrong. Even Today most pro-lifers will say "nobody is arguing that bodily autonomy is more valuable than a life. Do you seriously think anyone could be that egotistical and heartless? or that unthinking?" and would be appalled to come across people like you.
"Scientifically speaking- as in evidence-based- "sapience", self-awareness, abstract thought, personality, knowledge, these are things that do not develop until the child is well past one year old. Hence, the sapience argument is dead, null and void, pointless. But it remains the same: your body, your choice."
yeah, no. Even if you won't believe what I said about prenatal memories, I guarantee you that you could find within twenty minutes someone who's earliest memory occurred well before that point.
I myself (again) remember this time I was in my crib kicking and flailing about. I was laying on my back, with my head on one of those wedge-shaped pillows. I had managed to rotate myself a full 90 degrees just by wiggling side to side three times, so that my head was no longer on the pillow. I remember getting a bit mad when I was unable to rotate back (since my hips turned out to not be able to twist in that direction as much as the other for some reason), deciding to wait for my parents to do it for me when they came back into the room, getting madder when they didn't come immediately (I was an impatient child), and then when they finally came back in, still madder when they left me as I was. I had completely forgotten about that day after it happened, but it all came rushing back many years later when I was in highschool, since we found an old VHS home video (or rather, we finally found the VCR adapter again) that recorded it from my parents' perspective. It showed me aligned with the pillow (with dad commenting that it was late and I was only just then starting to get a little sleepy since mom drank a lot of caffeine that day), my parents walking out, cut to my dad saying "it is now" and the following conversation revealing that he was talking about the date on the camera, and then my parents walking back in and chuckling upon seeing that I had changed position. Interestingly, my face was completely blank throughout the parts it could be seen, and I never even opened my mouth. I was also, apparently, less than a year old at recording.
"You are robbed of freedom, robbed of choice, but your life is not in danger."
Weill if the blood did have to come from me specifically (rather than someone who lives near the other guy), and if there was in fact no better way of doing this, then I wouldn't leave. I would mourn the life I had and the sanity I would soon loose to boredom, but I would stay.
now, let me ask you. a question. If I decided to escape, what do you think the other guy's reaction would be? He'd be begging me to stay. Now wouldn't you do the same if it was your life on the line?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't ”resort” to bodily autonomy. It is an important ethical principle. Although it's most commonly raised in questions of abortion, it is certainly not limited to it. Genital mutilation of infants, male or female, would be an example of violated bodily autonomy. If a pregnant person feels they cannot afford to care for a child, or plain doesn't want one, that is sufficient enough of a reason to get an abortion. When it was invented- and I'd be careful not to make any hasty statements on that account- is irrelevant.
Beside the point. While your point here is valid, it is still incorrect to claim the two are one and the same. The distinction is certainly not meaningless.
A fully formed human being, possessed of indiviuality and a sense of self, is by far a more problematic ethical challenge than the termination of a fetus. Human worth is- should- be measured by our capacity for humanity.
...because your body is by far more intimately yours than something as abstract as the concept of property, let alone something as arbitrary as currency? No matter what, your body will always be your own, whether rich or poor. It's the one thing you'll always have. It's the single most important building block in that which we call our lives. To compare it to material property is to reduce it to simple meat.
”or to put it more simply: To say that someone's right to their body matters more than their right to their life implies that a man who, say, chopped the toes off of six million people would be worse than Hitler. Hitler violated six million people's right to their lives, but the other guy violated six million people's right to bodily autonomy.”
This absurd example cannot be applied to this situation in an honest way, as it assumes that six million grown adults are on the same level as a fetus. They are not. And from a logical perspective, it's obvious that the loss of a limb is by far preferable to the loss of life. You are taking a point- bodily autonomy- and running it to a logical extreme, then using that point against my argument. Need I spell out that that is fallacy?
”Neither would the members of an alien civilization.”
Moot point, as there is no evidence of any alien life. The wording could be re-written to incorporate non-humans easily. This is a pointless comment.
To be a human is to be an individual. Simply to have the potential to be human does not give you the same worth as a human being. A fetus is alive- but then again, so is a cactus, and that does not grant it special worth. That which defines an individual is self-awareness, consciousness, the ability to know that you are you. A fetus fails these criteria entirely.
1) Electrical activity in the brain being equivalent to that of an adult is something I find difficult to believe; there's a reason children need about twenty years to grow before they can be considered adult. Even if that were the case, it does not change the fact that they lack the ability of abstract thought and self awareness.
2) Meaning that it is an instinctual reaction derived from its genetic makeup. That we have the capacity to learn from a young age is not evidence of consciousness.
3) There are several points to make on memory. Firstly, memory is one of the single most unreliable sources of information in human society. Memory is not a data bank- it's your brain recreating a past event. Ever had that experience where you were completely sure of something, yet reality completely contradicts you? Everyone has. That's because memory is unreliable, and it's why witness testimony is legally considered the weakest possible form of evidence. Because the mind is prone to bias, to post-constructions, to memory changing into what we want it to be rather than what it objectively is. Human memory, quite simply, is data that is corruptible as hell. Those memories of the womb? Could just as easily be false.
Secondly, memory is not proof of intelligence or sapience. That one can remember life as a toddler does not prove that you had the capacity to think, only that your memory extends to a time before you were able to do so.
”Could you seriously look your lover in the (crying) eye, her face showing how crushed she is, and watch her die as you tell her "No! I won't give you the kidney! my body, my choice!"?”
Argument from emotion. Fallacy. Invalid.
The two posed against each other is the argument of bodily autonomy, and the argument of sapience. Your argument in the last post, unless I completely misunderstood it, posited that one had to refute the other, that only one could be true. This is inaccurate. Furthermore, I hold that bodily autonomy is more important than life. It is separate from what is right, but the fact that you have the right to deny somebody that kidney is essential. I suppose you could say that bodily autonomy is what grants a woman the right to choose, and sapience is what justifies it morally.
”Even if you won't believe what I said about prenatal memories, I guarantee you that you could find within twenty minutes someone who's earliest memory occurred well before that point.”
See my point on the unreliability of memory.
And once again, I refer to my point on memory. It's not a reliable source of information. Neither, I should point out, is argument that uses personal experience as evidence, which is bad logic for several reasons. Chiefly because singular instances prove absolutely nothing, but also because a personal story cannot be corroborated.
Good for you.
I would leave. I have a life to live, and a duty to the people in it, myself included. This was done to me without consent or compensation, and I am not obligated to stay. Death comes for all of us eventually, and a dying man should not extend his life at the expense of others. That is unethical.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>