d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > A Different Abortion Thread
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 9,943
Joined: Mar 30 2010
Gold: 18,534.02
Oct 4 2017 12:04pm
Quote (IceMage @ Oct 4 2017 01:03pm)
There's a difference between knowing the unborn baby will die, and knowing there's a good chance the unborn baby will die. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it's comparable. Miscarriages are very common, nature made it that way, and intent is the major factor here.

I suppose there's an argument to be made that if a woman knows every pregnancy will miscarriage, she's on the same moral ground as a woman who gets an abortion, but is it even possible to have that knowledge?


This.
Member
Posts: 3,340
Joined: Jul 5 2008
Gold: 830.00
Oct 4 2017 12:05pm
In short, not at all. Miscarriages are painful, and those who have them typically stop trying after the first or second time. In this case, the mother clearly wants the child to live, but wants a natural birth as opposed to adoption.
Member
Posts: 9,943
Joined: Mar 30 2010
Gold: 18,534.02
Oct 4 2017 12:05pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 4 2017 01:04pm)
...except this is never the case. Even with women that have had multiple miscarriages there is a probability that the baby will survive. I challenge you to find me examples were doctors have proven 100% a baby will die due to miscarriage and the women continues on trying to make a baby.

Abortion is a rational choice on the part of the women, miscarriage is not. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?


and this.
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
Oct 4 2017 12:14pm
Quote (djman72 @ Oct 4 2017 12:01pm)
Wrong. That is not his point, which is the entire problem with his argument.

I would agree with both of you that, in this one scenario, that a mother was purposely getting pregnant knowing that with 100% certainty (that's the important part here, folks) that the child will die then it's wrong.

If there is a chance she can bring a child into this world, then it's absolutely fine.

I have no moral outrage here, it's simply common sense.


I never said it was 100% certainty, I said a high chance. But I mean, 3+ miscarriages, at that point you have to know how your next pregnancy will go.

So even if she has a 99% chance of miscarrying she should still try? 98%? When do her hopes start mattering less than the fetuses lives?


Quote (Leevee @ Oct 4 2017 12:03pm)
Great! This means we just need to develop an abortion procedure with 80% success rate, and pro lifers will approve.


Didn't see this one coming, haha.

Quote (IceMage @ Oct 4 2017 12:03pm)
There's a difference between knowing the unborn baby will die, and knowing there's a good chance the unborn baby will die. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it's comparable. Miscarriages are very common, nature made it that way, and intent is the major factor here.

I suppose there's an argument to be made that if a woman knows every pregnancy will miscarriage, she's on the same moral ground as a woman who gets an abortion, but is it even possible to have that knowledge?


It's not but I imagine you could look at it like you would any other statistic. Three or more miscarriages with a 100% rate of failure..what's the likely outcome here?

Quote (GXLZPGX @ Oct 4 2017 12:05pm)
In short, not at all. Miscarriages are painful, and those who have them typically stop trying after the first or second time. In this case, the mother clearly wants the child to live, but wants a natural birth as opposed to adoption.


I actually disagree with people not trying after having one. From what I've seen on tons of baby forums, and from people in my life personally they always try again. Everyone wants that rainbow baby.

This post was edited by Xandriia on Oct 4 2017 12:16pm
Member
Posts: 25,219
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 6,351.00
Oct 4 2017 12:19pm
Quote (Xandriia @ Oct 4 2017 11:14am)
It's not but I imagine you could look at it like you would any other statistic. Three or more miscarriages with a 100% rate of failure..what's the likely outcome here?


Not only is your logic lacking but your grasp of mathematics and probability even more so.

I can flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3/3 times. Does that serve as a predictor that the 4th flip has 100% certainty it will be heads?

One of the first things you learn on how to conduct research & apply statistics is sample size matters. For example even in small experiments with a limited population your sample> 30 to have some statistical relevance.

Lol "100% rate of failure" The baby either survives or it doesn't, there is no need to say 100% rate of failure when the outcome is binomial. You really are simple aren't ya?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 4 2017 12:22pm
Member
Posts: 9,943
Joined: Mar 30 2010
Gold: 18,534.02
Oct 4 2017 12:24pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 4 2017 01:19pm)
Not only is your logic lacking but your grasp of mathematics and probability even more so.

I can flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3/3 times. Does that serve as a predictor that the 4th flip has 100% certainty it will be heads?

One of the first things you learn on how to conduct research & apply statistics is sample size matters. For example even in small experiments with a limited population your sample> 30


:rofl: :thumbsup:

Member
Posts: 20,223
Joined: Apr 30 2008
Gold: 5,169.82
Oct 4 2017 12:27pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 4 2017 08:19pm)
Not only is your logic lacking but your grasp of mathematics and probability even more so.

I can flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3/3 times. Does that serve as a predictor that the 4th flip has 100% certainty it will be heads?

One of the first things you learn on how to conduct research & apply statistics is sample size matters. For example even in small experiments with a limited population your sample> 30 to have some statistical relevance.

Lol "100% rate of failure" The baby either survives or it doesn't, there is no need to say 100% rate of failure when the outcome is binomial. You really are simple aren't ya?


Completely ignores the fact that the premise of this thread is hypothetical and philosophical, not practical and scientific.
Member
Posts: 9,943
Joined: Mar 30 2010
Gold: 18,534.02
Oct 4 2017 12:28pm
Quote (Leevee @ Oct 4 2017 01:27pm)
Completely ignores the fact that the premise of this thread is hypothetical and philosophical, not practical and scientific.


The premise is bad regardless of what lens you decide to view it through.
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
Oct 4 2017 12:29pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 4 2017 12:19pm)
Not only is your logic lacking but your grasp of mathematics and probability even more so.

I can flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3/3 times. Does that serve as a predictor that the 4th flip has 100% certainty it will be heads?

One of the first things you learn on how to conduct research & apply statistics is sample size matters. For example even in small experiments with a limited population your sample> 30 to have some statistical relevance.

Lol "100% rate of failure" The baby either survives or it doesn't, there is no need to say 100% rate of failure when the outcome is binomial. You really are simple aren't ya?


Pregnancy isn't even close to a coin flip. If your uterus has an inhospitable environment that's not gonna change after the first three tries.

Okay maybe that was redundant but it's obvious what I meant. Let me stop talking about the actual point and tell djman his arguments are invalid because he said 'your' instead of 'you're' at one point. That's how much you're grasping at straws here.

It took you 3 pages and Voyager's post to even start to understand my argument, I don't think you want to get into whose logic is lacking.


Quote (Leevee @ Oct 4 2017 12:27pm)
Completely ignores the fact that the premise of this thread is hypothetical and philosophical, not practical and scientific.


I don't know what I expected.

Quote (djman72 @ Oct 4 2017 12:28pm)
The premise is bad regardless of what lens you decide to view it through.


It's not bad, you just don't like what it's making you think. There's a reason you skipped my last post to ride void's.

This post was edited by Xandriia on Oct 4 2017 12:31pm
Member
Posts: 25,219
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 6,351.00
Oct 4 2017 12:35pm
Quote (Xandriia @ Oct 4 2017 11:29am)
Pregnancy isn't even close to a coin flip. If your uterus has an inhospitable environment that's not gonna change after the first three tries.

Okay maybe that was redundant but it's obvious what I meant. Let me stop talking about the actual point and tell djman his arguments are invalid because he said 'your' instead of 'you're' at one point. That's how much you're grasping at straws here.

It took you 3 pages and Voyager's post to even start to understand my argument, I don't think you want to get into whose logic is lacking.


You literally don't have an argument. You fail to understand even the most basic of principles that differentiate the two.

Abortion is a free & voluntary choice. Miscarriage is not. Even if the probability of life failing is high does not negate the intent that the person trying to conceive isn't doing so because they are some sick fuck that enjoys miscarriage but they genuinely want a child.

This is no joke, one of the worst arguments against pro-life i have ever heard. I would like to thank you because such bad arguments are low hanging fruit to make your camp look idiotic.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll