The Future of Abortion

[BigBallinStalin]

@Sym,

I remember someone posting various definitions of "fetus" and spent a 8-line long post on it. I use the word "fetus" for the sake of brevity. I've been using it to refer to that thing which usually develops into a child from the time of fertilization to some vague time upon exiting. Moving past such an easy problem, we still have larger issues to deal with.


(1) Now suppose the medical reasons change in the future, so that a fetus at the time of fertilization is viable and at a very low price. How would that change your view? In other words, why not answer the question in the OP?

If you're not interested in the main issues, then it's unnecessary for you to post in here. But if you want to engage the main issues, then I whole-heartedly* welcome it.

*By "heart," I use it as a metaphor. I hope my use of that word will not send you on a minor tangent.

[Lootifer]

RDS views abortion in that scenario as justifiable.

Mmmm, maybe, but I dont think he's quite embraced your limited scope.

[BigBallinStalin]

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

Since abortion is not just about financial cost, then what else matters?
(I've implied a lot of non-monetary considerations already).

And how do your factors justify abortion in the circumstances described in the OP?

[BigBallinStalin]

RDS views abortion in that scenario as justifiable.

Mmmm, maybe, but I dont think he's quite embraced your limited scope.

Yeah, for odd reasons, he believes that you can hold a contract with a rock. I don't find that reasonable because that would be false anthropomorphism, so it's up to him to revise his analogy or to defend his decision that denying a 100% likely future somebody the opportunity to live in a totes awesome place is justified.

[john9blue]

@Sym,

I remember someone posting various definitions of "fetus" and spent a 8-line long post on it. I use the word "fetus" for the sake of brevity. I've been using it to refer to that thing which usually develops into a child from the time of fertilization to some vague time upon exiting. Moving past such an easy problem, we still have larger issues to deal with.

that was when symmetry whined about my use of the word "fetus" in an attempt to avoid having to defend his own pro-choice stance. the best defense is a good offense! sym and i go way back with this kind of stuff.

[wrestler1ump]

If people could only get abortions by doing it themselves with the clothes-hanger method, abortion wouldn't be much of an issue.

[Symmetry]

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

Since abortion is not just about financial cost, then what else matters?
(I've implied a lot of non-monetary considerations already).

And how do your factors justify abortion in the circumstances described in the OP?

They aren't my factors, they're facts.

Of course, but what non-monetary costs justify killing the fetus? If you evict the child at the same price as an abortion, there's all sorts of non-monetary costs involved afterward, but at least the mother doesn't reduce the fetus' chance to live at 0%.

I present this view because although I'm in favor of the option to abort, I can't think of any good reasons which justify violating the rights of a fetus. Of course, one can say, "well, the fetus isn't a human being; therefore, it has no rights--but but but, it's a child at some arbitrary point in between fertilization and leaving the womb." Now, some pro-choicers argue that the fetus isn't a baby until it has exited stage left of the vagina, but when pressed further, that position seems absurd because they must admit that the baby is not a human being when it's 5 seconds from exiting stage left.

That withstanding, what's interesting about evictionism is its implications for the future as medical technology improves, so that even a fetus at one week could develop into a human being. Since this increases the viability range of a fetus, I find that evictionism may offer a better compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice positions. Furthermore, evictionism takes the strongest arguments of the opposition by assuming that the fetus is a human at the time of fertilization. That's a difficult stance to take, yet it's more admirable, and more critical of the pro-life position and even the pro-choice position.

Would it help if I pointed out that the foetal stage occurs well past the first week of a pregnancy? Indeed, that few abortions are of fetuses? And that those abortions of fetuses are largely done for medical reasons?

I'd say that medical reasons are a good justification. Wouldn't you? Say an ectopic pregnancy?

Care to answer?

[john9blue]

If people could only get abortions by doing it themselves with the clothes-hanger method, abortion wouldn't be much of an issue.

holy fucking shit! where have you been, wump?

[wrestler1ump]

I haven't really been logging on much here once my premium membership expired.

[thegreekdog]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

[Symmetry]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Financial cost isn't the same as biological cost. Removed is also the wrong word for most abortions.

[thegreekdog]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Financial cost isn't the same as biological cost. Removed is also the wrong word for most abortions.

(1) I'm talking about BBS's removal of the post-fertilized egg scenario.
(2) What are biological costs?

I asked you two questions (which is really one question): Why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman? Not that you care, but I would really appreciate it if you would answer the question. Perhaps someone else can answer the question.

[BigBallinStalin]

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

Since abortion is not just about financial cost, then what else matters?
(I've implied a lot of non-monetary considerations already).

And how do your factors justify abortion in the circumstances described in the OP?

They aren't my factors, they're facts.

Without stating what those facts actually are, you're completely lacking a defense here. Do I have to hold your hand and explain to you the importance of being clear and explaining which non-monetary costs matter?

How about I say something foolish like "they're facts; therefore, my position is correct"?

Here's another argument:
1. I'm right, ur wrong.
2. They're facts.
3. Therefore, I'm right, ur wrong.

Of course, but what non-monetary costs justify killing the fetus? If you evict the child at the same price as an abortion, there's all sorts of non-monetary costs involved afterward, but at least the mother doesn't reduce the fetus' chance to live at 0%.

I present this view because although I'm in favor of the option to abort, I can't think of any good reasons which justify violating the rights of a fetus. Of course, one can say, "well, the fetus isn't a human being; therefore, it has no rights--but but but, it's a child at some arbitrary point in between fertilization and leaving the womb." Now, some pro-choicers argue that the fetus isn't a baby until it has exited stage left of the vagina, but when pressed further, that position seems absurd because they must admit that the baby is not a human being when it's 5 seconds from exiting stage left.

That withstanding, what's interesting about evictionism is its implications for the future as medical technology improves, so that even a fetus at one week could develop into a human being. Since this increases the viability range of a fetus, I find that evictionism may offer a better compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice positions. Furthermore, evictionism takes the strongest arguments of the opposition by assuming that the fetus is a human at the time of fertilization. That's a difficult stance to take, yet it's more admirable, and more critical of the pro-life position and even the pro-choice position.

Would it help if I pointed out that the foetal stage occurs well past the first week of a pregnancy? Indeed, that few abortions are of fetuses? And that those abortions of fetuses are largely done for medical reasons?

I'd say that medical reasons are a good justification. Wouldn't you? Say an ectopic pregnancy?

Care to answer?

It's irrelevant because there was a misunderstanding on my use of the word "fetus." After I cleared up that confusion, it's become apparent that you failed to read my response. Either you're dense, you're trolling, or you're somehow failing to see that your tangent is a tangent. I mean, why bother with you on this?

[BigBallinStalin]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Financial cost isn't the same as biological cost. Removed is also the wrong word for most abortions.

Maybe you should reread the OP.

We're talking about evicting, which is in a sense removal. I know you're tedious about the irrerelevance of definitions, but why can't you simply read the OP and answer the question? Or explain which costs, monetary and non-monetary, matter?

Maybe we shouldn't take you seriously? I hope we can take you seriously!

[Symmetry]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Financial cost isn't the same as biological cost. Removed is also the wrong word for most abortions.

Maybe you should reread the OP.

We're talking about evicting, which is in a sense removal. I know you're tedious about the irrerelevance of definitions, but why can't you simply read the OP and answer the question? Or explain which costs, monetary and non-monetary, matter?

Maybe we shouldn't take you seriously? I hope we can take you seriously!

Perhaps you wanted this thread to be on eviction, but as is, it's about abortion.

[BigBallinStalin]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Financial cost isn't the same as biological cost. Removed is also the wrong word for most abortions.

Maybe you should reread the OP.

We're talking about evicting, which is in a sense removal. I know you're tedious about the irrerelevance of definitions, but why can't you simply read the OP and answer the question? Or explain which costs, monetary and non-monetary, matter?

Maybe we shouldn't take you seriously? I hope we can take you seriously!

Perhaps you wanted this thread to be on eviction, but as is, it's about abortion.

Haha, see that weak sauce roar into the air!


Hey, this was the best part:

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

Of course, but what non-monetary costs justify killing the fetus?
(no response; just like the Christian terrorist claim).

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

Since abortion is not just about financial cost, then what else matters?
(I've implied a lot of non-monetary considerations already).

And how do your factors justify abortion in the circumstances described in the OP?

They aren't my factors, they're facts.

Haha, I still get a kick outta this response. It's sounds like Phattism!

What else matters?

"They're facts!"

[Symmetry]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Financial cost isn't the same as biological cost. Removed is also the wrong word for most abortions.

Maybe you should reread the OP.

We're talking about evicting, which is in a sense removal. I know you're tedious about the irrerelevance of definitions, but why can't you simply read the OP and answer the question? Or explain which costs, monetary and non-monetary, matter?

Maybe we shouldn't take you seriously? I hope we can take you seriously!

Perhaps you wanted this thread to be on eviction, but as is, it's about abortion.

Haha, see that weak sauce roar into the air!


Hey, this was the best part:

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

Of course, but what non-monetary costs justify killing the fetus?
(no response; just like the Christian terrorist claim).

As I've pointed out and provided evidence for, few abortions occur at the foetal stage, would you like me to post the evidence again? It was one of your previous errors.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, you didn't read the OP. I see. Carry on arguing about the irrelevant!

[Symmetry]

Oh, you didn't read the OP. I see. Carry on arguing about the irrelevant!

Arguing about what constitutes a fetus is kind of key to your OP. Indeed you argue (in the current edit), that abortion of fetuses should be considered evictions.

As abortions should obviously not be termed the eviction of a fetus, you have several problems with your terms.

[Phatscotty]

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, you didn't read the OP. I see. Carry on arguing about the irrelevant!

Arguing about what constitutes a fetus is kind of key to your OP. Indeed you argue (in the current edit), that abortion of fetuses should be considered evictions.

As abortions should obviously not be termed the eviction of a fetus, you have several problems with your terms.

I already defined "fetus" for you, so you forgot to read that too.

We can wait while you debate whether you should actually listen to others.

[Symmetry]

Oh, you didn't read the OP. I see. Carry on arguing about the irrelevant!

Arguing about what constitutes a fetus is kind of key to your OP. Indeed you argue (in the current edit), that abortion of fetuses should be considered evictions.

As abortions should obviously not be termed the eviction of a fetus, you have several problems with your terms.

I already defined "fetus" for you, so you forgot to read that too.

We can wait while you debate whether you should actually listen to others.

I've checked the entire thread. You've not defined "fetus", unless you mean the "like an unwanted tenant" thing or that you were employing the word out of laziness.

It's still pretty key. Indeed, your argument for using the word is essentially the "personhood" argument under a different guise.

[BigBallinStalin]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177767&start=45#p3883637

[Baron Von PWN]

If there are no costs to the woman. not legally responsible, no or equivalent medical risks. Then it would appear to me that the eviction scenario is preferable to the abortion option.

Though an argument in favour of the abortion side, might be that a woman is allowed to choose whether they reproduce or not, of course for it to be even in this case the man would have to have that right as well.


the only exception would perhaps be in cases of rape in which case I believe the woman would be justified in not wanting the rapist's genes to be passed on.

[BigBallinStalin]

If there are no costs to the woman. not legally responsible, no or equivalent medical risks. Then it would appear to me that the eviction scenario is preferable to the abortion option.

Though an argument in favour of the abortion side, might be that a woman is allowed to choose whether they reproduce or not, of course for it to be even in this case the man would have to have that right as well.


the only exception would perhaps be in cases of rape in which case I believe the woman would be justified in not wanting the rapist's genes to be passed on.

Is being a rapist caused by one's genes or is it more of a nurture issue--or is it from the influence of one's peer group?