What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Late term abortions (2 Viewers)

“It should be illegal to drive by a car accident and not stop to help people.”

vs.

”It should be illegal to cause a car accident and not stop to help people.”

The position toward the person who is hurt hasn’t changed. The position toward the obligation on the part of the driver has. 
I would say the involvement in the hurt of the person is what has changed.  In one case, your involvement is key...in the other, you're not involved in the hurt at all.

Help me understand where I'm missing your point because I'm sure I am.

 
I would say the involvement in the hurt of the person is what has changed.  In one case, your involvement is key...in the other, you're not involved in the hurt at all.

Help me understand where I'm missing your point because I'm sure I am.
Well, first, it helps to think of purely conservative morality in terms of punitive or reactive responsibility fairness rather than outcome-determinative fairness.

Fetus (baby) has Right A.  

Sex comes with responsibilities.  If you have sex you may be required to safeguard Right A as one of those.

If not, you still probably should, but it’s unfair that I make you do that because punishment without committing a crime is unfair.

It’s not that complex, really.  If anything I’m betting you’re overthinking it.

And frankly, I would love it if there were never another abortion. It’s pretty hard to reconcile that view with thinking a fetus has no (even potential) rights.  It’s a little dishonest unless you just don’t want people to have to go through physical medical procedures.  Which isn’t why I want them to stop. 

It would be pretty disingenuous of me to say that it’s the pro-life crowd who is changing positions if I think it should be legal but wish it would stop.

 
Well, first, it helps to think of purely conservative morality in terms of punitive or reactive responsibility fairness rather than outcome-determinative fairness.

Fetus (baby) has Right A.  

Sex comes with responsibilities.  If you have sex you may be required to safeguard Right A as one of those.

If not, you still probably should, but it’s unfair that I make you do that because punishment without committing a crime is unfair.

It’s not that complex, really.  If anything I’m betting you’re overthinking it.

And frankly, I would love it if there were never another abortion. It’s pretty hard to reconcile that view with thinking a fetus has no (even potential) rights.  It’s a little dishonest unless you just don’t want people to have to go through physical medical procedures.  Which isn’t why I want them to stop. 

It would be pretty disingenuous of me to say that it’s the pro-life crowd who is changing positions if I think it should be legal but wish it would stop.
Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but I too find it not that complex.

In my conversations with conservatives, it's about the sanctity of life.  A fetus/baby is alive and is afforded rights, and all the protections one can give from a doctor going in and murdering the baby.  This is all well and good, so long as the baby was conceived in consenting copulation.  Otherwise, the sanctity of life is a little less important, and the rights of the mother to not have to carry to term an unwanted baby from an unwanted copulation session.  In this case, the importance of the sanctity of life is contingent on the consent of the mother during sex.

If the importance of the sanctity of life can be contingent on the mother's consent in one case, why couldn't that be extended to the ongoing consent of the mother to carry the fetus/baby to term?  Perhaps once the fetus achieves viability, the terms change in that the mother has an obligation to extract the baby and provide an option to live outside of her until such a time as adoption could be set up, and this again makes the sanctity of life relative to the level of scientific advancement in a society.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but I too find it not that complex.

In my conversations with conservatives, it's about the sanctity of life.  A fetus/baby is alive and is afforded rights, and all the protections one can give from a doctor going in and murdering the baby.  This is all well and good, so long as the baby was conceived in consenting copulation.  Otherwise, the sanctity of life is a little less important, and the rights of the mother to not have to carry to term an unwanted baby from an unwanted copulation session.  In this case, the sanctity of life is contingent on the consent of the mother during sex.

If the sanctity of life can be contingent on the mother's consent in one case, why couldn't that be extended to the ongoing consent of the mother to carry the fetus/baby to term?  Perhaps once the fetus achieves viability, the terms change in that the mother has an obligation to extract the baby and provide an option to live outside of her until such a time as adoption could be set up, and this again makes the sanctity of life relative to the level of scientific advancement in a society.
Oh, I agree that their stated positions can be pretty contradictory. But their stated positions are self-contradictory.

If you believed there were actually thousands of babies being murdered down the street, what would your reaction be?

 
Oh, I agree that their stated positions can be pretty contradictory. But their stated positions are self-contradictory.

If you believed there were actually thousands of babies being murdered down the street, what would your reaction be?
That's why I didn't blame the guy that showed up at that pizza place with guns, 100% believing its basement was being used to traffic underage sex slaves.  Seemed like a legit choice to me, given a crazy belief.

I just can't get over how many folks have completely inconsistent beliefs when it comes to abortion.  It's fine for folks to have inconsistent beliefs when they're not acting on them to limit what others can do. This kinda stuff drives me batty.  Even reasonable people can't seem to understand how mangled their views are on this issue.

For me, I'm struggling with the concept of life as being important primarily due to consciousness.  If a being isn't conscious, perhaps it's not worth worrying about its "suffering".  Can you act immorally toward living creatures that aren't conscious?

 
That's why I didn't blame the guy that showed up at that pizza place with guns, 100% believing its basement was being used to traffic underage sex slaves.  Seemed like a legit choice to me, given a crazy belief.

I just can't get over how many folks have completely inconsistent beliefs when it comes to abortion.  It's fine for folks to have inconsistent beliefs when they're not acting on them to limit what others can do. This kinda stuff drives me batty.  Even reasonable people can't seem to understand how mangled their views are on this issue.

For me, I'm struggling with the concept of life as being important primarily due to consciousness.  If a being isn't conscious, perhaps it's not worth worrying about its "suffering".  Can you act immorally toward living creatures that aren't conscious?
I think so.  I don’t think consciousness is necessary for pain. Or suffering. I think needs and responsibilities need to be weighed.  Ultimately, morality is about more than the effect on other beings.  It also has to do with purpose and intent. 

 
I think so.  I don’t think consciousness is necessary for pain. Or suffering. I think needs and responsibilities need to be weighed.  Ultimately, morality is about more than the effect on other beings.  It also has to do with purpose and intent. 
But can you be immoral toward a rock?  I mean, at some point, you have to draw the line of morality somewhere.  Consciousness seems to be a pretty reasonable boundary.

 
adonis said:
Could we not consider an unwanted pregnancy, rape?
This equivalency breaks down on two dimensions.

First, rape is nonconsensual by definition.  Unwanted pregnancy isn't nonconsensual in the same way.  You voluntarily accepted a gamble that you "win" 99% of the time but "lose" 1% of the time.  When you lose, you're unhappy about it and you would like a do-over, but the wager itself was consensual.

Second, rapists act with intention.  Fetuses obviously don't.  The fetus is a third party that just shows up when you lose your wager.  It didn't have any say in the matter.

 
adonis said:
That's why I didn't blame the guy that showed up at that pizza place with guns, 100% believing its basement was being used to traffic underage sex slaves.  Seemed like a legit choice to me, given a crazy belief.

I just can't get over how many folks have completely inconsistent beliefs when it comes to abortion.  It's fine for folks to have inconsistent beliefs when they're not acting on them to limit what others can do. This kinda stuff drives me batty.  Even reasonable people can't seem to understand how mangled their views are on this issue.

For me, I'm struggling with the concept of life as being important primarily due to consciousness.  If a being isn't conscious, perhaps it's not worth worrying about its "suffering".  Can you act immorally toward living creatures that aren't conscious?
Would you consistently apply that standard to people who are under anesthesia?  Or how about newborns, who are also not fully conscious?

 
Would you consistently apply that standard to people who are under anesthesia?  Or how about newborns, who are also not fully conscious?
I think there would be some considerations for how to handle situations where consciousness has existed but is temporarily off.  If the expectation is that consciousness will return, that implies one thing and if it's not expected to return, that's another.

The idea that there are some edge cases doesn't make it a bad frame of reference, just edge cases that have to be worked out.  Overall, it's a pretty reasonable perspective.

And regarding newborns who aren't fully conscious, the immorality of actions towards them would scale from conception to birth as consciousness approaches.

 
adonis said:
But can you be immoral toward a rock?  I mean, at some point, you have to draw the line of morality somewhere.  Consciousness seems to be a pretty reasonable boundary.
It’s unbelievably difficult to define consciousness. Perhaps existence is a better boundary.  That one is quite easy to define

 
Haven’t read the thread yet, so I don’t know if this has been discussed yet. Last night I watched a documentary called After Tiller, which is about the few remaining late term abortion providers in this country after Dr. Tiller is murdered by a radical Christian. 

One of the providers is in his late 70s and says he has no plans on retiring. The doc is about 6 years old and he’s still working today. 

The women featured in this documentary were carrying extremely sick babies. And it was a very tough decision for them. Do I bring this extremely sick child into the world to suffer? Or do I stop their heart and literally have him torn out of me? 

One of the doctors so eloquently said “these women have choices, and all their choices suck.” 

Late term abortion is just as needed as “regular” abortion. Shame of on our government and the Christian crazies for making this a religious/moral issue and not a public health issue. Shame on them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's interesting that some of the same people that are pro choice are also the ones that want gun control to protect the children in our schools. Somehow, the choice of a pregnant woman to have an abortion (for reasons outside of rape or medical reasons) is acceptable and lies solely with the mother. Yet the fact that someone can carry out a mass shooting is the fault of every gun owner in this country. Seems like a double standard.

 
It's interesting that some of the same people that are pro choice are also the ones that want gun control to protect the children in our schools. Somehow, the choice of a pregnant woman to have an abortion (for reasons outside of rape or medical reasons) is acceptable and lies solely with the mother. Yet the fact that someone can carry out a mass shooting is the fault of every gun owner in this country. Seems like a double standard.
Not at all what we are saying. 

 
Not at all what we are saying. 
That's how I'm seeing it. It's been said over and over that we need to protect our children from the dangers of guns. People say "we are having a child". They don't say, "we are growing a fetus". The only way you don't see the correlation is if you don't see it as a child upon conception. 

There has been a lot of discussion about protecting the mother, at the cost of the child. When the same theory is placed on protecting one person with the gun, at the cost of a child, it's seen as ghoulish. 

I'm not a medical professional, so I will have to trust that our medical professionals know what's best in regards to the health of the mother, or the unborn child. In those cases, it may be best for the unborn child. But, if you ask most women who have children, they would sacrifice their life for any of their kids. 

 
It's interesting that some of the same people that are pro choice are also the ones that want gun control to protect the children in our schools. Somehow, the choice of a pregnant woman to have an abortion (for reasons outside of rape or medical reasons) is acceptable and lies solely with the mother. Yet the fact that someone can carry out a mass shooting is the fault of every gun owner in this country. Seems like a double standard.
Come on.  WTF says that? 

 
adonis said:
Could we not consider an unwanted pregnancy, rape?
This equivalency breaks down on two dimensions.

First, rape is nonconsensual by definition.  Unwanted pregnancy isn't nonconsensual in the same way.  You voluntarily accepted a gamble that you "win" 99% of the time but "lose" 1% of the time.  When you lose, you're unhappy about it and you would like a do-over, but the wager itself was consensual.

Second, rapists act with intention.  Fetuses obviously don't.  The fetus is a third party that just shows up when you lose your wager.  It didn't have any say in the matter.
Unwanted pregnancy can be nonconsensual, 100%.  And the idea that you accept a gamble by having sex is an odd way of looking at it.

For instance, if a female goes to a club wearing attractive clothing, there's a non-zero chance she will be drugged and raped.  Does the fact that she accepts that non-zero risk, make the rape and drugging any more consensual?

And rapists act with intention.  So do fertilized eggs.  They 100% are aiming to implant in the wall of the uterus, and take advantage of the environment inside of the woman to grow.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey KC, I would agree to make all abortions illegal if you agree to ban and round up all guns in the country. Deal?

 
Let’s not bring guns up here or DUIs and muck up yet another thread. Abortion and the thoughts around being pro choice have absolutely nothing to do with guns or mass shootings or school shootings. 

Or violinists...maybe a cellist though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey KC, I would agree to make all abortions illegal if you agree to ban and round up all guns in the country. Deal?
Is that what I'm asking for? I don't think it is. You used financial burden as a justification for abortion. Do we apply that to all things in society? Should someone incur higher costs to own a firearm in this country? What if they can't afford it?

 
Unwanted pregnancy can be nonconsensual, 100%.  And the idea that you accept a gamble by having sex is an odd way of looking at it.

For instance, if a female goes to a club wearing attractive clothing, there's a non-zero chance she will be drugged and raped.  Does the fact that she accepts that non-zero risk, make the rape and drugging any more consensual?

And rapists act with intention.  So do fertilized eggs.  They 100% are aiming to implant in the wall of the uterus, and take advantage of the environment inside of the woman to grow.  
You think going to the club and accepting the risk that a rapist might be there is the same as having sex and accepting the risk you might get pregnant?  

Humor me, what's the equivalent on the rapists side for a condom, the pill, or any other form of birth control?

 
Let’s not bring guns up here or DUIs and muck up yet another thread. Abortion and the thoughts around being pro choice have absolutely nothing to do with guns or mass shootings or school shootings. 

Or violinists...maybe a cellist though.
Why? How can people say we need to change laws to save lives, or open our borders to allow anyone to enter the country, yet justify the killing of an unborn child?

It works the other way as well. But, no one has pointed that out. Which is why I said the conversations are interesting. 

 
Unwanted pregnancy can be nonconsensual, 100%.  And the idea that you accept a gamble by having sex is an odd way of looking at it.

For instance, if a female goes to a club wearing attractive clothing, there's a non-zero chance she will be drugged and raped.  Does the fact that she accepts that non-zero risk, make the rape and drugging any more consensual?

And rapists act with intention.  So do fertilized eggs.  They 100% are aiming to implant in the wall of the uterus, and take advantage of the environment inside of the woman to grow.  
You think going to the club and accepting the risk that a rapist might be there is the same as having sex and accepting the risk you might get pregnant?  

Humor me, what's the equivalent on the rapists side for a condom, the pill, or any other form of birth control?
What I'm saying is that in life, every action you take comes with potential consequences that you don't want.  Just because you engage in activities doesn't 'mean you consent to the possible consequences.

So saying that pregnancy is a risk you take when having sex, doesn't mean that a woman consents to getting pregnant just because she took a risk.  

This matters, because consent is a big deal in our society, and often is the difference between something criminal and something that's just fine.  Yet, we don't look at unwanted pregnancies as something being done to a woman without her consent.

 
Unwanted pregnancy can be nonconsensual, 100%.  And the idea that you accept a gamble by having sex is an odd way of looking at it.

For instance, if a female goes to a club wearing attractive clothing, there's a non-zero chance she will be drugged and raped.  Does the fact that she accepts that non-zero risk, make the rape and drugging any more consensual?

And rapists act with intention.  So do fertilized eggs.  They 100% are aiming to implant in the wall of the uterus, and take advantage of the environment inside of the woman to grow.  
Dude  :unsure:

 
What I'm saying is that in life, every action you take comes with potential consequences that you don't want.  Just because you engage in activities doesn't 'mean you consent to the possible consequences.

So saying that pregnancy is a risk you take when having sex, doesn't mean that a woman consents to getting pregnant just because she took a risk.  

This matters, because consent is a big deal in our society, and often is the difference between something criminal and something that's just fine.  Yet, we don't look at unwanted pregnancies as something being done to a woman without her consent.
When you engage in sex you absolutely consent to the consequence that a pregnancy could occur.  Geez, take some responsibility here and stop comparing it to rape.   It's gross and awful.

 
I know it's an unusual way of looking at things, but I'm trying to explore this perspective.  Feel free to point out where I'm wrong...not just where I'm weird.  I know I'm weird. ;)
Intention.  On the part of sperm and egg.  The conscious criminal actions of the rapist cut the chain of actions of the woman going to a party, becoming a superceding cause of events. 

That’s not what’s happening at pregnancy and implantation. 

 
I think there would be some considerations for how to handle situations where consciousness has existed but is temporarily off.  If the expectation is that consciousness will return, that implies one thing and if it's not expected to return, that's another.
So something that is not conscious now but which will most likely attain consciousness in the future has rights?

 
Unwanted pregnancy can be nonconsensual, 100%.  And the idea that you accept a gamble by having sex is an odd way of looking at it.

For instance, if a female goes to a club wearing attractive clothing, there's a non-zero chance she will be drugged and raped.  Does the fact that she accepts that non-zero risk, make the rape and drugging any more consensual?

And rapists act with intention.  So do fertilized eggs.  They 100% are aiming to implant in the wall of the uterus, and take advantage of the environment inside of the woman to grow.  
I don't think you believe this.

 
What I'm saying is that in life, every action you take comes with potential consequences that you don't want.  Just because you engage in activities doesn't 'mean you consent to the possible consequences.

So saying that pregnancy is a risk you take when having sex, doesn't mean that a woman consents to getting pregnant just because she took a risk.  

This matters, because consent is a big deal in our society, and often is the difference between something criminal and something that's just fine.  Yet, we don't look at unwanted pregnancies as something being done to a woman without her consent.
When you engage in sex you absolutely consent to the consequence that a pregnancy could occur.  Geez, take some responsibility here and stop comparing it to rape.   It's gross and awful.
I guarantee you that a woman isn't consenting to pregnancy simply by having sex.

A woman doesn't consent to rape just because she goes home with a guy, or back to his apartment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Intention.  On the part of sperm and egg.  The conscious criminal actions of the rapist cut the chain of actions of the woman going to a party, becoming a superceding cause of events. 

That’s not what’s happening at pregnancy and implantation. 
Why not?

You can have sex and not fertilize an egg.  You can fertilize an egg and not get pregnant.  But at the point at which the egg implants, against the will of the mother, why wouldn't that be consider a superceding cause of events?

 
Unwanted pregnancy can be nonconsensual, 100%.  And the idea that you accept a gamble by having sex is an odd way of looking at it.

For instance, if a female goes to a club wearing attractive clothing, there's a non-zero chance she will be drugged and raped.  Does the fact that she accepts that non-zero risk, make the rape and drugging any more consensual?

And rapists act with intention.  So do fertilized eggs.  They 100% are aiming to implant in the wall of the uterus, and take advantage of the environment inside of the woman to grow.  
I don't think you believe this.
So is it just random chance that fertilized eggs implant?

Or is it rather that they're outfitted specifically to do such a thing if they can?

 
Why not?

You can have sex and not fertilize an egg.  You can fertilize an egg and not get pregnant.  But at the point at which the egg implants, against the will of the mother, why wouldn't that be consider a superceding cause of events?
Because the egg has no will.  It has no intention. It has no culpability.  It cannot be a “cause” in a moral sense. 

 
I guarantee you that a woman isn't consenting to pregnancy simply by having sex.

A woman doesn't consent to rape just because she goes home with a guy, or back to his apartment.
You're trolling, right?

One of the likely results of having sex is getting pregnant especially if there is no birth control involved.  One of the likely results of going back home with a guy isn't getting raped.  The woman can take preventative measures to significantly reduce the chances of getting pregnant.  Is there a pill or condom that can prevent her from being raped?

This whole comparison is exponentially more ignorant than comparing guns and drunk drivers.  

 
So is it just random chance that fertilized eggs implant?

Or is it rather that they're outfitted specifically to do such a thing if they can?
Do you think rapists have free will?  Do you think fertilized eggs have free will?
I think the rapists are in large part a product of their brain chemistry and environment.  There are varying degrees of control there, but they're not 100% in control, no.

Fertilized eggs are similar, but with almost no control.  They're products of DNA and chemistry, and act how they're programmed to act with nothing but environmental influences to the contrary.

Assume for a moment that rapists dont' have free will.  Does it make the woman's lack of consent immaterial to what makes rape morally wrong?

 
Because the egg has no will.  It has no intention. It has no culpability.  It cannot be a “cause” in a moral sense. 
Hypothetically, could a woman be raped by a robot programmed to commit the act, having no other choice?

In that case, would the lack of consent on the woman be any less the major cause of the immorality of the action, rather than the free will or choice of the robot rapist?

 
Why so much about conception and pre-conception discussion in a late term abortion thread? A woman is with child in the third trimester.   Can you explore that a little more?

 
Hypothetically, could a woman be raped by a robot programmed to commit the act, having no other choice?

In that case, would the lack of consent on the woman be any less the major cause of the immorality of the action, rather than the free will or choice of the robot rapist?
The choice and culpability belong to the programmer, not the robot. 

 
You're trolling, right?

One of the likely results of having sex is getting pregnant especially if there is no birth control involved.  One of the likely results of going back home with a guy isn't getting raped.  The woman can take preventative measures to significantly reduce the chances of getting pregnant.  Is there a pill or condom that can prevent her from being raped?

This whole comparison is exponentially more ignorant than comparing guns and drunk drivers.  
Life is full of gambles.  Simply taking your next breath makes it many more times likely you suffer some outcome you'd prefer not to have happen.

That does not mean you consent to the outcomes.

 
I think the rapists are in large part a product of their brain chemistry and environment.  There are varying degrees of control there, but they're not 100% in control, no.

Fertilized eggs are similar, but with almost no control.  They're products of DNA and chemistry, and act how they're programmed to act with nothing but environmental influences to the contrary.

Assume for a moment that rapists dont' have free will.  Does it make the woman's lack of consent immaterial to what makes rape morally wrong?
I don't mean free will in the philosophical "Is determinism true?" sense.  I mean free will in the "Are we justified in holding people accountable for their actions?" sense.

 
Life is full of gambles.  Simply taking your next breath makes it many more times likely you suffer some outcome you'd prefer not to have happen.

That does not mean you consent to the outcomes.
So the air raped me when it decided to give me a cold?  That's what you're going with here?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top