Abortion: Right or Wrong.

[Darren]

He means, not accepting God's punishment for being a filthy whore.

I was thinking about this some more today (I'm like that) and I think that's often what's going on in the minds of 'pro-lifers'. What really ticks some people off about abortion is not the murder of a sweet little unborn child, but that there are people out there having sex who aren't being made to PAY for it somehow. The post I was responding to seemed to me to be a prime example of that. "You're old enough to know better" .... uh, what the hell is *that* supposed to mean? Shit happens. Condoms break (I know from personal experience that they do, thanks). Pills fail. Doesn't matter how old you are.....

Darren

[CosmicDust]

You know, considering that many people report that having an abortion is a difficult and painful decision, many who make the choice probably do pay as it is. The emotional implications surrounding killing your own offspring, whatever mixture of specific cultural moral atmosphere and general biological drive creates those implications, might be punishment enough already for a lot of people. I don't think most people who get abortions are simply cold-blooded baby killers. I could be wrong, of course.

[ppc]

You do agree that it does, right? I can't prove it and you can't prove it, but if you and I were walking down the street, and I pulled out a handgun and started blasting people at random, you'd have a problem with that, right?

Or are you trying to get Swift to articulate *why* he thinks human life has value? As I've said, I think that's a fruitful approach.... first ask "but WHY does human life have value?", then ask "OK, does a FETUS have all/any of the characteristics that give human life value?"

And swift: even though a baby does not know what it's looking at in a mirror, it is still obviously a 'self-aware being': "hmmmmm .... warm good.... thirsty now.... booby!"

Darren

I was trying to get him to respond, but he wont and I don't blame him - he is arguing a point that can't be won without idiotic emotional/irrational thinking.

[Swift]

I was trying to get him to respond, but he wont and I don't blame him - he is arguing a point that can't be won without idiotic emotional/irrational thinking.You weren't arguing anything yourself - you were just challenging me to refute your moronic opinion that life has no value - an opinion you failed to defend or construct yourself. What did you expect - to throw in a coin and to get the jackpot?

Swift

[cjs55]

And swift: even though a baby does not know what it's looking at in a mirror, it is still obviously a 'self-aware being': "hmmmmm .... warm good.... thirsty now.... booby!"

This depends on your definition of self-aware. Babies actually don't distinguish between an internal and external world at birth (I'm pretty sure at least). I would say a baby is not self-aware until it has made that realization.


And I just figured out an easy way to prove my opinion that human life has no inherent value:

If someone were in a coma that you were 100% sure they were not going to come out of, should it be immoral to pull their plug?

If human life had inherent value, it would be. Just like it would be immoral to commit infanticide on a severly retarded human being who will never develop the thinking of even an ape. That human being is still human. The only reason it is not immoral is because human life has no inherent value. The Sagan essay actually pointed this out rather nicely, showing that what makes us valuable to each other isn't our just being human, but rather our thinking process.

I did like that essay, but I don't think he addresses the main moral issue.

[ppc]

You weren't arguing anything yourself - you were just challenging me to refute your moronic opinion that life has no value - an opinion you failed to defend or construct yourself. What did you expect - to throw in a coin and to get the jackpot?

Swift

I am going to make this very blunt - your arguments suck dick and your insults suck even more dick than that.

What do you think "challenging you to refute my moronic opinion" is exactly? That's what people typically call an argument/discussion.

Face it - you can't make any case at all that anyone would agree with because you would either look like a fundie christian or someone who can't think in a logical manner. Your best "defense" so far is - just cuz. Why else would you be so evasive? To me it looks like you know you can't win so ad-hominem to anyone who disagrees right?

[Swift]

Your best "defense" so far is - just cuz. In that case, I still have made one argument more than you.

[ppc]

That's great but what does it have to do with anything? No one is discussing how many arguments anyone made except you. You stated something, I asked you why you thought so and then you went into some crazy ass thing about making an argument and me not making any. How you got to that point I have no clue. Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, is just cuz the best you can do as far as your "argument" goes?

[Swift]

No, you stated something. Now you prove it.

[ppc]

But you still don't show any evidence as to why a human life is worth more than dogshit.

It just is to you. That isn't a good enough answer.

This is what I stated. You never replied. There, I "proved" it.

[cjs55]

rofl

[Swift]

This is what I stated. You never replied. There, I "proved" it.Sure you "proved" it. *sarcasm* Why don't you "prove" me that we actually don't exist and that we are part of some giant mainframe or something?

[ppc]

You are either insane or a troll. Usually I can spot a troll a mile away.

[Lee]

You are a silly money swift, a morally righteous silly little monkey! ;)

Arguing subjective moral beliefs will get you nowhere, because you are singing from different hym sheets.

[Clara]

Heh, no, I think that Swift has succeeded in suggesting, in several different ways now, that < warning : grossly inaccurate, and unfair, parallel ahead, which *I* have no intention of ever supporting with any argument > insisting that astrophysics be "explained" using arithmetic ... is silly.

Lee, that looks suspiciously like a cat, under your wing...
*wandering away, to visit some friends, at their coastal cottage*

[Pierce]

That the ephemeral pleasures of sex naturally produce offspring is inconvenient to those who do not desire them. To the unfeeling calculator, the expedient elimination of a nuisance life is pragmatic and beneficial. If life truly represents nothing more than the cravings of the flesh and the calculations of the mind, there is nothing more to discuss. Those of such mind should immediately begin to implement what is the logical course of action emenating rom such a dictum.

Begin with terminating unwanted pregnancies and sterilizing those you do not want to reproduce. Next, kill the parasitic leaches of humanity who consume valuable resources without contributing anything quantifable back -- the old, the frail, the handicapped and the retarded. Purging the gene pool will ultimately improve conditions, so scientifically determine the optimum gene set and breed, clone, and genetically alter toward that goal. Quell the ignorant masses with mindless drivel and sensual diversions while you indoctinate them with your theories and desenitize their irrational emotions. Imprision or kill the recalcitrant ones. God willing, in a few years time you will have your new utopian society.

As for me, I'll continue on, reasonably considering the wonders of life and love as a mystical experience far beyond the clutches of your rational processes. It is through the faculties of faith that such things are observed, but you needn't tell me that you do not accept such things -- I already know that. It is not lack of my reason that separates our views, but the lack of your faith. It is saddens me that there are those who trample innocent souls, but I would hope that if you actually perceived them, you'd not kill them -- that would be evil, wouldn't it?

[Lee]

That the ephemeral pleasures of sex naturally produce offspring is inconvenient to those who do not desire them. To the unfeeling calculator, the expedient elimination of a nuisance life is pragmatic and beneficial. If life truly represents nothing more than the cravings of the flesh and the calculations of the mind, there is nothing more to discuss. Those of such mind should immediately begin to implement what is the logical course of action emenating rom such a dictum.
Some people feel like this and will feel they have the right to take this action, there is not much you can do about it.


Begin with terminating unwanted pregnancies and sterilizing those you do not want to reproduce. Next, kill the parasitic leaches of humanity who consume valuable resources without contributing anything back -- the old, the frail, the handicapped and the retarded. Purging the gene pool will ultimately improve conditions, so scientifically determine the optimum gene set and breed, clone, and genetically alter toward that goal. Quell the ignorant masses with mindless drivel and sensual diversions while you indoctinate them with your theories and desenitize their irrational emotions. Imprision or kill the recalcitrant ones. God willing, in a few years time you will have your new utopian society.
There is not necassarily a slippery slope, the snowball effect argument is a fallacy.


As for me, I'll continue on, reasonably considering the wonders of life and love as a mystical experience far beyond the clutches of your rational processes. It is through the faculties of faith that such things are observed, but you needn't tell me that you do not accept such things -- I already know that. It is not lack of my reason that separates our views, but the lack of your faith. It is saddens me that there are those who trample innocent souls, but I would hope that if you actually perceived them, you'd not kill them -- that would be evil, wouldn't it?
Totally dependent on the person's subjective opinion of good and evil.

Oh, do not look down on those who do not have faith, do not claim to experience something they cannot, they, I have no doubt experience life just as much as you do... they just have a different explanation for it.... who is right does not matter.

[Swift]

You are either insane or a troll. Usually I can spot a troll a mile away.Yeah, in the mirror.

[Pierce]

There is not necassarily a slippery slope, the snowball effect argument is a fallacy.
I'm not making a slippery slope/snowball effect argument. Abortion for convenience is logical given the assumptions. So is euthanasia, infanticide and genocide. That natural selection should become deliberate is obvious to a rational mind. Each is coldly, brutally logical in its own right. Once you accept that mindset, squeamish, moral compunctions are irrational -- even hypocritical -- and those who cling to them do so out of nostalgia, not reason.

Oh, do not look down on those who do not have faith, do not claim to experience something they cannot, they, I have no doubt experience life just as much as you do... they just have a different explanation for it.... who is right does not matter.
To suggest that we all perceive things (or experience life) equally is as absurd as suggesting that one has all the answers to the mysteries of life. I've no doubt that Michaelangelo and Bach (insert names of any transcendent artists), though they possessed the same physical senses and rational faculties as you and I, perceived things differently, more expansively and in a less limited way. Just as practice and diligence with natural senses yields expertise in a field, so does practice and diligence in faith -- unless you choose not to exercise it, or simply deny it (the bastion of atheists).

As concerning whether any explanation is right or matters, any athiest will tell you it does not; any person of faith will tell you that it is of the highest significance.

[Swift]

Another bystander; I'm delighted. ;)

Pierce, your words read like poetry. Keep it coming. *thumbs up*

Swift

[ppc]

So I guess we are just going to leave it at things just are because Swift says so.

[Swift]

Weren't you the one that "proved" something by merely stating it?

[ppc]

I didn't just "merely state it" such as saying x is really a donkey. You said I stated something, which I did, and then I reposted what you asked me to "prove" what I stated so I did because all that required me to "prove it" was to show you what I stated.

You said you stated something now prove it. So I did by "proving" that I stated something by reposting exactly what I stated.

In short the "it" is what I posted and I reposted it so that "proves" it.

I know you want to pretend I posted something else to the contrary but I didn't and that is why I could only repost the first thing I said because that was the only "it" that I ever stated.

I asked why you thought something was a certain way and you started talking about your elephant shit paintings that you made while on vacation in maryland.

[Swift]

I didn't ask you to prove THAT you stated something, I asked you to provide proof for your statement. How the fuck did you manage to get that wrong?

How's it going in Arlington Pediatric Center? Are your drugs working yet? Made any nice elephant shit paintings during your rehabilitation therapy?

[ppc]

This is what was stated


But you still don't show any evidence as to why a human life is worth more than dogshit.

It just is to you. That isn't a good enough answer.

What am I suppose to "prove" other than I asked you a question about something you thought instead of just cuz swift says so?

There isn't anything else to "prove" which is why I responded with "proving" I asked you a question. What would you like me to "prove?"

[Swift]

You asked me to show any evidence. I'm asking you the same.

[Vagabond]

Next quote to fight with:

"I asked you first".

(Just trying to help you out in your search for meaningful debates...:whistle: )

[Swift]

Yeah, too bad this discussion had to end this way.

[Darren]

If life truly represents nothing more than the cravings of the flesh and the calculations of the mind, there is nothing more to discuss. Those of such mind should immediately begin to implement what is the logical course of action emenating rom such a dictum.

Begin with terminating unwanted pregnancies...

Everything after this was nonsense, and does not flow AT ALL from any pro-choice position I've ever heard of. Thank you, and goodbye.

Darren

[Darren]

I notice Swift has ignored the following, even to disagree with it, but has plenty of time to engage in a childish and empty "nyah nyah, you're a poopie-head, you go first, no YOU go first" waste-of-bytes exchange.

Thank you, and goodbye.

"
Or are you trying to get Swift to articulate *why* he thinks human life has value? As I've said, I think that's a fruitful approach.... first ask "but WHY does human life have value?", then ask "OK, does a FETUS have all/any of the characteristics that give human life value?"

And swift: even though a baby does not know what it's looking at in a mirror, it is still obviously a 'self-aware being': "hmmmmm .... warm good.... thirsty now.... booby!""

[Pierce]

Everything after this was nonsense, and does not flow AT ALL from any pro-choice position I've ever heard of. Thank you, and goodbye.

Darren
I was not attempting to flow from any pro-choice position that you have ever heard of. Obviously, you missed the point.

[Swift]

Darren, PPC already admitted he was just baiting me.

[ppc]

I never admitted to just baiting you. I laughed that someone made a thread saying it.

This isn't some kind of a in depth troll or something. I told you why I thought human life doesn't have any inherent value and you just replied all kinds of retarded shit.

It's obvious you don't want to have an intelligent conversation so I stopped participating.

[Darren]

I was not attempting to flow from any pro-choice position that you have ever heard of. Obviously, you missed the point.

Apparently so. So what exactly did you mean by this?



If life truly represents nothing more than the cravings of the flesh and the calculations of the mind, there is nothing more to discuss. Those of such mind should immediately begin to implement what is the logical course of action emenating rom such a dictum....

surely the first sentence is intended as a description of the evil foundations of the pro-choicers, while the rest of the post was a catalogue of the moral ills the pro-choicers would like to bring to society, n'est-ce pas?

Darren

[Star Cannon]

I once agreed with Pro-choice. Then, I wondered: what was the woman doing sleeping with a guy at that age in the first place? Let her have the baby!

I've come to the conclusion that abortion is yet another way of ducking responsibility for one's actions. (Now, it only men could get pregnant...)

[MaroonBells]

Star,
I firmly disagree with your assumption that all sex is consensual.
MB

[floyd]

Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Hardcover)

While some chapters might seem frivolous, others touch on more serious issues, including a detailed look at Levitt's controversial linkage between the legalization of abortion and a reduced crime rate two decades later.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006073132X/ref=s9_ts_a/103-2984037-0168625

[Swift]

While some chapters might seem frivolous, others touch on more serious issues, including a detailed look at Levitt's controversial linkage between the legalization of abortion and a reduced crime rate two decades later.Perhaps because it reduced the population too?

[Darren]

Perhaps because it reduced the population too?

sigh..... "reduced crime RATE", Swift. RATE, as in crimes PER CAPITA.

Your nickname does not seem to be particularly well-chosen.

[Darren]

I've come to the conclusion that abortion is yet another way of ducking responsibility for one's actions.

I have never understood this point of view. If a woman becomes pregnant, she has a responsibility to deal with this situation in some way. Having an abortion is one way of dealing with it. How is this 'ducking responsibility'? Having the baby and then abandoning it in a garbage bin would be ducking responsibility. Leaving a foundling on a church doorstep is ducking responsibility. An abortion isn't.

[ppc]

Perhaps because it reduced the population too?


hahaha that's the funniest thing I have heard all day - Thanks for making me laugh! :)

[ppc]

Notice swift will not respond with anything.

[Vagabond]

Notice swift will not respond with anything. Which would be a good time to let this thread finally die in peace..? Maybe???

[Claverhouse]

Which would be a good time to let this thread finally die in peace..? Maybe???
I do hope that. Due to complaints about the standard of this thread and the various personal attacks therein, I have just been forced to wade through 11 pages on a topic that does not interest me, and through some deeply misbegotten arguments on both sides: it would depress me to read much more on the subject.

If it must continue --- and I think the conversion-rate on either side must be well low --- either future insults in this thread will be deleted or, if they continue incessantly, in Gotz of the Iron Hand mode, the thread will be locked.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


The EZ/SB portion was particularly distressing, not because of the tragic resolution, but because it dragged tedium into pure inanity: but the baiting language in the last few pages did nothing to improve the tone.

[Pierce]

Apparently so. So what exactly did you mean by this?

surely the first sentence is intended as a description of the evil foundations of the pro-choicers, while the rest of the post was a catalogue of the moral ills the pro-choicers would like to bring to society, n'est-ce pas?
I've never thought that pro-life/choice represented the foundation of a value system, but rather that one's position on abortion springs from a particular mind-set. The two competing mind-sets are best expressed in terms of how life is valued, either by sanctity or quality. The great moral choices of life are always influenced by their philosophical underpinnings, or the lack thereof. Both sides of this debate have well articulated positions, apart from the euphanisms, sound bites and slogans. Of course, there are many who do not take part in the greater debate, but choose sides based on emotion or convenience. Still, the core issue remains the core issue. Either life is sacred or it is not. I'm simply pointing out that nuanced positions in this debate are half-baked at best, and that whether you choose sanctity or quality, the logical progressions springing from that choice lead in quite different directions.

[Darren]

I've never thought that pro-life/choice represented the foundation of a value system, but rather that one's position on abortion springs from a particular mind-set. The two competing mind-sets are best expressed in terms of how life is valued, either by sanctity or quality. ..... I'm simply pointing out that nuanced positions in this debate are half-baked at best, and that whether you choose sanctity or quality, the logical progressions springing from that choice lead in quite different directions.

An excellent post, but I think it's a little more complicated than a simple quality/sanctity choice. Sanctity of what? I take "the sanctity of life" quite seriously, in my own way. I've no interest in willy-nilly euthanizing the sick, the old, the inconvenient, the unproductive, the retarded, or any of the other Nazi-esqe crimes you implicitly accused me of in your original post.

But what is life? This is where we differ, not on some quality/sanctity axis. Was Terri Schiavo, with a skull filled with spinal fluid and little else, alive? Was there a 'Terri Schiavo' in there somewhere, or was that moaning lump of flesh a mere souvenir of a human being? Is a little blob of cells in the womb, without brain function, alive? (the thread is about abortion, but the parallels with the TS case are certainly there).

To me, awareness is one of the things that I attach sanctity to, not some ill-defined concept called 'life'

I'd like to write a bit more on the topic, but that's the general idea, and I have to get back to work.

[Pierce]

An excellent post, but I think it's a little more complicated than a simple quality/sanctity choice. Sanctity of what? I take "the sanctity of life" quite seriously, in my own way. I've no interest in willy-nilly euthanizing the sick, the old, the inconvenient, the unproductive, the retarded, or any of the other Nazi-esqe crimes you implicitly accused me of in your original post.
That you took offense at my earlier post is interesting. There are many who hold a pro-abortion position and take none, and that bothers me much more.


But what is life? This is where we differ, not on some quality/sanctity axis. Was Terri Schiavo, with a skull filled with spinal fluid and little else, alive? Was there a 'Terri Schiavo' in there somewhere, or was that moaning lump of flesh a mere souvenir of a human being? Is a little blob of cells in the womb, without brain function, alive? (the thread is about abortion, but the parallels with the TS case are certainly there)... To me, awareness is one of the things that I attach sanctity to, not some ill-defined concept called 'life'.
At this point, neither of the concepts are ill defined (though many individuals are murky about their beliefs). Once science declared that biological life begins at conception (at the joining of egg and sperm, nothing more is required save time, nourishment and protection to have mature life) the terms needed to change. Because the term "life" has so much more meaning attached to it than what science may ascribe (emotional, intellectual, psychological, spiritual -- the dictionary has some 20 definitions), the next step is to find a way to measure the "quality of life" and place a value on it, as you indicate with Ms. Schiavo or a fetus at whatever stage of development. What has developed is a concept of "personhood," and a life may be granted or denied the legal and ethical rights of "life" as defined by "personhood" -- and the standard of who should be declared a "person" and when varies widely. The sanctity of life folks also make quality judgements, but usually based on a concept of innocence. Ironically, many pro-life people are also pro-death penalty, and many pro-abortion people vehemently oppose the death penalty.

[Darren]

What has developed is a concept of "personhood," and a life may be granted or denied the legal and ethical rights of "life" as defined by "personhood" -- and the standard of who should be declared a "person" and when varies widely.

Yes, 'sanctity of the person' probably reflects my beliefs better than 'the sanctity of life (in fact, I find the word 'human' to be incredibly useless in this discussion, to argue about what is 'human' is to argue about the wrong thing) but I continue to think your distinction between the 'sanctity' and 'quality' positions was misguided. I do not think that a cheerful fit 20 year old has 'more right to live' than a chronically depressed 55 year old with cataracts and a bum knee, though the 'quality of life' certainly differs. And I'm pro-choice.... the thrust of your original post, if I read it correctly, was that those positions are incompatible... your view seems to be that a consistent pro-choicer ought to be ready to toss all sorts of perfectly aware but unproductive folk into the furnaces of expediency, and if they aren't willing to do so they are simply confused about their own values. And you're wrong.

BTW, I would claim an egg and a sperm in seperate test tubes are just as 'alive' as the two cells combined together, or at least the difference between the two cells seperate and the two cells joined is nothing compared to the difference between the two cells joined and you or me.

[Daniel]

Only if the baby was a product of rape, or due to health reasons (such as danger to the mother, severely unhealthy baby).

No abortion should be allowed for women who knowingly and willingly have unsafe sex then find that they are pregnant.

[Darren]

Only if the baby was a product of rape, or due to health reasons (such as danger to the mother, severely unhealthy baby).

No abortion should be allowed for women who knowingly and willingly have unsafe sex then find that they are pregnant.

Why not? Oh, because abortion is murder and murder is bad.... OK... but then why allow it in a case of rape? It's still murder, isn't it?

What if a woman knowingly and willingly has safe sex... and THEN finds out she's pregnant (happens all the time). What do you say then?

.... not that I really care what your answer is: your position is fatally flawed and illogical to start with.

Darren

[Pierce]

Yes, 'sanctity of the person' probably reflects my beliefs better than 'the sanctity of life (in fact, I find the word 'human' to be incredibly useless in this discussion, to argue about what is 'human' is to argue about the wrong thing) but I continue to think your distinction between the 'sanctity' and 'quality' positions was misguided. I do not think that a cheerful fit 20 year old has 'more right to live' than a chronically depressed 55 year old with cataracts and a bum knee, though the 'quality of life' certainly differs. And I'm pro-choice.... the thrust of your original post, if I read it correctly, was that those positions are incompatible... your view seems to be that a consistent pro-choicer ought to be ready to toss all sorts of perfectly aware but unproductive folk into the furnaces of expediency, and if they aren't willing to do so they are simply confused about their own values. And you're wrong.
The trouble with whole "quality of life argument" is that it's a constantly moving target, relative to the subjective value placed on a life by those with the power and legal right to destroy it. Earlier on in the abortion debate, I read an account of an attempted abortion that went awry. A third-trimester, chemically induced abortion delivered a live baby. The baby was crying, skin burned inside and out by chemicals; its penis spraying the attending nurse and doctor with urine. The physician then sliced open the infants chest and pulled apart the rib cage in order to observe the function of its heart and lungs as it died. The nurse was horrified and filed a complaint. The physician asserted that since the decision was made that the fetus would die, what happened to it after that was of no consequence. The physician was not faulted. Today's partial birth abortion techniques have eliminated such vigorous displays of life. And whether the organism is a fetus (a blob of cells) or a baby (a human infant with rights) is determined by what percentage of its body has passed from between a woman's legs. There are "quality of life" proponents arguing that personhood should not be granted until a child reaches the age of 5 or 6, when it can be assured that the child will grow and develop into a fully funcitonging human being (professor at a US college quoted in Time magazine in an article regarding quality vs. sanctity of life). So, where does one draw the line? Conception? Viability? Percentage of body outside the birth canal? Passing neurological tests? Age 6?

For a very thought provoking view of the subject, read the story of Bernard Nathanson. He was an abortionist in the front lines of the pro-abortion movement and co-founder of NARAL (then called the National Abortion Rights Action League). His turnabout sheds a great deal of light on the subject, the groups and motivations on all sides of the subject.

[Darren]

... So, where does one draw the line? Conception? Viability? Percentage of body outside the birth canal? Passing neurological tests? Age 6?

Well, that is the whole question, isn't it? It's not clear to me why your answer (conception) is any better than mine (fetal brain development as discussed in the Sagan article), the fact that my answer is not quite as unambiguous and stationary as yours doesn't seem like much of a selling point to me, and your answer has the additional undesirable characteristic of consigning women to carrying something around with them for nine months that they'd rather not, which all other things being equal is a bad thing (well, most decent people think it's a bad thing).




For a very thought provoking view of the subject, read the story of Bernard Nathanson. He was an abortionist in the front lines of the pro-abortion movement and co-founder of NARAL (then called the National Abortion Rights Action League). His turnabout sheds a great deal of light on the subject, the groups and motivations on all sides of the subject.

For an equally thought provoking view of the subject, try the Carl Sagan article I posted earlier in this thread (just google Carl Sagan abortion if you can't find it). He answers the 'where do you draw the line' question carefully, and I believe rightly. I am opposed to third trimester abortions (though I am pro choice), so I don't care to defend the practice.

Back to work,
Darren

[Star Cannon]

Birth forces both parties to consider the serious consequences of their actions. Why is the woman having sex in the first place? Why does the man have sex in the first place? Do both parties consider birth as a consequence?
More over, if we give the woman the option of opting out of birth, what does this say about society as a whole?

If we would rather kill the consequence of an action rather than raise it, I would think something is inherently wrong with society. Therefore, it could be said that society is the one ducking responsibility. *shrug*
All in all, I don't intend on getting pregnant (or doing anything to get pregnant) anytime soon. so... *shrugs*

[Pierce]

...the fact that my answer is not quite as unambiguous and stationary as yours doesn't seem like much of a selling point to me, and your answer has the additional undesirable characteristic of consigning women to carrying something around with them for nine months that they'd rather not, which all other things being equal is a bad thing (well, most decent people think it's a bad thing)... I am opposed to third trimester abortions (though I am pro choice), so I don't care to defend the practice.

Hmmm... so, I guess that makes you semi-pro choice and semi-pro life (at least after the 2nd trimester). I wonder at what point the killing of a thinking being would provoke outrage in you. At what stage would you feel compelled to insist that enough is enough and draw the line? When, if ever, would you protest and argue to save a life? Or, is it simply a mild preference that a living, thinking being not be killed indiscriminately?



...For an equally thought provoking view of the subject, try the Carl Sagan article I posted earlier in this thread (just google Carl Sagan abortion if you can't find it). He answers the 'where do you draw the line' question carefully, and I believe rightly.
At core my beliefs are religious, that God weaves together the garment of body and soul, so the scientific, empirically measurable view of the begining of personhood is of little significance to me. It's interesting enough, but I'd never bet my life (or anyone else's) on it. Sagan's view as an atheist scientist is predictable. Nathanson's view as an non-religionist scientist I find more compelling (since he eventullay converted to Catholicism, I think he's lost credibility with some atheists though).


CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD
We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion
comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again
that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the
American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under
the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are
enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-
Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian
religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly
suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist
to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New
York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new
technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires
all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some
American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by
carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the
physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful
destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly
violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast
resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT
CONCEPTION
Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

[Dempsey]

No abortion should be allowed for women who knowingly and willingly have unsafe sex then find that they are pregnant.

So having the baby should be like a punishment? How she gets the baby is quite irrelevant, that just comes down to the personal choice of does she want the baby or not?

[s]

[yawns]

[mgb]

[yawns]

Won't be yawning when it happens to you.

[s]

Happens to me? Luv, I am a mother. I have made that decision before.

[s]

This debate is so lame and overdone. [yawns]

[Dempsey]

You're lame and overdone.

[MacGuffin]

You're lame and overdone.
What is this? Third grade?

[ppc]

I thought I ended this discussion when I proclaimed to be correct on all subjects all the time always.

Abortions are great, although I hear they tickle.

[relaxo]

"no one has the right to take an innocent life"
What kind of statment is this in relation to abortion?
A fetus is not an "innocent life". A fetus is not human. It is a potential human. Until it can survive without being physically dependent on it's birth mother, it is not human life. When it reaches the point of growth where another person can take care of it, and it does not need to continue it's development in artifical conditions, it is human.
For example, you can not morally cut open a woman and take out her fetus and hook it up to equipment that replicates the womb, in order to "save" it from abortion.

[Clara]

What is this? Third grade?
I guess it is. Reading comprehension, and learning how to look things up, time.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[Star Cannon]

*yawns*

Hmm... *looks at the hundred or so responses above* Has anyone ever considered stopping conception in the first place? Like condoms or just not having sex until one is ready to DEAL with the potential consequences?

[meshou]

*yawns*

Hmm... *looks at the hundred or so responses above* Has anyone ever considered stopping conception in the first place? Like condoms or just not having sex until one is ready to DEAL with the potential consequences?I'll do that next time I'm pregnant.

[Eileen]

*yawns*

Hmm... *looks at the hundred or so responses above* Has anyone ever considered stopping conception in the first place? Like condoms or just not having sex until one is ready to DEAL with the potential consequences?



Good thing condoms never break and pills never fail...

[Melange]

I came in this post late, so I'll just say my two cents. Yes I think the women has the right to chose, its her body and shouldn't be regulated by rules of a government; but would I get an abortion? No I would not, I'd opt for putting the kid up for adoption, but that is just how I think. I do not speak for everyone, every situation is different. We shouldn't pigeon hole a women's decision based on morals and feeling of society. Just because you would not get an abortion doesn't mean someone else in a completely different situation should be denied of it.

[Seishi]

I voted for the woman's right to choose.

I also believe that aboriton is wrong and that life begins at conception and that it is the taking of an innocent. I know that I would never be able to go through with an abortion.

However our world is not set up the way it should be. Education, prevention and aid is not available to many many of the world's poorest people. We need to work at increasing education and availability of birth control so that abortion is less and less a logical choice. I would never judge a woman who had an abortion, they have to deal with that trauma their entire life.

And I'm an active Catholic.

[Eileen]

I agree, Seishi. I tried to communicate the same thing in this thread. :)

[MasterMerk]

I'm pro-abortion, but anti-choice

Wait, what is it? Pro-freedom-of-a-woman-in-choice-making-abortions?

I one of those.

[melancholeric]

I'm pro-abortion, but anti-choice

Wait, what is it? Pro-freedom-of-a-woman-in-choice-making-abortions?

I one of those.
Wouldn't that mean you're anti-abortion but pro-choice? If you think abortion is wrong but the woman should have the choice. Or something.

[jimore]

*yawns*

Hmm... *looks at the hundred or so responses above* Has anyone ever considered stopping conception in the first place? Like condoms or just not having sex until one is ready to DEAL with the potential consequences?
My my, what a novel approach. Don't eat food unless you are ready to DEAL with food ecoli.

Pro choice. Pro it's none of my business.

[afton]

Birth forces both parties to consider the serious consequences of their actions. Why is the woman having sex in the first place? Why does the man have sex in the first place? Do both parties consider birth as a consequence?
Because sex is fun, and no, usually both parties don't consider birth as
a consequence before having sexual intercourse.

[Wiki]

Its a grey area. Why must everything be black or white, right or wrong. Does not free will and tolerance have its own rights?

The pro-life and pro-choice people make compelling arguments.

But its the radicals in any group that remind us that we need to choose our battles wisely.

[kuranes]

Its a grey area. Why must everything be black or white, right or wrong. Does not free will and tolerance have its own rights?

The pro-life and pro-choice people make compelling arguments.

But its the radicals in any group that remind us that we need to choose our battles wisely.

*applause*

[pangolin]

If abortion is murder (the unlawful or immoral slaying of a moral agent), then pregancy is a nine month sustained assault on the mother, and the infant should be taken to trial upon birth.

Naturally, this is absurd, because an unborn child is not a moral agent. Laying aside our genetically developed predisposition for protecting young, I don't really consider children people until they can communicate. But the issue is more complicated than that.

Power and responsibility go hand in hand. Choice is a power. If the state wishes to take the power of this particular choice away from a woman, it must also accept the responsibility for raising any unwanted children. It is unreasonable to do one without the other.

To the (at least one) person who decided to not have an abortion, aren't you glad that it was *your* choice to make in the end, and that it had not been made beforehand?

[Ivy]

If abortion is murder (the unlawful or immoral slaying of a moral agent), then pregancy is a nine month sustained assault on the mother, and the infant should be taken to trial upon birth.

Naturally, this is absurd, because an unborn child is not a moral agent.

I don't believe the victim as "moral agent" is one of the criteria for murder, is it? Under that definition, killing a mentally handicapped person is not murder. It could also be argued that a fetus is only in a temporary state of non-moral-agentness (my apologies for the awkward phrasing), and as such, a sleeping person would be in the same category.

(I am not in favor of outlawing abortion, just so that's clear. I do think we could be working on the societal trends that contribute to people choosing abortion, such as the lack of widely available, affordable, reliable, and unstigmatized birth control.)

[afton]

To the (at least one) person who decided to not have an abortion, aren't you glad that it was *your* choice to make in the end, and that it had not been made beforehand?
What I read, usually they're happy to cancel the abortion. But let's
wait for the real abortion cancellers.

[Zephyrus055]

I don't think abortion is either right or wrong.

And I think the arguements from both sides are absurd.

Both sides, for example, both claim that natural rights exist. PCers thinks the natural right to choose over sexual consequences exists, while PLers thinks the right to life exists.

The answer is that neither right exists, and therefore new arguements are needed to give either side any logical foundation.

Inherent rights simply do not exist, and people need to understand this. They can not be tracable to an empirical source, so they are assumed to be non-existent.

[Kilby]

There needs to be a big push for masturbation across America. It will reduce pregnancy and these tough decisions about abortion. Sex until you are married has more benefits than just being religious dogma. People should also make sure they can afford to have the children. This is all common sense, oh yeah, it doesn't exist.

[afton]

There needs to be a big push for masturbation across America. It will reduce pregnancy and these tough decisions about abortion. Sex until you are married has more benefits than just being religious dogma. People should also make sure they can afford to have the children. This is all common sense, oh yeah, it doesn't exist.
Kilby, you're my friend :)

[kuranes]

Sex until you are married has more benefits than just being religious dogma.

AFTER you're married, it stops , of course . . . .

[dubbeltop]

A woman has the right to choose period why because its here choice. Why dont we sterilize men .......because its our choice. (and its sucks because you can undo it)

[ctnd]

I believe that a life begins at the point of conception.

People try to justify abortion by drawing an arbitrary line across a continuous process.

If you have no qualms about killing someone for a particular reason go right ahead...


In reference to this post, and other posts that discuss "when a foetus becomes alive?" and "does it have a soul?"

:sadbanana: ...

I assume you judge the worth "life" by how useful or valuable you, at your discretion, deem the creature to be, depending on usefulness and/or social and cultural criteria. A fly or a spider, you may not wilfully kill, but the minute life; mites, fleas and tape worms, you would consider a parasite. I expect you would. You would not put any value on the life of such creatures. They are in fact lower forms of life, worthless. A wild snake that is attacking you, has no value, you wouldn't think twice about -- and perhaps with some gratification -- taking its life. Using basic examples above, I have demonstrated the relative and "arbitrary line" for the valuing of life. :)

If a creature living inside a woman's body, it is at her discretion as to how she values this life, be it embryotic or parasitic; because she has the power.

One cannot deny nature. The powerful have control over the weak. If you could not bare to take your friend's life, that is completely understandable, and I would feel the same way; because we value them. The reason that you cannot stand the idea of another individual to exercising power over another life is that your morals dictate so, these morals that you chose to accept or create. This does not mean, in any way, that any other individual should have to agree with you, and how dare you judge someone for their already difficult decision on whether to abort or not (because of social and cultural pressure and people just like you). <_<

I could go in to quality of life, but that would be besides the point and hide the real truth of our discriminate valuing system of all life.

From what I have written above, I conclude it is not objectively or absolutely wrong. It is entirely subjective and relative to circumstance. I am surprised an "INTP" would not consider this. :huh:

That's my view, anyway.:banana:

[Krill]

This does not mean, in any way, that any other individual should have to agree with you, and how dare you judge someone for their already difficult decision on whether to abort or not (because of social and cultural pressure and people just like you). <_<

How dare you ever judge someone for their already difficult decision to cut their father's throat.


From what I have written above, I conclude it is not objectively or absolutely wrong. It is entirely subjective and relative to circumstance. I am surprised an "INTP" would not consider this. :huh:

Is murder not in self defense wrong? Or is that subjective too?

[ajblaise]

It's right.

It's their bodies, let them be.

[ctnd]

This does not mean, in any way, that any other individual should have to agree with you, and how dare you judge someone for their already difficult decision on whether to abort or not (because of social and cultural pressure and people just like you).


How dare you ever judge someone for their already difficult decision to cut their father's throat.


I would not, or profess to, and would certainly not create action groups against them. I would not feel horror or disgust of such a man. I would most likely anaylse the possible reasons for such an act, the person's circumstance, psychological condition and such forth. This is understanding, not judgement. Perhaps you are to ask how I would feel if it were my own mother, murdered for her spare change. I love my mother dearly, if she died of a heart attack I would accept it, if she was murdered, I would accept it. I certainly would not seek retribution (or hate her attacker).





From what I have written above, I conclude it is not objectively or absolutely wrong. It is entirely subjective and relative to circumstance. I am surprised an "INTP" would not consider this.


Is murder not in self defense wrong? Or is that subjective too?

In war, the circumstance would probably dictate that it is right. It depends on the situation. For clarity, I will quote a definition:



Murder

-noun
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully


I believe the term you were probably looking for is 'kill', i.e. to take life. Because, of course, that said, your original question does not make much sense. "Is murder wrong?" It is certainly unlawlful, and therefore considered by many to be wrong. But I, personally, would not say killing -- taking the life of -- another creature is absolutely wrong and the question of rightness is indeed subject to circumstance. There's no need to provide any other examples for this.

[Krill]

I would not, or profess to, and would certainly not create action groups against them. I would not feel horror or disgust of such a man. I would most likely anaylse the possible reasons for such an act, the person's circumstance, psychological condition and such forth. This is understanding, not judgement. Perhaps you are to ask how I would feel if it were my own mother, murdered for her spare change. I love my mother dearly, if she died of a heart attack I would accept it, if she was murdered, I would accept it. I certainly would not seek retribution (or hate her attacker).

Seeing as how you've given an internally consistent answer, I have nothing more to add.

However, it is quite a judgment on your part that it is not correct/right/good to judge someone else for their actions. How do you justify this?

[FranG]

This is always a tough one for me. I believe interfering with the natural process is murder. The moment the sperm interactswith the egg, the process for life has started. However, I can't tell a woman what to do with her body. So a woman can do whatever she wants with her body; if she gets an abortion that's blood on her hands not mine so whatever.

[ajblaise]

However, it is quite a judgment on your part that it is not correct/right/good to judge someone else for their actions. How do you justify this?

Maybe he's a real Christian. lol

[ctnd]

Seeing as how you've given an internally consistent answer, I have nothing more to add.

However, it is quite a judgment on your part that it is not correct/right/good to judge someone else for their actions. How do you justify this?


The topic of this forum is to voice our opinion on whether abortion is right or wrong. I prefer understanding to judgement in most cases for reasons that would digress from the topic of this thread. It was intended as a rhetorical statement to the general "how dare you take the life of your child" attitude that aborting women have to deal with. People naturally judge, however, it is in this (described) attidude that people are quick to do so and show in their ignorance and apathy to the person in question's circumstance and feelings. I do not think I am quick to judge. In fact, a lot of observation and comparison goes into thinking about it, as shown in my original post.

[Krill]

I do not think I am quick to judge. In fact, a lot of observation and comparison goes into thinking about it, as shown in my original post.

I hope I did not come across as attempting to imply you were quick to judge. :)


The topic of this forum is to voice our opinion on whether abortion is right or wrong. I prefer understanding to judgement in most cases for reasons that would digress from the topic of this thread. It was intended as a rhetorical statement to the general "how dare you take the life of your child" attitude that aborting women have to deal with.

I misunderstood then, my apologies. I thought it was an expression of great indignation on your part on behalf of the women.

[Deckard]

Let me preface this by saying i'm pro choice, just so it's clear what my personal view is.

Having said that, there's an interesting bit of moral logic which i've never been able to resolve, and it basically concludes that abortion is, in most cases, morally wrong. Here's how it goes:

If we value:
- The ability to experience life
- Happiness/quality of life
- The ability for others to experience these things too (i.e. little or no selfish bias when applying these values)

The relevant moral questions are:
- Does the expected decrease in happiness/quality of life of the mother/couple/anyone else by having the child exceed the perceived value of that child experiencing their entire life?
- Is the child very likely to be unhappy in their life (due to expected quality of life), to the point where they generally wish they'd never been born?

If the answer to those two questions is "no", then, with these values, it's morally wrong to have an abortion.

The things that makes this logical exercise interesting are that:
- most people who are pro choice would probably claim to share the values i mentioned
- in most abortion decisions in 1st world countries, the answer to those two moral questions would probably be "no"

[Jennywocky]

- Is the child very likely to be unhappy in their life (due to expected quality of life), to the point where they generally wish they'd never been born?

More interestingly, even if someone wishes they had never been born, what does that have to do with whether it is morally right or wrong to kill them?

(Sorry. Just had to confuse the issue further. That's my job, apparently, since I'm not good at doing much else.)

[meshou]

....:shock: Undoubtedly INTP face... well developed Fe... seemingly good natured....


Well, I'm heading off to the bunker. Horsemen should soon be here.

[cjs55]

I like your value-conclusion construct there Deckard.

It depends soley on the existance of potential abortee/potential human increasing the amount of happiness experienced in the world.

If the average person is depressed, then this is usually false unless the person brings something to others in the world.

If the addition of more people to the world causes others to have less enjoyable lives due to lack of meaning/connection (something I find likely true), then the addition of more people falls into a tragedy of the commons issue, where on an individual level it might be worth it, but at a group level...nope.

Of course, we come to the interesting conclusion here that it is immoral for a women to ever not be pregnant, assuming that the amount of happiness in the world is higher because of it.

I think personally that this value of experienced happiness is not necessarily a good one. Once a human being exists, then it seems like a good way to guage things. But until then, I don't think it is a reasonable justification for creating more kids to experience happiness. That is, quality over quantity here. I am not so sure that 10000 people living happily is really "better" than 100 people living happily. I think what matters is that those who are alive live happily.


On a tangent, I really had fun in this thread. I think I'm not quite as sharp as I used to be. Maybe it's time for a change to get some of that back.

[meshou]

double post

[cjs55]

Edit: Couldn't you delete posts at one point?

[LuridLemur]

Weird.

Edit: it must just be the Classics section.

[Deckard]

It depends soley on the existance of potential abortee/potential human increasing the amount of happiness experienced in the world.
Actually no, the comparison is between the perceived value of that person being able to experience their entire life, and the decrease in happiness for others that this life will cause.

It's not a simple comparison, and it's definitely not apples to apples. But looking at it objectively, i think the value of a person experiencing their entire life would, in most cases, outweight the expected decrease in happiness of others as a result of them having life. As overpopulation issues arise, this would change, but i'm talking about 1st world countries at the present.



Of course, we come to the interesting conclusion here that it is immoral for a women to ever not be pregnant, assuming that the amount of happiness in the world is higher because of it.
Yes, that is another interesting result of the logic i used. Though, perhaps not to the extent of a woman always having to be pregnant. That would make women's lives pretty miserable.


I am not so sure that 10000 people living happily is really "better" than 100 people living happily. I think what matters is that those who are alive live happily.
Fair enough. Though, if we value the ability to experience life and happiness, and we wilfully deny a potential person those things, we are contradicting our morals.

[Intension]

Let me preface this by saying i'm pro choice, just so it's clear what my personal view is.

Having said that, there's an interesting bit of moral logic which i've never been able to resolve, and it basically concludes that abortion is, in most cases, morally wrong. Here's how it goes:

If we value:
- The ability to experience life
- Happiness/quality of life
- The ability for others to experience these things too (i.e. little or no selfish bias when applying these values)

The relevant moral questions are:
- Does the expected decrease in happiness/quality of life of the mother/couple/anyone else by having the child exceed the perceived value of that child experiencing their entire life?
- Is the child very likely to be unhappy in their life (due to expected quality of life), to the point where they generally wish they'd never been born?

If the answer to those two questions is "no", then, with these values, it's morally wrong to have an abortion.

The things that makes this logical exercise interesting are that:
- most people who are pro choice would probably claim to share the values i mentioned
- in most abortion decisions in 1st world countries, the answer to those two moral questions would probably be "no"

This should be a challenging argument for people who have utilitarian views on other subjects. The initial assumption that people must be required to value others' happiness equally with their own is certainly questionable, though. If some weighting is allowed, it's possible the calculation would turn in favor of abortion.

Also, while the utilitarian argument skirts the thorny issue of deciding when human life and human rights begin, it is open to the criticism that simply not choosing to procreate is equally wrong as an abortion. If your girlfriend says she wants kids and you break off the relationship, how is that different from impregnating her and later convincing her to have an abortion? The outcome is the same in utilitarian terms; the potential new life never comes to be.

Since almost everyone is happier to be alive (excepting those suffering from depression), even if they are poor, this argument turns people into breeding machines, churning out new generations of marginally happy people even as the average level of happiness may be decreasing.

[Deckard]

edit: nevermind

[ctnd]

I hope I did not come across as attempting to imply you were quick to judge. :)

I misunderstood then, my apologies. I thought it was an expression of great indignation on your part on behalf of the women.

You are difficult to read. I'll give you that.

[abathur]

Personally, I'm not keen on the idea of abortion. It's not even a matter of when it's a life, but a matter of personal ethic and responsibility. Don't take actions for which you aren't prepared to be responsible. Not that this ethic is the best, as it creates problems for me elsewhere, but I think it works here.

That said, from a practical standpoint, I support the availability of state-funded abortions for the first few months of pregnancy. And I don't mean the state pays a doctor to perform your abortion, but rather, that the abortionist is a salaried state employee. More clearly, I think an abortion "business" is disgusting, and profit motives in a capitalistic system encourage clinics to give shoddy counseling to girls who are already stressed, misrepresent options (and the procedure itself.) I won't go around proclaiming all of this stuff happens, I'd imagine it has, but I'd also imagine some of that is RTL propoganda, too. Regardless, I don't think it's in the public interest for an industry like this to be for-profit.

The employees can still make decent salaries for all I care, but I don't think the profit motive is good.

The "why" I'd support it at all, given my personal objection, I think some 44% of the world's abortions take place in countries where it isn't legal? People look for ways to abort, regardless of whether I think it's right for them to be doing so. Free abortions put one "life" at risk, back-alley abortions put two at risk. I'll leave the ethics to abortion doctors and the parents.

[Deckard]

This should be a challenging argument for people who have utilitarian views on other subjects. The initial assumption that people must be required to value others' happiness equally with their own is certainly questionable, though. If some weighting is allowed, it's possible the calculation would turn in favor of abortion.

Also, while the utilitarian argument skirts the thorny issue of deciding when human life and human rights begin, it is open to the criticism that simply not choosing to procreate is equally wrong as an abortion. If your girlfriend says she wants kids and you break off the relationship, how is that different from impregnating her and later convincing her to have an abortion? The outcome is the same in utilitarian terms; the potential new life never comes to be.

Since almost everyone is happier to be alive (excepting those suffering from depression), even if they are poor, this argument turns people into breeding machines, churning out new generations of marginally happy people even as the average level of happiness may be decreasing.
You are correct, in that it becomes a balance of population size and happiness levels. In response to your final paragraph, being poor in a crowded environment might not sound like much fun to us, but we're pretty spoiled these days. Generally speaking, people are quite capable of being happy in basic living conditions, as long as they can get the basic necessities of life. But for relatively well off people, any reduction in wealth or quality of life seems intolerable, so this perhaps skews value judgements.


it is open to the criticism that simply not choosing to procreate is equally wrong as an abortion.
This isn't so much an argument against the position i'm describing. It does sound absurd, and flies in the face of custom and general "common sense". But these criticisms don't consitute an argument.

[cjs55]

Don't take actions for which you aren't prepared to be responsible

I agree for those that make mistakes, don't use contraception and get pregnant should be more responsible. But in both their case, and for the freak occurances (condom breakage and/or forgot pill, whatever, and also rape), I think it becomes a more pragmatic issue than a moral one once pregnancy occurs.

Sure, a mistake may have been made and unresponsible actions could have occured. But once the mistake has been made, the greater mistake is to bring an unwanted child into an already over-populated world. The sign of responsibility at that point in my opinion is to abort, and secondly to give the child up for adoption. The least responsible thing to do is to keep the child if you don't have the maturity and resources to effectively support it.

[FranG]

I agree for those that make mistakes, don't use contraception and get pregnant should be more responsible. But in both their case, and for the freak occurances (condom breakage and/or forgot pill, whatever, and also rape), I think it becomes a more pragmatic issue than a moral one once pregnancy occurs.

Well abstinence is 100% effective. If one was really concerned about not getting pregnant, they choose this form of birth control.



Sure, a mistake may have been made and unresponsible actions could have occured. But once the mistake has been made, the greater mistake is to bring an unwanted child into an already over-populated world. The sign of responsibility at that point in my opinion is to abort, and secondly to give the child up for adoption. The least responsible thing to do is to keep the child if you don't have the maturity and resources to effectively support it.

The world isn't overpopulated for one. And why kill a child when you could give him up for adoption? It's murder however you try to spin it; it's the equivalent of killing a one day old newborn.

[Ellis]

In the good ol' days, before the abortion process we all know and love today, women would take poisonous substances in order to flush the fetus out of their systems. Or bash their newborn baby's head against some rocks and hide the body. They probably still do that in countries without the saline process today. Between the desperate killing of an obviously alive, breathing newborn baby and/or poisoning of a living mother and the removal of a mass of tissue with the potential of becoming a human baby, the choice seems simple.

Of course, abortion should not be used as a regular contraceptive, not with the existence of condoms and pills. It's definitely a last-resort option.

And Fran, what about rape? Are you really suggesting that a woman should be forced to give birth to the child of the man who raped her?

[intpgolfer]

I believe in abortion up to the age of 60.

[eaglewing]

Of course.
Women should have the right to abort her fetus. :banana:

[LC333]

In reference to this post, and other posts that discuss "when a foetus becomes alive?" and "does it have a soul?"

:sadbanana: ...

I assume you judge the worth "life" by how useful or valuable you, at your discretion, deem the creature to be, depending on usefulness and/or social and cultural criteria. A fly or a spider, you may not wilfully kill, but the minute life; mites, fleas and tape worms, you would consider a parasite. I expect you would. You would not put any value on the life of such creatures. They are in fact lower forms of life, worthless. A wild snake that is attacking you, has no value, you wouldn't think twice about -- and perhaps with some gratification -- taking its life. Using basic examples above, I have demonstrated the relative and "arbitrary line" for the valuing of life. :)

If a creature living inside a woman's body, it is at her discretion as to how she values this life, be it embryotic or parasitic; because she has the power.

One cannot deny nature. The powerful have control over the weak. If you could not bare to take your friend's life, that is completely understandable, and I would feel the same way; because we value them. The reason that you cannot stand the idea of another individual to exercising power over another life is that your morals dictate so, these morals that you chose to accept or create. This does not mean, in any way, that any other individual should have to agree with you, and how dare you judge someone for their already difficult decision on whether to abort or not (because of social and cultural pressure and people just like you). <_<

I could go in to quality of life, but that would be besides the point and hide the real truth of our discriminate valuing system of all life.




I agree 100% with this.

I think anyone could agree that there is some major ambiguity as to the value of an undeveloped fetus in, say, the first trimester. Whether you feel it is a human being and worth protecting or just a cluster of parasitic cells at that stage (which is how I happen to feel about it), it seem like madness to me that anyone could possibly put an unthinking, unfeeling, "person's" potential life over and above a fully developed, existing person's physical and emotional well being. Whatever an individual's personal sense is about the issue, and whether or not they themselves would feel comfortable having an abortion, it seems totally immoral and illogical to me to impose your personal beliefs on other people. It is obviously not a clear cut case of taking the life of a formed, developed, existing human being and to me the only logical position on this is to let a woman decide for herself what she wants to do in the event that she is faced with this decision.

The psychological and physical ramifactions of having a child, especially an unwanted one, is tremendous and potentially devastating to a woman, not to mention the potential life of this unwanted child. Also, it is much more potentially physically dangerous and potentially physically scarring to carry a pregnancy through nine months. The "pro-life" set has spread a lot of ridiculous mis-information about this and I can forward articles to anyone that has a misunderstanding about this, because this is a fact. From purely a health prespective alone, it is totally insane to me to even suggest that a woman should ever be forced against her will to carry a pregnancy to term. Would you think it would be ok to force people to carry out something like, say, a bone marrow donation, with all of the risks and pain and complications potentially involved, to save the life of a child? We don't make involuntary bone marrow donation a law because we don't think that anyone should be forced against their will to be subject to pain, disfigurement, or potential health risks in this instance for the sake of another, even if it is life and death. Why on earth would a pregnancy be any different? The potential for pain, disfigurement, and serious health complications are just as real. I think perhaps in our overly rosy and somewhat unrealistic, socially influenced views of pregnancy we have overlooked these things. Carrying a pregnancy to terms is a very difficult thing physically and emotionally, and I can't even fathom how horrible it would be for someone to do that against their will.

Whether you cavalierly state "Oh, give it up for adoption" or not to back out of dealing with the social implications of having an unwanted child, forcing a woman to carry a child to term still seems unbelievably cruel and unfair to me. A woman who wants a child is willing to deal with the extreme pain, the potential for major and traumatic bodily changes post-childbirth, and the potential for health complications, and will view these risks in a totally different light. As a woman who personally never wants a child, I feel it would be psychological and physical torture to carry one against my will, and I find it appalling and scary that no one seems to be taking into consideration that some women feel this way and should never be forced into doing such a thing. And it is certainly not as simple as "being responsible". NO birth control but abstinence is that effective, and I think it's ridiculously unrealistic to expect a normal person who never wants kids be abstinent their whole life. If we have the medical technology available to save a woman (not to mention to save society, but that is whole different post) from the pain of an unwanted pregnancy, it seems totally immoral to me to deny that treatment to them.

[Star Cannon]

Hmm...

"totally immoral to me to deny treatment to them"

interesting. Thought I'm a big proponent of "don't screw around unless yer ready to accept that possibility!"

[Lateralus]

The right to choose, as long as it's not mine. Well, actually, she still has the right to choose then. Just like I have the right to choose to never speak to her again.

[Dom]

The right to choose, as long as it's not mine. Well, actually, she still has the right to choose then. Just like I have the right to choose to never speak to her again.

Odd you should feel that way...

I'm really in a pickle on this...

A pregnancy is the most amazing, intense and damaging thing to happen to a female body.

I will defend a womans right to choose utterly. Even over mine.

In fact if it happened with mine, she'd be hard pressed to get an opinion either way out of me.... I'll work through the pro's and con's with her happily, but not my feelings/thoughts on it. If she decides an abortion is best for her, who am I to apply pressure to put her body through the most traumatic experience (other than it's own birth and death) that it can have?

If she wants to keep it and I didn't again I'd support her, how could it be right that my opinion should persuade a mother to terminate her baby, for me? I know no one, who has had an abortion, and it not haunt them in someway, at least when they are being honest about it. What kind of boyfriend/hubby would I be to try to impose that on her?

Best not to get preggers in the first place...


I was fairly pro-abortion until I was actually faced with the decision.

That brought a whole lot of other feelings and considerations into play. I would say that anyone faced with this decision (regardless of their philosophical stance) is likely to find it extremely difficult and painful.

This is my experience of people who have faced the decisions, hence why as aman I have elected to withhold my opinion if any woman of mine was facign this situation... a life tiem of motherhood on oneside vs a lifetime of potential regret and bad feelings towatd them sleves... how on eart should my opinion be allowed to effect that choice?

[Lateralus]

Odd you should feel that way...

I'm really in a pickle on this...

A pregnancy is the most amazing, intense and damaging thing to happen to a female body.

I will defend a womans right to choose utterly. Even over mine.

In fact if it happened with mine, she'd be hard pressed to get an opinion either way out of me.... I'll work through the pro's and con's with her happily, but not my feelings/thoughts on it. If she decides an abortion is best for her, who am I to apply pressure to put her body through the most traumatic experience (other than it's own birth and death) that it can have?

If she wants to keep it and I didn't again I'd support her, how could it be right that my opinion should persuade a mother to terminate her baby, for me? I know no one, who has had an abortion, and it not haunt them in someway, at least when they are being honest about it. What kind of boyfriend/hubby would I be to try to impose that on her?

Best not to get preggers in the first place...



This is my experience of people who have faced the decisions, hence why as aman I have elected to withhold my opinion if any woman of mine was facign this situation... a life tiem of motherhood on oneside vs a lifetime of potential regret and bad feelings towatd them sleves... how on eart should my opinion be allowed to effect that choice?
As it stands, men have absolutely no say in it, and I don't think the law should change, in that respect. But from a personal perspective, if this is what she is considering, I'm with the wrong person. I would never take anyone to court over it. No coercion. No arguments. Not even a discussion. That would simply be the end of our relationship. While some people might view a fetus as a "parasite", I don't see it that way at all.

[Dom]

As it stands, men have absolutely no say in it, and I don't think the law should change, in that respect. But from a personal perspective, if this is what she is considering, I'm with the wrong person. I would never take anyone to court over it. No coercion. No arguments. Not even a discussion. That would simply be the end of our relationship. While some people might view a fetus as a "parasite", I don't see it that way at all.

I don't know I'd auto-leave... i ahve very very few red card offences, an enfj friend of mine was trying to conivnce me I really should have more...

In fact I don't have any first offence auto-out things.

I do know though that if I care for this potentially preggant woman, and she coose to abort tht she'll need every once of my love and support to help her through it.

Seriously it seems to not bother (an abortion that is) a tiny tiny fraction of women who have had them.

I was out with some friends a while back, and we were discussing this and one of them just collasped in floods, turned out she had aborted 7 years ago.... and still jsut talkign about it made her break down. If she had been mygirlfirend she'd need every once of support I could have given her.. me walking out would have made her much worse...

Love is love... it hurts and it costs... it costs you everything. For some that cost is too much.

[Lateralus]

If this happened with my girlfriend, I simply wouldn't feel the same way about her afterward. If I tried to stick around, it would be a poisoned relationship. I would be far too bitter to be of any use for support. It's not like in this hypothetical situation my girlfriend would be clueless as about my stance. It's what I believe and it's something I cannot compromise. I would hate myself if I did.

I think the law is fine and I'm glad that people have the choice to do what they believe is right. I would hope that feeling goes both ways.

[Dom]

If this happened with my girlfriend, I simply wouldn't feel the same way about her afterward. If I tried to stick around, it would be a poisoned relationship. I would be far too bitter to be of any use for support. It's not like in this hypothetical situation my girlfriend would be clueless as about my stance. It's what I believe and it's something I cannot compromise. I would hate myself if I did.

I think the law is fine and I'm glad that people have the choice to do what they believe is right. I would hope that feeling goes both ways.

I honeslty sish that sometiems I could see things in such a straigh tforward fashion, honestly think my life woul dhave had a lot less pain in it...

Good for you...

I guess then you always use condoms huh?

[Lateralus]

I honeslty sish that sometiems I could see things in such a straigh tforward fashion, honestly think my life woul dhave had a lot less pain in it...

Good for you...

I guess then you always use condoms huh?
I think this belief is something I've retained from my childhood. My parents are staunch pro-lifers. While I don't believe what they believe (enforcing their beliefs on everyone else), I won't compromise my own.

And yeah, I use condoms. Isn't that a no brainer? ;)

[Dom]

I think this belief is something I've retained from my childhood. My parents are staunch pro-lifers. While I don't believe what they believe (enforcing their beliefs on everyone else), I won't compromise my own.

And yeah, I use condoms. Isn't that a no brainer? ;)

lol...

It is a no brainer.. but in all honest half the time I'd rather not have sex than have to put one of them shit things on.. It's like someone turning off the lights, or shutting out sound or some such... I think touch is a hugely important sense in sex.

There is no other soluton but I do so hate condoms, in a commited relationship, after everyoens tested I prefer to move to relyign on birth control, as long as she's happy with that.

[Ivy]

lol...

It is a no brainer.. but in all honest half the time I'd rather not have sex than have to put one of them shit things on.. It's like someone turning off the lights, or shutting out sound or some such... I think touch is a hugely important sense in sex.

There is no other soluton but I do so hate condoms, in a commited relationship, after everyoens tested I prefer to move to relyign on birth control, as long as she's happy with that.

Two methods is a lot more "sure" than one. Even the pill turns out to be only about 92-95% effective in "real life" (although it is theoretically over 99% effective). And that's after ONE YEAR. If you follow 100 women using the pill for one year, five to eight of them will get pregnant.

Personally, that's too many for me to consider it a reliable method on its own. If it would be an absolute disaster to get pregnant, personally, I would use two methods, because I would not be able to go through with an abortion.

[Lateralus]

Agreed, Ivy. I was going to mention something like this, but I was too lazy. :P

[Ivy]

Agreed, Ivy. I was going to mention something like this, but I was too lazy. :P

:highfive:

(Thank goodness for the 99.9% effective method (http://www.mirena-us.com/index.jsp), and too bad it's not generally available to women who haven't yet had a baby)

[Lateralus]

:highfive:

(Thank goodness for the 99.9% effective method (http://www.mirena-us.com/index.jsp), and too bad it's not generally available to women who haven't yet had a baby)
I'm guessing it's for women who have had a baby for logistical reasons (she needs to be stretched),not ethical, chemical, etc. Am I wrong?

[Ivy]

I'm guessing it's for women who have had a baby for logistical reasons (she needs to be stretched),not ethical, chemical, etc. Am I wrong?

"Stretched" is such an ugly word. But the uterus is supposedly not big enough before a woman has had a baby to accommodate an IUD comfortably. Although, my midwife tells me that in other countries they give them to childless women all the time, and it just hurts a bit more to insert it than it would if they had given birth.

[LongSilence]

"Stretched" is such an ugly word.

Buffed up the duff?

[Ivy]

Buffed up the duff?

I guess I prefer that to "rode hard and put away wet."

[Bradtv]

Wow... don't want to sift through the previous sixty pages, but want to state the important thing here...

The government has NO BUSINESS making these kinds of decisions.

Leave it to the individuals.

As for Pro-Lifers... I suggest as Bill Hicks did...


Don't block Med Clinics. Lock arms and block cemeteries and then we'll see how committed you are.

[Ivy]

Wow... don't want to sift through the previous sixty pages, but want to state the important thing here...

The government has NO BUSINESS making these kinds of decisions.

Leave it to the individuals.

I am a fairly even fence-sitter on this issue and I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, there is a valid rebuttal to your "important thing," that the opposite side thinks is equally important: the government has business making decisions about the legality of killing people, so it stands to reason that if one thinks an unborn human is a full-rights person, the government would have plenty of business making decisions about the legality of killing it.


As for Pro-Lifers... I suggest as Bill Hicks did...


Don't block Med Clinics. Lock arms and block cemeteries and then we'll see how committed you are.


I'm sure I've missed something obvious, but I don't see the connection between medical clinics and cemeteries.

Edit, oh, I get it now. If you're so "pro-life" you should protest cemeteries! OH, my sides.

[LongSilence]

I'm sure I've missed something obvious, but I don't see the connection between medical clinics and cemeteries.

Edit, oh, I get it now. If you're so "pro-life" you should protest cemeteries! OH, my sides.

Yeah, it really doesn't have any sense or humour in it at all.

What people should realise is that its not just a matter of choice- its about the very arbitrary line drawn on when 'life' becomes worthy enough to value and protect. If it was merely choice it wouldn't be such a tricky issue.

[Bradtv]

the government has business making decisions about the legality of killing people, so it stands to reason that if one thinks an unborn human is a full-rights person, the government would have plenty of business making decisions about the legality of killing it.

It's the varied moral implications that screw things up. Do you force the birth of a child conceived by rape? Do legal issues come into play when a father has to determine whether his wife or child are more important to him?

Personally, I wouldn't go about bringing a child into the world unless I knew I was completely willing to properly care for it. I would be responsible and raise my own offspring. There are plenty of steps available to prevent conception.

I really don't think we will get an official decision whether an unborn fetus has rights as an individual.

I think the government has taken many things too far into places they shouldn't be... such as the courts granting a company the ability to patent certain lifeforms. I'm for a safety net government, not another parent.

[Bradtv]

Yeah, it really doesn't have any sense or humour in it at all.

Is everyone else pro death?

[LongSilence]

Is everyone else pro death?


Don't block Med Clinics. Lock arms and block cemeteries and then we'll see how committed you are.
I'm sorry, but what?

Med Clinics- people go and have their undesired fetuses removed / killed [depending on your perspective].
Cemetaries- already dead people go and get buried.

Pro-lifer says "I don't like things being killed" not "I don't like dead things". Also, the fetuses aren't already dead- if med clinics just helped remove dead fetuses from the womb and people were blocking them... then you could perhaps tell those people to stand outside cemetaries also as that's where dead people get 'removed'.

It's just really stupid no matter how I think about it. Maybe I've missed something...

[Bradtv]

Maybe I've missed something...

Yes, hes a Comedian (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8401217081253466646)

Offensive to some. Revered by others.

[LongSilence]

Granted he doesn't offend me in the slightest, but he is totally illogical and off the point.

[ObtainGnosis]

Why is there no option for neither? "There is nothing neither good nor bad, only thinking makes it so."

[Nocapszy]

Granted he doesn't offend me in the slightest, but he is totally illogical and off the point.
The bit linked had very little to do with abortion. It had to do with the people who feel strongly. It wasn't funny either.

I have a point to make to the people who say that abortion is murder. At least in the arguments I've heard, people claim that abortion is murder because it's unlawful forced death on human beings. The problem I have with this is that a fetus is not a human. Before you start getting angry, and coming up with ways to spite me, hear me out. Because a fetus is still a developing human - one which is non-sentient, unable to manage life without a host... it almost matches the definition of a parasite. That's not the point, the point is, it's dependent on external input just to function. A computer, is to a robot, what a fetus is to a human being. I don't call my computer a robot, so don't call your fetus a human being. It's not. A computer and a fetus both require input from outside sources to function. That is, it can't go and get food or information or electricity unless it's fed through a cord. A robot could do these things. A robot might be programmed to plug itself into an outlet if it's batteries are low, just as a human could decide to get some food if it felt hungry. A fetus can't do that, and a computer can't do that. The fetus has to wait until its mother eats before it can eat, just as a computer has to wait for someone to plug it in before it can get the power it needed. Also note that a fetus is still developing. A computer might not necessarily be developing, but it could. After all, a robot would have to start out as a computer, unless you made some kind of water powered robot. Let's suppose that the computer is in the factory, as a representation of a womb, and the fetus is in the womb.

It's basically the same thing. I don't call my computer a robot, so don't call your fetus a human. Therefore, it's not murder, because murder by definition is,



Dictionary
murder |merder| noun the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another : the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer | he was put on trial for attempted murder.

which, considering the fact that since it's not a human, it therefore isn't unlawful, and is therefore not murder.

Then there's the fact of whether it's lawful or not. Even if the fetus is a human being. Even if somehow you've tricked someone into believing that a fetus is a human being, you couldn't possibly fool them into the thought that it's actually unlawful to kill them. I mean, after all, they don't have birth certificates. For the same reason that you can't be convicted of murder for killing an illegal alien, you can't be taken down for killing a fetus. The law doesn't really apply to those who aren't proven to exist on paper.

Unless I'm wrong about that. Can you be convicted of murder if the illegal alien (just as an example) you killed didn't have an american birth certificate. Actually I think the operative word would be citizen. So if they're not a citizen then could you be convicted or even charged for their murder?

[Ivy]

The bit linked had very little to do with abortion. It had to do with the people who feel strongly. It wasn't funny either.

I have a point to make to the people who say that abortion is murder. At least in the arguments I've heard, people claim that abortion is murder because it's unlawful forced death on human beings. The problem I have with this is that a fetus is not a human. Before you start getting angry, and coming up with ways to spite me, hear me out. Because a fetus is still a developing human - one which is non-sentient, unable to manage life without a host... it almost matches the definition of a parasite. That's not the point, the point is, it's dependent on external input just to function. A computer, is to a robot, what a fetus is to a human being. I don't call my computer a robot, so don't call your fetus a human being. It's not. A computer and a fetus both require input from outside sources to function. That is, it can't go and get food or information or electricity unless it's fed through a cord. A robot could do these things. A robot might be programmed to plug itself into an outlet if it's batteries are low, just as a human could decide to get some food if it felt hungry. A fetus can't do that, and a computer can't do that. The fetus has to wait until its mother eats before it can eat, just as a computer has to wait for someone to plug it in before it can get the power it needed. Also note that a fetus is still developing. A computer might not necessarily be developing, but it could. After all, a robot would have to start out as a computer, unless you made some kind of water powered robot. Let's suppose that the computer is in the factory, as a representation of a womb, and the fetus is in the womb.

It's basically the same thing. I don't call my computer a robot, so don't call your fetus a human.

All of your criteria could easily be applied to newborns as well. But it certainly is murder to kill a newborn baby. It's not as black and white as EITHER side wants to make it seem.

[stopharian]

^^^^

Not really jumping in the fray here, but people are convicted of murdering unborn children all the time in the criminal sense.

The last high profile case was of Scott Peterson who was convicted of killing his wife and their unborn son.

When a murderer kills a pregnant woman, the unborn child is often included as a murder victim during the trial.

[Nocapszy]

^^^^

Not really jumping in the fray here, but people are convicted of murdering unborn children all the time in the criminal sense.

The last high profile case was of Scott Peterson who was convicted of killing his wife and their unborn son.

When a murderer kills a pregnant woman, the unborn child is often included as a murder victim during the trial.

Ok so I'm wrong on that. I even admitted that I wasn't sure on that part.

As far as what Ivy said about it being applied to newborns: That is true, the way I worded it wasn't specific enough. I meant to say that a fetus doesn't digest the food. The mother does, and then sends the nutrients to the baby. That's what I meant by a fetus being compared to a copmuter, and in the case of a new born or anything older, they digest on their own. They might not be able to find their food, but at the same time, the robot might also be programmed poorly, and needs work, which would be paralelled with maturation of a baby - things like walking and such. The analogy is legitimate.

[starla]

True, but I don't think causing a miscarriage can be prosecuted as a murder.

I don't understand people who think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest. If you think abortion is taking an innocent life, why is it okay in these instances? Is the fetus less innocent or less of a life if it was created out of rape or incest? I find that hypocritical.

[C.J.Woolf]

I don't understand people who think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest. If you think abortion is taking an innocent life, why is it okay in these instances? Is the fetus less innocent or less of a life if it was created out of rape or incest? I find that hypocritical.
I agree. It's a political position, not a moral one.

One hypocrisy I can't stand is pro-lifers who aren't willing to support -- with their own money and/or labor -- pregnant women who would give up their babies for adoption.

[Ivy]

I'm totally with starla and C.J. here. If you think it's murder, it's still murder if there was rape or incest.

Personally, I am not willing to make it illegal, but it's an oogy moral area for me. I think it's a barometer of the social atmosphere in many ways. I would MUCH rather we prevented more pregnancies (by making reliable bc cheap and widely available and not stigmatized) and had a better support system in place for people who might LIKE to keep a baby but it's not financially feasible for them.

[C.J.Woolf]

Personally, I am not willing to make it illegal, but it's an oogy moral area for me. I think it's a barometer of the social atmosphere in many ways. I would MUCH rather we prevented more pregnancies (by making reliable bc cheap and widely available and not stigmatized) and had a better support system in place for people who might LIKE to keep a baby but it's not financially feasible for them.
Bingo. My ideal is "Every child a wanted child," and by extension "Every pregnancy a wanted pregnancy."

I think the pro-lifers' real agenda is not anti-abortion but anti-sex. Consider many pro-lifers' opposition to sex education and contraception. To them, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is a punishment for "immoral" sex.

[Ivy]

Bingo. My ideal is "Every child a wanted child," and by extension "Every pregnancy a wanted pregnancy."

I think the pro-lifers' real agenda is not anti-abortion but anti-sex. Consider many pro-lifers' opposition to sex education and contraception. To them, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is a punishment for "immoral" sex.

You hit the nail on the head there. I've heard "If she didn't want to be a mother, she shouldn't have opened her legs" from more than one person.

[starla]

I think it's tough for some women who have had babies to be pro-choice. My best friend said she was pro-choice until she had her first kid. After that experience, now she thinks abortion should be illegal. I don't think she should apply her own personal experience to everyone else's lives.

I also think that if people weren't so judgmental about women getting pregnant accidentally and/or giving their babies up for adoption, there would be fewer abortions. Could you imagine the reaction if I, at the age of 30, showed up at my professional job pregnant and announced that I wasn't keeping the baby, despite obviously having the resources to do so? There are plenty of people who would be willing to adopt it, I'm sure, but people are just so judgmental on mothers.

I'm not sure what I'd do if I got pregnant at this point. I think I would consider all three options, and probably end up raising the kid since the other two options would require me to make an actual, irreversible decision in a timely manner. Not that raising the kid isn't an irreversible decision. It's just the default. And if the dad had an opinion, I'd probably take that into account. In fact, I'd be pretty pissed if he wussed out like Dom (was it Dom? I can't be bothered to go back and find the post) and didn't give me his opinion.

[starla]

You hit the nail on the head there. I've heard "If she didn't want to be a mother, she shouldn't have opened her legs" from more than one person.

Indeed. I think a lot of the people who think abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or incest are more interested in forcing responsibility on people for their actions than in protecting life.

[cafe]

I know I'm slaughtering the story, but I don't think we can stuff Pandora back into the box. It's been legal for too long and it wasn't particularly rare when it was illegal. I think, like Ivy said, that it would be much better to make prevention a priority and provide financial and logistical support than to outlaw abortion.

I personally don't believe that the Republican party has any real intentions of making abortion illegal or reducing abortion through providing financial support to pregnant women. The last thing they want is poor people having babies and requiring public assistance. They just say what they need to say and try look busy in that direction to keep the Christian Right coming to the polls.

As far as I know, many of the pro-life camp do consider abortion murder even in the case of rape and incest (as do I), but they know that the American public is squeamish about forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under those conditions. They believe that those cases make up a very small portion of abortions, so they are willing compromise on that for the greater good, so to speak.

I think technology is going to have some serious impact on the whole issue. Contraception will hopefully continue to become more effective and viability is moving earlier and earlier. Maybe the day will come when fetuses will be transplantable or gestated in artificial wombs. This will make adoption feasible for women who do not wish to or cannot carry a child to term.

[Ivy]

I think it's tough for some women who have had babies to be pro-choice. My best friend said she was pro-choice until she had her first kid. After that experience, now she thinks abortion should be illegal. I don't think she should apply her own personal experience to everyone else's lives.

It's funny-- I was always on the fence, but I leaned much more heavily to the pro-life side BEFORE I had kids. I now understand that it is a life-changing experience and I think it should be entirely voluntary.

[starla]

Artificial wombs would be awesome. Sign me up for one of those!

Seriously, I think they'd alleviate a lot of problems around having/not having babies. I could just donate my unwanted fetus to some lady that can't get pregnant. A bunch of people would be happy instead of a bunch being miserable.

I don't think making abortion illegal would stop it. It would just make poor people get unsafe abortions, and everyone else would just get them in other countries.

[starla]

It's funny-- I was always on the fence, but I leaned much more heavily to the pro-life side BEFORE I had kids. I now understand that it is a life-changing experience and I think it should be entirely voluntary.

Is having the kid the life-changing experience, or is raising the kid the life-changing experience?

[Lateralus]

^^^^

Not really jumping in the fray here, but people are convicted of murdering unborn children all the time in the criminal sense.

The last high profile case was of Scott Peterson who was convicted of killing his wife and their unborn son.

When a murderer kills a pregnant woman, the unborn child is often included as a murder victim during the trial.
It's all about if the woman wants the pregnancy, or not. If the woman wants the pregnancy, it's considered a human. If the woman doesn't want the pregnancy, it's not a human. That's how our society wants it, I suppose.

One issue that confuses me with all of this is infanticide. If abortion is legal, why isn't infanticide legal, as well? We could certainly draw some arbitrary lines there, if we felt like it. Is there much of a difference between a fetus a week before birth and a baby a week after birth? I'm sure there are mothers who have had second thoughts after giving birth. Why are they not given the option of termination, as well?

[Lateralus]

One hypocrisy I can't stand is pro-lifers who aren't willing to support -- with their own money and/or labor -- pregnant women who would give up their babies for adoption.
I would like to say one thing in my parents' defense. They ran a home for women in "crisis pregnancies" for over a decade. So I respect their opinion on this matter. They are certainly not hypocrites.

[In...TP]

I don't technology answers the basic question.

[starla]

I don't think you can get an abortion legally a week before birth. Unless you have the baby prematurely. I believe once the baby is viable outside the womb, abortion is no longer an option. If you do have the baby before it's viable outside the womb, you can choose to withhold treatment, in effect terminating after birth. Is that murder?

[LongSilence]

I agree. There's no denying that unreasoned "Pro-Lifers" are indeed foolish and somewhat confused with their beliefs. However, as Ivy said they can't and shouldn't be dismissed because its really not a clear cut issue at all. You can understand why politicians try to sidestep the issue for fear of possibly ruining any campaigns hopes they might have. Its understandable that people can consider it murder because the currently accepted criteria for valued life are arbitrary. It's not quite like calling a computer a robot at the moment because Artificial Intelligence is incapable of the sort of uncontrolled development that humans can. Thus its very easy to see the potential a fetus has for 'life' but not so for a computer. This all might change when AI grants 'robots' the ability to 'evolve' and self-realise. Its a future awkward debate to consider.




I think technology is going to have some serious impact on the whole issue. Contraception will hopefully continue to become more effective and viability is moving earlier and earlier. Maybe the day will come when fetuses will be transplantable or gestated in artificial wombs. This will make adoption feasible for women who do not wish to or cannot carry a child to term.

I see this happening too and I don't think it will really clear things up. It might encourage society to begin viewing the human being differently. The powerful connection between mother and child will no longer be taken as a given. Add in the possible factors of not requiring both a sperm and an egg and potential DNA screening and we're heading towards a very discernable shift in the values and shared experiences attached to being a living organism. And they are not necessarily warm and happy values.

[Lateralus]

I don't think you can get an abortion legally a week before birth. Unless you have the baby prematurely. I believe once the baby is viable outside the womb, abortion is no longer an option. If you do have the baby before it's viable outside the womb, you can choose to withhold treatment, in effect terminating after birth. Is that murder?
Is this the case? I've heard of bans on particular procedures, but I haven't heard of any time constraints. I must admit that I'm no expert on the law for this issue.

[Ivy]

Is having the kid the life-changing experience, or is raising the kid the life-changing experience?

The whole thing. It would have been pretty life-changing just to carry a child and give birth, at least for me. It's no small thing. It changes your body. There are not-insignificant health risks. It is a serious big deal that happens to you for most of a year. Which is why I have to wonder about people who say "Just have the baby and give it up for adoption!" like that's a valid choice for most people.

[Nocapszy]

It's all about if the woman wants the pregnancy, or not. If the woman wants the pregnancy, it's considered a human. If the woman doesn't want the pregnancy, it's not a human. That's how our society wants it, I suppose.

One issue that confuses me with all of this is infanticide. If abortion is legal, why isn't infanticide legal, as well? We could certainly draw some arbitrary lines there, if we felt like it. Is there much of a difference between a fetus a week before birth and a baby a week after birth? I'm sure there are mothers who have had second thoughts after giving birth. Why are they not given the option of termination, as well?

In fact, there is a difference between an unborn and born child. The unborn one does not eat. It recieves sustinence from the umbilical cord. It's impossible for an unborn to eat, because of the amniotic sack. No food can get into it, so even if the fetus was capable of chewing swallowing and digesting, it wouldn't be able to recieve the food to chew swallow and digest, because upon the rupture of the amniotic sack, labor begins. The difference is that. One eats, the other doesn't. I think that's a fair distinction, and more importantly, one which decides whether the being is viable, sentient, and therefore human.

[Ivy]

In fact, there is a difference between an unborn and born child. The unborn one does not eat. It recieves sustinence from the umbilical cord. It's impossible for an unborn to eat, because of the amniotic sack. No food can get into it, so even if the fetus was capable of chewing swallowing and digesting, it wouldn't be able to recieve the food to chew swallow and digest, because upon the rupture of the amniotic sack, labor begins. The difference is that. One eats, the other doesn't. I think that's a fair distinction.

Okay... and who decided that being able to eat was the criteria for being human? Too bad so sad for people who have to be fed intraveneously for whatever reason?

PS, newborns don't "chew, swallow, and digest." They don't have teeth until like 6 months. They're still completely dependant on the mother's body (or a substitute) for a few months after birth. And fetuses do swallow amniotic fluid, from which they get a small amount of sustenence, and which makes them have green poos on their mother's belly. I'm really not seeing it as black and white as all that.

[Zaerne]

Hmm...I hardly think the ability to eat distincts if one is human or not. Neither is being born.

I am against abortion, and according to the poll against most people regarding this issue. I think it horrible to kill the most innocent in a place where they should be the safest. Just because they are in the womb does not mean that their life belongs to their mother. I see no exceptions.

[Madrigal]

I'd be a lot happier with the killers if they cheerfully said 'Yes, it is murder: but it many circumstances we believe murder's the way to go.'



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Huh, yeah, well I say that: it is the killing of an innocent life. I don't say it cheerfully though, and I still think a woman should have the right to choose whether she wants any innocent lives living inside of her to live or die, be it a child or a tapeworm or whatever.

The worst thing about pro-lifers is their hypocrisy.

[LongSilence]

If we expect that Pro-Lifers should really support people in their pregnancies because their viewpoint is really about cherishing and respecting life and not casting the alive out of society its balanced to presume Pro-Choicers should really agree with society's other methods of dealing with the 'unwanted'. It would be appropriate if they also supported the Death Penalty as it too is based around the idea that society should have the choice to expunge those which are an undesired burden. Its a similar deal with Euthanasia.

[Zaerne]

Hypocrisy? In what way?

[Nocapszy]

Okay... and who decided that being able to eat was the criteria for being human? Too bad so sad for people who have to be fed intraveneously for whatever reason?

PS, newborns don't "chew, swallow, and digest." They don't have teeth until like 6 months. They're still completely dependant on the mother's body (or a substitute) for a few months after birth. And fetuses do swallow amniotic fluid, from which they get a small amount of sustenence, and which makes them have green poos on their mother's belly. I'm really not seeing it as black and white as all that.

I didn't say that this was the pivotal point to be used on deciding whether abortion is ok or even whether you're a human. I'm not so dogmatic as to hold that what I have to offer should be the deciding information. I was only directing his attention to the fact that there is a difference between a newborn and a fetus.

And yes I know they don't have teeth, but they do chew on the nipple, as well as suck on it to extract the milk. Not that I remember, but my cousin who just had a baby says that she chews on her nipple so I'd say it's a fair assumption that other babies do the same. And they do swallow and digest.

Also, attacking such a small detail in an otherwise unflawed argument displays disdain for me rather than what I had to say. How about swallowing and digestion as proof of differentation between a fetus and a newborn.

[Lateralus]

Hypocrisy? In what way?
It's a stereotype. There are certainly many hypocritical pro-lifers, but there are also many who "back it up". I think many of the people flinging the insults would be surprised at just how many do back their words up with actions.

[Lateralus]

Also, attacking such a small detail in an otherwise unflawed argument displays disdain for me rather than what I had to say. How about swallowing and digestion as proof of differentation between a fetus and a newborn.
:rofl: Disdain? Come on man. There was nothing personal in her response. Let's not go there.

[Nocapszy]

Hmm...I hardly think the ability to eat distincts if one is human or not. Neither is being born.

I am against abortion, and according to the poll against most people regarding this issue. I think it horrible to kill the most innocent in a place where they should be the safest. Just because they are in the womb does not mean that their life belongs to their mother. I see no exceptions.

Again, I never said that this was THE DECIDING FACTOR in distinguishing between human and not human, but it is, without doubt, a perceptible difference between a newborn and a fetus, which is all I was claiming.

The government ought to have far less deciding privaleges than the mother though.

Besides, isn't it equally as wrong to bring into the world a life? I mean, who's to say life is so great? I'm not saying it's bad - I'm actually having a pretty good time here on Earth, but there are plenty who would disagree. Many of them decide later on to end their own lives in a final decision that their parents screwed up by having them. Granted, at least it's up to that person to decide whether or not they end their life, but taking the life of a child who's already been concieved could be seen as as much of a crime as concieving the child in the first place. After all, life's value is perfectly subjective, and for the sake of this argument, I'm going to say that life is a bad thing, and that instead, concieving a child and then not having it aborted is wrong.

Obviously that's not a very popular one, but it is an opinion, and is equally as licensed as the ones against abortion.

[In...TP]

I think its wrong, but I know it's isnt.

[LongSilence]

I didn't say that this was the pivotal point to be used on deciding whether abortion is ok or even whether you're a human. I'm not so dogmatic as to hold that what I have to offer should be the deciding information. I was only directing his attention to the fact that there is a difference between a newborn and a fetus.

And yes I know they don't have teeth, but they do chew on the nipple, as well as suck on it to extract the milk. Not that I remember, but my cousin who just had a baby says that she chews on her nipple so I'd say it's a fair assumption that other babies do the same. And they do swallow and digest.

Also, attacking such a small detail in an otherwise unflawed argument displays disdain for me rather than what I had to say. How about swallowing and digestion as proof of differentation between a fetus and a newborn.

I think the point is that its a bad differentiation. I mean, why swallowing and digestion? Why not breathing? Or observable sentience? The problem is you can't state such a factor as a sole 'proof of human life'. Many animals chew, digest and swallow and often have apparently as much capacity for feeling and thought as a newborn child. But animals can be 'put down' if no-one wants them and yet people would get more emotional if the same were done to an unwanted human baby. Why? Most likely because of the imagined potential those children have to become "valuable" members of society. But then fetuses possess just as much potential even if they haven't started to chew or digest yet.

Also, you realise with your whole 'robot' analogy you're actually telling other people how you think they should consider the differences between human beings and thats fine as you're not telling people how they should act. Society, however, does have to step in at some point and say- "Right, you cannot kill this human being now. We believe it is worthy enough to say its fate is no longer up to you entirely."

[Ivy]

I didn't say that this was the pivotal point to be used on deciding whether abortion is ok or even whether you're a human. I'm not so dogmatic as to hold that what I have to offer should be the deciding information. I was only directing his attention to the fact that there is a difference between a newborn and a fetus.

And yes I know they don't have teeth, but they do chew on the nipple, as well as suck on it to extract the milk. Not that I remember, but my cousin who just had a baby says that she chews on her nipple so I'd say it's a fair assumption that other babies do the same. And they do swallow and digest.

Also, attacking such a small detail in an otherwise unflawed argument displays disdain for me rather than what I had to say. How about swallowing and digestion as proof of differentation between a fetus and a newborn.

Listen, man, I have no disdain for you. You have the most awesome Dwight Schrute avatar I've ever seen. I just like to argue, okay? :)

I have breastfed two babies for over two years each. Chewing is not really how it's done. If they chew, I put the bewbz away. But this is all peripheral-- it seems a relatively minor difference, on par with the hair loss a baby goes through a couple of weeks after birth. In terms of being alive or not, or human or not, I see no difference between a 40 week fetus and a 1 week old newborn.

[Nocapszy]

:rofl: Disdain? Come on man. There was nothing personal in her response. Let's not go there.

Whatever dude. What I said was far from ridiculous, and picking at something so miniscule doesn't really show much interest in the issue so much as in my personal response - not to say that Ivy is here just to attack me. I know I'm not that important.

[LongSilence]

Obviously that's not a very popular one, but it is an opinion, and is equally as licensed as the ones against abortion.

Ok. That's fair. But now, what's your stance on the death penalty and euthanasia?

[Ivy]

Whatever dude. What I said was far from ridiculous, and picking at something so miniscule doesn't really show much interest in the issue so much as in my personal response - not to say that Ivy is here just to attack me. I know I'm not that important.

You think it's miniscule. I don't. I think the criteria you gave for differentiating between a fetus and a newborn are irrelevant, and I showed why I think so.

[Nocapszy]

Listen, man, I have no disdain for you. You have the most awesome Dwight Schrute avatar I've ever seen. I just like to argue, okay? :)

Well admittedly, I didn't take it personally or anything, but it did seem like more of a thing against me than what I really had to say.
No problem with argument though. After all, I shot one right back didn't I?



I have breastfed two babies for over two years each. Chewing is not really how it's done. If they chew, I put the bewbz away.
:rofl:
That's fine, but I imagine there's more than just my cousin's baby chews. It might be for teething more than for getting the milk.

[Lateralus]

Whatever dude. What I said was far from ridiculous, and picking at something so miniscule doesn't really show much interest in the issue so much as in my personal response - not to say that Ivy is here just to attack me. I know I'm not that important.
Instead of accusing someone else of making the argument personal (which only you seem to believe is the case), perhaps you should look at how you phrased your post to see how it could have been misinterpreted. You're an ENTP. Use that Ne! That's all I'm going to say about this. I don't want to divert the thread.

[Nocapszy]

Ok. That's fair. But now, what's your stance on the death penalty and euthanasia?

Well according to the opinion I presented, which I might have pointed out is not actually my own, I would say that those things ought to happen sooner.

That's not my personal belief - I'd be dead if it were.

[Zaerne]

Oh...Well I simply think that it is in fact a human life. Being a human, and an innocent one, and simply that, gives them a right to live. I really don't get how one who supports the issue can turn back on their word on certain situations, but if then, simply awful.

To Nocapszy, I'm sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your last sentence on that particular post. However, I disagree in your point to think it wrong to conceive. Even if you think that life is bad, that doesn't do anything to the fact that the child still has a right to it. Also, I do believe that attempting suicide is a crime, is it not?

[Ivy]

:rofl:
That's fine, but I imagine there's more than just my cousin's baby chews. It might be for teething more than for getting the milk.

This is totally off topic and not at all part of the argument at hand- but I was also a nursing peer counselor. You're right, they do gum the nipple at times, but it's more for play or teething than for feeding, which is why I put the goods away when they do that. There is actually a really complex maneuver they have to do with their entire face, pretty much, to actually get milk to flow. Kind of neat that they're born knowing how to do it. Actually, many of them "practice" on their thumbs in the womb.

[Bradtv]

The government ought to have far less deciding privaleges than the mother though.

Bingo

I guess the INTJ are better known for the sick humor, so sorry to the P's and F's for the Bill Hicks comment. Wasn't planning on arguing his POV.

Oh and Artificial Wombs? Hello Brave New World.

[Nocapszy]

Instead of accusing someone else of making the argument personal (which only you seem to believe is the case), perhaps you should look at how you phrased your post to see how it could have been misinterpreted. You're an ENTP. Use that Ne! That's all I'm going to say about this. I don't want to divert the thread.
Okay... beside the fact that it's got nothing to do with Ne, since it was only a detail in a process which I thought went throughout the life of a human, and apparently was wrong, I'd like to point out that you weren't really using your Ne in,


:rofl: Disdain? Come on man. There was nothing personal in her response. Let's not go there. so I think it's a fair tradeoff that we don't all have to use our strongest function ALL the time.

[nottaprettygal]

I personally don't believe that the Republican party has any real intentions of making abortion illegal or reducing abortion through providing financial support to pregnant women. The last thing they want is poor people having babies and requiring public assistance. They just say what they need to say and try look busy in that direction to keep the Christian Right coming to the polls.


This doesn't make sense because poor people less likely to have abortions. Increased income and education contribute to abortion. Religious beliefs, limited access, and (in my opinion) a sociological drive for poor women to have children (to give them meaning and to have something that loves them) make them less likely to seek abortion as an alternative to childbirth.

Additionally, the Republican party absolutely wants people to have babies and remain poor. How else can they maintain their "us" vs "them" mentality? It is in their best interest to appease the poor with a couple of social programs in order to keep them quiet, so that they can further pursue their "big business" agenda. A bunch of angry poor people could induce real social change. We wouldn't want that now would we?

[LongSilence]

Well according to the opinion I presented, which I might have pointed out is not actually my own, I would say that those things ought to happen sooner.

That's not my personal belief - I'd be dead if it were.

Yeah ok, but now you're presenting a view thats not your own to say that its not right for people to assert their views on other people's actions. However, you have to admit that society has to step in somewhere in order to promote some sort of acceptable communal behaviour. And so where do we step in on what life we should all value and which life is ok to terminate and which we shouldn't allow to be terminated? The line has to be drawn somewhere. The rights of the mother to choose the fate of their child are diminished at some point- the issue is: who puts their finger on the point?

[Ivy]

Bingo

I guess the INTJ are better known for the sick humor, so sorry to the P's and F's for the Bill Hicks comment. Wasn't planning on arguing his POV.

Oh and Artificial Wombs? Hello Brave New World.

I have no problem with sick humor. I love it, if it's funny. Maybe in context it would have been.

[Nocapszy]

Oh...Well I simply think that it is in fact a human life. Being a human, and an innocent one, and simply that, gives them a right to live. I really don't get how one who supports the issue can turn back on their word on certain situations, but if then, simply awful.

To Nocapszy, I'm sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your last sentence on that particular post. However, I disagree in your point to think it wrong to conceive. Even if you think that life is bad, that doesn't do anything to the fact that the child still has a right to it. Also, I do believe that attempting suicide is a crime, is it not?

I must have done a terrible job wording it or something because you're not the only one who mistook it for my personal belief. The fact is though, thinking that there is a right to life, is just as palletable as thinking just the opposite. Of course no one will choose that as their position, because that would put their own life at stake, and given the strong will for survival that has been imbued on all things that live by evolution, that's not really an option.

[Bradtv]

I have no problem with sick humor. I love it, if it's funny. Maybe in context it would have been.

A

(crickets)

B


Sorry

[Nocapszy]

Yeah ok, but now you're presenting a view thats not your own to say that its not right for people to assert their views on other people's actions. However, you have to admit that society has to step in somewhere in order to promote some sort of acceptable communal behaviour. And so where do we step in on what life we should all value and which life is ok to terminate and which we shouldn't allow to be terminated? The line has to be drawn somewhere. The rights of the mother to choose the fate of their child are diminished at some point- the issue is: who puts their finger on the point?

Admittance of the fact that society has to step in would be absurd. It would be ignorant though to be under the impression that ours won't.

[Nocapszy]

Admittance of the fact that society has to step in would be absurd. It would be ignorant though to be under the impression that ours won't.

Actually that's not true. If society didn't ever step in; if there were no bounds, then it wouldn't be a society. It would be chaos - anarchy. So I guess it's true. Society does have to step in somewhere to make a communal behavior, to qualify it as a society.

[Niffer]

Whether abortion is legal or not, it will still go on in secret. The same for whether something is right or wrong. If I had something in my crotch I honestly didn't want, I would stick a pole up it and kill the effer and remove it immediately, without the slightest concern if it was ethical to do so or not. I also support euthanesia and the death sentence. In my opinion:

enjoyment of life of majority of people > enjoyment of life of an individual > life of someone who is unable to enjoy any more, or someone who will not enjoy their life if they are born

"Right or wrong". Ha. I prefer to think of things as "will I feel bad, and how easily will it be for others to stop me".

[Zaerne]

I couldn't help but chuckle at that one, but yes I know what you mean. Actually I thought about it once I pressed that "Submit Reply" button. In fact, there is nothing to tell us that we have a right to life, which I think makes the point that we should not mess with it. The government is simply there to prevent chaos and according to them everyone was entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then there's this thing called a social contract which means we can't do some things so that we can do other things. We're not allowed to murder others, (and who even said that we don't have to), because it gives us the right to live. Therefore, challenging the US at the foundation of the country, I say life that may possibly be able to live happily is needed to be protected in spite the sacrifice of whatever discomfort it may bring the mother.

[LongSilence]

A

(crickets)

B

Sorry

Hmmm, perhaps it could have done with a little more clarification or grounding [i dunno, smileys perhaps?] otherwise its hard to see where the joke came from. It just seemed out of place if it was merely there to ruffle feathers.


Actually that's not true. If society didn't ever step in; if there were no bounds, then it wouldn't be a society. It would be chaos - anarchy. So I guess it's true. Society does have to step in somewhere to make a communal behavior, to qualify it as a society.

Thats my point. This isn't just about individual acts- its about societal values and how they develop. There will always be people on both sides suggesting society focus on certain ideals rather than others and to accuse one side of more hypocrisy than the other is... well, hypocritical. Because each side picks and chooses and makes lines in the sand over certain attitudes towards life, humanity and the environment.

What I've been trying to demonstrate is that the Pro-choice side is just as ridden with potential hypocrisy so really its all your personal perspective about how society should act or not act.

[Niffer]

Idea: ask the fetuses if they want to live.

edit: fetuses feti..

[Nocapszy]

...in spite the sacrifice of whatever discomfort it may bring the mother.

Suppose the sacrafice and uncomfortableness affects the happiness of the child. That is, imagine a girl who becomes pregnant, who is still in high school. Her life is essentially ruined, but now because her life is ruined, and she has to take care of the baby instead of going to college - maybe even forcing her to drop out of high school, and is forced to work until the child is around the age of six years old. Long enough that there's an emotional connection shared between the child and her mother. Because the mother didn't get an education and doesn't have a good variety of income sources. Then suppose she loses the job, or worse, two of either limb. Then she can't work anymore and has to put the child up for adoption because she can't afford to take care of it. The life of the child's happiness is ruined now too, because she has to sever the emotional tie to its mother. There's one scenario. I know they have welfare for things like that though. I'm not sure of all that's involved in alleviating some of that kind of issue. Regardless, it would be much better off for the mother to at least have the option of getting further education so that when she was ready to have a child, she could. Instead of ruining two lives, we've only taken one, which wouldn't miss it in the first place, since it hadn't really experienced anything yet.

[starla]

Wow, this thread really blew up all the sudden.

Personally, I'm pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and pro-death penalty. I don't think we use the death penalty correctly, though. It should be used on people who can't be rehabilitated, like serial killers, serial rapists, and pedophiles. If they can't function in society, why bother keeping them around? However, it seems like we use it for vengeance.

I also don't understand why it's universally accepted as merciful to euthanize old, sick animals, but not old, sick people. Especially if they ask for it. I don't want to hang around and be a burden once I'm no longer useful to society.

As for abortion: Ideally, birth control would get reliable enough that it would never be an issue, because nobody would get pregnant unintentionally. I think I'm ready for the male birth control pill. I'm tired of having to be the one to remember to take the pill every day. It's too much pressure.

[Niffer]

Suppose the sacrafice and uncomfortableness affects the happiness of the child. That is, imagine a girl who becomes pregnant, who is still in high school. Her life is essentially ruined, but now because her life is ruined, and she has to take care of the baby instead of going to college - maybe even forcing her to drop out of high school, and is forced to work until the child is around the age of six years old. Long enough that there's an emotional connection shared between the child and her mother. Because the mother didn't get an education and doesn't have a good variety of income sources. Then suppose she loses the job, or worse, two of either limb. Then she can't work anymore and has to put the child up for adoption because she can't afford to take care of it. The life of the child's happiness is ruined now too, because she has to sever the emotional tie to its mother. There's one scenario. I know they have welfare for things like that though. I'm not sure of all that's involved in alleviating some of that kind of issue. Regardless, it would be much better off for the mother to at least have the option of getting further education so that when she was ready to have a child, she could. Instead of ruining two lives, we've only taken one, which wouldn't miss it in the first place, since it hadn't really experienced anything yet.

this girl should've used the pole technique

[Nocapszy]

Hmmm, perhaps it could have done with a little more clarification or grounding [i dunno, smileys perhaps?] otherwise its hard to see where the joke came from. It just seemed out of place if it was merely there to ruffle feathers.



Thats my point. This isn't just about individual acts- its about societal values and how they develop. There will always be people on both sides suggesting society focus on certain ideals rather than others and to accuse one side of more hypocrisy than the other is... well, hypocritical. Because each side picks and chooses and makes lines in the sand over certain attitudes towards life, humanity and the environment.

What I've been trying to demonstrate is that the Pro-choice side is just as ridden with potential hypocrisy so really its all your personal perspective about how society should act or not act.

Unless all the people on the pro choice side are anarchists, and don't want society at all. The problem is, very few people are of that belief. It's not unreasonable for those few people to make the claim. Not really any hypocrisy in the anarchists - unless the abortion thing is only a simgle step in a larger scheme to achieve anarchy, which I think is sort of self-contradictory considering that by bringing down the establishment, you're taking on a governing role. I think there's hypocrisy everywhere. Demonstrating what you've done so is unnecessary.

[Nocapszy]

this girl should've used the pole technique

Fishing pole? Flagpole? What about a wooden stake? Y'know, for the crazies who think their child is the son of Dracula.

[Zaerne]

Truly and honestly, I think that the suffering of two can still be waved away compared to the greatness of one life. Although, in that situation, I do suggest putting the child for adoption for both of their good. Keeping the child, even at how much affection the mother has for him/her, is not really a great option unless you know that you can take care of him/her.

[LongSilence]

Suppose the sacrafice and uncomfortableness affects the happiness of the child. That is, imagine a girl who becomes pregnant, who is still in high school. Her life is essentially ruined, but now because her life is ruined, and she has to take care of the baby instead of going to college - maybe even forcing her to drop out of high school, and is forced to work until the child is around the age of six years old. Long enough that there's an emotional connection shared between the child and her mother. Because the mother didn't get an education and doesn't have a good variety of income sources. Then suppose she loses the job, or worse, two of either limb. Then she can't work anymore and has to put the child up for adoption because she can't afford to take care of it. The life of the child's happiness is ruined now too, because she has to sever the emotional tie to its mother. There's one scenario. I know they have welfare for things like that though. I'm not sure of all that's involved in alleviating some of that kind of issue. Regardless, it would be much better off for the mother to at least have the option of getting further education so that when she was ready to have a child, she could. Instead of ruining two lives, we've only taken one, which wouldn't miss it in the first place, since it hadn't really experienced anything yet.

You're talking about chances and potentials though. On one level you can argue that there is also the possibility that the abortion will 'ruin' the mother's potential for happiness by inflicting an possibly irreparable experience of guilt and regret. Also you're not only ruining but completely 'eliminating' the fetus' chance for any sort of happiness, though you are of course eliminating its chances for unhappiness and suffering too. And, well, that's a big part of the issue isn't it? The idea that life is coloured more by its suffering, and its potential for suffering, than it is for its pleasure and its potential for pleasure.

[Nocapszy]

Truly and honestly, I think that the suffering of two can still be waved away compared to the greatness of one life. Although, in that situation, I do suggest putting the child for adoption for both of their good. Keeping the child, even at how much affection the mother has for him/her, is not really a great option unless you know that you can take care of him/her.

In this specific situation, the girl thought she could maintain it. It was a freak accident. Let's say, she accidentally got her hand stuck in a deep fryer. Something that doesn't happen often and is essentially an unforseen obstacle.

That is a fairly objective way to look at it though. Everyone who starts off, ought to at least have the potential to see it through. Whether they do or don't is up to them, and only them - whether those around are affected or inconvenienced.

That also though goes to support drug users. I know it's unrelated, but if society can regulate how people achieve their happiness and self fulfulment, how come they can't take the next step and decide which ones get to take their shot at happiness?

[Niffer]

Who the hell decided that life > non-life?

[Nocapszy]

You're talking about chances and potentials though. On one level you can argue that there is also the possibility that the abortion will 'ruin' the mother's potential for happiness by inflicting an possibly irreparable experience of guilt and regret. Also you're not only ruining but completely 'eliminating' the fetus' chance for any sort of happiness, though you are of course eliminating its chances for unhappiness and suffering too. And, well, that's a big part of the issue isn't it? The idea that life is coloured more by its suffering, and its potential for suffering, than it is for its pleasure and its potential for pleasure.

I've already brought that up... in fact you're the one who questioned it. That's what I was saying when I was talking about the phony opinion I presented of someone who believes that nothing should have the right to life. Obviously the reasoning behind that would be that it would then eliminate the potential for pain and suffering.

I was bringing up the fact that it's no different deciding to have a child, than changing your mind halfway through. By bringing it into the world, you're exposing it to a lot of bad as well as a lot of good. Do you mean to reiterate what I said?

[LongSilence]

Unless all the people on the pro choice side are anarchists, and don't want society at all. The problem is, very few people are of that belief. It's not unreasonable for those few people to make the claim. Not really any hypocrisy in the anarchists - unless the abortion thing is only a simgle step in a larger scheme to achieve anarchy, which I think is sort of self-contradictory considering that by bringing down the establishment, you're taking on a governing role. I think there's hypocrisy everywhere. Demonstrating what you've done so is unnecessary.

Dammit, you're not really arguing with me- you're just presenting your own perspective while I present mine [though neither of us seems to be asserting ours as 'superior' or better for society than anyone elses]. :P hehe

So, I think that's it... two men cannot argue properly when they seem to be out to mainly point out the possible flaws in other people's attitudes. Unless of course one of us wants to argue the flaws in argue in such a manner....

[Nocapszy]

Who the hell decided that life > non-life?

Looks like someone else got it too.

:highfive:

[Nocapszy]

Dammit, you're not really arguing with me- you're just presenting your own perspective while I present mine [though neither of us seems to be asserting ours as 'superior' or better for society than anyone elses]. :P hehe

So, I think that's it... two men cannot argue properly when they seem to be out to mainly point out the possible flaws in other people's attitudes. Unless of course one of us wants to argue the flaws in argue in such a manner....

True, but we haven't really said such differnet things.

And I'm half arguing with myself.

[tenaciousgirl]

perhaps choice depends on chance (and vice versa?)

reason over passion = choosing choice

[Niffer]

Who the hell decided that life > non-life?


Looks like someone else got it too.

:highfive:

Great. Since nobody decided that, then I propose leaving it up to the mother.

[Zaerne]

A girl in high school shouldn't think that she can handle taking care of a child with no support. I would think that even if she got her hand stuck in a deep fryer, that she would have support because of the very reason she kept the child. Also, doesn't this go a bit of topic. I mean, if the girl in high school wanted to abort it but couldn't, she would probably put up the child for adoption. Oh, and please explain that last paragraph to me. I got confused. Seriously.

Oh and Niffer, I think you missed the earlier conversation...

[In...TP]

I'm a failure.

[Niffer]

I'm too lazy to read whatever I'm contradicting, so yeah. Someone should find it for me. :grin:

[LongSilence]

True, but we haven't really said such differnet things.

And I'm half arguing with myself.

I guess I could say I kinda am too. Though if I really want to be objectionable- you started it. Because I was really only arguing against people righteously adopting the Pro-choice perspective and then you came along and seemingly argued against people adopting the Pro-life perspective.

In reality, neither is all that great. I believe its really just a cultural tug-of-war over how society assigns value to its members. What are they good for? Existence? Labour? *Boom Boom*

[LongSilence]

I'm a failure.

Abort now.

[Nocapszy]

I guess I could say I kinda am too. Though if I really want to be objectionable- you started it. Because I was really only arguing against people righteously adopting the Pro-choice perspective and then you came along and seemingly argued against people adopting the Pro-life perspective.

In reality, neither is all that great. I believe its really just a cultural tug-of-war over how society assigns value to its members. What are they good for? Existence? Labour? *Boom Boom*

After all, we are NTPs.

[Zaerne]

Well, basically, Nocapszy has already made the point earlier that why shouldn't be conceiving/giving life be the crime.

To which I said...

"Actually I thought about it once I pressed that "Submit Reply" button. In fact, there is nothing to tell us that we have a right to life, which I think makes the point that we should not mess with it. The government is simply there to prevent chaos and according to them everyone was entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then there's this thing called a social contract which means we can't do some things so that we can do other things. We're not allowed to murder others, (and who even said that we don't have to), because it gives us the right to live. Therefore, challenging the US at the foundation of the country, I say life that may possibly be able to live happily is needed to be protected in spite the sacrifice of whatever discomfort it may bring the mother."

And then I think he left that subject and moved on...

[Niffer]

How does that make the point that we should not mess with it?

[Zaerne]

Because if we don't have the right to life, then who does? If it is not ours, not our property, why should we mess with it?

[Niffer]

Why shouldn't we?

[Zergling]

I weakly lean on the side of allowing it, probably because I was raised that way as the big reason.


Abortion for me is an issue that is hard to get emotional about. The strong emotions and surety coming from other people tend to suppress my own emotions of all types, plus there isn't enough good, solid, information for me to make a decisions one way or the other over when a baby feels pain, can think for itself, etc., and what effects overall it has on the females having them. Without much outside information, there isn't a way besides personal feelings to judge what to do, and personal feelings aren't good decisions makers in my experience, plus they change from person to person. I end up weakly supporting the position of less government and culture interference into personal lives, and sticking with the position I grew up with.

[Zaerne]

Because we don't know to whom life really belongs...Okay, I got to admit, I'm really confusing myself now.

[Lateralus]

Because we don't know to whom life really belongs...Okay, I got to admit, I'm really confusing myself now.
Abortion is really an argument of moral relativism vs moral absolutism.

[Zaerne]

Well, then we're to not good because we're not arguing that and arguing that causes us to go to another subject that for which this thread was specifically made. So...People can be too smart...

[cafe]

This doesn't make sense because poor people less likely to have abortions. Increased income and education contribute to abortion. Religious beliefs, limited access, and (in my opinion) a sociological drive for poor women to have children (to give them meaning and to have something that loves them) make them less likely to seek abortion as an alternative to childbirth.

Additionally, the Republican party absolutely wants people to have babies and remain poor. How else can they maintain their "us" vs "them" mentality? It is in their best interest to appease the poor with a couple of social programs in order to keep them quiet, so that they can further pursue their "big business" agenda. A bunch of angry poor people could induce real social change. We wouldn't want that now would we?Ah. Could be. I hadn't given them that much credit for intelligence and forethought.

[Niffer]

Abortion is really an argument of moral relativism vs moral absolutism.

I think a lot of the people arguing moral absolutism would not consider it absolutism. (actually, I don't really know what those words mean)

[Zaerne]

I think he meant people who think that there is an set moral law versus people who think that morals are up to a person.

[Lateralus]

I think a lot of the people arguing moral absolutism would not consider it absolutism. (actually, I don't really know what those words mean)
Actually, I think they would. In fact, most people that I know who are pro-life specifically believe there are moral absolutes, things like the 10 commandments. Moral relativism is a bad concept, in their opinions.

[Niffer]

Nevermind, I was thinking that they would think it to be so absolute that it would become relative. I forgot that relative did not really mean "always applicable to reality and not just a floating idea thingy".

[C.J.Woolf]

I personally don't believe that the Republican party has any real intentions of making abortion illegal or reducing abortion through providing financial support to pregnant women. The last thing they want is poor people having babies and requiring public assistance. They just say what they need to say and try look busy in that direction to keep the Christian Right coming to the polls.
I think the Christian Right is the only reason the Republican Party has a position on abortion. You're right that they have no real intention of outlawing it; that would shock a lot of non-voting pro-choicers into voting against them. However, the right-wing Supreme Court justices are gutting abortion rights in a more subtle way, by imposing more and more restrictions on it.


I would like to say one thing in my parents' defense. They ran a home for women in "crisis pregnancies" for over a decade. So I respect their opinion on this matter. They are certainly not hypocrites.

It's a stereotype. There are certainly many hypocritical pro-lifers, but there are also many who "back it up". I think many of the people flinging the insults would be surprised at just how many do back their words up with actions.
Good for your parents. I never suggested that no pro-lifers walk the walk, only that few do. The rest like to feel that they've done their bit to save the poor helpless fetuses by just casting a vote.

[quantumzero]

I killed one of my children in this manner. Perfectly legal homicide. Makes me sick if I think about it too long. Its the only thing in my life I would go back and change. I still cant believe I did it...I knew what I was doing was murder but I let fear dictate my life, fear and selfishness.
God only knows what makes others choose death...strange planet...

[Zephyrus055]

I really abhor moral debates, because they are clashes between two opposing normative arguments. The only way to win is to illustrate that your moral reasoning appeases the opposing side's morals more than their moral reasoning. The unfortunate truth is that no amount of empirical testing can disprove or support a moral argument - moral arguments are beyond reason.

Really, I think society should use utility as a guide rather than a collection of moral beliefs. The death of unborn fetuses may be sad, but the alternative is costly and even more disturbing.

[Lateralus]

The death of unborn fetuses may be sad, but the alternative is costly and even more disturbing.
Even this is subjective. Not all societies, or even all people in our society, see those consequences as more disturbing.

[Zephyrus055]

Even this is subjective. Not all societies, or even all people in our society, see those consequences as more disturbing.
Disturbing is subjective, but there being more objective costly consequences is not.

[sorabji_66]

a regular on the Howard Stern show is a dumb centerfold who openly brags and laughs that she's had 5 abortions over the past 6 years.

all were for the purposes of birth control and she doesn't care to use safety.

even this is too much for the obviously libertine pro-abortion cast of the show though.

so where is the dividing line?

[Zephyrus055]

a regular on the Howard Stern show is a dumb centerfold who openly brags and laughs that she's had 5 abortions over the past 6 years.

all were for the purposes of birth control and she doesn't care to use safety.

even this is too much for the obviously libertine pro-abortion cast of the show though.

so where is the dividing line?
Someone who uses abortion as their regular birth control is sickening to me, but the market rules.

[stopharian]

a regular on the Howard Stern show is a dumb centerfold who openly brags and laughs that she's had 5 abortions over the past 6 years.

all were for the purposes of birth control and she doesn't care to use safety.

even this is too much for the obviously libertine pro-abortion cast of the show though.

so where is the dividing line?

She should be caught and irradiated before being re-released into the wild.

[Lateralus]

Disturbing is subjective, but there being more objective costly consequences is not.
Yes, it is. In the West, we're pretty much raised to believe that the most important thing is to be happy and without pain. Some societies don't agree with this. There even Christians who see suffering as a test.

[Zephyrus055]

Yes, it is. In the West, we're pretty much raised to believe that the most important thing is to be happy and without pain. Some societies don't agree with this. There even Christians who see suffering as a test.
Suffering and more bills to pay count as having higher costs. You may think they are good things though.

[Niffer]

When I was 11 I considered being an abortionist. I always thought fetuses were ugly effers, and I used to watch abortion videos posted on pro-life sites to rofl at them.

[Kathara]

RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! (puts on her J face): RIGHT, I say!

[Sokkorobo]

Abortion, my contraceptive of choice!

[firch]

New poll option, I don't really care. There are too many humans on the planet as it is by which I mean if we were not the dominant species we would have been subjected to a mass cull quite some time ago.

[Methofelis]

As a mother of three... I'd have say a woman has a right to choose.

I may not have taken that path, (even though, medically, I should have with the youngest) but that's up to me.

[Utopmk]

Ejaculation into a handkerchief is a nicer form of abortion.

Seriously though, if you're going to... do it early as possible.

[Mr.G]

The world has enough people in it...