Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich
i apologize to my infant child every day as i sincerely believe existence is one of the cruelest things you can inflict on a person

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Talmonis posted:

Errr, a lot of those tests are done well after the first trimester. Checking for undeveloped or malformed lungs, brain, bowel, etc.

My wife is currently in the (admittedly late) second trimester. My son wakes up like clockwork after meals and kicks the poo poo out of her. I've watched a sonogram of him when he got the hiccups. I've seen him sleep, and dreamily twitch in it. So yeah, it's not the full documented and confirmed thesis you may want, but it's good enough for me to see he's alive, valuable and not just some kind of tumor with eyes and a face. So foolish I am, apparently for not writing a documented thesis about it first.

Edit: Ah, so yes. Tumor with eyes to you lot. Got it.

im glad your singular, unique experience with impending fatherhood has touched you deeply and profoundly but it turns out many other people have had this same experience, myself included, and my now birthed child is still basically a tumor with eyes that i love very much

once you start making emotional appeals you've lost bro

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Zeitgueist posted:

If we're going to bug folks making emotional arguments I recommend "comatose internal parasite"

"if it weren't for the heavy doses of oxytocin and bonding hormones which flood my brain in the presence of my child, i would eliminate this squalling hellbeast at the earliest opportunity"

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jan 23, 2015

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Guavanaut posted:

David Benatar makes a fairly solid case that there are always harms involved in bringing a child into existence, and that those harms outweigh any benefits by means of asymmetry. (If you exist, you experience both harm and pleasure, if you don't exist, you don't experience the harm and you don't miss the pleasure.) Since the child cannot consent as to whether to exist or not, that balance of harm is taken on behalf of the child by the parent without their consent. Sure, if the parent really wants the child, they will bring the child into existence whatever, but it means that any argument that the pro-life side puts forward about the fetus not getting a choice in being aborted has a counter in the fetus not getting a choice in being born, and we can show that at least one of those does demonstrably cause asymmetric suffering.

The problem with most of the pro-life (and a sizable chunk of pro-choice) people is that they default to the optimistic position that life somehow has an intrinsic or unquestionable value, life qua life, and that the teeming billions of unborn are somehow missing out on this by their nonexistence, rather than conceding that existence causes harm, termination may cause harm, and we're simply debating which is the lesser. (And also whether you actually exist that far back. If you take persistence of memory as a starting point for the existence of a 'self', you don't really start existing until about 5 months old.)

Philosophical pessimists don't get a lot of airtime in public discourse though (Benatar is a rare exception in that he got some radio spots in South Africa about 10 years back) so the intrinsic value argument often goes unchallenged by either side.

yeah this is pretty much my attitude, life is an equal share of pain and pleasure and it's insanely brutal to subject another person to living without their consent. creating an unwilling life is the same to me as ending one, something which should never be done willingly but the whole human tragedy just kind of keeps lurching on anyway so you just have to accept that things happen and deal with the consequences

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Drunk Orc posted:

I think of myself as pretty progressive but I don't think I should die just because my dad raped my mom, what's so weird about that?

It's your mother's decision to use her body to care for you, the product of rape, if she chooses it.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Drunk Orc posted:

I mean that's kind of an obtuse assumption made after the fact isn't?

you can't miss living before you're ever alive

Drunk Orc posted:

Living is pretty cool and telling people their mom would've been fully justified in effectively murdering them is kind of screwed up, man.

that's the truth. your mother has a choice to bring you into this world or not. her decision does not need to be justified.

consider what you're in favor of here, compulsory pregancy. think about that for a minute

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Drunk Orc posted:

Well it's not like they have to keep the child, there are orphanages and stuff.

she has the choice to not be pregnant, also

Drunk Orc posted:

Human life has intrinsic value beyond comprehension and the way you guys simply dismiss it as a personal choice is super eerie and kind of fascist sounding, to be honest.

you should have played this troll out longer, it was soft but might have eventually gone somewhere if you were patient (much like a fetus)

anyway human life isn't special, but consciousness is. this is why abortion should be permitted and we should have stronger protection for animals, especially animals which have higher order brain function

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Drunk Orc posted:

I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them?

functionally the child is dead either way, but morally there is a difference. people have varied opinions about this unknowable problem and no opinion is any more valid than another, which is why we defer then to giving people the freedom to choose what happens with their own bodies

e: oh you were saying is there a difference between killing a fetus and a grown person, which is a much stupider question. yes there is a difference between killing a person who is alive and can think versus killing a not-yet person who cannot think and is only technically alive

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Drunk Orc posted:

I was genuinely interested in what people thought of this, no need to start belittling me in the midst of a civilized discussion. You people just can't fathom that someone would have a different worldview than you, it's kind of sad really.

you deserve to be belittled if you ask "what is the difference between aborting a fetus and murdering an adult"

that is legitimately a dumb question

like i said you should have put more slack on this troll it's too obvious dude

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Phyzzle posted:

The idea is that you cannot put yourself in a risky situation, then cite self-preservation or self-defense when you're suddenly in an unintentional-but-foreseeable bit of danger.

yes you can. worked for george zimmerman

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Drunk Orc posted:

But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable?

:thejoke:

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

poopinmymouth posted:

And the 2nd, is it really a basic autonomy/no-autonomy trying to get people to make a decision earlier? I don't want to strap anyone down and force them to give birth, but I find the idea of late term abortions extremely off-putting and violent, to the point I'd like to support the best possible way to reduce them.

that would be first trimester abortions

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

poopinmymouth posted:

Sure, but as I posted, none of those reasons are listed as the top reasons as to why American women seek late term abortions, and with rape, well they knew it was rape back before week 20+.

late term abortions are extremely rare. why do you think American women seek them, and how frequently do you think they happen?

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Phyzzle posted:

I'm positing that a fetus is not a person who is attached to you,

uh

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

I would like to submit a thought experiment.

1. A woman is 39 and a half weeks pregnant when her husband suddenly has a heart attack and dies. Not wanting to raise a child without the love of her life, and not wanting her child to grow up in foster care, she elects to have an abortion.

I dunno where your thought experiment is happening but this is not legal in the US.

Ignoring that, there's no moral difference between driving slightly under and slightly over the speed limit, except one speed is illegal.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Pixelated Dragon posted:

A miscarriage is a terrible and traumatic thing to go through. Why would anyone want to further victimize women who endure such a tragedy if there is little to no evidence that they induced it? And where will it stop? Will this country start blaming women when they give birth to ill babies?

a lot of people have really visceral emotional reactions to dead fetuses

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Twelve by Pies posted:

I agree it was a bad choice, but it was still her choice and I kinda felt like it's a bit wrong to frame it as "This is why pro-life beliefs are bad!" Pro-life beliefs are bad because they don't allow women a choice in the first place, pointing to an issue where a woman had a choice and chose an option we don't like sucks, but it's not an example of why pro-life policies are bad. Besides, the only alternative to this is to have denied her the choice by forcing her to take the operation, which would also be a denial of choice, which is not a pro-choice position.

This is all true and I agree with you

but

this is something awful, so

"It's a good thing she gave that child its best chance at life. Shame about the other three"

  • Locked thread