The Civil Discussion Thread

Hobbes

Hobbes

Tucayo
Retired Wiki Staff
'Shroom Consultant
MarioWiki
Henry Tucayo Clay
I thought this could be a good idea for those of us who want to listen to other's opinions on polemic subjects and to engage in a civil dialogue.

Please refrain from posting anything that disrespects or insults someone else's opinion.

I hope this doesn't blow up in my face

Anyway, I was going to post this on the other thread but that would've been off-topic:


For me, abortion is a very difficult subject to make up my mind on, but I've come to something that I think is a sort-of adequate stance. On one side, naturally, you have the woman's right to decide on her own body, plus also cases of rape of incest; for this reason, I believe abortion should be legal during the first stages of pregnancy (first trimester, maybe?) But, after that, it's also the fetus' right to live, which in my humble opinion should take precedence.

But then comes another variable. If the mother's life is at clear risk, the option to abort should be given again, because if she can save her life she should be legally able to do so. I know socioeconomic status is also to be taken into account; but, if the only reason that is stopping a mother from having her child is her inability to provide for it, I believe she shouldn't have the right to decide on its life and should instead consider abortion.


I know it's by no means the perfect solution (or maybe not even a solution), which is why I want to read other opinions on the matter.
 
I honestly think that option shouldn't be only considered on the mother's wellbeing but also the kid's if it's born. The first trismeter of pregnancy caused by rape or incest the mother should seriously consider if it's worth it for the kid to live since there's a chance of it getting a disease (Possibly a painful one or an incurable one) or be genetically impaired in a severe way (In cases of incest) or well the chance of not being able to function properly in society and be detrimental to it.


I do however agree once the fetus gets it's own brain there's no going back and it has the right to live like any other regular human and thus abortion is not an option anymore. all in all it's the woman's choice for the first trismester to bear the kid or live without it but she must think about the severity of the choice since once the choice is done there is no turning back and she must live with it forever, simple as that.
 
The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, where the fetus is still a clump of cells, and that's where I firmly believe that the mother has the right to choose if she wants it or not, regardless of how it got there. If it's there because of an accident, and that she is financially unable to support it, then I think it's better to abort it than to make it grow up and live a miserable life because the parents cannot support it.

The concerns of the mother should, in my opinion, always take priority over something that is not consciously able to feel yet, let alone, care, if it dies because the women doesn't want it or that she is unable to take adequate care of it.

The issue gets more muddled the longer you let it be: getting an abortion for a infant that's well in its third trimester stage is still illegal in most places in the USA unless it endangers the mother's life.

Also, some people get abortions because the child will develop a mental disorder. I'm fine with that. Just as long as the fetus doesn't become too developed.

Dipper Pines said:
all in all it's the woman's choice for the first trismester to bear the kid or live without it but she must think about the severity of the choice since once the choice is done there is no turning back and she must live with it forever, simple as that.
Click to expand...

The opinions of aborting a fetus are mixed, but the dominant opinion is mostly relief. Don't get too worried about that.
 
Hey topic creator when do we move from discussion to discussion? will it be a set date or move on it's own?
 
I guess if anyone wants to talk about a different subject they are free to do so, or if we're talking about something else they can always go back to a previous subject.


There has been a lot of talk about the Syrian refugees these past weeks. First and foremost, I applaud all countries who have decided to give asylum to them; but I think it should be perfectly fine for a country to deny it. Some countries are getting a lot of shit over their negatives to receive refugees, but they are free to do so. Mexico is considering receiving around 10,000 refugees, but I think all aid and services provided to them should come from particulars, charities, or churches; governments should first and foremost tend to their own people, I disagree with generating so many extra expenses that could be avoided. In short and to make it clearer, I'm fine with Mexico receiving refugees, but I'm not fine with them being sustained by taxpayers' money.
 
On abortion, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother, who is a conscious, fully mature citizen. I think that status alone dooms the fetus to regardless. If you restrict abortions too much, some mothers can and will find other, more dangerous means to remove the fetus. The safety of the mother must be prioritized.

Abortions should be restricted generally once fetus has some inkling of brain activity.

Hobbes said:
There has been a lot of talk about the Syrian refugees these past weeks. First and foremost, I applaud all countries who have decided to give asylum to them; but I think it should be perfectly fine for a country to deny it. Some countries are getting a lot of *bleep* over their negatives to receive refugees, but they are free to do so. Mexico is considering receiving around 10,000 refugees, but I think all aid and services provided to them should come from particulars, charities, or churches; governments should first and foremost tend to their own people, I disagree with generating so many extra expenses that could be avoided. In short and to make it clearer, I'm fine with Mexico receiving refugees, but I'm not fine with them being sustained by taxpayers' money.
Click to expand...
I'm not very informed on the subject, but I view those refugees as a potential source of economic growth as well as governments having an ethical obligation to take care of them. Again, I'm ignorant on this, so this may be the wrong approach.
 
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-california-lawmakers-vote-on-right-to-die-legislation-20150909-story.html

So some right to die legislation is going on in CA.

I support euthanasia, btw.
 
Ugh, this discussion.

I support euthanasia as well, but it's so difficult to determine if an illness really is terminal or not.
 
So do I, but the article raises some valid points. In my opinion, patients should make sure there is no hope for recovery before taking that decision. In the end, the decision should always be entirely up to the patient (provided he's mentally sound).