Abortionists, why have kids just to sacrifice them?

**Blasphemer** · Dec 16 2011, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Whaler17

So what? Isn't no having kids preferable to becoming a killer of your own child (in utero)?

Assuming the child never develops a mind before its killed, it is preferable indeed.
In the first case, someone sentient suffers (the woman which cannot have kids). In the second case, noone sentient suffers (the killed child is not yet sentient).

There is nothing wrong with killing non-sentient life (especially if it benefits sentient life), no matter its DNA sequence.

**Whaler17** · Dec 16 2011, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Assuming the child never develops a mind before its killed, it is preferable indeed.
In the first case, someone sentient suffers (the woman which cannot have kids). In the second case, noone sentient suffers (the killed child is not yet sentient).

There is nothing wrong with killing non-sentient life (especially if it benefits sentient life), no matter its DNA sequence.

This is just your opinion (obviously) and I disagree completely. "Sentience" is not a valid threshold to prtect human life. FOr one thing it is arbitrary as not all humans reach that point at the same exact time in development. This means any trimester threshold is arbitrary and unsufficient to accomplish the goal it is purported to have.

**Blasphemer** · Dec 16 2011, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Whaler17

This is just your opinion (obviously) and I disagree completely. "Sentience" is not a valid threshold to prtect human life. FOr one thing it is arbitrary as not all humans reach that point at the same exact time in development. This means any trimester threshold is arbitrary and unsufficient to accomplish the goal it is purported to have.

Its no less valid than your opinion (obviously).

Appearance of sentience is pretty exact, enough for our purposes:
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

Even if we simply took the lowest common denominator (earliest possible time for sentience to develop + some buffer), still at least abortion in the first trimester would be legal, since we are 100% sure fetus cannot contain mind in the first trimester. I am OK even with such legislation, if we want to be 100% sure we wont kill a sentient being.

Overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester anyway.

**Whaler17** · Dec 16 2011, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

enough for our purposes:
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

Absolutely exact would be the only "exact enough".

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Even if we simply took the lowest common denominator (earliest possible time for sentience to develop + some buffer), still at least abortion in the first trimester would be legal, since we are 100% sure fetus cannot contain mind in the first trimester. I am OK even with such legislation, if we want to be 100% sure we wont kill a sentient being.

Overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester anyway.

It is all irrelevant, because that is an irrational and insignificant threshold.

The difference between our points of view are that I am looking at this objectively, and you are searching for justification for abortion.

**Blasphemer** · Dec 16 2011, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Whaler17

Absolutely exact would be the only "exact enough".

Why?

Even conception takes some time, its not instantaneous (nothing in this universe is).

It is all irrelevant, because that is an irrational and insignificant threshold.

Your subjective opinion. I disagree. The question of sentience is central for the answer to the question of rights for me.

The difference between our points of view are that I am looking at this objectively, and you are searching for justification for abortion.

There is nothing objective about your opinion that human life should have rights even without mind (just like there is nothing objetive about my opinion). Its a moral claim (claim about values and not facts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction

I am not looking to justify my opinion, I just dont see any reason why protect unsentient life (regardless of its DNA sequence).

I can say you are looking for justification to punish women for sexual irresponsibility, if we want to go down the strawman path (or is it not a strawman?

)

**danielpalos** · Dec 16 2011, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

Why don't you just get yourself fixed prior to becoming sexually active?

and save the "what if I was raped" rant.

the percentage of rape babies is way below the normal abortion consent numbers by the female.

you can't tell me that 95% of all abortions are from rapes. that's a lie. the majority are from unwanted pregnancies. FACT

So why waste taxpayer money to do this? why not tie your tubes and save the world some grief from killing your baby?

Why not simply make better prevention methods available?

**Whaler17** · Dec 16 2011, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Why?

Even conception takes some time, its not instantaneous (nothing in this universe is).

The implication being "come on man I have to justify abortion somehow and nobody would go for totaly unrestricted abortion, so what threshold should I use?"

The answer? NONE, it should be illegal unless there is verified imminent risk of death or serious injury to the mother!

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Your subjective opinion. I disagree. The question of sentience is central for the answer to the question of rights for me.

Your subjective opinion, and I disagree. Sentinece does not define a human being.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

There is nothing objective about your opinion that human life should have rights even without mind (just like there is nothing objetive about my opinion). Its a moral claim (claim about values and not facts).

There is nothing objective AT ALL about your comments. They all act under the assumption that abortion should be allowed, we just need to trump up some justification for it.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

I am not looking to justify my opinion, I just dont see any reason why protect unsentient life (regardless of its DNA sequence).

You absolutely are just trying to justify your opinion!!!

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

I can say you are looking for justification to punish women for sexual irresponsibility, if we want to go down the strawman path (or is it not a strawman?

)

Only you have no rational basis for that nonsense. I do have ratonal basis for my comments as I have laid out for you. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a natural consequence, there is a stark difference.

**Blasphemer** · Dec 16 2011, 09:10 AM

There is nothing objective AT ALL about your comments. They all act under the assumption that abortion should be allowed, we just need to trump up some justification for it.

There is nothing objective AT ALL about your comments. They all act under the assumption that abortion should be outlawed, we just need to trump up some justification for it.

Your subjective opinion, and I disagree. Sentinece does not define a human being.

Implying all humans should have rights. Thats your subjective opinion.

Only you have no rational basis for that nonsense.

Define what you mean by rational basis for claims about values, not facts.

I do have ratonal basis for my comments as I have laid out for you.

Where exactly? Your opinion about what attributes should a system with rights have is as subjective as my opinion. And your strawman that I started with conclusion is as valid as my strawman.

Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a natural consequence, there is a stark difference.

If the woman does not want it, it is a punishment for her. Whether its a natural consequence or not is irrelevant if it can be prevented, unless you want to suffer from omission bias or naturalistic fallacy.