Young Writers Society

TheRobster1991 wrote:At what stage does a foetus become a human?

When the mother is comfortable with having a child or not; until the twentieth century, millions if not billions (who knows how many) of newborns/mothers died in childbirth or in the womb (delivered stillborn) because technology simply was not up to the task of screening for certain conditions, abnormalities, inability of mother to give birth, partners who could not produce children, etc.

And you care more about calling a foetus human? You have a live human and you care more about potentially telling that live human what they can and cannot do? Hmmm, kinda like treating as if they're cattle...

At long last women can decide on how their bodies will be treated, and who are we to decide how to treat another person? Oh but wait, FOETUSES, forget about those pesky women.

Do you want to take this point of view, Rob?

Because that's quite a molehill of morality anyone would be standing on if you think foetus labeling as human overrides a woman's right to her own agency.

But hey, par for the course of a good deal of human history, women don't need rights, right?

Uh... we tell people what to do all the time, and these restrictions aren't considered to be dehumanizing. For instance, I am required to have auto insurance, so I can take care of anyone I accidentally hurt, even if I would rather not spend this money on auto insurance. For my body, even if I had the money, I am not allowed to get a breast augmentation the US of LLLL, though that might be something I want to do with my body. It's not allowed. At least here. Also, in a recent news story, a teenager decided he wanted to saw off his arm. His parents called the cops on him, and the cops responded (along with other emergency officials) to try and stop him. He wasn't allowed to saw off his arm... though he did and died as a result. (DON'T DO THIS, PLEASE.)

The main point is, there are restrictions in place, and this can be a very good thing. However, there are limits on what you can demand of a person and what you can't demand of a person.

I think some smart dead guy put it best: Everything in moderation.

Ethically speaking, you are supposed to do no harm, or do the least harm in a given situation.

So, it shouldn't be anarchy and it shouldn't be total dictatorship. Something in between would be ideal, probably. And ethics are totally awesome. Just saying.

For my body, even if I had the money, I am not allowed to get a breast augmentation the US of LLLL, though that might be something I want to do with my body. It's not allowed.

I think you may have made a typo or something, I've read this a couple times and I still have no idea what you're talking about.

If you flick back about three pages, you'll see that those of us already in the thread can't come to an agreement on that, Rob. Why don't you share your thoughts on the matter?

Well, I haven't been following this thread, and I read the last couple of comments. But thank you.

When the mother is comfortable with having a child or not; until the twentieth century, millions if not billions (who knows how many) of newborns/mothers died in childbirth or in the womb (delivered stillborn) because technology simply was not up to the task of screening for certain conditions, abnormalities, inability of mother to give birth, partners who could not produce children, etc.

And you care more about calling a foetus human? You have a live human and you care more about potentially telling that live human what they can and cannot do? Hmmm, kinda like treating as if they're cattle...

At long last women can decide on how their bodies will be treated, and who are we to decide how to treat another person? Oh but wait, FOETUSES, forget about those pesky women.

Do you want to take this point of view, Rob?

Because that's quite a molehill of morality anyone would be standing on if you think foetus labeling as human overrides a woman's right to her own agency.

But hey, par for the course of a good deal of human history, women don't need rights, right?

Hmm, this comment (if I'm honest) annoys me. First of all:

You're being quite presumptious - after all. I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS. Forget about those pesky foetus', after all, they're not human until the woman says so! (When the mother is comfortable with having a child or not)

Sure, woman weren't treated like they should been in the 20th century - but I tell you something that I've noticed. Those who openly support Abortion are those who weren't aborted. Don't feed me garbage about how a woman has the right to terminate her baby (or developing baby). Since when does another human's right to make choices override another's right to live?

Women should have rights, I'm not against them, but I think that killing (and yes it is killing: ) should not be the right of any individual. And that's my thoughts on the subject (Sarcastic tones are reserved for people I consider I being rude)

P.s - It's also interesting to note the the Jews were rounded up by the Nazis because they convinced people they weren't human.

I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

I just wanted to put this here so we can all admire it.

TheRobster1991 wrote:but I tell you something that I've noticed. Those who openly support Abortion are those who weren't aborted.

Hahaha, are you serious?

No. No you are not. You know very well exactly what is wrong about that statement, and I'm not going to point it out to you so you can chuckle that I fell for your nonsense.

I will, however, point it out just in case anyone else falls for your nonsense: Obviously only those who exist at all can hold opinions. This is meaningless and proves nothing.

TheRobster1991 wrote:Women should have rights, I'm not against them, but I think that killing (and yes it is killing:

Spoiler! :

http://prolife.org.nz/resources/abortion-methods/ - beware that's got horrific pictures

) should not be the right of any individual. And that's my thoughts on the subject (Sarcastic tones are reserved for people I consider I being rude)

Butts should have rights, I'm not against them, but I think that killing (and yes it is killing: ) should not be the right of any gluteus maximus. And that's my thoughts on the subject (Satirical tones are reserved for people I consider are being straight up offensively ignorant, and just because some pictures of something happening look disgusting does not mean they are "killing".)

TheRobster1991 wrote:P.s - It's also interesting to note the the Jews were rounded up by the Nazis because they convinced people they weren't human.

Holy Christ you cannot be serious. You have to be a troll.

Give me a reason that an embryo should be considered a living, thinking, conscious human anymore than the sperm and the egg prior to sexual activity should be. Seriously, where is your evidence? It makes no sense for such an underdeveloped thing to have any consciousness whatsoever, and aborting it is as much killing a baby as deciding not to have sex is killing a baby. They both remove the potential of a future child, which is very different from killing.

TheRobster1991 wrote:I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

I just wanted to make sure this amazing thing didn't get moved from the bottom where more people can notice it on account of my post.

I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

CONGLATURATION!


Against all odds you've won coveted "ignorant statement of the week award!"

Wow, this really is too easy for me. One more time, just to be sure:

I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

Also stuff about Nazis. I'm not sure any post will ever beat that one.

Don't feed me garbage about how a woman has the right to terminate her baby (or developing baby).

We're not feeding you garbage. After all, I don't see you adopting any babies whether you feel 'ready or not' to be a father. This isn't your choice to make, and nobody asked you to make the decision for them.

So, instead of thinking about how ridiculous and 'trashy' this whole situation is, maybe consider realizing that it has absolutely nothing to do with you nor your morality? You don't support abortions. Fantastic. Just dont expect to not get a torrent of rebutles from women and those who support women's rights (that you so eloquently ignored) who found the comparison between a hard choice and the killing of Jews to be extremely offensive.

Here's the funny thing, TheRobster1991.

I actually didn't like what Karzkin said. I found it had quite a bit of the slippery slope fallacy, and I could even kind of understand where you were coming from with "I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS.", even if it was horribly put. You were just trying to say that you thought that the things Karzkin said about women's rights were not relevant to what you were saying, which I would agree with to some extent.

Aet Lindling wrote:[10/19/2012 8:19:48 PM] aetlindling: [karzkin] replied to this: "At what stage does a foetus become a human?"
[10/19/2012 8:19:54 PM] aetlindling: with a volley of generalizations and assumptions
[10/19/2012 8:20:10 PM] aetlindling: "Do you want to take this point of view, Rob?"
[10/19/2012 8:20:12 PM] aetlindling: karzkin says
[10/19/2012 8:20:24 PM] aetlindling: and links to that bullshit Women as Livestock georgia thing
[10/19/2012 8:20:55 PM] aetlindling: assuming that because rob is anti-choice, they must support the bill that equates women to livestock
[10/19/2012 8:21:04 PM] aetlindling: and other silly things

I mean, nothing against you overall, Karzkin, and the quoted chat wasn't a hate fest on you or anything, just brief mention that you made a silly post, but still. I thought it was silly.

In fact, I might have even said so. But the EDT timestamps on that chatlog should tell you something, namely that it took place before that last post of yours, Rob, and OH BOY.

I just wanted to post this to let you know that I'm not some big ol' unfair monster dedicated to hating on you. I can point out flaws in my pro-choice buddies, too.

But holy crap that post. Hahahaha.

Aet Lindling wrote:Here's the funny thing, TheRobster1991.

I actually didn't like what Karzkin said. I found it had quite a bit of the slippery slope fallacy, and I could even kind of understand where you were coming from with "I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS.", even if it was horribly put. You were just trying to say that you thought that the things Karzkin said about women's rights were not relevant to what you were saying, which I would agree with to some extent.

Aet Lindling wrote:[10/19/2012 8:19:48 PM] aetlindling: [karzkin] replied to this: "At what stage does a foetus become a human?"
[10/19/2012 8:19:54 PM] aetlindling: with a volley of generalizations and assumptions
[10/19/2012 8:20:10 PM] aetlindling: "Do you want to take this point of view, Rob?"
[10/19/2012 8:20:12 PM] aetlindling: karzkin says
[10/19/2012 8:20:24 PM] aetlindling: and links to that bullshit Women as Livestock georgia thing
[10/19/2012 8:20:55 PM] aetlindling: assuming that because rob is anti-choice, they must support the bill that equates women to livestock
[10/19/2012 8:21:04 PM] aetlindling: and other silly things

I mean, nothing against you overall, Karzkin, and the quoted chat wasn't a hate fest on you or anything, just brief mention that you made a silly post, but still. I thought it was silly.

In fact, I might have even said so. But the EDT timestamps on that chatlog should tell you something, namely that it took place before that last post of yours, Rob, and OH BOY.

I just wanted to post this to let you know that I'm not some big ol' unfair monster dedicated to hating on you. I can point out flaws in my pro-choice buddies, too.

But holy crap that post. Hahahaha.

No offense taken mate. I feel like "pro-choice buddies" needs some dumb emoticon like this

I admit my post was targeted at Rob's normal schtick, and his response affirmed his point of view. If I jumped the gun, my bad; though still, not like we have to dig into each other for sassy/sarcastic/funny/witty retorts.

Not all of this forum on YWS has to be serious and ZOMG U SO STUPID, people.

Laugh a little.

Be bros.

Women should have rights, I'm not against them, but I think that killing (and yes it is killing:
Spoiler! :
) should not be the right of any individual. And that's my thoughts on the subject (Sarcastic tones are reserved for people I consider I being rude)

Yo yo yo, I believe that killing is wrong everywhere any time and no one should kill anything ever. Antibiotics? Nup. That's killing, yo. Vegetarianism? In some, if not all cases, that's killing. The meat industry? You bet that's killing. Euthanasia? That's killing and also sounds like a statement about young people in Asia if you say it really slow. Abortion? Killing. The death penalty? Killing. Wars? Killing. Back burning to lessen the impact of bush fires? Killing. Property development? Killing. Pet owning? Tacit approval of killing.

This, people, is a technique known as Reductio ad absurdum.

P.s - It's also interesting to note the the Jews were rounded up by the Nazis because they convinced people they weren't human.

Godwin would be proud...ly shaking his head in smug disapproval.



In any case, the foetus as a person thing can be seen as a massive case of pathetic fallacy, in which inanimate objects are ascribed characteristics of animate objects. Really until a certain point, a foetus is just a cluster of reproducing and specialising cells with no consciousness to speak of.

Now that we're getting into consciousness, enter Radical Behaviorism that considers humans black box systems because all that exists observably is behaviour. No such thing as consciousness driving behaviour, just behaviour. So what is it that makes living humans special then? Is it that we are independent entities capable of life?

Then there's the rights argument. There's a supposition here that in all instances it is immoral and wrong to take any life. If that is the case (and I doubt it is, for reasons listed above), abortion is clearly a moral wrong and should never be done. Secondary to the rights issue is the idea of inalienable natural human rights. That is to say, the assumption that through pure law of the universe/nature, humans have intrinsic rights (i.e. Human rights are something beyond the conception of self serving humans). This too, is unlikely. The universe is not a special place that gives humans rights above all other life.

But then, do we as moral agents have a responsibility to act in morally justifiable ways? In that case, does the right to life trump all other rights? I'd direct you to A Defence of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thompson and its interesting Violinist thought experiment. 9 months and use of bodily resources is a lot to ask of a person.

Now let's think of it in a purely unemotional sense. According to Google (yes, Google, not sites I found on Google) there are 6.9737 BILLION humans alive right now. That's a lot of people. Earth has finite resources. Bringing an unwanted baby to term and then adopting it out may feel like the warm and fuzzy thing to do, and the child may have a good life in the end, but what about the rest of us? Why put unnecessary strain on our already finite resources for the sake of a moral issue that affects Only humans? That's incredible hubris and arrogance on the part of humanity, right there. Selfish we are as a species, and selfish we shall remain. It's what makes us successful, but maybe too successful. There's more life on this planet than just human life. I, for one, live with a cat and a bunch of fish, some plants, and the native fauna that like to visit every now and then (though they may be classed as squatters or vagrants, whatever). Maybe I just don't like people (possible and reasonable to say), or maybe I have a point (possible and reasonable to say), but we should really be having less babies.

Oh wait, I changed my mind, we should be having more babies and lowering our life expectancy so we don't live so unnaturally long and drain everything from the environment to public funding. But that's not going to happen, so until then, fewer babies, please?


So there you have it, a number of avenues in which to view the abortion/adoption/rights issue. Have fun and don't get your God in my soup, please. I'd have to order another one and I don't like making waiters' lives miserable.

I asked a question and you give me crap about WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

Just keeping this trend alive, baby.

fireheartedkaratepup wrote:Also, rape cases make up around 1% of actual abortions.

Yes, because rape isn't regarded in the literature as a vastly underreported crime. Not at all. Wouldn't skew any other results dependent on the number of reported rapes, nup.

And in any case, we're far too successful a species for our own good. We really could do with a lot less humans on earth.

*edited for typo*

Well... lets really spice things up shall we? I'm eighteen years old. I'm pregnant. And I can honestly say it's one of the most terrifying things I've ever gone through. I mean... I'm going to college right now. My boyfriend and I have been off and on for four years. I make next to no income. And I'm truly and honestly not ready for this. I'm fifteen weeks pregnant and I've posted on this thread before. And I probably was very pro choice. And I still am. But MY choice is to keep my baby... because this is my responsibility and even when I have nothing... I'm going to make the best of this. It's so easy to think that you'd do one thing until you are actually faced with being pregnant. And then everything changes. YOU change.

My point is... no one knows what they're going to do until they're in the situation. But to tell people what to do with their own bodies... with their own responsibilities... I don't think that's right.

We have to trust that women will make the right choices for THEM. And we as individuals have absolutely no right to tell anyone what their right choice is. People have told me to have an abortion, and people have told me to put my baby up for adoption. And I'm honestly not sure which offended me more. But thats ME. Those weren't paths I felt comfortable taking seeing as I was adopted and I understand how screwed up it can make someone. (I'm a prime example) I resent my father for giving me up. Because even if it was for the best, it still hurts to know someone gave up on me... and I'd never want my baby to feel that way.

But that's all I have to say now. Food for thought I guess, folks.