A question for those against abortion

[KotariZythynn]

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

Vixianna

Anaiira

Okay. I'll concede that the mother is just a source of food/water for the fetus. But there isn't an alternative source. And pregnancy does incur damage to the mother. Analogy time! A louse only requires human scalp for food/water. It damages humans, and what it does itches/hurts. Therefore it's a parasite. If there were an alternative for its food/water, it wouldn't be a parasite... but there isn't. Therefore a louse is a parasite.

lulz. yuss. I did compare it to a college exam. I'm going through them right now. And Biology M is being a big pain in the posterior. I just don't feel convinced enough to concede on this point. Quote taken out of context though. My point was that pregnancy is not a choice. Like on the SATs, you take a chance, and you know that you might get penalized, by no one ever goes, "Hey, E is obviously wrong, but I think I'm going to choose that because I want to be penalized." And an abortion is like canceling your scores. ;D (Except abortion costs money.)

I was thinking it was a weird/bad analogy to begin with.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Which was a point I made myself. If there was an alternative source, not a single anti-abortion person would be complaining, AND the mother wouldn't have some percieved right to abortion, because there was an option that saved both lives. This of course is a non-issue at this time from infeasibility.

Firstly, it's a different species, and not even in the same position, external as opposed to internal, in the person, but I'll play along once again. Louse themselves don't actually cause damage. The chance for bacterial infection is the only really concern other than the "ick" factor, so no the parasite itself isn't causing harm. It's an annoyance, but the scratching itself causes much more damage than the louse. Just as well, we aren't allowed much latitude for annoyances. You are not allowed to kill your neighbor because of annoyance, nor should you kill another human life because of annoyance. Your analogue is once again inapplicable, or doesn't present the picture you'd like. The fetus, even if not a "being" under our legal terms, is both human by DNA and living, that is self-evident, therefore it should be allowed some kind of protective latitude.

As for your explanation of your original faulty analogue. I disagree, I gave a perfectly good explanation of what your analogy really means, so unless you have an actual rebuttal for why mine is inaccurate, you can not merely substitute your own meaning for convenience. Pregnancy is most like getting the question wrong whether you narrowed or not, but you are suggesting that specific instance as in that specific question be excused. Canceling the scores is much more like getting permanently sterilized.

Obviously lice are not human. The position doesn't really matter. The analogy applies, because a louse takes food and nutrients from human scalp. Fetuses take food and nutrients from its mother. They both require living on something else. And a louse is a parasite. (And I'd call blood sucking damaging. Not massively so, but still damaging.)

I'm pretty sure I get to define what my analogy means... and I define it as what I stated when I first said it. In context. But yes. Most of your revision of my analogy applies. I said much of the same to Paramedico. Contraceptives are like getting rid of some wrong answers. The analogy does serve me, because on the SATs, there is something like abortion. Cancelling the scores. You're penalized, but you cancel the penalization. It's not like being permanently sterilized, because you are still allowed to take the SATs again. Being permanently sterilized is like being forbidden to enter the testing rooms and never being able to take the SATs ever. Therefore you can never get a wrong answer on the SATs anymore... Ever.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

...Then that applies to an infant as well because they are extremely dependent on their mother.

Not really. An infant doesn't require the mother's body to be the source of food and nutrition. Ever hear of infant formula?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

A louse doesn't need a specific person either, they can go from person to person, but they NEED somebody to live. An infant isnt going to feed itself formula.

[Paramedico]

Jumps the Gun

The fact is, abortion will occur, but people seem to think all it is is a punch in the stomach or a coat hanger.

This is a human body, and miscarriage is incredibly dangerous. So is falling down the stairs, punching, and coathangers and instruments.

Infection, and perforation main reasons.

Abortionists keep this from being done. They have sterile rooms, clean equipment. This saves women and any future offspring they may have.

Nothing good comes from an abortion ban. Nothing.

Ethically, I both agree and disagree with you.

I would much rather an abortion be performed by trained professionals than in a back-alley by some fool with a hanger. On the same token, I must be an advocate for life and treat both the mother and the baby each as separate but interconnected lives.

[Anaiira]

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

Vixianna

Anaiira

Okay. I'll concede that the mother is just a source of food/water for the fetus. But there isn't an alternative source. And pregnancy does incur damage to the mother. Analogy time! A louse only requires human scalp for food/water. It damages humans, and what it does itches/hurts. Therefore it's a parasite. If there were an alternative for its food/water, it wouldn't be a parasite... but there isn't. Therefore a louse is a parasite.

lulz. yuss. I did compare it to a college exam. I'm going through them right now. And Biology M is being a big pain in the posterior. I just don't feel convinced enough to concede on this point. Quote taken out of context though. My point was that pregnancy is not a choice. Like on the SATs, you take a chance, and you know that you might get penalized, by no one ever goes, "Hey, E is obviously wrong, but I think I'm going to choose that because I want to be penalized." And an abortion is like canceling your scores. ;D (Except abortion costs money.)

I was thinking it was a weird/bad analogy to begin with.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Which was a point I made myself. If there was an alternative source, not a single anti-abortion person would be complaining, AND the mother wouldn't have some percieved right to abortion, because there was an option that saved both lives. This of course is a non-issue at this time from infeasibility.

Firstly, it's a different species, and not even in the same position, external as opposed to internal, in the person, but I'll play along once again. Louse themselves don't actually cause damage. The chance for bacterial infection is the only really concern other than the "ick" factor, so no the parasite itself isn't causing harm. It's an annoyance, but the scratching itself causes much more damage than the louse. Just as well, we aren't allowed much latitude for annoyances. You are not allowed to kill your neighbor because of annoyance, nor should you kill another human life because of annoyance. Your analogue is once again inapplicable, or doesn't present the picture you'd like. The fetus, even if not a "being" under our legal terms, is both human by DNA and living, that is self-evident, therefore it should be allowed some kind of protective latitude.

As for your explanation of your original faulty analogue. I disagree, I gave a perfectly good explanation of what your analogy really means, so unless you have an actual rebuttal for why mine is inaccurate, you can not merely substitute your own meaning for convenience. Pregnancy is most like getting the question wrong whether you narrowed or not, but you are suggesting that specific instance as in that specific question be excused. Canceling the scores is much more like getting permanently sterilized.

Obviously lice are not human. The position doesn't really matter. The analogy applies, because a louse takes food and nutrients from human scalp. Fetuses take food and nutrients from its mother. They both require living on something else. And a louse is a parasite. (And I'd call blood sucking damaging. Not massively so, but still damaging.)

I'm pretty sure I get to define what my analogy means... and I define it as what I stated when I first said it. In context. But yes. Most of your revision of my analogy applies. I said much of the same to Paramedico. Contraceptives are like getting rid of some wrong answers. The analogy does serve me, because on the SATs, there is something like abortion. Cancelling the scores. You're penalized, but you cancel the penalization. It's not like being permanently sterilized, because you are still allowed to take the SATs again. Being permanently sterilized is like being forbidden to enter the testing rooms and never being able to take the SATs ever. Therefore you can never get a wrong answer on the SATs anymore... Ever.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

...Then that applies to an infant as well because they are extremely dependent on their mother.

Not really. An infant doesn't require the mother's body to be the source of food and nutrition. Ever hear of infant formula?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

A louse doesn't need a specific person either, they can go from person to person, but they NEED somebody to live. An infant isnt going to feed itself formula.

True, but an infant taking formula doesn't need to take nutrients and food directly from the mother. There needs to be a person, but the infant is not feeding off of said person. A louse, no matter which person it's on, still needs to feed off of that person.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

[Sexual Chocolat]

What the ********? That s**t aint got a damn thing to do WITH abortion.

[KotariZythynn]

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

Obviously lice are not human. The position doesn't really matter. The analogy applies, because a louse takes food and nutrients from human scalp. Fetuses take food and nutrients from its mother. They both require living on something else. And a louse is a parasite. (And I'd call blood sucking damaging. Not massively so, but still damaging.)

I'm pretty sure I get to define what my analogy means... and I define it as what I stated when I first said it. In context. But yes. Most of your revision of my analogy applies. I said much of the same to Paramedico. Contraceptives are like getting rid of some wrong answers. The analogy does serve me, because on the SATs, there is something like abortion. Cancelling the scores. You're penalized, but you cancel the penalization. It's not like being permanently sterilized, because you are still allowed to take the SATs again. Being permanently sterilized is like being forbidden to enter the testing rooms and never being able to take the SATs ever. Therefore you can never get a wrong answer on the SATs anymore... Ever.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

...Then that applies to an infant as well because they are extremely dependent on their mother.

Not really. An infant doesn't require the mother's body to be the source of food and nutrition. Ever hear of infant formula?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

A louse doesn't need a specific person either, they can go from person to person, but they NEED somebody to live. An infant isnt going to feed itself formula.

True, but an infant taking formula doesn't need to take nutrients and food directly from the mother. There needs to be a person, but the infant is not feeding off of said person. A louse, no matter which person it's on, still needs to feed off of that person.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Then whats the difference between an infant and a fetus in regards to sustaining itself?

[September the Eleventh]

Sexual Chocolat

What the ********? That s**t aint got a damn thing to do WITH abortion.

I'm gonna have to go with Chocolat on this one here.

[Sexual Chocolat]

September the Eleventh

Sexual Chocolat

What the ********? That s**t aint got a damn thing to do WITH abortion.

I'm gonna have to go with Chocolat on this one here.

Stop d**k-riding me. sad

[Vixianna]

Violent Mammography

I'm not disagreeing with everything that you're saying here, but childbirth, before modern medicine, was the leading cause of death in young women.

Central Asia Health Review

In 100,000 live births, 1,600 women will die as a direct cause of pregnancy or childbirth in Afghanistan. Childbirth is dangerous if done alone, and even more dangerous if assisted with dirty tools or by unskilled hands. We in the developed world are blessed with healthcare systems that take care of us wonderfully, and the risk of dying in childbirth is next to nil. That doesn't mean that it was always that way, or that it isn't that way in other countries. You mock the plight of women around the world to say that it's exaggerating to say childbirth isn't immediately fatal. You're right, it isn't *always* fatal, but can be, and more often than it should be, it is.

More info on Maternal Mortality Rates

More often than it should be is rather subjective. and 1,600 in 100,000 live births is rather low. Driving kills more often than that, hell the black death kills more often than that. (in ancient times) Honestly? Currently it's the leading cause of death because nothing else is killing us, but malnutrition and disease were much more likely to kill young women and everyone else, if you do a little search on it I'm sure you'd see that.

Besides the WHO disagrees with your number citing 400 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births world wide, with 98% in Africa and Asia, so it supports it's bad medicine and prenatal care as the problem.

"163 million-per-year raw births after 1995" multiplied with a 400 per 100,000 MDR will give me the percentage of how deadly giving birth even is, even without medicine because 98% of them are in Africa and Asia, so I'll take out that other 2% if you'd like. (.04*.02)-.04=.0392 or a 3.92% fatality rate even when there is little to no care at all, in impoverish malnourished countries. Something tells me this is about the death rate for most of the time in the past. Compared with the Black Death with a 60% death rate per infection for bubonic, and 90% for pneumatic, without care, and you tell me which is worse.

Stop making it out like it was massively deadly, even before modern meds. It can be fatal, but so can water. Your chances of dying in a developed country like the U.S is .08%, seriously it's not going to happen. Driving your car to work is more dangerous.

Source for Black Death Lethality
Births per year after 1995
The WHO on MDR

[Anaiira]

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

Obviously lice are not human. The position doesn't really matter. The analogy applies, because a louse takes food and nutrients from human scalp. Fetuses take food and nutrients from its mother. They both require living on something else. And a louse is a parasite. (And I'd call blood sucking damaging. Not massively so, but still damaging.)

I'm pretty sure I get to define what my analogy means... and I define it as what I stated when I first said it. In context. But yes. Most of your revision of my analogy applies. I said much of the same to Paramedico. Contraceptives are like getting rid of some wrong answers. The analogy does serve me, because on the SATs, there is something like abortion. Cancelling the scores. You're penalized, but you cancel the penalization. It's not like being permanently sterilized, because you are still allowed to take the SATs again. Being permanently sterilized is like being forbidden to enter the testing rooms and never being able to take the SATs ever. Therefore you can never get a wrong answer on the SATs anymore... Ever.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

...Then that applies to an infant as well because they are extremely dependent on their mother.

Not really. An infant doesn't require the mother's body to be the source of food and nutrition. Ever hear of infant formula?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

A louse doesn't need a specific person either, they can go from person to person, but they NEED somebody to live. An infant isnt going to feed itself formula.

True, but an infant taking formula doesn't need to take nutrients and food directly from the mother. There needs to be a person, but the infant is not feeding off of said person. A louse, no matter which person it's on, still needs to feed off of that person.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Then whats the difference between an infant and a fetus in regards to sustaining itself?

In simplified terms:
Fetus: Must feed off of mother directly. Takes nutrients from her body.
Infant: Doesn't need to feed off mother directly. Does not need to take nutrients from her body.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

[September the Eleventh]

Sexual Chocolat

September the Eleventh

Sexual Chocolat

What the ********? That s**t aint got a damn thing to do WITH abortion.

I'm gonna have to go with Chocolat on this one here.

Stop d**k-riding me. sad

But it's fun. sad And you like it.

[KotariZythynn]

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

Not really. An infant doesn't require the mother's body to be the source of food and nutrition. Ever hear of infant formula?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

A louse doesn't need a specific person either, they can go from person to person, but they NEED somebody to live. An infant isnt going to feed itself formula.

True, but an infant taking formula doesn't need to take nutrients and food directly from the mother. There needs to be a person, but the infant is not feeding off of said person. A louse, no matter which person it's on, still needs to feed off of that person.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Then whats the difference between an infant and a fetus in regards to sustaining itself?

In simplified terms:
Fetus: Must feed off of mother directly. Takes nutrients from her body.
Infant: Doesn't need to feed off mother directly. Does not need to take nutrients from her body.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

What makes it okay to kill a fetus though? Its still a human and it is a life separate from the mothers, despite being 100% dependent on her.

[Anaiira]

Vixianna

Anaiira

Obviously lice are not human. The position doesn't really matter. The analogy applies, because a louse takes food and nutrients from human scalp. Fetuses take food and nutrients from its mother. They both require living on something else. And a louse is a parasite. (And I'd call blood sucking damaging. Not massively so, but still damaging.)

I'm pretty sure I get to define what my analogy means... and I define it as what I stated when I first said it. In context. But yes. Most of your revision of my analogy applies. I said much of the same to Paramedico. Contraceptives are like getting rid of some wrong answers. The analogy does serve me, because on the SATs, there is something like abortion. Cancelling the scores. You're penalized, but you cancel the penalization. It's not like being permanently sterilized, because you are still allowed to take the SATs again. Being permanently sterilized is like being forbidden to enter the testing rooms and never being able to take the SATs ever. Therefore you can never get a wrong answer on the SATs anymore... Ever.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Oh course you get to define your analogy but that doesn't make it right. I'll agree permanent sterilization is like never taking the test again, However, the penalization isn't the pregnancy itself, pregnancy is like getting the question wrong. Doing so in and of itself isn't actually causing harm. Penalization in this case, analogous to being made to carry it to term, is the same as being penalized on the test. However, canceling the scores doesn't actually make the scores not exist, it just means that the recipient, in this case lets say a family or the partner, just doesn't see the scores. The scores still exist, but the original recipients don't see them. Abortions actually kill the "scores" themselves, making them much more like a "freebie/do over" than canceling the scores.

What constitutes harm here? If a louse sucking blood, or a mosquito, doing so constitutes harm, then accidentally scratching yourself has just been put on the same level as pregnancy, because that causes about the same amount of harm as a louse or mosquito. You don't actually have the right to kill a human life for that kind of harm, it's not life threatening and doesn't cause an lasting are even mild kind of damage. Basically you've just shot yourself in the foot, because that's exactly what pregnancy is. Temporary, non-life threatening, mild and non-lasting "harm". Unless you concede I have the right to demand your life because of a small scratch, you are going to have to prove all fetuses cause irreversible moderate to severe harm to women, because I've already allowed for medically necessary, as defined as life threatening, abortions.

By canceling the score, the score sheet isn't marked. The score sheet may exist after canceling, but it's not worth anything anymore, it can't be used. That's tantamount to "killing" the score.

Okay. Fine. I concede. Can we get back to abortion?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

[Vixianna]

Little Maus

Vixianna

Anaiira

Obviously lice are not human. The position doesn't really matter. The analogy applies, because a louse takes food and nutrients from human scalp. Fetuses take food and nutrients from its mother. They both require living on something else. And a louse is a parasite. (And I'd call blood sucking damaging. Not massively so, but still damaging.)

I'm pretty sure I get to define what my analogy means... and I define it as what I stated when I first said it. In context. But yes. Most of your revision of my analogy applies. I said much of the same to Paramedico. Contraceptives are like getting rid of some wrong answers. The analogy does serve me, because on the SATs, there is something like abortion. Cancelling the scores. You're penalized, but you cancel the penalization. It's not like being permanently sterilized, because you are still allowed to take the SATs again. Being permanently sterilized is like being forbidden to enter the testing rooms and never being able to take the SATs ever. Therefore you can never get a wrong answer on the SATs anymore... Ever.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Oh course you get to define your analogy but that doesn't make it right. I'll agree permanent sterilization is like never taking the test again, However, the penalization isn't the pregnancy itself, pregnancy is like getting the question wrong. Doing so in and of itself isn't actually causing harm. Penalization in this case, analogous to being made to carry it to term, is the same as being penalized on the test. However, canceling the scores doesn't actually make the scores not exist, it just means that the recipient, in this case lets say a family or the partner, just doesn't see the scores. The scores still exist, but the original recipients don't see them. Abortions actually kill the "scores" themselves, making them much more like a "freebie/do over" than canceling the scores.

What constitutes harm here? If a louse sucking blood, or a mosquito, doing so constitutes harm, then accidentally scratching yourself has just been put on the same level as pregnancy, because that causes about the same amount of harm as a louse or mosquito. You don't actually have the right to kill a human life for that kind of harm, it's not life threatening and doesn't cause an lasting are even mild kind of damage. Basically you've just shot yourself in the foot, because that's exactly what pregnancy is. Temporary, non-life threatening, mild and non-lasting "harm". Unless you concede I have the right to demand your life because of a small scratch, you are going to have to prove all fetuses cause irreversible moderate to severe harm to women, because I've already allowed for medically necessary, as defined as life threatening, abortions.

And you don't factor in a woman's social life as a factor in being pro-life? (just asking if you consider it or not)

I do, however the damages are avoidable, there is no reason to stop schooling, and they can't fire you for being pregnant and if you can prove they did, or give reasonable belief as such, you can sue their asses off. The only thing you'd have to worry about is being called a slut socially, but if you sleep around alot then you'd be used to that, if it's a partner issue, there is adoption, and that goes for the emotional issue as well of thinking you can't care for the child. The only thing left is a compulsive fear of pregnancy or childbirth, or an absolute hatred of it making carrying the child awful emotionally. However I've done the math on this and carrying the child to term is 1% of your life span. Carrying it to 20 weeks is .56% of your life span if you live to 74 as a women, (which unless you were born before 1970(and you wouldn't likely be of child baring age for much longer if at all you must likely would). You spend more time in school than you would pregnant, it's not going to ruin anything you don't let it, other than a compulsive fear, the rest is pure selfishness to a degree I can not condone.

[Sexual Chocolat]

September the Eleventh

Sexual Chocolat

September the Eleventh

Sexual Chocolat

What the ********? That s**t aint got a damn thing to do WITH abortion.

I'm gonna have to go with Chocolat on this one here.

Stop d**k-riding me. sad

But it's fun. sad And you like it.

Okay I like you dickriding me so keep doing it and follow me around.

[Anaiira]

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

KotariZythynn

Anaiira

Not really. An infant doesn't require the mother's body to be the source of food and nutrition. Ever hear of infant formula?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

A louse doesn't need a specific person either, they can go from person to person, but they NEED somebody to live. An infant isnt going to feed itself formula.

True, but an infant taking formula doesn't need to take nutrients and food directly from the mother. There needs to be a person, but the infant is not feeding off of said person. A louse, no matter which person it's on, still needs to feed off of that person.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

Then whats the difference between an infant and a fetus in regards to sustaining itself?

In simplified terms:
Fetus: Must feed off of mother directly. Takes nutrients from her body.
Infant: Doesn't need to feed off mother directly. Does not need to take nutrients from her body.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

What makes it okay to kill a fetus though? Its still a human and it is a life separate from the mothers, despite being 100% dependent on her.

If it's 100% dependent on the mother, why shouldn't the mother have 100% of the decision to abort the fetus? The fetus can't think. The fetus can't feel pain. And it can't live separately from the mother, so no. It is not a life separate from the mother.

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif