joffer
Footballguy
ok, assisted suicide is a whole other ball of wax for me, and a difficult one at that. i'm for it in certain instances.
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.
Abortion vs Suicide (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KCitons
- Start date
The fact that you make exceptions I think demonstrates that these are difficult moral/ethical questions that do not have obvious clear answers. In the absence of clear answers I support maximum autonomy for the individual to make decisions according to their own moral compass.
Last edited by a moderator:
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
KCitons
Footballguy
Can you explain why?
The way I understand Pro Choice is that a woman should have the right to decide. There are some where medical reasons or something else plays a role. But, when it comes to a perfectly healthy woman having an abortion out of convenience, shouldn't the same be afforded to someone wanting to commit suicide?
Statements like yours, make is sound as though there has to be a medical reason for either.
Currently the only excuse not to have an abortion, if you want one, is term limits (age). I suggested that as one for suicide as well.
KCitons
Footballguy
Absolutely. I agree.
But as a society, we don't. I think most people, regardless of political or religious affiliation, see suicide as a negative thing. But, we have a much greater divide when it comes to abortion.
Abortion - Right to decide up to a certain age. Suicide - Right to decide after a certain age.
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Doesn't this throw out the possibility of someone getting a terminal illness before that age? Or someone else being very healthy well beyond that age.
It would still come down to personal choice.
I'd agree to extend the time periods for both based on terminal illnesses, disease, defects or other misery.
Agree, personal choice, no one else gets to decide. And a perfectly healthy person wouldn't make the choice.
KCitons
Footballguy
Yep. But how do we determine when a persons mental health is a factor in being allowed to commit suicide? When it comes to physical health, there's more information around saying someone has a terminal illness. But, with mental illness, it seems like we struggle with finding ways to correct problems. There are many people that have life long mental health issues that may never improve.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Abortion is a very loaded question for me. I'm more pro-choice but I struggle with it sometimes. I understand stances from both sides.
As for suicide, I think a person is free to do what they want. If they decide they no longer want to be in this world then so be it. I think it's terrible and don't agree with doing it but I don't agree with forcing something on someone either.
Put me in the group that doesn't get the relation between the two.
As for suicide, I think a person is free to do what they want. If they decide they no longer want to be in this world then so be it. I think it's terrible and don't agree with doing it but I don't agree with forcing something on someone either.
Put me in the group that doesn't get the relation between the two.
matuski
Footballguy
It's not person x and person y. It's abortion x and suicide y. And I'm trying to argue as if x = y for your sake.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm pro-life but I have no problem with assisted suicide. Abortion arguably affects a third party, whereas assisted suicide doesn't, which makes them fundamentally different from one another.
Interesting take. I was wondering who the one person that voted that way was. I thought for sure it was sho nuff reading question wrong.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s a terrible analogy because almost nobody who has abortions do it on their own; it’s in consultation with a doctor. I don’t think we should allow women to attempt abortions without medical assistance, that should be illegal.
If you want to compare abortions to medically assisted suicides, I’m OK with that comparison. Both should be legal, IMO, under supervised and safe conditions. But to compare abortions to ALL suicide attempts is nonsensical IMO.
If you want to compare abortions to medically assisted suicides, I’m OK with that comparison. Both should be legal, IMO, under supervised and safe conditions. But to compare abortions to ALL suicide attempts is nonsensical IMO.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Or Handmaids TaleOsaurus said:
KCitons
Footballguy
Then a person should be able to consult with a physician and have assisted suicide? Regardless of medical condition?
There are people that believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion regardless of medical condition. Why would it be a requirement for suicide?
Before I answer this I'd appreciate if pro-abortion advocates could help me understand something. I've never gotten a straight answer to what seems to me an obvious rational thought process.
Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Therefore, if a woman has an abortion of a fetus that has a heartbeat, then [by definition?] they are committing murder.
The counterarguments I get to the above statements is either:
a) they claim that a fetus is not a human being...but then they either can't explain why something with a heartbeat isn't a human being...or otherwise can't define when it becomes a human being, and/or:
b) they refuse to utter the words "I am murdering a human being but believe it is justified (since I can't take care of it responsibly, etc)"...they euphemistically call the human being a "fetus" for the baby or use the word "abortion" for describing the act...(to avoid admitting what is really going on?)
I'm not specifically arguing pro-life / pro-choice....I'd like to know why pro-choice people can't call a spade a spade.
Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Therefore, if a woman has an abortion of a fetus that has a heartbeat, then [by definition?] they are committing murder.
The counterarguments I get to the above statements is either:
a) they claim that a fetus is not a human being...but then they either can't explain why something with a heartbeat isn't a human being...or otherwise can't define when it becomes a human being, and/or:
b) they refuse to utter the words "I am murdering a human being but believe it is justified (since I can't take care of it responsibly, etc)"...they euphemistically call the human being a "fetus" for the baby or use the word "abortion" for describing the act...(to avoid admitting what is really going on?)
I'm not specifically arguing pro-life / pro-choice....I'd like to know why pro-choice people can't call a spade a spade.
KCitons
Footballguy
So are a lot of mental health conditions. Is that the bar we are setting for assisted suicide?
If we're going by dictionary definitions
parasite
[ par-uh-sahyt ]
noun
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
Fetal Heartbeat Bill?
Your therefore isn't part of the definition. You chose an arbitrary event where as I could have chosen born or first breath or first sign of intelligence or feeling. The problem with the Heartbeat Bills is that it happens early in a wide range of time between 6 to 12 weeks that is hard to determine and doesn't give the mother much time if any for her decision (that's why pro-life people love it).
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t understand what you mean by “regardless of medical condition”. Being pregnant is a medical condition.
KCitons
Footballguy
Fine. Remove "regardless of medical condition".
Two women go to the doctor. One is pregnant and wants an abortion. The other is suffering from depression and wants help with assisted suicide.
Should they both receive what they want?
timschochet
Footballguy
Abortion isn’t unlawful. Therefore by your definition, it’s not murder. It may be the killing of a human being, but it’s within the law.
This really wasn’t a difficult question to answer.
Sorry. I'm not familiar with the bill. Basically you're saying everything short of birth everyone is free to choose their own definition of a human being?
timschochet
Footballguy
Nope.
The first woman gets an abortion. The second woman gets treated for depression. There is no moral or legal contradiction here.
The mother is legally killing another human being then?.
And enough with the d-bag sarcasm unless you want it right back at you. I'm trying to sort this out.
I'm not really up to date on the law, I should do some reading. But I think the answer is yes, it's up to the individual states to determine. The most conservative of which are trying your route with the phenomenon known as the Fetal Heartbeat Bill.
timschochet
Footballguy
And for the record KCitons: I want liquor and pot to be legal. I want heroin to be illegal. I want handguns and shotguns to be legal. I want assault weapons to be illegal. And I see no contradictions here.
Forced consistency in the face of reality is the product of limited thinking IMO. Society is too big and too complex to attempt to use consistency as a means to decide which laws to have or not have.
Forced consistency in the face of reality is the product of limited thinking IMO. Society is too big and too complex to attempt to use consistency as a means to decide which laws to have or not have.
timschochet
Footballguy
What sarcasm?
To answer your question, I don’t know. I’ve never considered it a relevant question. Abortions are legal and should stay legal.
It's a relevant conversation when you are having it with someone about to have one.
I want to tell them exactly what they are doing or not doing when I outline their choice. Not hide behind semantics and euphemisms.
In my haste to make the point that the fetus is a being which lives in and extracts nutriment from another organism I completely glossed over the species part of the definition. That's a bad job by me.
To hopefully put it better, in my opinion a fetus is not a living human being until it is born. You may disagree with that definition. But your original post stating that those who are pro-choice cannot define when a fetus becomes human is flawed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I understand it is their decision. I want them to be as fully conscious as possible at the time of the decision. I have my own reasons for that are no one's concern here.
Knowing at an intellectual level and fully understanding are two different things. Especially down the road.
timschochet
Footballguy
Are you a doctor that performs abortions? If not, why would you need to consult with a woman considering an abortion?
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Are you saying that a woman may not have a full understanding of what an abortion is unless someone tells them something like "you're murdering your baby". (I'm admittedly using the severest language that comes to mind.)
timschochet
Footballguy
So in your mind...when a fetus kicks a pregnant woman two days before birth, the kicking is being done by some type of undefined organism of the human species that is not a human being?
Similar threads
