Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Kidchameleon wrote: »

At the end of the day, there is no real loss for the couple, they can simply try again.

Perhaps you should write a letter to the editors of our major dailies containing your above view/opinion for publication along with your name and address so the editors can naturally ascertain the sincerity of the letter's content.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

please dont make assumptions.

The only assumption I made was that if something was not where a user said it was, that you might have the capability to have a TINY look around just in case. Apologies if I over estimated your willingness to engage openly here, as that was the only assumption inherent in that.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its not really fair to accuse me of ignoring you

It is VERY fair given whole enormous posts got ignored and when you do deign to reply to a post you reply to a single sentence within it and ignore the rest. Not only is it fair therefore, it is 100% accurate and true. Demonstrably so if asked in fact. And hitting "thanks" on a post is not engaging with it, it is still ignoring it.

However it is a matter of record now. Anyone here can go back to my posts, consider your responses (or lack of them) and decide themselves if you are engaging honestly with this discourse or not. There is no point going on the merry go around pointing out your behaviour any further. I shall drop it and discuss it no further.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In my opinion, a fertilized egg is a form of human. A fetus is a form of human. I am not saying they are sentient humans, I am simply saying that they are somewhere on the scale of humanity.

Which absolutely no one to my knowledge on this thread, least of all me, has denied. But consider just how vague a non-statement it is you are making there. By that description a Blob of Cancer is a "form of human" too. It has human DNA and is functioning to a cellular reproduction script of it's own. Further what does it even mean to be "Human" in the "a form of human" narrative you propose given the majority of your body mass as a human is not even human?

What we are doing with the "form of human" narrative therefore is serving up another plate of red herring.

The issue here is we have one word "human" for many very different things. And the discourse on abortion over the years has been clouded and harmed by people contriving quite transparently to shift seamlessly between those different meanings to the point of using some of those meanings in contexts where they simply do not apply.

Let us merely use a small h and capital H. I believe the fetus and fertilised egg to be "human". I do not even remotely believe it to be "Human". And I can explain, when and if asked, the differences between the two at no small length.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Sentience to me means having self awareness. If you have ever met a 24 week old baby you would not doubt that they are sentient.

Now who is making assumptions? Real ones, not pretendy ones like you failed to call me out on above? Do not presume or assume to know who or what I have "met" or what "doubts" they did or did not instill in my in my time on this earth. You will be, and are, wrong.

While I doubt, given the lack of evidence, you have ever met one yourself..... the "I just know it" narrative you use here is rather empty. Why would you have no "doubt" about it? Because it moves a bit? Responds to stimulus? Is human shaped? None of those are indicative of sentience. What it IS indicative of is your willingness to project your emotive responses to it at a conclusions you personally want to reach.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There is a reason that medical staff encourage parents to touch & hold premature babies, to be near them, because the babies need to feel it.

Do you have citations to the effect of why touch is encouraged or are you merely piling more assumption onto previous assumption in the hope one will validate the other? Please cite actual medical papers researching why touch is beneficial and encouraged in this regard, and on what basis.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As I have said twice now, I do not speak for Ben Shapiro, I do not follow him.

And as I have said also, and I am happy to repeat it in a circle as long as you are, endurance is never my weak point..... your credibility suffers if you support your positions by citing incredibly dishonest sources. If you cite a video that is REPLETE with lies, distortions, straw men, and dis-ingenuity that is going to reflect on you.

And that currency payment is massively increased when you then say "I have no problem with him other than his annoying voice." as you are then openly saying you have NO problem with the lies and distortions he used. When you show someone who lies in a string of lies and then say the only thing you have a problem with is his voice you are DIRECTLY saying you have no problem with those lies.

THAT is the bit you should be embarrassed about. That you are not..... speaks volumes here.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You implied it:

Nope. You would do well to ask me what my implications are rather than erroneously attempt to project yours onto me. I told you what my implications were. And I am happy to repeat them again:

What I did say and do however was point out that while we are talking about the efficacy rates of contraception.... it also pays to remember that that is only part of the big picture. Many people seeking abortion are doing so despite having a PLANNED pregnancy. And we should not lose sight of that while discussing unplanned ones.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Personally, where I am at the moment is I could not deny an abortion to a rape victim, regardless of how long it takes her to come to terms with the trauma and make a decision. I would imagine it is the most horrific experience a human can go through.

I imagine that too. But I can not let that emotion over ride my conviction that a sentient agent either has rights or it does not. I do not believe it's rights are, or can be, or should be, forfeit due to the circumstances of it's creation. Nor do I believe it guilty or a crime it did not perpetuate. As uncomfortable as that may be to me, I need to maintain the courage of my convictions.

Thankfully however the time between the cut off of moral abortion.... and the point when we can terminate a pregnancy without terminating the life..... is a small and ever shrinking one as our medical science evolves. So hopefully we are not far off a future where it is a non-point entirely. Hopefully we are close to a point where there is no time period between our ability to terminate a fetus and our ability to terminate a pregnancy.

I have a lot of hope for our medical and ethical future. We appear to be making the right moves and choices in both. Very much including the referendum to allow abortion on our soil.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I respect your honesty here. It is a very difficult conundrum to think about. The issue for me is, even if the fetus has reached the stage of sentience, it is condemning the victim to a life of heartache to force her to give birth to her rapists child, in my opinion. The rapist has committed a horrific act of violence and it should be on him if the child dies, in my opinion.

Does this only apply before the birth? What if she has already given birth and then decides some days or weeks later that she cannot bear to have this child in existence as a reminder of her rape? Is that still on the rapist if the child dies then?

If not, what's the difference between a sentient fetus and a newborn child in your view?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Before and after. I would not stand in the way of the euthanization of a child who had resulted from rape, if the victim so desired. It would be another one of the unfortunate consequences of the rape, and I would blame the perpetrator for it. At this moment in time, I cannot think of what kind of a time-limit would apply before the victims right is revoked, if at all (this aspect is something that I am still pondering).

No difference in my opinion.

So it's not that you're ok with abortion, you're actually grand with infanticide in general.

With all due respect, that's not a prochoice position at all - although it's true that logically, someone who doesn't have an issue with the murder of living children will have no issue with abortion either. But for very different reasons.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Before and after. I would not stand in the way of the euthanization of a child who had resulted from rape, if the victim so desired. It would be another one of the unfortunate consequences of the rape, and I would blame the perpetrator for it. At this moment in time, I cannot think of what kind of a time-limit would apply before the victims right is revoked, if at all (this aspect is something that I am still pondering).






No difference in my opinion.

I suppose I’m wasting my time in supposing and hoping that this is an elaborate effort in demonstrating how late term abortions are really no different to killing your born baby because it turned out to be very inconvenient.
Because justifying the killing of a baby because it was the product of rape, and that justification being acknowledged and accepted, is so wrong it really couldn’t get any wronger.
If those are your genuinely held views then I’m speechless. And I’m sorry for you and anyone who has to deal with you.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Not in general, I didn't say that. In certain circumstances I am OK with it. I'm not happy about it, it is unfortunate, but ultimately it is not up to me, it is up to those who's lives are affected, in my opinion.

So what are the circumstances in which you could envisage allowing a woman to kill her 8 year old child, say? At what point does the child become an individual with the same rights as you or me not to be killed?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Agreed, I am pro-choice, that does not exclude me from having any other number of stances.

But they are other stances, which is my point. Not pro choice ones.

You are pro-infanticide and therefore you cannot really have any principled objection to abortion, that would make no sense at all.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have already told you my current position on that:





Please remember volchitsa, we already have late term abortions in this country if the mothers life is at risk. Viable fetuses can and are terminated in this country in favor of their mothers life. We as a society already make decisions on who gets to live and who doesn't. I know what I am saying is a step up from that of course.


Lets say, in the scenario that you proposed ie. a rape victim wants the baby euthanized some weeks after birth, but add the extra complication of the victim threatening suicide if her wishes are not carried out. Lets say for arguments sake that she will definitely commit suicide if she is not listened to. Who in your opinion should live? Should the state make that decision for the victim or should the victim have the ultimate say?.

Actually, once the child is born, their right to life kicks in, end of. This thought experiment is utterly sick and your position is utterly chilling.


The line most people draw is physical non-independence. Post birth that dependence is gone. Close to term it is gone which is why most late term terminations are live deliveries.

As I said I am not intending to go on about you having ignored me. If you have decided to stop, that is good and is progress of a sort. Let's work with that. If you want to keep making your points by linking to videos of people outright lying, that is fine too. Expect me to keep pointing it out when you do it, even if you refuse to understand why.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

A "blob of cancer" in my opinion is not a form of humanity, and I dont believe I eluded to anything of the sort.

It is not that you alluded to it, it is that you are being so vague about what you mean with terms like "a type of human" that it could just as easily include a cancer. That is my point.

This is an issue the abortion discussion has long suffered from. That we have one word "human" which means VERY different things in VERY different contexts. But rather than that fact making people be MORE specific about what they mean while they use such a word..... they actually contrive to be less specific and act like the mere use of the word human is in some way informative to the debate.

The reality however is that no one I am aware of is suggesting the fetus or the fertilised egg is not human. But to use my capital H again, it most certainly is not Human.... and going on about how the fetus is therefore a "kind of human" is a red herring that is not actually saying anything relevant at all. The question should not be whether it is a "kind of anything" really. The question should be whether the life form we are about to kill has any attributes upon which to coherently afford it moral or ethical concern. No one, including yourself, has yet shown me any attribute upon which to show a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern. And "it is a kind of human" is not likely to get us there>

You make my point for me however when you say the fertilised egg "leads to a human being". That means it is NOT one now of course. And that is pretty much the core point of everything I have written on the topic.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Regarding meeting a 24 week old baby. Firstly I did not assume you have ever met one. It is quite unlikely that anyone here has. I have not met one myself. My sister has met one and was encouraged to spend as much time with the child as possible, to touch and hold her as much as possible. These are trained medical professionals who know more about such things than you and I.

Again with the assumptions, comically while claiming not to be making any. You have no idea what training I have on this issue at all. And actually being a "trained medical professional" does not tell you how much relevant training they have on the issue either. As one user pointed out yesterday while discussing the screening that was used in the recent abortion to hit the media.... it is quite often true that some types of trained professionals absolutely lack knowledge you might expect them to have.

Which is why I asked you for citations. Citations not just discussing "touching" but how and why and when we recommend it. Rather than do that you just "guess" that "the earlier they are born, the more important touch is to them". That is all that is. A "guess". And nothing you cited supports it whatsoever.

However the core reason I am asking for the citations is the very thing you have not provided. Which is your lack of doubt that a baby born at that stage is fully sentient. Your sole reason for thinking so, is this claim about "touching". And nothing you have offered has suggested anything of the sort. Even a little bit.

Notable is one of your links discussed babies at 36 weeks. This does not even REMOTELY support your claims about 24 weeks or sentience. In fact the article notes at 24 weeks they have "reduced brain responses" to touch.

However the core point here is "brain responses". Which I was hoping you would learn as your looked for citations. There is a difference between the brain responding, and sentience. I have at NO point doubted there are brain and nervous system responses in play. There are responses to stimulus in play LONG before 24 weeks in fact.

The core point is that NONE of those responses are evidence for the claim I am calling you out on, and you have not yet supported. You might, who knows, want to get on that.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I respect your honesty here. It is a very difficult conundrum to think about. The issue for me is, even if the fetus has reached the stage of sentience, it is condemning the victim to a life of heartache to force her to give birth to her rapists child, in my opinion. The rapist has committed a horrific act of violence and it should be on him if the child dies, in my opinion.

An opinion I can not share. We should of course support people who have been hurt by a crime in every way we can. But not by murdering someone with rights. It might,to use your own argument, condemn the victim to a life of heartache to know her rapist is still alive. Does that warrant us to kill the rapist who is actually guilty of the crime, just to alleviate her pain? If not then why you believe it gives us the right to kill someone INNOCENT of that crime instead.... is truly opaque to me.

Further it is not clear when, how, or why that would stop. If the continued existence of this life pains her, at what point and WHY does she forfeit the right to kill it? Birth? Why should rights be mediated by nothing more than spacial location??? What if the child hits age 4 and suddenly.... given children physically change all the time..... attains some attribute HIGHLY reminiscent of the rapist. Suddenly the baby has the rapists eyes for example. Can she kill him now???

Being the victim of a crime, many types of crime, is horrific. In no case I can think of do we say "if the continued existence of the perpetrator is a pain to the victim we should be able to kill the perpetrator". So I am agog to hear your moral and ethical arguments for why we should be able to kill another victim of the crime instead which, in my view, the child of a rape actually is.

As I said however, it is a rare case and one we are more capable of dealing with in different ways. So to actually expect to have to go ahead and implement your thought experiment hardly, if ever, occurs. And when it occurs for whatever reason, we can terminate the pregnancy if not the child. Which is fine with me.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think the death penalty in the states is sick and chilling?

Whether we do or not, at least we can differentiate between the death penalty..... the killing of the perpetrator of a heinous crime...... and your proposals..... the killing of one of the victims of the crime to make the other victim feel better.

The two are not comparable really. Much as you might want them to be.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Please remember volchitsa, we already have late term abortions in this country if the mothers life is at risk. Viable fetuses can and are terminated in this country in favor of their mothers life. We as a society already make decisions on who gets to live and who doesn't. I know what I am saying is a step up from that of course.

Such a step up that most prochoicers would say it's a completely different issue.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Lets say, in the scenario that you proposed ie. a rape victim wants the baby euthanized some weeks after birth, but add the extra complication of the victim threatening suicide if her wishes are not carried out. Lets say for arguments sake that she will definitely commit suicide if she is not listened to. Who in your opinion should live? Should the state make that decision for the victim or should the victim have the ultimate say?

Well this is why your attempt to extrapolate fails, because the baby is then in the same position to her as the rapist, except it has not committed a crime against her. Now, would she be entitled to have the rapist killed by threatening to commit suicide otherwise?

Obviously not. Because once a person is born, they have their own rights and one person cannot ask for anyone else to be executed. That's not how our justice system works.

But the legal development that some people, like you, have some difficulty with, it seems, is acknowledging that the woman who is pregnant keeps all her rights over her own body. Traditionally in our society that hasn't been the case, but now it is.

And there is really no need for you to get yourself tied up in knots about executing rapists or not when in reality the issue is not about the rapist or the fetus, it is about whether the woman should be forced to complete a pregnancy that she has not consented to.

Look, label it whatever way you want, I dont really care.

Just pointing out that you seem to have adopted the most extreme stance you can in order to present that as being prochoice when in fact it is not.

Rather like those Youth Defence people going on prochoice marches with provocative slogans about abortion up to birth - now why would they, or you, do that?

I’m still here hoping that more people on this forum are going to argue against infanticide but I suppose I’m going to be disappointed. Lots of silence. Very scary stuff but then I remind myself that boards posters are only representative of a tiny tiny proportion of the general population.
Still sends a terrible shiver down the spine though.
On the other hand there’s no point in pretending that this kind of psychotic mentality doesn’t exist. And that’s there’s enough decency and compassion in the world to extinguish it as there ever was.
When we defeated Hitler we proved that.