Isn't vasectomy reversible? I always thought it was.
Also, she has a point – if you're against abortions, you should use birth control so an unwanted baby doesn't happen. But you should be concerned about yourself and what you/your partner do with your/their body, not what strangers do with theirs.
Developping the nervous system, I believe. When the foetus develops a nervous system, it can feel pain so it's considered unethical to flush it down the toilet.
Abortion is an issue because different cultures and different people answer that question in different ways and there is no right or wrong; some may believe a baby is a baby after it's born, others believe a baby is a baby after it's conceived (i mean when the sperm and the ovule form the fetus, not during intercourse). The problem is that with something like a law about abortion it is difficult to reach a "correct" answer because there is not a correct line of thinking. Personally i think abortions should be done only in extreme cases (rape or health for example) and for those in which it is not utterñy necessary they should put the baby up for adoption; but i understand where people that think differently are coming from when they say something else, and, reality is, none of us are actually wrong and attempting to discuss something so complex is almost impossible because we are not even discussing the same thing: to some they are cells, to some they are babies
@badasslatina I agree with the extreme cases, the problem is that just putting unwanted children up for adoption may result in overflowing orphanages. That, or a life with horrible parents is in my opinion a worse fate than a painless death.
@garlog ontogenesis is a short version of phylogenesis. Before a foetus develops a nervous system, it's about on the same evolutionary level as a jellyfish. It's hardly human, just a bunch of cells. Also "what if you can't feel pain" is a purely theoretical question, that stuff can't happen irl.
I'm pretty sure there are cases of people with a disease that prevents them from feeling pain (which is really dangerous because they are unaware if something is hurting them)
"It's hardly human"
So after that it suddenly becomes human?
"Also "what if you can't feel pain" is a purely theoretical question, that stuff can't happen irl."
That doesn't make the question invalid.
@badasslatina pain is felt through receptors that are all over your body. Not feeling pain would mean disconnecting every single one of them. I honestly don't think a disease that would do that exists, but maybe I'm wrong. However, this isn't about pain at all. It's about the evolutionary stage of the foetus. The pain argument was to demonstrate the development of the nervous system, which in my opinion makes the foetus developped enough to call it human. Also because some pro-lifers tend to throw this argument around, "but what if it feels pain?"
@garlog y'ever heard of evolution? As I said, and I may repeat myself because it seems you didn't quite grasp the concept, ontogenesis is a short version of phylogenesis. The foetus is going through certain stages. Before it has a nervous system, it's on the same evolutionary stage as a jellyfish. Before it has a spine, it's on the same level as a shark, etcetera etcetera. This is not strictly about pain as I explained above, but about the development of the foetus. It doesn't suddenly become human like *poof*, baby. It evolves. What makes a lot of people disagree is where they'd draw the line of considering the evolving bunch of cells a baby. Some people think it's a certain stage of development, some think it's even conception.
"That doesn't make the question invalid." I'm pretty sure it does. Asking "but what if a pile of frozen donkey crap just fell from the sky and killed me?" has about as much weight as your question. Purely hypothetical, and redundant.
"y'ever heard of evolution? ~ of cells a baby. Some people think it's a certain stage of development, some think it's even conception."
That's a really long-winded way of saying "I don't know when a fetus becomes a human."
"Asking "but what if a pile of frozen donkey crap just fell from the sky and killed me?" has about as much weight as your question. Purely hypothetical, and redundant."
My question was obviously relevant while that one is completely irrelevant.
@garlog
I mean no attack in my following question(s)
Do you start shit just to play devil's advocate?
If yes, are you doing it for funsies or to incite critical thinking beyond an emotional knee-jerk?
If no, do you really believe in being contrary or is there another reason that my post-midnight brain can't fathom?
"Do you start shit just to play devil's advocate?"
Not usually, but I don't really have a problem doing it as long I'm genuinely interested in the subject. I'm kind of doing that here. I don't actually have a hard-line opinion on abortion, but it does seem weird to me that pro-choice people are so confident in their stance when it seems to be based on almost nothing.
"are you doing it for funsies or to incite critical thinking"
Both, optimally.
@garlog because there is no clear way of recognizing that. This is a long process, not a magical *poof*. I'm obviously not a doctor but everyone who knows at least high school biology knows that there are never any perfectly clear indications. Besides, do you know?
Yes, the question was relevant to the topic, but relevant about as much as when a kindergartener asks you "but why?" upon your every explanation. And honestly, I'm getting tired of explaining.
@ewqua
"Besides, do you know?"
No, so it's probably better to play it safe.
"Yes, the question was relevant to the topic, but relevant about as much as when a kindergartener asks you "but why? upon your every explanation."
Just because a small child says it doesn't make it an invalid question.
@chu
It's not necessarily based on those, though.
That's exactly it, nobody knows. There is no clear, ethical line. That's why the view on abortions is so different with so many people. Biologically, what distinguishes humans from animals is a certain part of the brain. I am now not sure which, I believe it's the lateral frontal pole prefrontal cortex, but maybe I'm wrong. However, this part develops at the latest stages. But does that mean we can kill the foetus/baby before that because it's "not technically human yet"? It already has a nervous system, can feel pain and some basic emotions. I know this is not entirely scientific but I think that for demonstrative reasons we could compare evolutionary stages of a foetus to certain classes of living creatures, from a simple cell to a human being. So, I believe that we should ask ourselves a question, what animal is on an evolutionary level so low we wouldn't feel remorse for killing it? Is it a fly, a fish, a mouse, a cat? Everyone would draw the line somewhere else.
Yes, I know what the law currently is, I'm saying that such a wishy-washy concept shouldn't be used to decide whether it's illegal or not based on when a human begins to exist.
Well, they don't use my made up animal-foetus thing, that was just for demonstration. Modern medicine is actually quite accurate with determining in which stage the foetus is. It's not 100%, but there is currently no better system, so they play it safe.
The thing is, who else could decide for the "child" than its parents and the doctors? I know it sounds horrible, but I'd rather have it die than live with irresponsible parents, or as a result of rape, or with a severe medical condition. Firstly because the world is already overpopulated as it is, secondly because no life is better than a horrible one. Yes that sounds like a buddhist idea but then again, pro-lifers usually have no other arguments besides religion and personal beliefs. I already commented this on another post, so if you'll be so kind and read the long rant explaining why I think pro-choice is better than pro-life, I'd be grateful. http://m.funsubstance.com/fun/335139/the-woes-of-a-two-party-system/
Also I'd like to add that pro-lifers usually don't consider what happens after the child is born. They just want it to be born because "muh religion", and then they don't care if it literally lives in a pigsty. They'd rather have the child lead a life of crime and poverty than none at all. And their arguments usually are "well what if the child cures cancer or invents time travel" etc. The thing is though, I know enough about environmental psychology to know that when a person grows up in these bad conditions, the chance of them becoming something like that is zero.
"Firstly because the world is already overpopulated as it is"
That's not true, we've got about 100-130 years before that even starts to be a thing, assuming current trends continue.
"no life is better than a horrible one."
That's definitely debatable. There are plenty of people who successfully got out of a bad living situation who are glad to be alive
"have no other arguments besides religion and personal beliefs. "
They think abortion is murder, religion isn't required for that.
"pro-lifers usually don't consider what happens after the child is born."
Their concerned with people killing the child. They still don't want the child to be killed after it's born.
"the chance of them becoming something like that is zero. "
Not zero, but close, and that's kind of the point. All humans have potential.
Yeah, this all is debatable and a matter of opinions. I guess I'm just not as optimistic about this as others when it comes to human potential. I believe the environment and upbringing play a lot bigger role in a person's life than the potential that's coded in their genes. And okay, I see what you mean by the "rising from poverty" thing. There are indeed plenty of people who grew up poor but later became successful. But I was talking about the family environment in itself, not whether the family is high class or not. There are parents who despite their not so well paid job give the best education and moral values they can to their children. However, if you forced every "accident" to be born, its parents would probably not create a safe environment for it. They might even blame it for "ruining their lives", even though we all know it's them who should've been more responsible.
"However, if you forced every "accident" to be born, its parents would probably not create a safe environment for it. They might even blame it for "ruining their lives", even though we all know it's them who should've been more responsible. "
That's true, but I include that in what I mean by "bad living situation". There are definitely people brought up like that who were able to rise above their shitty upbringing to become good people.
Besides, that logic makes it sound like we should just abolish CFS/CPS and kill all children who are currently in those situations.
We couldn't really do that, because when a child is born, it already has basic human rights. CFS/CPS are in my opinion needed because a family can get into a bad situation throughout the child's life, not just before it's born. I see your point though, it's just that if abortions were illegal, on a million forced births there would be maybe one successful person and thousands of criminals, junkies, or just people who abuse others because they've been abused and they just think that's how it works. I don't know if we should take the chance just because that successful person might invent something cool. There are also cases of pregnancy caused by rape or a child with some rare genetic disease that would make its life hell, but I think you'll agree with me that abortions should be done in those cases as they're quite extreme.
"We couldn't really do that, because when a child is born, it already has basic human rights."
Yeah, but your rational on whether they should live is based on their chance of success. Is that not saying that people with a low chance of success don't deserve human rights?
"if abortions were illegal, on a million forced births there would be maybe one successful person and thousands of criminals, junkies, or just people who abuse others because they've been abused and they just think that's how it works."
I'm sure you're exaggerating with those specific numbers, but do you know the actual statistics? I'm a little curious.
" I think you'll agree with me that abortions should be done in those cases as they're quite extreme."
I wouldn't say they *should* be done, but I definitely don't have a problem with that. I mentioned several comments up that I don't actually have a hard-line stance on abortion.
This wasn't about success at all, it was you who brought that up, and in fact I've been trying to explain that it's not about being wealthy and successful. My primary concern was the well-being of the child, which is combined in many factors, the most important of which is how accepted it is in the family. Wealth and influence don't play such a big role, what's important is that the child isn't hated only because it was born, which is a situation that might arise quite often if we force all pregnancies to carry on. I know you said you included that in "bad living situation", but I think poverty and bad family environment are just two very different things and smashing them together may result in miscommunication. There are rich people who are bad parents and there are poor people who are good parents.
No statistics, actually assumptions, which are however based on studies about the influence of environment on psychological development of a child.
Yeah, I'm using success as an umbrella term. Using your terms, if whether a child should live is based on the chance of family acceptance and well-being, doesn't that imply that a child that lacks those doesn't deserve human rights?
Oh, no no no. My wording is just clumsy. I'm saying that by banning abortions, we induce this kind of behaviour in people who might under current conditions later actually become good parents. If they're not ready for a child, we shouldn't force them, because their not being ready is what makes the child suffer.
I see... so would it be correct to say that you think that a child's right to parental acceptance, well being, and to not suffer are greater than it's right to life, or is the right to life not related to this line of thought?
@garlog Simply put, I don't want children to suffer because they were born to irresponsible/unready parents, and even though it sounds brutal, I believe that "death" (which is at the early stages when abortion is legal more like getting rid of a few cells, but anyway we already discussed that) is better than a forced birth which will a) make the parents' life shitty because it's a huge change of their plans, b) make the potential child's life shitty because it will live its life being told it was unwanted and it ruined the parents' life. I wouldn't really drag human rights into it because those are gained by being born.
@chu a lot of people downvote garlog and upvote whomever disagrees/leads a discussion with him simply because it's garlog. Don't get me wrong, I respect him because he often induces critical thinking, but most people don't feel that way because they prefer not to think.
Don't know about book hoarder, either I'm not on here long enough or he just wasn't that active, but with mgoveia it was 50% that and 50% for commenting with MLP pictures/gifs, which if I remember correctly were sometimes even from brony rule 34.
This is one of the situations where there's no "right" answer. Personally, I think that getting rid of a foetus that is not developed enough to feel anything is better than having a child and letting it live in bad conditions. A lot of people probably disagree with me because for them it's murder of a possible human being. The thing is, maybe I'm a pessimist or a downright sociopath, but to me death itself doesn't seem like such a big deal, unless it's someone I really care about, obviously. Better a painless death than a shitty life that has a 0.00000000000001% chance of turning good.
I'm not sure whether "rights" is the proper word but I argue that parents shouldn't be subject to a burden that slipped through a condom, a woman shouldn't be force given the product of rape ect
Those burdens seem fairly light when you weigh them against a child's life, though. They didn't have to have sex, and the rape victim can give the child up.
I'm with the "general" medical community (I think) because I think a 50% viability should be considered "life" and that's why I don't consider early abortions murder.
I also don't believe it's right to force someone to go through the motions of pregnancy if they don't want to (slippery slope, you get what I mean, I'm on mobile and I'm too lazy to elaborate)
Chu has a point. Parents' lives matter too.
I'd also like to add, speaking of the chance that a child will rise from bad conditions and become successful, what if it were the parents who would become successful, but they won't because they have to settle down and take care of the child? I know we've moved past that but I just wanted to add two points. First one being that making thousands of children live in shitty conditions because "one of them may become successful" is kind of against my common sense. Okay, so we lose one millionaire, but also lose thousands of people who would likely grow up to be drug addicts, criminals, people living on welfare etc. because of the socioenvironmental conditions they grew up in (I honestly don't know if "socioenvironmental" is a word, just translating from my mother tongue, sorry if it's incorrect).
Second point being, and I already started that thought above, that there's also a chance that the parents were on the right way to become doctors, inventors, celebrities, but were denied that because of faulty birth control and anti-abortion laws. The point is, there is absolutely no way of determining whether a person will become successful or not. Passing a law because "one of the children may have some potential" while making thousands of other children suffer, and ending potentially promising careers of their parents, just seems to me like sacrificing a lot for a slim chance of gain.
@chu
"I'm with the "general" medical community (I think) because I think a 50% viability should be considered "life""
As far as I know, the limit of viability has nothing to do with considering something life.
"you get what I mean"
I'm actually not sure I do, but wouldn't that mean they should be able to abort at any time if they don't have that responsibility?
"Faulty birth control is completely not the fault of those having sex"
Birth control is never 100% effective. You're always taking a risk, and you have to take responsibility for the outcome of that risk.
@ewqua
"what if it were the parents who would become successful, but they won't because they have to settle down and take care of the child?"
They can give up the child.
"making thousands of children live in shitty conditions because "one of them may become successful" is kind of against my common sense."
That's butting up pretty close to eugenics.
@ewqua
"don't know if "socioenvironmental" is a word"
I don't think it is, but it gets the point across well enough.
"The point is, there is absolutely no way of determining whether a person will become successful or not."
This could be used the other way as well though, where using statistic to decide which lives are viable is denying people the chance to "succeed". Also I wouldn't say that the children would be "made" to suffer, just that statistically they would.
She's saying that if you don't want an unwanted child, don't get an abortion, get a vasectomy. She's not saying that people against abortions should not be Llowed to have kids.
Also, she has a point – if you're against abortions, you should use birth control so an unwanted baby doesn't happen. But you should be concerned about yourself and what you/your partner do with your/their body, not what strangers do with theirs.
Real nice logic there.
So if you can't feel pain you're not human?
@garlog ontogenesis is a short version of phylogenesis. Before a foetus develops a nervous system, it's about on the same evolutionary level as a jellyfish. It's hardly human, just a bunch of cells. Also "what if you can't feel pain" is a purely theoretical question, that stuff can't happen irl.
So after that it suddenly becomes human?
"Also "what if you can't feel pain" is a purely theoretical question, that stuff can't happen irl."
That doesn't make the question invalid.
"That doesn't make the question invalid." I'm pretty sure it does. Asking "but what if a pile of frozen donkey crap just fell from the sky and killed me?" has about as much weight as your question. Purely hypothetical, and redundant.
That's a really long-winded way of saying "I don't know when a fetus becomes a human."
"Asking "but what if a pile of frozen donkey crap just fell from the sky and killed me?" has about as much weight as your question. Purely hypothetical, and redundant."
My question was obviously relevant while that one is completely irrelevant.
I mean no attack in my following question(s)
Do you start shit just to play devil's advocate?
If yes, are you doing it for funsies or to incite critical thinking beyond an emotional knee-jerk?
If no, do you really believe in being contrary or is there another reason that my post-midnight brain can't fathom?
Not usually, but I don't really have a problem doing it as long I'm genuinely interested in the subject. I'm kind of doing that here. I don't actually have a hard-line opinion on abortion, but it does seem weird to me that pro-choice people are so confident in their stance when it seems to be based on almost nothing.
"are you doing it for funsies or to incite critical thinking"
Both, optimally.
Yes, the question was relevant to the topic, but relevant about as much as when a kindergartener asks you "but why?" upon your every explanation. And honestly, I'm getting tired of explaining.
"Besides, do you know?"
No, so it's probably better to play it safe.
"Yes, the question was relevant to the topic, but relevant about as much as when a kindergartener asks you "but why? upon your every explanation."
Just because a small child says it doesn't make it an invalid question.
@chu
It's not necessarily based on those, though.
The thing is, who else could decide for the "child" than its parents and the doctors? I know it sounds horrible, but I'd rather have it die than live with irresponsible parents, or as a result of rape, or with a severe medical condition. Firstly because the world is already overpopulated as it is, secondly because no life is better than a horrible one. Yes that sounds like a buddhist idea but then again, pro-lifers usually have no other arguments besides religion and personal beliefs. I already commented this on another post, so if you'll be so kind and read the long rant explaining why I think pro-choice is better than pro-life, I'd be grateful. http://m.funsubstance.com/fun/335139/the-woes-of-a-two-party-system/
That's not true, we've got about 100-130 years before that even starts to be a thing, assuming current trends continue.
"no life is better than a horrible one."
That's definitely debatable. There are plenty of people who successfully got out of a bad living situation who are glad to be alive
"have no other arguments besides religion and personal beliefs. "
They think abortion is murder, religion isn't required for that.
"pro-lifers usually don't consider what happens after the child is born."
Their concerned with people killing the child. They still don't want the child to be killed after it's born.
"the chance of them becoming something like that is zero. "
Not zero, but close, and that's kind of the point. All humans have potential.
That's true, but I include that in what I mean by "bad living situation". There are definitely people brought up like that who were able to rise above their shitty upbringing to become good people.
Besides, that logic makes it sound like we should just abolish CFS/CPS and kill all children who are currently in those situations.
Yeah, but your rational on whether they should live is based on their chance of success. Is that not saying that people with a low chance of success don't deserve human rights?
"if abortions were illegal, on a million forced births there would be maybe one successful person and thousands of criminals, junkies, or just people who abuse others because they've been abused and they just think that's how it works."
I'm sure you're exaggerating with those specific numbers, but do you know the actual statistics? I'm a little curious.
" I think you'll agree with me that abortions should be done in those cases as they're quite extreme."
I wouldn't say they *should* be done, but I definitely don't have a problem with that. I mentioned several comments up that I don't actually have a hard-line stance on abortion.
No statistics, actually assumptions, which are however based on studies about the influence of environment on psychological development of a child.
@chu a lot of people downvote garlog and upvote whomever disagrees/leads a discussion with him simply because it's garlog. Don't get me wrong, I respect him because he often induces critical thinking, but most people don't feel that way because they prefer not to think.
Well, legally yeah, but does that really hold up morally?
I'd also like to add, speaking of the chance that a child will rise from bad conditions and become successful, what if it were the parents who would become successful, but they won't because they have to settle down and take care of the child? I know we've moved past that but I just wanted to add two points. First one being that making thousands of children live in shitty conditions because "one of them may become successful" is kind of against my common sense. Okay, so we lose one millionaire, but also lose thousands of people who would likely grow up to be drug addicts, criminals, people living on welfare etc. because of the socioenvironmental conditions they grew up in (I honestly don't know if "socioenvironmental" is a word, just translating from my mother tongue, sorry if it's incorrect).
"I'm with the "general" medical community (I think) because I think a 50% viability should be considered "life""
As far as I know, the limit of viability has nothing to do with considering something life.
"you get what I mean"
I'm actually not sure I do, but wouldn't that mean they should be able to abort at any time if they don't have that responsibility?
"Faulty birth control is completely not the fault of those having sex"
Birth control is never 100% effective. You're always taking a risk, and you have to take responsibility for the outcome of that risk.
@ewqua
"what if it were the parents who would become successful, but they won't because they have to settle down and take care of the child?"
They can give up the child.
"making thousands of children live in shitty conditions because "one of them may become successful" is kind of against my common sense."
That's butting up pretty close to eugenics.
"don't know if "socioenvironmental" is a word"
I don't think it is, but it gets the point across well enough.
"The point is, there is absolutely no way of determining whether a person will become successful or not."
This could be used the other way as well though, where using statistic to decide which lives are viable is denying people the chance to "succeed". Also I wouldn't say that the children would be "made" to suffer, just that statistically they would.