What's your stance on apologising for acting like a dickhead on internet forums?
Abortion
- Thread starter Pagh Wraith
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
What's your stance on apologising for acting like a dickhead on internet forums?
Didn't they sing 'Teenage dirtbag?'
I'm a Portuguese man, who studied by mostly American books, in a forum where most people use UK English. I get a little lost sometimes.
Maybe calling them babies is indeed the best idea.I raise my hand in shame for the faetus typo. Your double vowels destroy my brain. Isn't haemoglobin with an a?
Potato, potatoe, mate.
The point I've made before on here is, when does life begin? If we take born=alive, as those who push the "foetus vs baby" narrative seem to imply, then how can we call a premature (delivered at 29 week) baby more alive than a 32 week child still in the womb? If we talk about viability outside the womb, it seems odd to say that 25 week foetus counts now, when only a 30 week foetus would have counted a number of years ago.
Then we can look at nervous systems or or heartbeats I suppose. But every point seems arbitary except birth or conception. And using birth brings up the problems mentioned above.
Then we can look at nervous systems or or heartbeats I suppose. But every point seems arbitary except birth or conception. And using birth brings up the problems mentioned above.
I think a fair assessment of that question is when the organism in question takes its first breath of air, assisted or unassisted.
The points are indeed arbitray. In Portugal you can only abort until 12 weeks if there's no medical reason. Most countries where it's allowed give a little more time than that.
I guess people want to be on the safe side of assuring that the foetus hasn't developed consciousness yet, or of it has, that it's as primitive as possible. But since we don't know exactly when that happens, different consensus develop. The point is that in our view, the need to allow the right for an abortion, trumps that scientific uncertainty.
Personally I think 12 weeks is too short. There have been rare cases here of that interval not being enough, and some (rare, but it happened) women were forced to take their pregnancies to the end for issues beyond their control such as late diagnosis of pregnancy, added with an unexpected need to delay the abortion procedure - for example, because the doctor scheduled to do it became unavailable at the last minute and no replacement was possible in time of the 12 weeks deadline.
I didn't want to fall into the baby/faetus/fajitas trap.
imvho if a fetus is viable outside the womb, then it's a life; If a fetus is delivered alive after an abortion then it's a life. Also access to contraception needs to be improved in most places but especially the developing world and the US.
It's the same in Belgium, but I also think it's a bit too short. Added to that, I think the NIPT test can only be carried out after 12 weeks and it takes 1-2 weeks to receive the results, so any potential change of heart regarding abortion would become useless.
It's 24 weeks in the Netherlands.
it's not about being alive or not, the sperm and egg are alive on their own, it's about when it becomes a person
When I say it's a life I mean it should be guaranteed all the rights that are afforded to people under the laws of that country.
Faeiouytus.
Actually, Phoetus.
Weeks doesn't matter at all. Abortion is mother's discretion as long she's carrying.
Those images of fetuses that anti-abortion campaigners used to print and blow up on campus still scar me.
I say that to say, I can't wait for male contraceptive pills
I say that to say, I can't wait for male contraceptive pills
That's exactly what this is about. Essentially, if you consider the fetus a human being abortion as a result is simple murder. And murder morally usually trumps bodily integrity. And if you don't consider it a human being, then it's just getting rid of cells.
Is the defining factor consciousness? Then what about coma-patients and such?
Is the defining factor resemblance of a human by the embryo?
Is the defining factor once brainwaves start?
Is the defining factor, if the fetus could survive outside or not? How is that different to a 3 months old baby which can't survive on it's own?
Is the defining factor once a new DNA is created?
Is the defining factor the stage the fetus is in? How is that not arbitrary? What decides which stage is the "right stage" to become a human being? (This one is some quality circular reasoning)
If a fetus is not considered a human being, why is killing a pregnant woman considered double-murder? Shouldn't it then only be once the fetus is considered a human being?
So on and so forth. And I don't think we have that discussion in our political sphere. Both sides are all about emotions rather than trying to look at it rationally.
Arguments for and against abortion aside, why is it, that nearly everyone arguing against abortion come across as a massive dickhead and makes me wish their parents had one?
Is that just God havin' a go?
I think abortion, apart from a scientific thing, is also a cultural thing. You cannot argue something like this based completely on facts and facts alone. Emotions are involved. Since my wife's been pregnant I look at abortion a bit differently. I'm still completely pro choice, but can imagine that some people would think of it as ending your child's life. I disagree with it, because I value the mother (and in some cases father) over a barely developed conscience, but do understand where the other side is coming from. The problem with this debate (and most debates) is people making outrageous statements and throw around moronic accusations like infanticide without any actual knowledge whatsoever, apart from "the Bible says you shouldn't". That book is really holding humanity back, since the "Bible argument" is always the end of the discussion. It was written, end of story. Feck off with that.
Is that just God havin' a go?
I think abortion, apart from a scientific thing, is also a cultural thing. You cannot argue something like this based completely on facts and facts alone. Emotions are involved. Since my wife's been pregnant I look at abortion a bit differently. I'm still completely pro choice, but can imagine that some people would think of it as ending your child's life. I disagree with it, because I value the mother (and in some cases father) over a barely developed conscience, but do understand where the other side is coming from. The problem with this debate (and most debates) is people making outrageous statements and throw around moronic accusations like infanticide without any actual knowledge whatsoever, apart from "the Bible says you shouldn't". That book is really holding humanity back, since the "Bible argument" is always the end of the discussion. It was written, end of story. Feck off with that.
I wonder if there are actually and women taking part in the debate here. Seems pretty senseless to do this, in a place that’s basically a huge sausage party.
Why would it be moronic? If your moral compass comes to the conclusion that it is in fact murder as the fetus is in fact a living human being - then abortion is per logical conlcusion infanticide. You can disagree with the path that leads to that conclusion - but the conclusion itself is perfectly logical.
I fail to understand this argument. What's the point here? Are you implying we should have a segregation of morality that only those can decide upon who are involved (arguably men are affected by this as well - even if to a lesse extent)?
Because the logical conclusion would be that only religious people can judge over the (im-)morality of religious scriptures. Only Atheists can judge over the morality of secularism. Only europeans can judge which european actions in the past have been moral and which have been immoral. Only fathers can decide what's best for their sons while mothers can only decide over what's best for their daughters. So on and so forth.
Doesn't make sense to me and only creates an unnecessary divide and segregation.
You fail to understand why the discussion would massively benefit from the voices of the only group of people actually affected by it? It's obviously extremely important to get as much female perspective on this topic as possible. For once because this topic has traditionally been regulated not by women, but by men, who shaped the laws and morals surrounding it. They did so lacking any understanding or appreciation of any emotional and physical consequences a pregnancy and it's termination might cause.
As of right now, we're basically doing the same. Right now, here is a bunch of mostly men, as far as I can tell at least, who will never experience the consequences surrounding pregnancy first hand. We will never understand the emotional and physical stress involved, the (possible) psychological stress caused by the procedure itself, the stress and sometimes possibly traumatic experience surrounding the medical "consulting" and so on. And quite frankly, it's not our damn bodies.
So while men obviously can give input and take part in a discussion like this, I think doing so without an actual female perspective is quite difficult and at times quite simply useless. If you add the usual pattern of gender based differences in most discussions, the issue that men tend to take over discussion and women struggling to even get time to talk at all, it just seems quite absurd to discuss a solely female topic with almost only men.
The process in coming to such a conclusion while basing your arguments on a book some guys wrote 2000 years ago is the moronic part.
Innit bruv!
I quote you to be extra clear: "Seems pretty senseless to do this, in a place that’s basically a huge sausage party."
You essentially say it is pointless of men to discuss this topic. Would the discussion potentially benefit voices of the affected group? Of. Fecking. Course. Thanks for the info captain obvious. But that's not the statement you made. You very clearly clarified that it is "SENSELESS" for anyone else to discuss that. And thus the logical conclusion is that you say that people shouldn't discuss what doesn't affect them. Segregation of morality as I said.
Additionally by your logic I could take it even further and argue that only women who've ever been pregnant should discuss this topic. Because those women who haven't also have no idea what it is like to be pregnant.
And everyone who is against abortion is necessarily religious? Not to mention christianity isn't exactly the only religion having a say in this discussion. So you simplifying everyone against abortion is the common denominator of "they must be christian" is quite narrow-minded. In the post just above yours I have clearly asked several non-religious questions on the matter that needs to be discussed.
As I said. People who make wild accusations based on the bible (or one of the other books). That doesnt mean all accusations are made on grounds of the Bible. Though I'd venture a guess that religion and being anti abortion is quite a good match.
Thing is, believing something because the Bible says so is such a discussion killer. Nothing left to argue, save God descending from the heavens and saying it's alright.
As I said in my post, I think there's no black and white right or wrong in this debate and I understand both points of view. It's the hardliners accusing the other side of being murderers that irk me greatly.
For sure it is a discussion-stopper. No doubt about that. I am not religious at all, so I agree with you there. Both sides are kinda guilty of that, though. I have heard actual parliament left-wing politicians state that abortion should be legal up to 1 minute before giving birth. Hence, some define the fetus as a parasite - which by biological definition of a parasite it isn't. Thats just as lunatic (or possibly worse). In Germany we have the entire Jusos-wing (the young adults wing of the second biggest political party) almost exclusively agree with that notion.
That being said - the discussion here is kinda binary to most people. Bar the extremes who think a womans bodily integrity is worth more than a life - the majority of people simply argue about the fetus being a human being or not. And once you define it as that, it becomes murder. That's the logical conclusion here and why this is such a difficult discussion.
Thus it is so important to not argue about "womens rights" or "the *insertreligiousbook* says so", but first of all the argument is about "what defines a human being".
So, what's the most logical move for these pro-lifers? Introducing the death penalty for abortion, of course.
Personally I think it's absolutely ok at any point up until they start paying rent.
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/texas-lawmakers-consider-the-death-penalty-for-abortion
We think we know what America is about, what their culture and values are, here in Norway. We're saturated in American culture through music, TV and movies, and it feels familiar to us. But when you look closer, there are just so many areas where it feels completely alien. Abortion, labour law, consumer protection, militarism, and so many others. And worst of all: many Americans don't even take their shoes off inside the house.
Oh, I just realized @Tommy just posted the same link. Well, it's crazy enough to link twice.
We think we know what America is about, what their culture and values are, here in Norway. We're saturated in American culture through music, TV and movies, and it feels familiar to us. But when you look closer, there are just so many areas where it feels completely alien. Abortion, labour law, consumer protection, militarism, and so many others. And worst of all: many Americans don't even take their shoes off inside the house.
Oh, I just realized @Tommy just posted the same link. Well, it's crazy enough to link twice.
You wouldn't say that if you'd seen what I've seen. It's so easy to make glib statements like that, but faced with the reality of a late abortion, I can guarantee that you'd be horrified. I still think about that teenage girl and that baby boy, and it happened 40 years ago.
I was referring to more religious/moral reasons for abortion, not actual medical ones. If there was a medical necessity, then the doctor or the mother should be the one to make it ... on medical reasons.
There wasn't any reason at all for that particular abortion, other than the baby wasn't wanted.
Never had to deal with this issue so hard to give a real opinion. I have my suspicions though, that two exes of mine both pretended that they might be pregnant by saying they were "late" simply to test my reaction. One did almost definitely.
Pretty low behaviour though.
Pretty low behaviour though.
Utterly embarrassing that such a law with no exception for rape / incest is actually passing in this day & age in state legislatures. Such laws actually have been passing with some frequency, especially this year. The way it happened in Alabama was especially egregious:
https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.nbcn...d-After-Shouts-Break-Out-509701761.html?amp=y
It’s a goddamn shame that adults who believe in fecking fairy tales can have the ability to pass restrictions on abortions with no concern for the woman, they just view it through their flawed & insane prism & force their views on others. The utter lunacy of the recent Georgia abortion law (life in prison for an abortion, 10 years of a Georgia woman goes to another state & has an abortion, 5 years for a non-abortive miscarriage) might be quaint in a few years when Roe v. Wade gets overturned.
We need to cauterize American legislatures, governments, & courts at all levels to remove the batshit craziness of religion, but Trump’s judges will just continue the disease of religion to be paramount in issues like women’s rights for at least a generation, potentially two or three. The disease just keeps us from being enlightened & objective & it is manifesting itself into these evil laws.
https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.nbcn...d-After-Shouts-Break-Out-509701761.html?amp=y
It’s a goddamn shame that adults who believe in fecking fairy tales can have the ability to pass restrictions on abortions with no concern for the woman, they just view it through their flawed & insane prism & force their views on others. The utter lunacy of the recent Georgia abortion law (life in prison for an abortion, 10 years of a Georgia woman goes to another state & has an abortion, 5 years for a non-abortive miscarriage) might be quaint in a few years when Roe v. Wade gets overturned.
We need to cauterize American legislatures, governments, & courts at all levels to remove the batshit craziness of religion, but Trump’s judges will just continue the disease of religion to be paramount in issues like women’s rights for at least a generation, potentially two or three. The disease just keeps us from being enlightened & objective & it is manifesting itself into these evil laws.