This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Oklahoma Introduces barbaric abortion law
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I've long said that nothing is 'wrong' or 'right' according to subjective morals. Technically, the Nazis were completely justified in the holocuast. Technically, genocide holds the same moral weight as setting out a fly trap, if you follow a strictly cold and subjective stand, and that assumes that there is no real right or wrong.
It's a dark and disgusting road though, if dark and disgusting exist. It is a horrible ideal, if horrible exists. If wrong exists, then killing a human falls into that category.
What is being argued is, what is truely 'wrong'. I find it amusing that after people exhaust their ideas trying to justify abortion, the question becomes 'What is "wrong", anyway?' It is a metaphysical arguement that everything is justified equally. It is the equivilent of me saying 'Because God said so'. It doesn't belong in a serious debate.
Post by
Skreeran
Why do you think that religion is the only realm for morals? I'm sure people figured out that it would be better not to kill their own tribe members so that they would be able to stay around longer.
Humans are parasites to the earth... we take take take and never give back. What little some people give back is no where near as much as is taken. Sure before the industrial revolution one could argue that humans were OK. If we lived like the Native Americans did and the tribes of Africa do by using only what we need for survival then we wouldn't be such a hindrance to this planet.
If you want an example... look at the current issue of oil in the gulf. This is a product of humans.Well, I wouldn't go that far. I do think that we should work to prevent extinction of other species, but I'm all for expansion. Ultimately, I think that humans should begin colonizing other planets as well, to ensure that our species survives. Evolutionarily, we are naturally driven to spread and survive. Once we can totally ensure our survival (beyond the end of the universe as a whole), then we'll be in totally new evolutionary territory. But I digress...
Back to the point of abortion... like he said... there is no reason that something with human DNA should be considered human until it is thinking/sentient. Until then it is no different from a fetal chicken or pig, it just had a blue print for what it can become.Precisely.
It's a dark and disgusting road though, if dark and disgusting exist. It is a horrible ideal, if horrible exists. If wrong exists, then killing a human falls into that category.Why?
As I see it, the aversion to killing humans stems from empathy, which we all possess (barring psychopathy and other mental illnesses). Empathy evolved because killing other people was bad for the species.
However, killing a non-sentient lifeform stirs no empathy in me at all, and it will hardly hinder our survival.
Post by
MyTie
Why?
Why is murder wrong? Quite the question. Not having an objective answer for you is not justification for murdering.
Post by
Heckler
Murder is wrong because it violates the liberty of the murdered. The question (to me) is not about whether murder is okay or not okay and in what situations, its when a fetus gains "liberty."
Not knowable. Not provable. And therefore I'm comfortable with a clinical legal definition (viz.
Roe v. Wade
) applying to everyone -- so long as I am free to apply my own moral standards to my own decision, and everyone else is free to apply their own moral standards to their own decision (i.e. cannot be
forced
to have an abortion).
Post by
Squishalot
However, killing a non-sentient lifeform stirs no empathy in me at all, and it will hardly hinder our survival.
What makes you think animals aren't sentient? There are whole university courses and researchers dedicated to animal psychology.
Post by
Skreeran
However, killing a non-sentient lifeform stirs no empathy in me at all, and it will hardly hinder our survival.
What makes you think animals aren't sentient? There are whole university courses and researchers dedicated to animal psychology.
Clarification:
Animals possess varying degrees of sentience. From almost none (insects) to near-human (great apes).
Undeveloped fetuses, insects, bacteria, plants, and other living things with sentience ranging from very-low to none stir no empathy in me upon their individual deaths.
Post by
Squishalot
However, killing a non-sentient lifeform stirs no empathy in me at all, and it will hardly hinder our survival.
What makes you think animals aren't sentient? There are whole university courses and researchers dedicated to animal psychology.
Clarification:
Animals possess varying degrees of sentience. From almost none (insects) to near-human (great apes).
Undeveloped fetuses, insects, bacteria, plants, and other living things with sentience ranging from very-low to none stir no empathy in me upon their individual deaths.
Ok.
So why is sentience an issue for you? At what point does a fetus gain sentience, in your mind? Notwithstanding the law, that is.
Post by
Skreeran
Ok.
So why is sentience an issue for you? At what point does a fetus gain sentience, in your mind? Notwithstanding the law, that is.Sentience, meaning the ability to think and feel, is what qualifies us as greater lifeforms.
I do not feel a thing in the face of the death of a tree. I do not feel sorrow for the death of a bacterium.
I would feel a bit more when a dog is killed, because the dog can feel some things, and can think, in a very basic way, and my biological empathy finds it pitiable that something capable of thinking, like myself, has died. The death of a human means even more. Something capable of feeling and thinking the exact same things that I am able to triggers an even greater empathetic response.
However, an undeveloped fetus, which cannot think, cannot feel, triggers no response.
I believe that sentience arises when the brain is sufficiently developed to be capable of feeling. I'm not a prenatal neurologist, so I don't know exactly what week that would be. I would consult a doctor on the matter before making a decision.
But at this point, I would say, just to air on the safe side, that since the true proto-brain (as opposed to a mere cluster of nerve cells) begins developing in week 7, week 6 remains a good number for me.
Post by
Squishalot
when the brain is sufficiently developed to be capable of feeling
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a neurologist at all, but what makes you think that 'feeling' requires a brain to process the nerve impulses?
Still though, would you be against abortion after the 6 week period, as opposed to the 26 week period that it is now?
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, I know it isn't what you meant, but I can't resist: would it be better to kill a fetus for food?
No.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm sorry, but wtf?
He said that it was not okay to kill a fetus but okay to kill for example an animal because we eat them.
It was merely a joke since I knew his stance in the question.
Not funny.
Post by
Aladael
Few quick things. Beware wall of text too.
For one i completely agree of how this procedure to be made law is wrong, when i typical "on the stomach", non-invasive Ultrasound is available. I could understand if there was a severe medical benefit to the other means.
Forcing a female child or woman who is mentally incapacitated to have this procedure violates the statute.
Taken from this
Link
, referring to not being able to personally consent to the procedure as being rape is false. Children or the mentally incapacitated have their consent given by next of kin, for example their spose, child, parent, relative etc.. Just like pulling the plug on a coma victim, or giving away your organs after dying. Its not your choice (unless previously stated) but can be seen as stealing or euthanasia.
Though again morally it is rape. Imagine it happening to your 13 year old daughter after she was abused, it seems to me just an addition to the trauma she has already been through.
I'm having a hard time understanding how a woman who says "Yes, I'd like to get an abortion," in Oklahoma, isn't consenting to the procedure. If she wants the procedure, she has to legally consent to it. As with any procedure, the doctor would have to outline what's going to happen, especially if he's penetrating her body with a medical object and by her replying with "Yes, I'd still like to get an abortion," she'd be consenting to it.
Still a valid point, in the case of a woman just not wanting/being ready for a child. It is her decision to keep the child or not, which in a sense may seem immoral or "playing god". But if a woman does become pregnant in conventional means and doesn't want to keep it, and again wants the abortion in Oklahoma, she is consenting in a sense. Its like taking an aspirin for a head ache because its was the only thing around, knowing well enough your allergic and yet still suing the manufacturer.
This is what happens when a !@#$%^l ultrasound is done with consent from the patient.
It all starts in the dressing room. The woman has to strip down and put on a hospital gown. She then lays down on a medical table in a dark room next to the technicians monitor. The technician is more than likely someone you don't know. It could be a male or a female. Every %^&*!@l ultrasound I've ever had has been done by a male tech.
This is common practice for a lot of medical procedure, your in hospital (for example) you have to wear a gown, and nothing else, For example your appendix being removed. you have to strip down the rooms will have monitors, and may be dark too at times to read the monitors. Also in every procedure there is both female and male specialists, Its there job.
They explain what they are going to do. They show you the metal and plastic probe. It is long and attached to the machine next to the bed.
The patient is told to bend her knees. The tech puts a condom on the end of the probe, covered with lubricant, and then asks the patient to insert it into her #$%^&*.
The probe is cold, hard and covered with latex. It is long.
This to me doesn't seem a big deal, women do have regular gynecological check-ups, which entails very similar apparatus, from what i have seen. The latex is there for protection, and the lubricant is for comfort, yet not disagreeing it would be uncomfortable. And those two pleasantries are something i wasn't aware of about the gynecological check-ups, please correct me if iv given false information, its been a few years since i saw one.
The technician starts the procedure and moves the probe around inside the @#$%^&. The probe goes from one side to the other and in circles.
It hurts.
The moving of the probe may cause discomfort, yet this would be different for each woman. How it hurt is a opinion.
After the procedure is done the patient has to wipe herself off.
It is humiliating.
It would make the procedure far more uncomfortable if the technician started wiping away. Its equivalent (from a male perspective) to have a doctor hold your penis when giving a urine sample then cleaning you up after. Its just seems to me that its something you do yourself.
If given consent, as in you willing chose to have the abortion and knew the law in Oklahoma. You should be prepared. The tech has told you.
Thinking about it, this may sound terrible, but in the case of the rape victim a ^&*!@#l ultrasound could be more medically beneficial procedure. Rape is a violent crime, and by doing the $%^&*!l procedure the medical professionals can see any damage that has been caused, and how it could effect the woman's overall health. Yet it is wrong, the woman shouldn't have to be made to take the procedure this way. It may cause a re-visit to the feelings of fear, violation, disgust (just listing a few i would have if i where raped, not necessarily saying everyone has them) brought on by her assault.
Whilst writing this and researching i have found the legislation. And directly quoting it :
1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a #$%^&*l transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;
So yeah not too barbaric now.
Source
search in the top field hb2780, and it is the link called hb2780_sflr.rtf
Either way minus the temporary
seems as if it is being sorted out.
Post by
368169
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.