BBC to set up team to debunk 'fake news' stories

[corrado33]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

No, i know the report you're talking about but yes negotiating salaries does contribute to the percentage (it being subjective, everyone negotiates differently, and the fact men negotiate for higher salaries and negotiate more often)

I don't understand though, i've said all this already earlier in the thread, what do you mean not quite?
It sounds like you're not really challenging anything i've said hahaha

Only the few % part, which you didn't mention. So technically there is a very small wage gap for equal jobs and equal hours, but it's not due to sexism. 

[Memories4K]

9 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

See, many people consider the foetus to simply be a piece of flesh growing inside the mother's body, they don't mind dehumanising the baby. People are too lazy and irresponsible to use proper contraception or even a morning after pill in case of unwanted sex. It's also quite surprising that people are comparing an unborn child, which is almost always made by their own choosing, to some kind of foreign parasite or unwanted growth in their body. Remember kiddies, you can choose whether or not to get pregnant, but you can't choose whether or not you suddenly end up with some poisonous parasite or cancer.

I'm troubled and on the fence on the whole abortion debate/controversy (so not right or left)

But let's play this through, what about rape?
The morning after pill isn't 100%, or even 90%, effective.
What then?
Also, what about those that have unsafe (unregulated/backdoor physicians) abortions in alleyways?
Do we criminalize that?
Do we treat it as murder?
Does the mother go on trial, the doctor, both?

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

I'm troubled and on the fence on the whole abortion debate/controversy (so not right or left)

But let's play this through, what about rape?
The morning after pill isn't 100%, or even 90%, effective.
What then?
Also, what about those that have unsafe (unregulated/backdoor physicians) abortions in alleyways?
Do we criminalize that?
Do we treat it as murder?
Does the mother go on trial, the doctor, both?

Why are you on the fence?  I don't follow.

 

A path to abortion should be available, and accessible, to anyone in need. 

 

Only when there is a pattern of misuse for the medical procedure should there be court intervention.

 

Let's take the cruelest/saddest situation of abortion that should be allowed, that I can think of:  Abortion due to an unstable economic situation;  no money to support a child.  Is it not inhumane to force a woman to cripple herself financially, as well as physically, because someone wants to play around definitions of what a life is?

 

I have the:  None of your flippin' business. attitude when it comes to a government trying to force people to to harm to themselves because they see a "moral" issue as holding a higher value than the actual life and livelihood of the mother.  It is the mother's body and ultimately she should have all say of what goes on inside it, where there can be say.

 

How is this in issue in today's world?  Ridiculous.  Backward.  Utterly disgusting display of ignorance.  Not against you particularly Memories, in the general opposition. 

[Memories4K]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Why are you on the fence?  I don't follow.

 

A path to abortion should be available, and accessible, to anyone in need. 

 

Only when there is a pattern of misuse for the medical procedure should there be court intervention.

 

Let's take the cruelest/saddest situation of abortion that should be allowed, that I can think of:  Abortion due to an unstable economic situation;  no money to support a child.  Is it not inhumane to force a woman to cripple herself financially, as well as physically, because someone wants to play around definitions of what a life is?

 

I have the:  None of your flippin' business. attitude when it comes to a government trying to force people to to harm to themselves because they see a "moral" issue as holding a higher value than the actual life and livelihood of the mother.  It is the mother's body and ultimately she should have all say of what goes on inside it, where there can be say.

 

How is this in issue in today's world?  Ridiculous.  Backward.  Utterly disgusting display of ignorance.

I'm on the fence because i don't know when life starts, i don't know what is the right thing here, it's not some clear-and-dry issue for me, i do have my own moral complications with it; is it ok to have an abortion? ok when? for how long is it ok to wait? for what reasons? What restrictions? what freedoms?

Let me try to explain my position before reading the rest of your response to get some baseline for what i ask myself and why i'm on the fence. I don't know when life starts and i don't believe that the majority of people who identify under #ProLife are bad people with malicious intentions (but ironically, a portion in that majority, support the death penalty), i believe that like me they value life and don't want to commit murder or kill people. It's confusing to many people, exactly when does life start? What are you responsible for? Is a fetus a human? a parasite? a possession(property)? If i slam a door on a woman's stomach, who's 8-months pregnant, and kill what's inside her then am i a murderer? Did i simply damage someone's possession, their science project in their womb? Or are there no repercussions because it's "only a clump of cells/parasite"? Well if it is murder, if i do get punished legally for doing so, when is the cut-off date? When does a clump of cells turn into a human being? Can i do it @ 4 months and get away with it? Can i do it @ 4 weeks and get away with it? Can i do it the same day as she's in the hospital about to give birth but the baby has yet to be born and get away with it? What would you actually do if you're #ProChoice? (Note: All these scenarios exclude assault charges, obvious, i'm saying would murder be brought into those charges against me; in other words, focusing on the subject at hand)
I think these are all good questions, i think it's very dangerous to pass legislation on something subjective, i think it's intellectually-irresponsible to not set some kind of legal limit based on scientific and medical evidence to support that.
Now let me go a little more left here where my views lie, if a woman wants to get an abortion bad enough...what's to stop her? If she does not have access to a quality medical facility with trained and qualified individuals, she will get an abortion, one way or the other...The question then becomes, do we want women who get abortions to get safe abortions or abortions that could do terrible damage to their bodies out of their own desperation? Do we incite fear? Do we threaten to throw women who get alleyway abortions into prison for murder? Do we try to prevent abortions by inciting fear by giving a worse alternative than going through the arduous process of pregnancy and giving birth to a child? Would legal action only be taken on the doctor, sparing the woman but condemning the person helping that woman? What would you actually do if your position were anti-abortion?

So that's why i'm on the fence, i'm listening to every side and i see value in what people are saying. I'll go back to reading what you're posting.

Economic instability, there's the option of adoption. Although, i'd like to say and point out that the system of adoptions and orphanages is fucked. It's not a good environment and i see a lot of ProLifers simply brush it off; they're not as enthusiastic to help orphans and those in need of good homes as they are making sure that there are more orphans coming into this world. (Not talking all ProLifers, but it's hard to call yourself "ProLife" when you're not that "ProLife" if you catch my drift) So, there is a solution to your problem but not one i like. Another thing is if this sympathy towards those not ready to be parents will be a courtesy extended to men, meaning either reproduction rights for men in the course of requesting their genetic material not turn into a child or financially/legally where they bear no responsibility whatsoever because they're simply "not ready to be a parent yet". It's interesting this controversy on abortion and how arguments made affect other issues.


I have the same attitude but i care about other people as well and not just my own freedoms. I don't mean that in a virtue-signaling kind of way but to show a difference here between my line of thinking and yours, where we are looking at what's inside the womb in different ways, and the craziest part of it all is that i'm not even against you because i also see value i what you're saying and i do believe your concerns are also legitimate...but that last line is funny "

 

33 minutes ago, stconquest said:

It is the mother's body and ultimately she should have all say of what goes on inside it, where there can be say.

Besides abortion, what can't i do to my own body? It's illegal for others to kill you, not illegal for you to kill yourself (except for like 1 state, i believe, which is hilarious given the implications).
What if abortion were the same? Illegal for others to perform an abortion, not illegal to have an abortion.
Then that's still troubling and possibly the worst solution.
You have women damaging themselves because they're desperate, women raise children they don't want because they're not desperate enough, and abortions still happening. Nobody wins. So i don't think very much compromise can be made here, i think whatever the right decision will be will lean on either side.

But that's what i have to say to why i am on the fence, please feel free to respond to what i've said; whether you find me to be totally ridiculous, maybe even understand where i'm coming from, or might have similar thoughts as i have that you, yourself, might struggle to completely answer with full confidence.

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

I'm on the fence because i don't know when life starts, i don't know what is the right thing here, it's not some clear-and-dry issue for me, i do have my own moral complications with it; is it ok to have an abortion? ok when? for how long is it ok to wait? for what reasons? What restrictions? what freedoms?

Let me start off by saying I was not directing my last line to you.  I added that in a few minutes later.  I guess you started typing away before I could add it. =)
 

I don't believe the question of when life starts is the issue, it is more the distraction from the basic reality.  The question should be who's rights are to be protected:  Mother, or unborn child.  You can't have both when the mother carrying the child values her own more.  You would have the government stepping in and effectively saying:  You don't matter, the unborn child is of more value.

Quote

Let me try to explain my position before reading the rest of your response to get some baseline for what i ask myself and why i'm on the fence. I don't know when life starts and i don't believe that the majority of people who identify under #ProLife are bad people with malicious intentions (but ironically, a portion in that majority, support the death penalty), i believe that like me they value life and don't want to commit murder or kill people. It's confusing to many people, exactly when does life start? What are you responsible for? Is a fetus a human? a parasite? a possession(property)? If i slam a door on a woman's stomach, who's 8-months pregnant, and kill what's inside her then am i a murderer? Did i simply damage someone's possession, their science project in their womb? Or are there no repercussions because it's "only a clump of cells/parasite"? Well if it is murder, if i do get punished legally for doing so, when is the cut-off date? When does a clump of cells turn into a human being? Can i do it @ 4 months and get away with it? Can i do it @ 4 weeks and get away with it? Can i do it the same day as she's in the hospital about to give birth but the baby has yet to be born and get away with it? What would you actually do if you're #ProChoice? (Note: All these scenarios exclude assault charges, obvious, i'm saying would murder be brought into those charges against me; in other words, focusing on the subject at hand)
I think these are all good questions, i think it's very dangerous to pass legislation on something subjective, i think it's intellectually-irresponsible to not set some kind of legal limit based on scientific and medical evidence to support that.
Now let me go a little more left here where my views lie, if a woman wants to get an abortion bad enough...what's to stop her? If she does not have access to a quality medical facility with trained and qualified individuals, she will get an abortion, one way or the other...The question then becomes, do we want women who get abortions to get safe abortions or abortions that could do terrible damage to their bodies out of their own desperation? Do we incite fear? Do we threaten to throw women who get alleyway abortions into prison for murder? Do we try to prevent abortions by inciting fear by giving a worse alternative than going through the arduous process of pregnancy and giving birth to a child? Would legal action only be taken on the doctor, sparing the woman but condemning the person helping that woman? What would you actually do if your position were anti-abortion?

I personally would classify when life begins at the point when the baby can live outside the womb without anyone else's aid.  That would be a rough point but as I said above, I don't think that is the real question.  When the child can support itself is when the laws to protect an individual would envelope him/her.  The question of when life begins is used to make valid the idea that abortion is always wrong, a way to cast doubt on what should be an established standard.  Even if the child is capable of living outside the womb at let's say 5-6 months, there would always be special cases that require the life to be aborted.

 

Quote

So that's why i'm on the fence, i'm listening to every side and i see value in what people are saying. I'll go back to reading what you're posting.

Economic instability, there's the option of adoption. Although, i'd like to say and point out that the system of adoptions and orphanages is fucked. It's not a good environment and i see a lot of ProLifers simply brush it off; they're not as enthusiastic to help orphans and those in need of good homes as they are making sure that there are more orphans coming into this world. (Not talking all ProLifers, but it's hard to call yourself "ProLife" when you're not that "ProLife" if you catch my drift) So, there is a solution to your problem but not one i like. Another thing is if this sympathy towards those not ready to be parents will be a courtesy extended to men, meaning either reproduction rights for men in the course of requesting their genetic material not turn into a child or financially/legally where they bear no responsibility whatsoever because they're simply "not ready to be a parent yet". It's interesting this controversy on abortion and how arguments made affect other issues.

Adoption is a fair point.  You must add in the time it takes for the baby to become a baby.  The mother has to bear that burden, not the state. 

 

Woman's body.  The woman gets final say over the father.  It may suck for the father, but he is not risking his health.  If we get to the point that we can safely transplant the womb and integrate it into a male physiology, that may be an option provided it is relatively safe for both parties.

 

Quote

I have the same attitude but i care about other people as well and not just my own freedoms. I don't mean that in a virtue-signaling kind of way but to show a difference here between my line of thinking and yours, where we are looking at what's inside the womb in different ways, and the craziest part of it all is that i'm not even against you because i also see value i what you're saying and i do believe your concerns are also legitimate...but that last line is funny "

 

Besides abortion, what can't i do to my own body? It's illegal for others to kill you, not illegal for you to kill yourself (except for like 1 state, i believe, which is hilarious given the implications).
What if abortion were the same? Illegal for others to perform an abortion, not illegal to have an abortion.
Then that's still troubling and possibly the worst solution.
You have women damaging themselves because they're desperate, women raise children they don't want because they're not desperate enough, and abortions still happening. Nobody wins. So i don't think very much compromise can be made here, i think whatever the right decision will be will lean on either side.

But that's what i have to say to why i am on the fence, please feel free to respond to what i've said; whether you find me to be totally ridiculous, maybe even understand where i'm coming from, or might have similar thoughts as i have that you, yourself, might struggle to completely answer with full confidence.

The last line was my anger coming out, not towards you.  I have gathered anger towards people that want to ban abortion when they don't have any real concern for anything else in the equation.

 

Suicide illegal... just wow.  =D  That can't still be on the books.  That kind of crazy should be done with by now.

 

Your argument that women will always find a way to discard an undesired life if they are desperate enough is a relevant one.  I don't even need to get to that to make a decision though.  I am already satisfied with my outlook before any such occasion should arise.

 

I appreciate the time you took to express your point of view.  I am better for it.  Your arguments are not ridiculous.

[Memories4K]

38 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Let me start off by saying I was not directing my last line to you.  I added that in a few minutes later.  I guess you started typing away before I could add it. =)
 

I don't believe the question of when life starts is the issue, it is more the distraction from the basic reality.  The question should be who's rights are to be protected:  Mother, or unborn child.  You can't have both when the mother carrying the child values her own more.  You would have the government stepping in and effectively saying:  You don't matter, the unborn child is of more value.

I personally would classify when life begins at the point when the baby can live outside the womb without anyone else's aid.  That would be a rough point but as I said above, I don't think that is the real question.  When the child can support itself is when the laws to protect an individual would envelope him/her.  The question of when life begins is used to make valid the idea that abortion is always wrong, a way to cast doubt on what should be an established standard.  Even if the child is capable of living outside the womb at let's say 5-6 months, there would always be special cases that require the life to be aborted.

 

Adoption is a fair point.  You must add in the time it takes for the baby to become a baby.  The mother has to bear that burden, not the state. 

 

Woman's body.  The woman gets final say over the father.  It may suck for the father, but he is not risking his health.  If we get to the point that we can safely transplant the womb and integrate it into a male physiology, that may be an option provided it is relatively safe for both parties.

 

The last line was my anger coming out, not towards you.  I have gathered anger towards people that want to ban abortion when they don't have any real concern for anything else in the equation.

 

Suicide illegal... just wow.  =D  That can't still be on the books.  That kind of crazy should be done with by now.

 

Your argument that women will always find a way to discard an undesired life if they are desperate enough is a relevant one.  I don't even need to get to that to make a decision though.  I am already satisfied with my outlook before any such occasion should arise.

 

I appreciate the time you took to express your point of view.  I am better for it.  Your arguments are not ridiculous.

No, yeah, i didn't even take it personally hahaha yeah i saw after i posted that you edited it to show that 

So for you it's not even an issue of life. Medical researchers could come out tomorrow with 7 journals spanning over a large period of time, gold-standard theory, marking down with immense support that life for humans begins around 7 weeks after conception and you'd still support abortion even after 7 weeks up until the day before birth because ultimately the woman's rights trump that of the child growing inside her body, do i have that correct?
It's an interesting approach because in your eyes, yes, whether something is alive or not is not even relevant but who actually has rights, or should have rights.

That's the thing though is that you personally see that as the point in which a human is alive, but i can't have that, i can't roll with that. I need real evidence that is when life begins for humans. That's why i said that it's dangerous to pass legislation on things that are that subjective. Why should abortion be an established standard? What's wrong about condemning wrongful practices? I need more evidence, otherwise what you personally believe is absolutely in no better position than people who believe life begins at conception or even before conception (life beginning in someone's nutsack) it's all just personal moral bullshit at that point where nobody is the better but i understand your position makes whether the child is alive or not irrelevant so ok, i'm following along.

No yeah, i made that point; how if abortion were outlawed adoption is still an option but you as a pregnant woman still go through with the whole 9 months of pregnancy before even being able to put a baby for adoption.

Now this is very interesting. Woman's body. I bring that particular genetic reproductive rights issue up because i hear that sometimes, while it sounds crazy to me i also understand both the frustration coming from people who talk about it and the reason it is what it is(mother nature/woman's own anatomy dictates what she does with it).
Again though, this impacts social issues, should men be responsible in any way of bringing a child up if they don't want to?
No child support, no required time spent, nothing required to contribute.
It's interesting because after all it's for no different a reason than a woman's choice and many women who become mothers can do fine without any contribution, successful enough in their own right to provide for their own families.
It's interesting, what people are in favor for and why they are in favor of it.

But yeah, no it's cool, i understand hahaha
But like i said.
I'm on the fence, this isn't so simple for me.
I don't view either side as evil or malicious but i don't see anything that would have me actually support either side.

[bossman1]

Its freedom of speach and are they getting rid of sattire?

[stconquest]

59 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

No, yeah, i didn't even take it personally hahaha yeah i saw after i posted that you edited it to show that 

So for you it's not even an issue of life. Medical researchers could come out tomorrow with 7 journals spanning over a large period of time, gold-standard theory, marking down with immense support that life for humans begins around 7 weeks after conception and you'd still support abortion even after 7 weeks up until the day before birth because ultimately the woman's rights trump that of the child growing inside her body, do i have that correct?
It's an interesting approach because in your eyes, yes, whether something is alive or not is not even relevant but who actually has rights, or should have rights.

That's the thing though is that you personally see that as the point in which a human is alive, but i can't have that, i can't roll with that. I need real evidence that is when life begins for humans. That's why i said that it's dangerous to pass legislation on things that are that subjective. Why should abortion be an established standard? What's wrong about condemning wrongful practices? I need more evidence, otherwise what you personally believe is absolutely in no better position than people who believe life begins at conception or even before conception (life beginning in someone's nutsack) it's all just personal moral bullshit at that point where nobody is the better but i understand your position makes whether the child is alive or not irrelevant so ok, i'm following along.

No yeah, i made that point; how if abortion were outlawed adoption is still an option but you as a pregnant woman still go through with the whole 9 months of pregnancy before even being able to put a baby for adoption.

Now this is very interesting. Woman's body. I bring that particular genetic reproductive rights issue up because i hear that sometimes, while it sounds crazy to me i also understand both the frustration coming from people who talk about it and the reason it is what it is(mother nature/woman's own anatomy dictates what she does with it).
Again though, this impacts social issues, should men be responsible in any way of bringing a child up if they don't want to?
No child support, no required time spent, nothing required to contribute.
It's interesting because after all it's for no different a reason than a woman's choice and many women who become mothers can do fine without any contribution, successful enough in their own right to provide for their own families.
It's interesting, what people are in favor for and why they are in favor of it.

But yeah, no it's cool, i understand hahaha
But like i said.
I'm on the fence, this isn't so simple for me.
I don't view either side as evil or malicious but i don't see anything that would have me actually support either side.

How would you prove that an organism that mortally depends on a host's physiology for every single basic need (breathing, eating, etc..) is an individual?

 

It does not matter what medical researchers decide is considered a life when it is arbitrary, as I can argue that a dependency on a host (the mother) in order to breathe, eat, and everything else, could effectively classify that organism as a parasite.  The law to protect an individual's rights should be just that.  An organism that cannot sustain itself in this environment is not (yet) an individual.

 

In order to give rights to that organism, the state must take rights away from the mother.  There is no way to do that properly, and for good reason.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 1/14/2017 at 6:52 PM, Wolther said:

Read this not gonna have a discussion about it here, but if you don't believe there is a pay gap then.. yeah 

 

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

9 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

 

The paygap is a myth and anyone or anything that uses the term women of color can fuck off back to tumblr. I also love how how they include Asian women even though they earn more than white women destroying their narrative of muh white colonialism.

[MrDynamicMan]

11 hours ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

The paygap is a myth and anyone or anything that uses the term women of color can fuck off back to tumblr. I also love how how they include Asian women even though they earn more than white women destroying their narrative of muh white colonialism.

I know its bullshit. I accidently posted that, couldnt edit, and forgot about it.technically speaking the income gap is 'real' but the assumptions made off of it are falsehoods.

 

On 1/17/2017 at 6:34 AM, Kumaresh said:

Nobody has a clearcut definition for when a life is created I would personally think that happens when a heart beat starts and there are some brain waves, however I have no evidence of the same. We can define when death occurs clearly, but is life simply the opposite state ? What if the foetus is incapable of supporting itself and is present in the mother's body ? If a person has conciousness or even shows vital signs, we consider them to be alive even if they can't live without life support. Is artificial life support that much different from life support provided by the mother ? Is it simply a convenience factor ? After reading this page, I'm kinda confused now.......

I have also seen some rightwing christian nuts who are against any form of contraception That made me consider being pro choice first, but I changed my mind after looking into the issue a bit longer. It might sound pretty clichéd, but one of the factors was seeing an actual abortion video Ben Shapiro also made some pertinent points about it. If the mother is clearly aware that a pregnancy is unwanted, some forms of modern day contraception are almost 100% effective and even the morning after pill is upto 95% effective within 24 hours ( as per planned parenthood ). If all the above fails, just get an early term abortion. A few blastoma cells dividing doesn't seem like a life, so sucking them out is pretty reasonable. What are the reasonable scenarios where the mother suddenly decides mid term to abort the pregnancy ? If there is some issue like not being ready or financial instability, the above methods I suggested seem much better than waiting for a few months and inconveniencing themselves in the process.

IMO life is the point of cognition. Not genetic conception. 

 

Also, its pften possible that mithers dont realise their prganancy until later. I agree with you though all precautions should always be taken, and late term abortion is sketchy at best, bu sometimes necessary. Getting enough funds to actually pay for an abortion is also another factor.

 

edit: jesus christ sorry for my spelling.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 1/17/2017 at 2:53 AM, stconquest said:

How would you prove that an organism that mortally depends on a host's physiology for every single basic need (breathing, eating, etc..) is an individual?

 

It does not matter what medical researchers decide is considered a life when it is arbitrary, as I can argue that a dependency on a host (the mother) in order to breathe, eat, and everything else, could effectively classify that organism as a parasite.  The law to protect an individual's rights should be just that.  An organism that cannot sustain itself in this environment is not (yet) an individual.

 

In order to give rights to that organism, the state must take rights away from the mother.  There is no way to do that properly, and for good reason.

Id argue that cognitin is the cutoff point, but thats hard to gage on a baby.

[MrDynamicMan]

58 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

@MrDynamicMan I'm quite hesitant to link life with cognition, considering how hard it is to prove cognition and the fact that plants and animals are considered to be alive as well. The actions of many lower level animals and all plants suggest no cognition in my opinion. More importantly, just because we can't prove cognition in babies doesn't mean it can't exist. But I don't think it matters to many people, who are desensitised to killing anything with cognition for the sale of food. It's always been a surprise to me that we treat killing humans and animals differently ( considering higher level animals most definitely have cognition ) and that we care so much about preventing "animal cruelty", but we don't mind slaughtering them by the millions.

My mistake. The cutoff for new individual life should be new genetic material, the cutoff for human life (and all its accompanying rights) should be first cognition.

[RocketFarmer]

Ancient Romans, from which many of our western laws are derived, allowed an infant up to ten days old to be killed.  The intent of this was to take care of those born with serious health problems or defects.  So to them, life started 10 days after birth.  One common method of offing these infants was exposure (i.e., leaving them in the wild for wolves and other animals to kill).  Many mythological heros were exposed as children and survived, which is kind of ironic for that particular civilization.  If heroes can come from these castoffs, then why carelessly get rid of them?

[stconquest]

8 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Id argue that cognitin is the cutoff point, but thats hard to gage on a baby.

Tell that to the cows we slaughter for burgers...   mmmm.

 

Still, having to strip an individual's rights away in order to give similar rights to another individual seems difficult to justify.  The idea is to have access to the procedure and deal with outlying issues as they arise.  Anything less is authoritarian in nature, a lack of individual freedom.

 

I believe a certain politician recently said a woman seeking an abortion should be punished... oh that is a terrible thing.  It is a relatively brainwashed population to believe a statement like that should be accepted as a valid outlook.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

That was a pretty stupid statement And it ended up being retracted later Banning abortions and punishing those who avail of it is only gonna drive people to quacks or underground doctors and make it more dangerous.....

Well, now that we're on this topic, I wanted to ask you what you think is a plausible scenario for a mother not wanting to terminate the pregnancy in the earlier stages ( within 1 month ) but suddenly deciding to do so at a much later stage..... And now that all the major legislative bodies in the US are under republican control, will they pass some kind of pro-life law ? 

From religion to abortion, I am afraid I have gone way off topic so I will try to close here before the mods decide to close the thread.

 

1.  Economical:  Although the mother at one point desired to have the child but as time went on she discovered it is not yet time for her to be a mother due to finances.  Yes it is cold, but realistic.  Life has many hard choices, this would be one of them.  Infringing on her rights to live (the health complications and massive strain on the body), or the right to make the personal decision to secure her financial situation is pretty cruel in itself.

 

2.  Health of the mother.  There are often complications with carrying a child and if the mother's life is in danger, the child should be discarded.

 

3.  Health of the unborn.  A deformity perhaps, or life threatening condition the unborn child is afflicted with.

 

Each case is somewhat different and can be dealt with as it arises.  This is how abortion legislation should be developed.  Case by case, the laws would be adapted to the precedence set by previous cases.  It is the access to a necessary procedure that must exist, where it can exist... or risk forcing woman to back alleys and then trying to jail them for it. 

 

For most sound minded women, abortion is traumatic.  Physically and mentally it is a overall bad experience. 

 

Oh, oh, next can we talk about the war on drugs?  <<JK, don't you dare.

[MrDynamicMan]

6 hours ago, RocketFarmer said:

Ancient Romans, from which many of our western laws are derived, allowed an infant up to ten days old to be killed.  The intent of this was to take care of those born with serious health problems or defects.  So to them, life started 10 days after birth.  One common method of offing these infants was exposure (i.e., leaving them in the wild for wolves and other animals to kill).  Many mythological heros were exposed as children and survived, which is kind of ironic for that particular civilization.  If heroes can come from these castoffs, then why carelessly get rid of them?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[MrDynamicMan]

30 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Some Vox authors are upset that Trump thinks many polls are rigged. I'm surprised that they haven't reported on the wikileaks emails suggesting that many previous popularity polls had been rigged by mainstream news sites due to Hillary and even quote modification was allowed by some journalists. If people see such serious breaches in journalistic integrity, they will never trust the media even if they report accurate information afterwards. Living in an echo chamber and reinforcing it with lies will alienate the media from the common people, as it already has to a great extent.

Im finding myself agreeing with your more and more on issues of MSM and public falsehoods and perceptions.

[MrDynamicMan]

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

Tell that to the cows we slaughter for burgers...   mmmm.

Touché. Sometimes pragmatism overwhelms ideals.

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

Still, having to strip an individual's rights away in order to give similar rights to another individual seems difficult to justify.  The idea is to have access to the procedure and deal with outlying issues as they arise.  Anything less is authoritarian in nature, a lack of individual freedom.

The thing is, that their not on equal footing. A featus is less human than its mother. Of course, that can mean a lot of things and set very dangerous precedent. I find it difficult to explain I feel the... presumptious camcellation of the babies life in order to not ruin the mothers worthy, given how undeveloped that featus is. Its not that the mother inherently has priority but rather the baby inherently does not.

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

I believe a certain politician recently said a woman seeking an abortion should be punished... oh that is a terrible thing.  It is a relatively brainwashed population to believe a statement like that should be accepted as a valid outlook.

Agreed.

[stconquest]

13 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Touché. Sometimes pragmatism overwhelms ideals.

The thing is, that their not on equal footing. A featus is less human than its mother. Of course, that can mean a lot of things and set very dangerous precedent. I find it difficult to explain I feel the... presumptious camcellation of the babies life in order to not ruin the mothers worthy, given how undeveloped that featus is. Its not that the mother inherently has priority but rather the baby inherently does not.

Agreed.

Be careful with that one (argument).  It can easily be flipped using things like defense of the defenseless arguments to sway sentiment.

 

No, objectively an unborn child and the mother are not on equal footing.  This is not an issue, or should not be one.  Yes this is ice cold.

 

To grant the unborn child individual rights, the state MUST relinquish those same rights from the mother.  Regardless of what life has more "value", a court should not be able to arbitrarily decide to commit the mother to servitude.  The decision must be deferred to the mother as a general rule.

 

Note:  Progression of discovery and development allows us for greater options, not fewer.  Anti abortion arguments should have the tag "regressive" next to them.  Abortion procedures are pretty darn safe for the mother now.  This is probably one of the reasons for the fear some have of the procedure being available.

 

Anyways, to stop myself from talking out my butt any longer I will not comment on this particular topic here unless I actually look up cases (Roe vs Wade and such). 

[stconquest]

11 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

@stconquest @MrDynamicMan One of the arguments I have seen about abortion is that the foetus is simply an underdeveloped human, and the rights of the mother ( most probably a productive working member of society ) should take precedence over it in case both their lives are threatened. But many mothers feel extremely protective of their babies, and wouldn't even dream of abortiong their babies, forming an extremely deep emotional bond starting from conception. And while abortion procedures are quite safe for the mother nowadays, many ( including myself ) feel that they are quite inhumane. Let me give some examples.

1. Cutting to pieces
2. Scraping out of the womb
3. Excision to the back of the skull and vacuuming the brain out
4. Drugging to death

And I see no mention of any form of anaesthetic to the foetus. Assuming the foetus has some level of feeling ( the nervous system will develop after a few weeks ), those methods sound excruciatingly painful to subject anything with a heartbeat and a sense of pain to.

Death is ugly. 

[2FA]

9 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

I wouldn't necessarily call that a strawman since it does pertain to the subject and highlights an extreme view of the topic that was prevalent at one point in history. Yes it doesn't apply now but it's interesting nonetheless.

[MrDynamicMan]

37 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

@stconquest @MrDynamicMan One of the arguments I have seen about abortion is that the foetus is simply an underdeveloped human, and the rights of the mother ( most probably a productive working member of society ) should take precedence over it in case both their lives are threatened. But many mothers feel extremely protective of their babies, and wouldn't even dream of abortiong their babies, forming an extremely deep emotional bond starting from conception.

Exactly. Thats why we advocate for the right for them to choose. many mothers  who advocate for abortion rights wouldnt get abortions themselves, its so that women in very pressing conditions ( extreme proverty, teenage pregnancy, etc) where having a baby would ruin their lives.

 

37 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

 

And while abortion procedures are quite safe for the mother nowadays, many ( including myself ) feel that they are quite inhumane. Let me give some examples.

1. Cutting to pieces
2. Scraping out of the womb
3. Excision to the back of the skull and vacuuming the brain out
4. Drugging to death

And I see no mention of any form of anaesthetic to the foetus. Assuming the foetus has some level of feeling ( the nervous system will develop after a few weeks ), those methods sound excruciatingly painful to subject anything with a heartbeat and a sense of pain to.

I agree. The foetus should be anaesthetized.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

Fetuses are textbook parasites and will ruin a woman's body and might even kill them during child birth.

do other ''people'' have such rights? can i cling unto somebody like a parasite as well?

another thing even if they can be considered sentient thinking persons then theyre squatters. i hate squatters, damn scum sucking filth parasites that take over other peoples property, should have the right to shoot them.

another thing abortion is necessary to stop the propagation of defective genetic lines and bad parents. abortions should be mandatory for those that cant afford kids, are sociopaths, are addicts, are narcissists and have bad genetics.

as a matter of fact id institute a child license policy.

no more welfare for worthless parasites that have 14 kids and then say how others need to pay for their children.

[jaggysnake57]

 

On 16/01/2017 at 7:23 PM, Kumaresh said:

I think the ideal solution would be to allow early abortion ( maybe up to 4 weeks or something ), or if everybody is willing, just complete the pregnancy and give away the baby for adoption.

EDIT: Maybe allow an abortion if there are abnormalities with the pregnancy or there is serious risk to the life of the mother in case the pregnancy is continued.

 

@Memories4K Modern morning after pills are 89% effective up to 72 hours after intercourse. That covers most cases. Up to 95% effective within 24 hours. Got this data from planned parenthood

 

3 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

@stconquest @MrDynamicMan One of the arguments I have seen about abortion is that the foetus is simply an underdeveloped human, and the rights of the mother ( most probably a productive working member of society ) should take precedence over it in case both their lives are threatened. But many mothers feel extremely protective of their babies, and wouldn't even dream of abortiong their babies, forming an extremely deep emotional bond starting from conception. And while abortion procedures are quite safe for the mother nowadays, many ( including myself ) feel that they are quite inhumane. Let me give some examples.

1. Cutting to pieces
2. Scraping out of the womb
3. Excision to the back of the skull and vacuuming the brain out
4. Drugging to death

And I see no mention of any form of anaesthetic to the foetus. Assuming the foetus has some level of feeling ( the nervous system will develop after a few weeks ), those methods sound excruciatingly painful to subject anything with a heartbeat and a sense of pain to.

your lack of understanding of basic human anatomy is hilarious.

1 most people dont find out there pregnant till 4-6 weeks. after your cut off. some go longer.....much longer.

2 its agreed that a fetus does NOT feel paint till the 3rd trimester @ 27 weeks http://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

 

 

2 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

I agree. The foetus should be anaesthetized.

see above

1 hour ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

Fetuses are textbook parasites and will ruin a woman's body and might even kill them during child birth.

do other ''people'' have such rights? can i cling unto somebody like a parasite as well?

another thing even if they can be considered sentient thinking persons then theyre squatters. i hate squatters, damn scum sucking filth parasites that take over other peoples property, should have the right to shoot them.

another thing abortion is necessary to stop the propagation of defective genetic lines and bad parents. abortions should be mandatory for those that cant afford kids, are sociopaths, are addicts, are narcissists and have bad genetics.

as a matter of fact id institute a child license policy.

no more welfare for worthless parasites that have 14 kids and then say how others need to pay for their children.

you have to be a troll......or a hick.

 

 

this abortion debate is comical the fact is that up to 23 weeks any baby born has, at best, a 15% chance of suvival @ 24 weeks that jumps to a staggering 55% and, at least in the uk, thats the cut off.  untill then its not a life, nor has it been a life. many people harp on about how you got pregnant its your responability to look after the child blah blah and essentially turn the child into a punishment for not being more careful. this is far worse than abortion, as this leads to negleated children and more children in the system. 

 

children are not a punishment. if a couple want to abort they should have the choice. remember no contraception is 100%.