Political Vibe: What is your view on abortion?

@decaf_wizard:

My take on the voting rights should be 1 vote per household and only the bread winner of said household. Also no one living off of government programs should vote. There just not smart enough.

?every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is good

every sperm is needed

In your neighbourhood ?

?every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is great

If a sperm is wasted

God gets quite irate ?

Where do you get the first 8 weeks from mate? My vague ballpark was around 10 to 11 weeks because that's where I heard brainwaves start.

@i_like_swords

The woman isn't "being forced" to do anything. She by her own actions made herself pregnant, and is then assuming the position of the aggressor by killing her unborn child. The unborn child did not conceive itself. You are removing agency from grown women by treating them like innocent victims when, in 99% of abortion cases, the woman just got herself pregnant stupidly and wanted an easy way out.

@decaf_wizard

My big issue with feminism other such groups that push these sorts of ideas (such as up to third term easy access abortion) want women treated like children who can't logically make their own decisions or be responsible for their actions so need to be given special treatment

I don't deny that in the majority of cases that an unwanted pregnancy occurs the woman (and the man for that matter) has behaved in an irresponsible manner, I just don't really see why making them go through a 9 month pregnancy to birth a child that they don't want is really a solution to the problem. Two people that have demonstrated irresponsibility looking after a child they don't want is hardly the perfect arrangement for the parents or the kid. One might say "it's better for the kid than to be dead" and this is probably true in a sense, but until the fetus has developed some kind of sentience, it doesn't have perspective worth considering in my opinion because it doesn't even have a perspective at all.

Women are obviously responsible for their actions and may have made a stupid mistake, but they've not committed a crime and I don't see why they should be made to endure the consequences of that mistake for the rest of their life. It's not about giving women special treatment either, it's an exclusively female issue. If men could get pregnant then I would be saying the same thing.

@jagernutt

My take on the voting rights should be 1 vote per household and only the bread winner of said household. Also no one living off of government programs should vote. There just not smart enough.

There are certainly many stupid people in the world and I can see an argument as to why one might want to restrict voting rights. However, your solution is inadequate:

• Why should it be up to the bread winner? Other people in the house may be making valuable contributions to the world (raising kids for example) and may be more politically inclined or educated than the bread winner.
• This is going to lead to men dominating the electorate. Why should we? Women are no less intelligent on average (and actually comprise fewer morons based on IQ) and I don't see why the mere fact that they are likely to be earning less money makes their political opinions any less relevant.
• There are plenty of intelligent people living off government benefits. Some morons too of course, but plenty of people with at least average intelligence.

Should be illegal unless the mothers life is at risk.

@purpleperson

Two people that have demonstrated irresponsibility looking after a child they don't want is hardly the perfect arrangement for the parents or the kid. One might say "it's better for the kid than to be dead" and this is probably true in a sense, but until the fetus has developed some kind of sentience, it doesn't have perspective worth considering in my opinion because it doesn't even have a perspective at all.

Are you saying the more sentient one becomes the more valuable their life is? How sentient do you need to be so that killing you is wrong? Sentience being defined as how well you are able to perceive and experience a subjective reality. I'm not asking as a trick question, just because I too think there is a point where "aborting" is fine, e.g emergency contraception right after sex as an obvious one, but there also has to be a time where we're killing a baby.

Women are obviously responsible for their actions and may have made a stupid mistake, but they've not committed a crime and I don't see why they should be made to endure the consequences of that mistake for the rest of their life. It's not about giving women special treatment either, it's an exclusively female issue. If men could get pregnant then I would be saying the same thing.

It really depends. In the UK you can get an abortion before the 24 week mark, so a 5 month developing baby. Women haven't committed a crime by making the poor decision to have a baby, but does that mean it shouldn't be a crime to kill that baby?

Just looking at this chart, I'm not even comfortable killing anything 6 weeks and beyond. I would welcome anyone to challenge me on why killing that distinct human being at 6 weeks is okay and have their argument undergo some stress tests. A woman has technically not "committed a crime" by killing a second trimester baby, but wow, they have just killed something that looks a lot like the way a baby looks 4 months later, just smaller.

I think women should be allowed to choose, even if I don't think it's the most morally correct thing in the world to kill the baby.

@i_like_swords:

Are you saying the more sentient one becomes the more valuable their life is? How sentient do you need to be so that killing you is wrong? Sentience being defined as how well you are able to perceive and experience a subjective reality. I'm not asking as a trick question, just because I too think there is a point where "aborting" is fine, e.g emergency contraception right after sex as an obvious one, but there also has to be a time where we're killing a baby.

Kind of. If a being doesn't have consciousness and has no perception of anything then I struggle to view the destruction of that being as murder. After about 12 or 14 weeks some kind of consciousness is thought to develop and this is roughly where I would draw the line.

Just looking at this chart, I'm not even comfortable killing anything 6 weeks and beyond. I would welcome anyone to challenge me on why killing that distinct human being at 6 weeks is okay and have their argument undergo some stress tests. A woman has technically not "committed a crime" by killing a second trimester baby, but wow, they have just killed something that looks a lot like the way a baby looks 4 months later, just smaller.

As far as I understand it, the fetus hasn't yet developed any brain cells by the 6 week mark. If something doesn't have a brain then I can't see it as something as valuable as a developed human being. I don't mean that to sound harsh, it's just my point of view.

@purpleperson:

Kind of. If a being doesn't have consciousness and has no perception of anything then I struggle to view the destruction of that being as murder. After about 12 or 14 weeks some kind of consciousness is thought to develop and this is roughly where I would draw the line.

Understood, for the sake of clarity we'll use this benchmark.

As far as I understand it, the fetus hasn't yet developed any brain cells by the 6 week mark. If something doesn't have a brain then I can't see it as something as valuable as a developed human being. I don't mean that to sound harsh, it's just my point of view.

Alright so, you would consider something "dead" or "not alive", or to put it another way, not worthy of moral consideration if it has no brain activity, like a plant. That's why we only take people in a coma off life support if we know they are never "waking up." Their heart is still beating, they're "alive", but with zero brain activity, so if we know they can't ever wake up, we let them go, if we think their brain might "wake up" we keep them alive.

So I have to ask, if this baby has been developing for say 11 weeks, and is about to have brain activity, are you not killing them in the same way you are killing someone who is in a coma but in the future will wake up and regain brain activity?

@i_like_swords: I think the fact that the coma patient had a life and is a fully developed person makes some kind of difference. At week 11 there is probably some rudimentary consciousness akin to that of an insect, but the comatose person was a fully formed individual. He is still is that individual, he is just suffering a temporary blip, the fetus is not an individual yet.

@purpleperson: So the reasons you gave for why there is an important difference are:

• Patient had a life
• Is fully developed
• Is an individual

So let's do a stress test on each. A newborn baby has not had a life yet. They can't even think coherently and have no memories. Is it okay to kill them, and if not, why not?

Not fully developed, again, the same can be applied to a newborn baby and also the baby through all 9 months of development. Can we kill them for this reason?

Is an individual: well, I would say once a fertilised egg has grown the beginnings of a head, arms and legs, has it's own unique DNA, and will continue to grow as a unique being like in the chart above, that it is an individual. It's just an individual in early development. Why would you say it's okay to kill them?

@i_like_swords:

OK, newborn baby hasn’t had much of a life and isn’t fully developed. They are however far more developed than an early stage fetus.

You have your interpretation of what constitutes an individual but that’s not quite what I’m talking about. I don’t really see why a human-like physical appearance is relevant to being an individual. Being an individual in the sense that I’m talking about relies on having some kind of thought or feeling. Newborns have this and comatose people had it, but a 6 week old fetus does not.

I am against abortion in pretty much all cases. The only case where it should happen is if the baby will die after being born, if it has some disability that makes it impossible to live a happy life and maybe if the mothers life is at risk or maybe if it happens extremely early on like in the first week.

So would you agree those aren't good reasons to kill someone? Like if I just said I'm going to knock this baby out with drugs and kill them painlessly, we will assume the parents are all for it in this case, and the baby has no coherent thoughts or memories, would that be okay? Or is killing the baby wrong?

So we're talking about sentience. A 6 week old fetus could have thoughts and feelings in a few short weeks. The same way a coma victim could have theirs back in 6 weeks. So it must be the potential for consciousness that matters, the potential to be a human. Otherwise we are saying that when your brain activity stops you're no longer an individual, but as soon as it starts again you are back to being an individual.

@i_like_swords:

Of course killing the baby is wrong. The newborn and the coma patient have a right to life from the point that they achieve a certain level of consciousness. The 6 week old fetus has not achieved this level of consciousness and in my view doesn’t have this right at this early stage, regardless of its potential, just the same as a sperm doesn’t have any rights.

@amcu: how about accidental pregnancies?

Though it tickles my fancy to think of special cases, like a mother performing an abortion a few days before she’s due. I wonder if that’s legal or not.

Don't think abortion should be allowed in those instances. Not really looking to debate this though because I doubt anyone is going to change their minds.

@purpleperson:

Of course killing the baby is wrong. The newborn and the coma patient have a right to life from the point that they achieve a certain level of consciousness.

Okay.

The 6 week old fetus has not achieved this level of consciousness and in my view doesn’t have this right at this early stage, regardless of its potential, just the same as a sperm doesn’t have any rights.

So if you are in a coma with no brain activity, you have no right to life?

@i_like_swords:

No, it's a logical extension of values that all normal, law abiding people have.

Not really.

For example, normal people would consider it evil to even hit a dog never mind torture one, separate a family of dogs

For absolutely no valid reason, it is.

or kill and eat them.

This is where "normal" people's logic is contradictory. It's not wrong, people just have their pets on a pedestal. I've literally seen people refer to their pets with human pronouns, but refer to wild animals as "it" and they don't seem to realize what they're doing. In other countries, a pet is a meal bud.

So logically it does not make sense to do those things to a cow so you can have a McDonalds burger.

You do realize people don't eat their feline and canine friends for a reason that's not sentimental too, right? Compared to herbivore meat, carnivore meat is lacking in nutrition, is not pleasant to eat, often contains diseases, parasites and etc. There's also way more cost involved here and it doesn't make sense to feed a carnivore to raise it, just so you can eat it. It's stupid. The only way this would be a viable option cost wise if if you found a wild/stray animal and killed it for food, but that carries the risk for diseases and other problems.That's the reason the only predators Humans really eat are fish.

However from a "moral" standpoint, you are correct and I agree with you, except that I'm on the other side, the killings of cats and dogs to eat them isn't wrong either. But deluded people will tell you otherwise.

Just because you value human life more (and everyone does), it doesn't mean you can dismiss the mistreatment...

Fair enough.

and killing of animals.

Killing for food? I view that as acceptable.

In my post I was making a pretty obvious comparison to people who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church (who believe life starts at conception) who still find it moral to kill and eat lambs. It's not my problem if you misinterpret what I'm saying.

Your comparison makes no sense because it's not zygotes that are aborted. That's not abortion, that's contraception.

No, you just need to see some value in animal life for my argument to work...

How much would you need? Because having some value will not enable one to have your viewpoint. You have to somewhat personify the animal for this to be wrong. You have to consider it's feelings and whatnot, and you have to care enough. That's not just "some" value, that's a LOT.

and it does, and in certain contexts it's an argument you would fully endorse or otherwise risk social ostracization.

True, but that's only because certain people consider eating one OK, and the other Bad.

People in the west lose their minds over the Chinese eating dogs, and they don't just call for "free range" dogs or "humane dog meat" - they march in the streets and sign petitions to ban dog meat because killing dogs to eat them, when you don't need to, is wrong.

Those people are deluded and don't realize their actions are contradictory. There's nothing wrong with killing animals to eat them, and the only reason some animals aren't eaten in western society and with humankind in general is because it's a bad idea to eat them to begin with.

It's not at all complicated to understand, but do go ahead and whip up a long list of contrived excuses for something so simple to understand. Somethingsomething desert island somethingsomething free range somethingsomething ancestors, right?

What excuses, what free range are you talking about lmao? Calm down, man.

@amcu: I’m sorry but I can’t let you go just yet.

So do you believe that they should keep the child for the entire 9 months? Couldn’t that cause unnecessary stress for the woman? How about a teenager who gets pregnant but still has things like school to do? What then happens to the child after it’s born? Foster care or an orphanage might take care of the child, but how about them feeling like they don’t truly belong anywhere? What if the child has a severe birth defect, not one that necessarily kills them, but one that seriously inconveniences their caretakers and reduces their quality of life?

And just in case you think I’m attacking you, I actually have no stance on the matter, I just want to know your reasoning.

@i_like_swords: I think one keeps their right to life from the time they get it until they die. If there is no chance of recovery from a coma, then you are pretty much dead.

@azureus:

For absolutely no valid reason, it is.

This is where "normal" people's logic is contradictory. It's not wrong, people just have their pets on a pedestal. I've literally seen people refer to their pets with human pronouns, but refer to wild animals as "it" and they don't seem to realize what they're doing. In other countries, a pet is a meal bud.

However from a "moral" standpoint, you are correct and I agree with you, except that I'm on the other side, the killings of cats and dogs to eat them isn't wrong either. But deluded people will tell you otherwise.

Killing for food? I view that as acceptable.

So let's hash out this first part. You're saying that killing an animal for food is fine, doesn't matter what the animal is. If we were in a survival situation where my only option was to eat an animal, I'm with you. However, I can go to the supermarket and very inexpensively buy and prepare for myself a lot of healthy food that tastes great. Done it for nearly 2 years and not dead yet.

Animals have an interest in living, can feel pain, emotion, care about their families with very strong instincts. From the time they are first bred, during their life in farms/processing facilities, and when they are in the slaughterhouse, they go through all kinds of physical and emotional pain. Even if you assume you buy meat from the 1% of farms where the animals are treated like they are at a VIP spa, they are killed before their time is up and they grieve for each other's family.

Can you tell me why that is morally acceptable when you can just eat something else? I'm not asking you personally, you might be in a mountain somewhere with nothing to eat but boar and a wifi connection, but let's assume you are one of the average 99% of people who live in developed countries and can afford to give up meat.

How much would you need? Because having some value will not enable one to have your viewpoint. You have to somewhat personify the animal for this to be wrong. You have to consider it's feelings and whatnot, and you have to care enough. That's not just "some" value, that's a LOT.

For the same reason I value my own life - because I have a strong desire to live, and I have sentience - I value the lives of animals and other people. The more sentient someone is, the more value I place on their life. Animals aren't as developed as people, but they are very intelligent: pigs and dogs are very smart, chickens can do basic puzzles, dairy cows cry for weeks on the same spot if you separate them from their children. I view it as immoral to cause pain to beings with that level of sentience, because I wouldn't like if someone did it to me.

Lol what? Thats a terrible terrible idea.

”You’re poor so you can’t vote” what type of shit is that?

Not to mention this system would be rigged against minorities.

What you have said is, a fetus gets their right to life around the time they have thoughts and feelings, which is the beginning of brain activity, which we said is around 12 weeks. You said it's okay to kill them "regardless of their potential" because they don't have thoughts or feelings currently.

Using the same logic, I can kill someone in a coma "regardless of their potential" because they don't have thoughts or feelings currently. Consciousness is your right to life.

I suppose you will say they had the right to life at one point, and they can have it again if we just wait. It's arbitrary to deny a 6 week developing human a right to life if they potentially have that right to life in a few weeks. Sure, the fetus doesn't care right now that it is being killed, but the person in the coma doesn't care right now either. If you ask both in the future, however, both will tell you "yeah, I'm glad you didn't abort/pull the plug on me."

I don't think having a baby is always fun or nice. Infact I don't really have a positive viewpoint on the subject. If I where a woman I would do everything I could to insure that I never had a child. However IMO life trumps everything but life. Not matter how terrible the situation may be I don't think the baby should die for it if the alternative to their death isn't someone else dying. So unless the mother is at severe risk of dying she should not abort the child.

After the child is born the mother should decide whether to put them in the foster care or keep them. If the child has a birth defect that's horrible. But they're still alive. I think every baby should at least have a chance to be born and live.

@amcu: Put the kid in foster care, so they can stay there with the other hundreds of thousands children up for adoption, that will never get adopted?

And that is why lots of western women today are miserable and have no purpose in life. They're not doing the one thing that gives their lives real meaning.

@lil_remains said:

I'm pro choice, but I wanted to point out that adoption =/= foster care. There are waiting lists for adoption of babies and there are more people looking for babies then babies to be adopted so that's not quite true.

@i_like_swords:

I suppose you will say they had the right to life at one point, and they can have it again if we just wait. It's arbitrary to deny a 6 week developing human a right to life if they potentially have that right to life in a few weeks. Sure, the fetus doesn't care right now that it is being killed, but the person in the coma doesn't care right now either. If you ask both in the future, however, both will tell you "yeah, I'm glad you didn't abort/pull the plug on me."

Well yeah, that is pretty much what I was going to say. The person in a coma maintains their right to life for as long as they can live.

It's no more arbitrary to deny rights to the 6 week old fetus than it is to deny those rights to the newly formed zygote or even the sperm and eggs because they potentially will gain a right to life at some point as well. A line has to be drawn somewhere and for me the most logical place to do so is at the development of some greater consciousness. It's debatable when that consciousness is reached, but I feel sure it is not until some time after the 6 week mark given that they don't even have a brain at this point.

lol nice Meaning of Life reference! Kudos!

O-T: Abortion is deplorable, rape & incest are the only acceptable excuses for it but if abortion is going to occur at least let it not be in vain...Use 'em to help fight world hunger. Mmmm...Baby Back Ribs!.....or do stem cell research or whatever.

@kevd4wg: I’m talking about if there was no abortion, where literally millions, of unwanted children would go.

@lil_remains said:

That's pretty speculative. TBH, a lot of people avoid adoption because they think if they have to wait 3 years they won't feel the same, I doubt it would be much of a problem. As I said though, I'm pro choice, but I do think that people should use protective measures to prevent it though(excluding stuff like rape obv)

@purpleperson: I would say it is very arbitrary, because even when the first brain waves start, they are so primitive you can't even consider them to be a thought, or an experience. It's still pretty much just an electrical impulse and instinctive wriggling around.

What I would offer is that a person becomes a person as soon as the fertilised egg and the sperm stop just being two separate parts, but come together and form as an individual. At that point, it's got all the makings of a unique person who, even though right now they're unconscious, has a very real desire to grow and live. It might seem a bit meaningless to us, but that is a life and we are killing it. I mean, you can seriously argue that if the parents don't care, and you have some great knockout drugs, you can kill a newborn baby because there is no real "consequence" to it. But at that point, we are basically saying that life is meaningless unless it has sentimental value to someone, and that's a very slippery slope. Life has to have intrinsic value outside how sentient or developed the person is.

It's so sad that not having sex if you don't want children is considered so unreasonable.

"Women are so irresponsible they will have millions of children they don't want, so let's give them the privilege of killing them." -Reasonable Person

"Let's give women agency." -Literally Hitler

@i_like_swords:

"Let's give women agency." -Literally Hitler

I honestly don't know what "agency" means in that context.

Basically saying they are responsible for their own actions. A child doesn't have much agency, but we would say an adult has agency.

@i_like_swords:

What I would offer is that a person becomes a person as soon as the fertilised egg and the sperm stop just being two separate parts, but come together and form as an individual. At that point, it's got all the makings of a unique person who, even though right now they're unconscious, has a very real desire to grow and live.

That's your view and I get where you're coming from, but I just can't see it that way.

Life has to have intrinsic value outside how sentient or developed the person is.

Do bacteria have intrinsic value? Because to me, what separates us from other life forms is our greater degree of sentience.

@i_like_swords:

Aside from ya know...genocide & human experimentation the Nazis had some pretty good ideas.

Fair enough.

I don't consider bacteria to be a person.

@i_like_swords:

I don't consider bacteria to be a person.

Ah, OK. Just misunderstood you a little.

Mammals have been like this since we evolved to be so. Sorry, but that’s how it is. Mammals like to smash.

Primates. Most other mammals do it purely for procreation. Monkeys & humans are the only mammals that do it for pleasure.

@lil_remains: @idodoodieduties:Can you remove me from the quote chain

Sure thing.

Kev stays in the quote chain.

Also, if that were the case, homosexual animals wouldn’t exist barring primates. Almost all mammals get busy for the sake of getting busy, and not just for procreation. Look at Lions

If you aren't mentally capable of even supporting yourself then how can you mentally fit to make a good mental decision about the direction of the country itself?

1. Because it's their right as a citizen.

2. They are still a demographic, and need representation for their needs

3. It has nothing to do with 'mentally supporting themselves'. There's far more to this than just 'mental support'. Poverty is not that simple.

I don't believe that. I live in Atlanta. Most job's I've had are dominated by African Americans and not white's. This includes almost every working field from the Hotel industry to food service to construction,retail, security,police etc.

Anecdote, fact is, the groups with the most under the poverty line, are minorities, this system would be rigged so they can't get the representation they need, and are forced to get the representation given by those who don't understand their situation, most likely plunging them deeper into poverty. And if its the "main breadwinner" of every household, that is already stacked against women. Terrible, terrible idea.

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?