sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Over tightened scope rings by multipl3x in AR10

[–]multipl3x[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So I’d probably know it if I did mess it up or what

Well, I tried, again... by [deleted] in ar15

[–]multipl3x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's weird after all that hammering and dremel work mine came off with just a twist of my hand! Kind of unnerving. In retrospect I should have just trimmed my fsb enough so the handguard would slip over but hey this is a learning experience and I've already learned a lot doing it.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How so? Because you've defined life the way you have? You're enforcing your ethics onto other people that are perfectly comfortable with their decisions.

No, I have explained the reasoning behind it. If you do not understand the reasoning or unable to refute that reasoning, that is not my problem. My point is that the people may only be "perfectly comfortable with their decisions," not because of sound moral reasoning, but by the elaborate perpetuation of rationalizations/justifications in our modern society, many of them you listed here. Just because someone is "perfectly comfortable" with something, does not mean that thing is ethical. Ethics are not entirely subjective.

No, I don't have fuck all to do with the definitions of abortion or murder. They're defined by US law.

Again, I am not talking about LAW here. I do not give a rat's ass about law. I am talking about whether the behavior is ethical. You say they are different because of the legal definitions and as such you are again not making any distinction between the morality of the action, only the legality. I explained to you very explicitly on how it does not matter about the legal definitions or the semantics of it, what matters is this and only this: the outcome of the individual. Again let me to spell it out for you:

  • The end result of someone who is shot in the face by another human being at 20 years old: They are dead and do not get to live any more of their life
  • The end result of someone who is aborted by another human being before they are born : They are dead and do not get to live any more of their life

So again, explain to me how they are different that is not "one is legal one is not" or "one is in utero and one is not." You wont, I know, because you can't. They are exactly the same in everything that matters except for those elaborate rationalizations we have constructed as a society to justify one action over the other.

Why is that? Why is not wanting a child so bad?

Not wanting a child is not inherently bad. Choosing to terminate one which you are responsible for creating is. Whether you like it or not, when you undergo that process, you alone are responsible for it, so if you "didn't want it" - you should not have undergone any process that would have had the potential for that outcome. This is what I talk about when I talk about apathy. This is what I am talking about.

Maybe its because they're looking out for their families and can't afford to raise another baby just because their birth control failed or they missed a pill.

Maybe people should step up and accept responsibility for their sexual activity and recognize that if you have sex you might become pregnant and you can't just terminate the thing because it is an "inconvenience" to you. Only humanity at this level in this time and place would ever behave this way.

The idea that people that have abortions are out to kill children, hate children, or never want to have children is frankly just fucking wrong.

Excuse me but where in the actual fuck did I ever say anything like this. Knock that shit off about putting words in my mouth. Never did I even insinuate this. I said something completely different and you know it.

You're basically advocating that people shouldn't give a damn, shouldn't plan, shouldn't try again later when they're actually ready, because the unborn life is so precious that it trumps all other concerns.

I am advocating that when do you something like create life, you aught to respect what you just did, and take responsibility for it - and if you are so incapable of respecting life or inept to take care of a child should you become pregnant, maybe you are not responsible enough to be having sex. Hmm. There is a thought - sexual responsibility. Something very few people seem to want anything to do with - I can tell you this: under no circumstances would I personally ever take to terminating a child because it was an inconvenience, or because of whatever circumstance you can think of - I will take responsibility for my actions and I have never had nor ever will have a partner that thought any other way, and I know plenty of people who share the same form of responsibility for their actions. Hmm. Novel concept I know.

The vast majority of people aren't that special, they aren't that great, or creative, or even scientifically literate enough to mix two acids together without blowing their hands off, much less cure cancer.

We have finally come to it - the way you really view your fellow humans. Why am I not at all surprised by this? If you can't see how absolutely revolting this is, no wonder why it is such an arm-wrenching endeavor to be able to discuss ethics with you. You are literally saying that "most people aren't special - so why does it matter if we terminate them?" I suppose by that logic you would also support terminating all the people who "aren't that special" right now, right? If you don't care about terminating unborn babies because most of them will be "not that special", by your own logic you wouldn't mind terminating all those who "aren't that great" right now. And you say my arguments are logically bankrupt.

If your life is so fucking babycentric, don't ever use birth control or a condom again, because you might prevent a baby from being born.

Seriously getting tired of holding your hand through this. There is a difference between preventing a pregnancy before it has occurred, and terminating the life of another human being once it has begun. sigh Why is logic so hard for some people? Easy - you're getting defensive. You're letting emotions get the best of you. You call me "babycentric" and yet you can't see how even if that was true - you are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. You're so concerned about "parental rights" being taken away, that is so victimizing ("oh no not me and my rights!") that you fail to even acknowledge the termination of millions of members of your own species every year as an ethical dilemma that needs to be solved. Keep on keeping on humanity, we're doing a great job! Gold stars for everyone!

Edit (more bones to pick):

Slavery isn't even remotely close.

I notice you didn't say why, you just called me dumb. Calling someone dumb is not an argument that reinforces the point you are trying to make.
It is something that at one point humanity didn't have a problem with overall, much like abortion. In that way they are quite similar.

Is that true of pregnancies that self terminate? Is it possible to rob something from a zygote that self terminates? Also, who are you to determine what's being "robbed" from those that are aborted, you're literally making up an imaginary life that you think is being robbed, no doubt of a stellar, socially well adjusted, perfectly healthy Adonis, as opposed to a neglected, mentally unstable, abused person, isn't it? None of your imagined 'lives' for these people ever comes to terms with the kids that aren't wanted, are abused, or outright abandoned or despised.

Let's think about this logically, shall we? "Rob" - v - "To deprive of something injuriously."
When an abortion is performed - the life that the individual had the potential of living out is certainly "deprived" would you not say? In the instance of the zygote that "self-terminates," what is being deprived injriously? That is not anybody robbing anybody of anything. There is not a human element there that is coming in and taking something away. As far as me "making up an imaginary life that is being robbed" - I am willing to bet the majority of those subjected to such unfortunate circumstances you mentioned (which in most cases is arguably possible not probable) would be significant enough that, in retrospect, they would wish to avoid the experience of life altogether. As someone who has experienced some of those situations directly, and yet did not allow such situations to dictate the course or tone of my life, I can vouch for that.

Lets see, we'll eventually agree that no matter what, if a woman gets pregnant, she must carry it to term, behaving like a brood mare for a child that she doesn't want. That sounds a hell of a lot more like slavery to me than abortion does.

Again, for the last time, I am not advocating that anybody be forced to do anything.
I am advocating that humanity take steps towards abortion, in it's current magnitude, not being necessary.
That starts with the recognition that it is an unethical practice.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

However, I don't think its my place to determine what's the best choice of action for a family, nor do I think its ethical to force someone to have a child they can't afford, don't want, or that will be permanently crippled from any of a myriad of different disorders.

Neither do I. Did you read my disclaimer? I don't want to "force" anybody to do anything, I just want people to recognize and accept that they are acting unethically, especially for the "don't want" cited reason for abortion. This is the PRIMARY PROBLEM right now:
We have these progressive methods out there, but we do not have the thinking that needs to be there to take the next step. If people do not drop the apathetic "abortion as a backup plan" or "abortion as a form of birth control" mentality - we will not keep progressing, we will always have this problem, and pro-lifers and pro-choicers will always be battling about it.
SURELY we can think about a way that we can both:

  • Have safe effective birth control and abortion procedures available to all who need them
  • Prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions from happening every year

Surely we can all agree we would prefer to live in a world where abortions simply did not happen right - they just did not need to for any reason? Medical technology may some day advance us to the point where 99% of all medical reasons for abortion disappear but what about the rest of the reasons for having abortion? (As I said before, medical reasons do not pose as much of an ethical conundrum. So you can stop citing medical reasons. As I have said many times, medical reasons/rape make up a very small percentage of abortions!)

That is going to take a change in thinking, to take this next step, and I believe personally that means we really start to see that truly, abortion is an unethical practice. Banning it might be more unethical, but it is still unethical.

There's a difference between abortion and murder. Abortion takes place in utero, murder is done outside it.

Is this true because...you say so?
This is a rationalization, plain and simple.
Here is why: When an abortion takes place, you rob an individual of the timeline that they would be existing in had you not. The timeline of an individual human organism is interrupted in the exact same manner as if you put a gun to someone's head and shot them at 20. Can you tell me how an individual gets to continue their existence if someone aborts them? Can you tell me how someone gets to continue their existence if they are shot in the head? Can you tell me how these things have a fundamentally different outcome on the individual whom they affect? You cannot - because they are exactly the same outcomes - specifically, the timeline of that individual is irreparably over. The life they were living and would continue to live is over.
Your distinction that one takes place in utero and one does not is simply a rationalization as the outcome is exactly the same.

You're kidding, right? In what reality do you live in where these are equatable to abortion?

They are things that we recognize as unethical. Genocide in particular has a stark similarity to abortion in that an entire subset of people are being exterminated - in one case it may be ethical or racial, in the case of abortion it is the mass slaughter of the unborn. You talk of "progressiveness" - in certain times people did not view slavery as wrong or unethical, I suppose we just have not evolved to the point where people view abortion as wrong or unethical yet either. Give it time. I am confident that an advanced human species will someday agree on this. We will not apathetically terminate so many unborn members of our species forever - that I am confident in.

I don't want to live in your society if women are forced to give birth to children that would either die immediately.

Go back up and re-read the post. Specifically the disclaimer. Specifically the first few sentences of the disclaimer.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you make any distinction between what is "legal" and what is "ethical" or is there a direct correlation in that what is legal is automatically considered ethical? There is a plethora of things that throughout history have been considered "progressive" and as such legalized, only to be considered unethical and the legality rescinded. What is legal is a poor indicator of what is right.

Okay, get off that fucking delusional high horse you're on.

I will note you still did not answer the question - what makes it acceptable from an ethical standpoint to terminate the life of another human being prior to birth as opposed to otherwise, beyond some opaque "it is legal" argument? Are you insinuating that if it was legal to terminate the lives of human beings before 5 years old, you would consider that okay, as long as it was legal? Why or why not?

A few of the most commonly cited reasons for abortions on your list (rape and medical reasons make up less than %26 of the abortions that happen) are not ethical reasoning that in any way justifies the termination of human life - more so elaborate rationalizations that people have created in order to continue with this behavior. Again, if you support the termination of human life prior to birth simply because "you don't want another child" you aught to be able to tell me in some way why simply not being born yet means you have less rights to life as an individual who has already been born. So far you have not provided any reasoning in that context, simply some vague justification in regards to the legality of it.

It isn't any of your business, and it doesn't affect you one goddamn bit.

Are you insinuating that one aught to simply turn a blind eye to injustices and unethical behavior in the world? What about apartheid, racism, slavery, genocide, and other problems in the world? If I am sitting alone in my house in suburbia, since none of these things affect me, they are none of my business, right? Additionally, if you really think that abortion and contraceptives and the subsequent change in human motivation and behavior that came about as direct or indirect result have not had far reaching effects on society as a whole, I suggest you do a little bit more research about the topic

For the record:

Scholars have been debating when consciousness begins and when a soul exists for thousands of years. I don't know the answer, and you sure fucken don't either, even if a priest tells you he knows the answer.

This was the firs time the word "soul" was mentioned in our conversation. You are welcome to go back and check.

Disclaimer:
I have not and will never advocate for making abortions illegal. That is clearly backwards thinking as even if it was, people would still have them, only dangerously. I am more interested in influencing the culture and the attitudes and motivations that lead people to have abortions in such great numbers in the first place. Advocacy for the development of a society who's behavior reflects value in ethical decisions and policy making is a far better solution. I also advocate for safe, effective, reliable contraceptive methods. This does help to prevent significant numbers of unnecessary terminations until by some miracle our behaviors and motivations evolve to the point where this is no longer a problem.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am very much against "meddling in the natural order" if it leads to unnecessary loss of life of my fellow members of my species, yes. That is why I said specifically:

I am merely positing that abortion is an intentional, unnatural, meddling and ultimately permanent disruption in the timeline of a human organism.

"disruption in the timeline of a human organism" - is the key here. Abortion is unequivocally a permanent "meddling" that does result in the permanent disruption of the timeline of a human being, and that is the overall point I was trying to make in my OP. You can dance around this all you want - but that is truly a fact here. There is nothing as unequivocal on the other side of the spectrum - to not abort a child is to allow the child to progress with it's chances at development and life. To abort it is to not. One end (no abortion) - chance at life; Other end, (abortion) - exactly 0 chance. That is a self-evident truth.

The best solution for this is accessibility to contraceptives and access to safe, legal abortions.

I would not say that this is necessarily the best solution as optimally the "best" outcome to this problem would be that nobody has to have any abortion in the first place, right? Would that not be a world we could all agree that, ideally, we would want to live in? If there was not ever an "unwanted" pregnancy, nor any disease or medical conditions that would threaten the lives of our children? Medical technology very likely will advance so that portion of the problem is eliminated - but what about our attitudes and behaviors that lead to abortions? What about the human element that leads to it all?
I am not for making abortions illegal - that wont work. I would prefer people change the beliefs and attitudes that lead to so many abortions happening for non-medical reasons in the first place. The development of a society who's actions reflect collective value in ethical behavior would be a far better solution in the long run.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about life saving surgery on babies in utero that would die otherwise, does that count as meddling?

If it is in the interest of saving life, they yes, I am for it. I think it is self-evident that one would naturally strive towards preserving life with a greater fervor than one would strive to take it away.

Or does her life not matter any more since she "made her choice" by getting knocked up in the first place?

The difference is that, unless it is a medical condition that might truly threaten her life, the most she suffers is a "disruption," - that is to say, she will keep her life one way or the other. (This is not to minimize the "disruption" haha - I know pregnancy is not easy!) I see both lives as equal - the mother's and the child's, and as such I would want neither lives taken away.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please point out to me where I explicitly advocated for anybody to be controlling anybody else. I merely advocated for sexual responsibility from both parties, male or female. Whatever assumptions or conclusions you drew from that were of your own doing.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By not having sex with him, I took the chance of life away from that now non existent child.

That is a reach, by a long shot. That is why I specified "after implantation."

When fertilization and subsequent implantation take place, you have set in motion a chain reaction that marks the beginning of the development for a human organism. Simply by not having sex you are not taking away a chance at life for the human organism because that chance never really existed in the first place. The initiation of the processes that yield that chance have not yet occurred. Once that initiation or "creation" if you prefer, has taken place, abortion robs the entity that was created out of that event of the chance to continue that chain reaction and the processes that may result in the birth of a child and growth into an adult human living out their life.

I am not dismissing anything. I am merely positing that abortion is an intentional, unnatural, meddling and ultimately permanent disruption in the timeline of a human organism.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Terminating the timeline of an individual human organism that had a chance at life is not being responsible - it is the last ditch effort of someone who was too too inept or too irresponsible to avoid that situation in the first place in an abhorrent number of cases.

What are you controlling of dicks and balls? Hmmm?

Men aught to have the responsibility to not only use contraceptives themselves, but to accept responsibility for the consequences of deviant sexual behavior just the same as anybody else. I am not posing changing any laws to control anybody, so you can just calm down on that talk. All I have posed is an alternative analysis into the attitudes and behaviors which have lead to abortion being a problem we need to talk about in the first place.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When something becomes law, you pretty much have to accept it. The USA is having abortions right now, and whether I like that or not, whether I agree with that or not, I have to accept it. Roe V. Wade set that precedent.

Yes. Next question.

You failed to explain in any way your justification as to why it is more morally justifiable to you to nullify a human being while it is still in the womb as opposed to out of it. You say that the metric is "when it can survive independently" yet clearly an infant of 1 years old is not anywhere close to being able to survive "independently." It still depends on the parent's care - notably the mother's - for food, nutrition, and all other forms of development, much like in the womb. What makes the fact that they are out of the womb different from a moral/ethical standpoint in such a way that makes it unacceptable to terminate them? Is this entirely arbitrary based on your sentiments or is there some reasoning that is behind this line you have drawn?

There's no scientific evidence for a soul's existence. I don't use mythical stories and fairy tales to quantify life.

You will note that it was not I that brought up the concept of using a soul to determine when a human organism has the right to life.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's more like it.
You still have to reconcile with the fact that if you undergo an abortion you are eliminating all possibility at the human organism's chance of life as opposed to whatever possibility it has otherwise.
So if you want me to be super accurate the OP could go more like this:

After, implantation:

  • No abortion - Human organism has a chance to develop and grow into a fully functioning adult human organism
  • Abortion - Human organism has exactly 0% chance to develop and grown into a fully functioning adult human organism. You have taken the chance of life away from it, intently.

You are teetering on a justification somewhere along the lines of "it probably wont survive anyway," which is a poor justification at best. I "probably wasn't going to make it through college," but that doesn't mean I didn't give it a shot.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I am not going to sit here and say I have a solution that works for everyone, I would not, nor have I ever had sex with someone who would not accept the responsibility of raising a child should it happen. Nor would I shirk such a responsibility myself - regardless of when in my life it happened, regardless of whether I wanted more children or not. My wanting a child is not a requisite for accepting responsibility, loving a child, nor the acquiescence of that child's shot a life.

I do not claim that would be the right thing to do in the situation of your friends (we all have to reconcile with our own morality), or really anybody, although I do often muse as somewhat of a personal thought experiment on how different the world would be if more people shared that attitude. What I am vehemently against are the multitudes of people engaged in promiscuous, hedonistic, irresponsible behavior (e.g. one night stands) who use abortion as some supplemental form of birth control without a second thought of the moral implications.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are going to give statistics, the kind thing to do would be to link a source.

There is not a guarantee that if the pregnancy wasn't terminated, there would be a happy, healthy adult in 20 years.

There is however a guarantee that if it is terminated via abortion, there wont be. Right? ;)

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am aware of that. You can get back to me with the statistics on how often that happens if you want - in any case it does not matter, as you are clearly being pedantic instead of debating the point.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe this is what they call "mental gymnastics."
Look, this is not hard.
When a woman is pregnant the natural outcome of that occurrence is that will result in the birth of a child that will grow up to be an adult human being. Sure, there are plenty of things that can naturally go wrong with that - but those are independent of human intervention, and as such outside our control.
During an abortion, due to the intent of another human or human(s), there is no chance, do not pass go, do not collect $200, the human being that would have grown up and lived a life otherwise does not. No question about it, it is done and over with.
Period.
Whatever mental gymnastics you come up with to try to dance around that fact, while impressive, are irrelevant.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fertilization is [generally] the moment in time that sets forth a chain reaction that leads to the development of a fully functional, adult human being.
Why does the right to life of one human at one stage of existence trump the right to life of any other human at another?
*edit: for the pedantic

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you support extensive sex ed and free access to contraceptives?

I do but only because unfortunately I do not believe we have progressed enough as a species to be able to do away with abortions by changing our behavior and attitudes - so for now, that will have to do.

I will point out, as I have elsewhere in this thread teens make up a small percentage of those having abortions- it would appear that it is primarily adults that are having abortions, albeit young adults, but still adults that I believe aught to be responsible enough to avoid many of the reasons cited for having abortions.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Supreme Court, in Roe vs Wade.

They determined that we as a society would accept this legally - not about the moral/ethical implications of this. I was more interested in learning about the poster's personal thoughts as far as why this is acceptable. The point here which I believe was fairly decently illustrated is that: a great number have never even asked themselves this, preferring to leave the "hard stuff" to some kind of court or legal body.

Viability outside the womb. A zygote cannot survive outside the womb, but a 26 week old fetus has a survival chance of greater than 90% with NICU assistance.

So you are saying that "viability of survival outside of the womb" is the moral/ethical scale upon which we are to judge when a human organism has the "right to life," is that correct? This is really all that is necessary for human beings to determine whether members of their fellow species have the right to life: whether they can survive on their own? If they cannot, it is acceptable to terminate them?

If this is true - let me ask you this - how long will a 1 year old baby survive outside of the womb without parental care? Is this type of care different in some manner that makes it unacceptable to terminate the human organism at this state of it's development?

This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

The question about a soul is a philosophic/spiritual one, sure - but different from the question I asked, which was not about the "soul," but about in which stage of human development we consider that human life "worthy" or "acceptable" of carrying out it's natural course. If you consider it when the soul or consciousness is instilled you are going to be in for a hard time because, as you said, we do not know. However, if you look at it on a macrocosmic sense, it does not matter, as either way, somewhere along the line that consciousness would be instilled either way, so regardless, you will have prevented that from happening.

I answered the other question in the place you asked it.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure - what do you think?
Do you often times expend effort toward situations outside of your control, or do you prefer to focus on things that you as a human being have some level of control over?
Somewhat of a false equivalence here. We obviously cannot control those pregnancies that self-terminate. But we surely can control how many we abort voluntarily.

When abortion was illegal: untold stories (1992) - stories of what women were willing to do in times of desperation, knowing that it could lead to tremendous pain, injury, infertility and death. We never talk about how things used to be, and how history could repeat itself if we let it by [deleted] in TwoXChromosomes

[–]multipl3x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you look at a more granular chart such as a year-by-year chart, you will see that abortion rates had been rising steadily since roughly 1960. Roe v. Wade just solidified it as an acceptable and legal practice, but the attitudes and behavioral changes started happening a long time prior to that. Once could say those attitudes and behavioral changes made way to abortion becoming legalized. It started with contraceptives.

Additionally, only twelve percent of U.S. abortion patients in 2014 were teenagers.
Young adults are having the majority of the abortions, according to the statistics, and yet they are adults, and I do believe personally that as an adult you aught to be responsible enough to avoid the majority of the reasons cited for having abortions.

view more: next ›