ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: In this scenario what would you do as a parent?
Get the abortion? 7 20.00%
Try to carry the baby to term? 21 60.00%
If yes on 1, Get it at week 12 before confirmation 4 11.43%
If yes on 1, Get it at week 16 amnio only confirmation 4 11.43%
If yes on 1, Get it week 17 to 22 with 100% confirmation 3 8.57%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll
Page 15 of 15
« First < 51112131415
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Real Talk: Abortion For or Against
Nirvana58 09:38 AM 07-08-2020
You just went to the doctor and found out you and your wife are 12 weeks along with a baby boy. However, they ran an NIPT blood test and say that you are 84% likely that the baby you are having has Edwards Syndrome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome

If you don't know what that is I linked the wiki page. Summary is this is basically the worst disease imaginable that I can think of. The average life span of children born with this is 3 to 14 days. Most babies are born still born if they even make it that far. It is even worst for male children who it seems to effect even more severely. Basically this is every parents worst nightmare.

The doctors can't 100% confirm until you receive an amnio and ultra sounds. This can be around 17 to 20 weeks along in your pregnancy. Even for a rush screening with amnio only you won't be able to get the results and make a decision on the abortion till 16 weeks if your lucky.

You can get a CVS earlier but doctors pretty much retired that for the NIPT test that you already received.

No matter your stance on abortion what do you do in this scenario? I am asking you to put yourself in the parents shoes and state your answer. This is not some hypothetical. People have to make this choice every year.

I have 2 questions for you. I will try to link the poll but never done one so we will see what happens.

Do you get an abortion or take it to delivery which most likely will be a still born or have an average life span of 3 to 14 days?

If you do decide to get an abortion when do you do it? The longer you wait the less humane it is but can you abort a child without 100% certainty it has this disease?

You can explain your reasoning or any questions in the replies.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 12:32 PM 09-15-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
With everything we know about genetic information and programming and the origin of life, it's disingenuous to say it's all about religion.

You either believe science or you don't. For all of the crowing the left does about "science" they only follow it when it's convenient.
We've certainly understood the life cycle of organisms like us for a long time now. The question of when a human being comes into existence is settled. The difficult question is when do human beings acquire moral protection and when do they lose it? Such a question isn't exclusive to science or religion. If it were a question for religion exclusively, then atheists would have no business contemplating it. Obviously atheists can contemplate such a question and use reason to formulate an answer to it. AOB has gone off his rails when he claims a pro-life position and religion are intertwined.
[Reply]
htismaqe 12:49 PM 09-15-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
We've certainly understood the life cycle of organisms like us for a long time now. The question of when a human being comes into existence is settled. The difficult question is when do human beings acquire moral protection and when do they lose it? Such a question isn't exclusive to science or religion. If it were a question for religion exclusively, then atheists would have no business contemplating it. Obviously atheists can contemplate such a question and use reason to formulate an answer to it. AOB has gone off his rails when he claims a pro-life position and religion are intertwined.
Does a computer program cease to be a computer program if it doesn't yet have a hardware platform to run on?

This is basic science. If all of the necessary information is present to create a human life, is it not a human life just because it doesn't yet have a fully-formed body?

I mean, are we going to follow science or not? Because when it comes to Climate Change and COVID, science is god. But when it comes to letting boys become girls or killing babies, screw science. It's a function of post-modern convenience.
[Reply]
htismaqe 12:50 PM 09-15-2020
And for the record, I don't support abolishing abortion through law. If people want to kill their kids, that's their business.

I just happen to believe that killing people, regardless of status, is wrong.
[Reply]
GloryDayz 01:21 PM 09-15-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And for the record, I don't support abolishing abortion through law. If people want to kill their kids, that's their business.

I just happen to believe that killing people, regardless of status, is wrong.
So, if "It Takes a Village", does that mean people in the village can kill the kids they're evidently tasked with raising?

:-)
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:03 PM 09-15-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
The question of when a human being comes into existence is settled.
It's settled if you think an egg becomes a full-fledged human the instant it's fertilized. Otherwise, it's not settled at all.

Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
The difficult question is when do human beings acquire moral protection and when do they lose it? Such a question isn't exclusive to science or religion.
Human beings acquire and/or lose moral protection when other human beings decide they will, if at all.

Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
If it were a question for religion exclusively, then atheists would have no business contemplating it. Obviously atheists can contemplate such a question and use reason to formulate an answer to it.
Can they? The only non-religious pro-life argument I've ever seen is "Killing people is wrong", which is barely an argument at all, considering the definition of "people" is still up in the air. Add in things like the death penalty and military offensives, and it seems like killing people is perfectly acceptable if a certain advantage is to be gained by killing them.

Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
AOB has gone off his rails when he claims a pro-life position and religion are intertwined.
Only pro-lifers hold a pro-life position, and the vast majority of pro-lifers are religious.
[Reply]
htismaqe 02:24 PM 09-15-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Can they? The only non-religious pro-life argument I've ever seen is "Killing people is wrong", which is barely an argument at all, considering the definition of "people" is still up in the air. Add in things like the death penalty and military offensives, and it seems like killing people is perfectly acceptable if a certain advantage is to be gained by killing them.
I'm choosing to quote only this part for two reasons:

1. "X is wrong and Y is right" is an inherently moral statement. If the basis is not religion, what is it? Societal norms? Don't those change over time? The basis for "right and wrong" requires some kind of extra-human source and absent of religion, that source can only be the physical universe. The physical universe just "is". There's no "right" or "wrong" just "is" and "isn't".

2. All of that being said, you are 100% correct. The definition of "people" is arbitrary, the construct is rife with contradictions like abortion vs. the death penalty. The material world being the basis for morals is absent of an actual framework. The one law of the physical world is "survival of the fittest" or even kill or be killed". This type of construct not only allows the acceptance of killing for the purpose of "betterment", it ENCOURAGES it.
[Reply]
Frazod 03:23 PM 09-15-2020
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
It's my wife's call. I'd terminate after confirmation.
Terminate regardless. Thanks!
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 06:06 PM 09-15-2020
Originally Posted by stevieray:
We don't get to play God.
AMEN !!!!
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 12:32 AM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
It's settled if you think an egg becomes a full-fledged human the instant it's fertilized. Otherwise, it's not settled at all.
The notion, that some human beings are "full-fledged" and others are not, can only be described as hairbrained. Your position implies that an embryo, because it lacks certain abilities is not full fledged. Yet an impotent old man also lacks certain abilities and no one would consider an old man not be a "full-fledged" human being. If you can point to a being and say that because it lacks one or more abilities it isn't full-fledged then it is possible to point to any human being and find a reason to disqualify them from the set of human beings that are "full-fledged". "Full-Fledged" is a nebulous fuzzy concept that has no practical value in reasoning your way to a moral position.

The embryo is a human being at the initial stage of the life cycle of a human being, and the impotent old man is a human being at the terminal stage of the life cycle of a human being.

Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Human beings acquire and/or lose moral protection when other human beings decide they will, if at all.
Some human beings use logic and reason and others use feelings and emotions. Which one are you?

Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Can they? The only non-religious pro-life argument I've ever seen is "Killing people is wrong", which is barely an argument at all, considering the definition of "people" is still up in the air. Add in things like the death penalty and military offensives, and it seems like killing people is perfectly acceptable if a certain advantage is to be gained by killing them.
The argument is killing human beings without a just cause is wrong. What is and isn't a human is settled and has been settled for a long time now....shortly after microscopes were invented. The word "people" or "person" isn't needed reason your way to a pro-life position.
[Reply]
srvy 01:03 AM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
It's my wife's call. I'd terminate after confirmation.
Butt babies aren't a real thing ya flamer.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 11:01 AM 09-17-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
2. All of that being said, you are 100% correct. The definition of "people" is arbitrary, the construct is rife with contradictions like abortion vs. the death penalty. The material world being the basis for morals is absent of an actual framework. The one law of the physical world is "survival of the fittest" or even kill or be killed". This type of construct not only allows the acceptance of killing for the purpose of "betterment", it ENCOURAGES it.
Being a person is transitory. While you are under general anesthesia or in certain stages of sleep, there is no consciousness. There is no person. When we consider sleeping human beings and those under general anesthesia to be persons what we are doing is engaging in a useful fiction. Everyone pretends those human beings are persons while in those states because doing so produces more utility than the truth.

The pro-life position is logical and its premises are empirically true.
p1) It is wrong to kill another human being unless you have too.
p2) An embyo/fetus is a human being.
p3) Most abortions aren't necessary but done for convenience.
C) Therefore most abortions are wrong.

The pro-abortion rights movement depends on nebulous/transitory concepts like "persons" or as Adolf stated "fullfledged". Because of this its proponents have to employ useful fictions in situations other than abortion to avoid undesirable conclusions.
p1)Not all human beings deserve moral protection.
p2)Human beings which are non-persons do not deserve moral protection.
p3)An embryo and/or a fetus is not a person.
C) Therefore there is nothing wrong if a mother kills an embryo or fetus who is her offspring.

Now consider this:
p1)Not all human beings deserve moral protection.
p2)Human beings which are non-persons do not deserve moral protection.
p3)A human being under general anesthesia is not a person but we pretend it is.
C) Therefore it is wrong if a mother kills her teenage offspring even if the teenage is under general anesthesia.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 11:45 AM 09-17-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
The notion, that some human beings are "full-fledged" and others are not, can only be described as hairbrained. Your position implies that an embryo, because it lacks certain abilities is not full fledged. Yet an impotent old man also lacks certain abilities and no one would consider an old man not be a "full-fledged" human being. If you can point to a being and say that because it lacks one or more abilities it isn't full-fledged then it is possible to point to any human being and find a reason to disqualify them from the set of human beings that are "full-fledged". "Full-Fledged" is a nebulous fuzzy concept that has no practical value in reasoning your way to a moral position.

The embryo is a human being at the initial stage of the life cycle of a human being, and the impotent old man is a human being at the terminal stage of the life cycle of a human being.
Being a "full-fledged" human has nothing to do with abilities. If you feel that an egg fertilized 2 seconds ago is as much a human as a senior citizen, so be it.

Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Some human beings use logic and reason and others use feelings and emotions. Which one are you?
Logic and reason. On the topic of abortion, talk of "right" and "wrong" generally comes from a place of feelings and emotions.

Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
The argument is killing human beings without a just cause is wrong.
What constitutes a "just cause" could be a whole different debate, since it is purely subjective.

Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
What is and isn't a human is settled and has been settled for a long time now....shortly after microscopes were invented.
What is genetically human is settled. The point at which sentience begins is not. Before sentience, we are all emotionless, unfeeling vessels...despite pro-life propaganda showing fetuses "scream" or "cry". :-)

Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
The word "people" or "person" isn't needed reason your way to a pro-life position.
I don't think you can use 100% reason to reach a pro-life position. Some emotions and feelings have to be involved.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 12:13 PM 09-17-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Being a "full-fledged" human has nothing to do with abilities. If you feel that an egg fertilized 2 seconds ago is as much a human as a senior citizen, so be it.
"Full-fledged" can have any meaning AdolfOliverBush or Adolf Hitler want it to have...from the ability to think in words to having white skin. Its not a suitable component in building a moral framework.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 12:18 PM 09-17-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
"Full-fledged" can have any meaning AdolfOliverBush or Adolf Hitler want it to have...from the ability to think in words to having white skin. Its not a suitable component in building a moral framework.
I'm not interested in a moral framework, because "it's wrong" is not a legitimate argument against abortion.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 12:29 PM 09-17-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
I'm not interested in a moral framework, because "it's wrong" is not a legitimate argument against abortion.
Can you lay out your argument for abortion rights in premises and conclusions? I'm curious if you have any guiding principles at all or if you just muddle through driven solely by your wants
[Reply]
Page 15 of 15
« First < 51112131415
Up