Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: UtopiaGreen01 on September 06, 2008, 08:48:06 PM
-
Well?
-
I think it is a disgustingly evil practice, but I feel that the government should not have the power to stop someone from doing it.
-
I believe the taking of an innocent life at any age is evil. I completely believe that the government has the right and responsibility to treat it as murder.
-
Well, I believe that once looked at from all angles, if it is deemed necessary based on multiple factors, it should be the woman's choice. If she is in a long term committed relationship then her partner should also have some weight in that choice. I don't think the government should have the right to tell me which consequence of my behaviour I should receive.
-
BTW did anyone else notice how absolutely unuseful that poll is? You can't tell what ANYONE thinks from that pole.
-
Yes, I was amused by the poll. :)
-
Well, in regards to abortion, that issue can be argued on both sides for a long time. The side of science can say one thing, while the side of religion says the other. I have nothing against religion, but it should not influence government. The whole thing boils down to a philosophical debate on when life actually begins. Is it life as a zygote? I'm not a scientist, I don't know these things lol.
-
In Bujold's science fiction books they have uterine replicators that babies can be grown in if the mother chooses. They also have 100% effective mandatory birth control that women get installed when they have their first period and which they can turn off when they want children. (Or something like that.) With those two scientific advances, the "need" for abortion would be eliminated. I think scientists should be working on that.
As we are in today's world, though, I still think the deliberate killing of unborn children is wrong and should not be allowed. I also agree that the government has the right and responsibility not to allow it, and do not believe the constitution guarantees any right to it. But I'm not sure it should be treated as exactly the same thing as murder.
Being pregnant is extremely... Let's just say it's extreme. Until you spend all your nights and a good percentage of your days next to someone going through it, you don't have any idea what it's like. Even then, you won't truly know what it's like until you go through it yourself—and then your experience is not guaranteed to be the same as anyone else's.
It's not something anyone should go through without choosing it. But almost everyone does have a choice. If you're going to have sex, you already know pregnancy may result from it. Even if you use birth control, you need to be aware of the fact that sometimes birth control fails. Everyone has the choice not to have sex and not cause possible pregnancy. If you make the choice, you must accept responsibility for the results of that choice.
So then that leaves the people who really do have no choice: women who get raped. (Incest is legally included in that category.) What then? Should they be forced to make the enormous life-changing sacrifice of pregnancy, basically a punishment for a crime someone else committed? (As abortion is punishing the baby for someone else's irresponsible actions.)
I don't really know the answer to that. Those uterine replicators would really resolve a moral dilemma in that case though.
-
That MUST be one of the books Palin wants to ban. She doesn't want us putting babies in tubes. She'd say "It's too much like abortion!" ha ha. j/k
-
That is an interesting concept! :D
I see abortion as not only punishing the "child" but also the mother. There is a lot of pain - emotional and physical - involved in getting an abortion. Plus there is the stigma now attached to her and something she must live with the rest of her life that colors all her relationships. By relationships I mean friends, family, etc not just romantic.
(The reason I put child in quotations is my own beliefs which I don't ask anyone else to believe. I don't do it to upset anyone.)
I do fully agree that most people should know that pregnancy can happen, even with using methods of contraception. I say most, because I'm not sure all teens who are active fully grasp this. But that is a whole other sad issue.
I personally do not feel that abortion should be looked at as a form of birth control - that mindset is intolerable to me.
-
I've wished for a uterine replicator more than once. :D
I don't think abortion should be made illegal, but I just wish there were some way to get people to stop wanting to do it. :(
-
Not everyone wants kids or are ready to have them, or ready to carry one to term for adoption. :\ And as already said in this thread, even being careful things can happen. :(
-
What about the morning after pill? Were does that stand on the morality scale. I mean If we don't actually know at what point a baby becomes a baby than cutting it off from life would be seen as immoral. Heck if you look at it that way using a condemn would be immoral as some religions do. I for one don't really know I find it a hard enough decision for someone to make for me to judge them either way about it. I have known those who have aborted births and those who have followed through with an un-expected pregnancy (every Irish person i know) its tough either way.
There are also times when the woman who becomes pregnant is not physically health enough to survive pregnancy. What do we do there. Sometime the people who engage in creating the pregnancy want it but cannot follow through due to risk. These are reasons I for one cant judge on.
-
There's a few points that never really came up here. First of all, having mandatory birth control is as much of a trample on human rights as forcing somebody to quarter troops. The point is we are to maintain human dignity. Even if we KNOW we can help somebody, it is not our place to do so unless that person wants the help. A policy of mandatory birth control at puberty is a disgusting oversight of human rights.
Secondly, abortions, no matter what your view on the morality of them, will occur anyway. Abortions are like alcohol--anybody can make it happen in their basement. Forcing persons who want abortions into back-alley situations would be about as successful as prohibition, and in outlawing abortions you are putting two lives at risk instead of one (if you already believe the unborn is considered a life).
And people assume that when a person gets an abortion, they had weighed the possible ramifications of sex before they had it. A large portion of abortions are received by kids who were too young to be legally having sex with each other, and certainly not old enough to be considered responsibly weighing such options. Many are likely to not understand birth control doesn't always work. In fact, many adults don't understand birth control does not always work.
In addition, while rare, sex isn't the only way to get pregnant. Engaging in sexual behaviors, but not actually engaging in sex, is what a lot of persons suggest for couples who want to remain safe but romantically active. However, in some cases sperm can penetrate from landing around the vagina, without the penis being inserted at all.
Finally, a personal view on something as controversial as abortion comes out in every argument. But until at least 90% of a population can agree on a topic about ability to choose, should personal views of even 60-70% of a population affect the rights of an entire population? Remember, back in the heyday of slavery, it was considered not only moral but a favor to the otherwise doomed negro race. Now we know such a concept was ridiculous, even though it was held by a majority of the American population.
Which just goes to show, the majority is not always right. Isn't it safer to allow a choice on any subject that is not seen as immoral by all of the persons it affects, or at least a hugely significant majority?
-
Well put
-
I agree with alot of you on this issue. While I believe abortion to be wrong I also believe any law preventing it would also be wrong. The government in no way should have jurisdiction over a womans body or in anyway force another human being, by law, to loan their body to another human being for 9months. Morally wrong yes but no law should ever be enacted to prevent it. Extremely tough issue but it's only an issue because of the human condition.
-
First of all, having mandatory birth control is as much of a trample on human rights as forcing somebody to quarter troops.
I believe, in Ookla's hypothetical example, each woman could choose to turn it off whenever she wished.
Secondly, abortions, no matter what your view on the morality of them, will occur anyway. Abortions are like alcohol--anybody can make it happen in their basement. Forcing persons who want abortions into back-alley situations would be about as successful as prohibition, and in outlawing abortions you are putting two lives at risk instead of one (if you already believe the unborn is considered a life).
The argument is that, although abortions will not cease, they will dramatically decrease - just as alcohol did during Prohibition. If, say, abortion laws reduced abortions by 70%, then one could argue that for every 10 lives previously taken, 3 are now taken and 3 more possibly at risk, for a total of six. This is a substantial improvement, if still unacceptable. Of course, the exact amount that abortions would be reduced is anyone's guess, but surely we can agree that there are at least some women who would be deterred by the law.
In addition, while rare, sex isn't the only way to get pregnant. Engaging in sexual behaviors, but not actually engaging in sex, is what a lot of persons suggest for couples who want to remain safe but romantically active. However, in some cases sperm can penetrate from landing around the vagina, without the penis being inserted at all.
I think if you wanted to avoid this VERY rare occurrence, you would simply put what you call "sexual behaviors" in the same category as sex: something not to be engaged in unless you're ready for a baby. Many religions and ethical codes (including my own) do exactly that.
Finally, a personal view on something as controversial as abortion comes out in every argument. But until at least 90% of a population can agree on a topic about ability to choose, should personal views of even 60-70% of a population affect the rights of an entire population? Remember, back in the heyday of slavery, it was considered not only moral but a favor to the otherwise doomed negro race. Now we know such a concept was ridiculous, even though it was held by a majority of the American population.
Would you say, then, that slavery should not have been outlawed until 90% of Americans believed it was wrong? You wouldn't want to infringe on slaveholders' right to choose to own slaves?
-
Primarily, prohibition made a dent in the amount of drinking. Not a significant dent. Just in Chicago Al Capone ran 10,000 speakeasies. In addition, the Volstead Act (sect 29) allowed for the making of up to 200 gallons of home made alcoholic fruit drinks (not including beer), and it was common practice to sell grapes or other fruits specifically for use in creating alcohol at home. So I would say, statistically, it is likely a majority of the people who wanted a drink had a drink through either some legal loophole or illegal scheme.
That being said, on an issue such as abortion, it seems to me to be less likely that laws would affect a person's choice. It is much easier to not have a drink (for most people) than it is to deal with pregnancy for nine months, followed by a painful birthing process, followed by raising a child (as while adoption is an option, a large majority of people who have a child keep it). So I think that saying abortion laws would reduce abortions by 70% is a gross overstatement. That being said, there's no way I can prove that statement, it is just what I have concluded by looking at the data available to me.
I think that the phrase "Many religions and ethical codes (including my own) do exactly that." sums up perfectly the problem with anti-choice argument, and that is it assumes that a person holds a specific religion or moral code, or that a specific religion/moral code is correct. Morality is seen differently from every person in every situation, and morality is seen differently by an individual in different circumstances. You may be surprised to know that your perception of morality shifts more than you might think, as "personality traits", including personal belief, only run about +.3 to +.4 correlation with a persons response to a situation. Which means that the rest of the time, despite a person's beliefs on ethics, the outcome is largely decided based on factors outside his or her control, such as the situation (which also runs about a +.3 to .+4 correlation between individuals, for example).
This goes to show, I think, that making any laws about morality which force a person to do a specific thing should be considered gravely, and from as much of an unbiased view as possible.
And no, slavery should have been outlawed as early as possible because the slaves were, in fact, people. We now consider people to have natural rights (I think all sentient beings have natural rights, and this is an opinion most of the world shares). People did not consider slaves persons, which is why they were misinformed about the morality of the situation.
I'll cut off the argument of "unborn babies are persons and thus should not be able to be aborted, just as slaves are persons and should not be put into slavery" now. This would be a valid argument if an embryo or fetus before the third trimester had an ability to feel pain, like a person of African descent does. As it is now, our leading scientists state that it is hard to determine exactly when a fetus has the capacity to feel pain, but it is extraordinarily unlikely that this point is reached until AT LEAST the third trimester.
And an embryo is no different than a single egg or a single sperm in the matter of "sentiency"--the only difference is it is growing. But it is most definitely not a sentient being--if it is, then all simple organisms could be considered sentient beings, at which point the it would become immoral to trample on the rights of the common cold germ (and our thoughts about natural rights would have to be completely re-examined).
I think my take on the morality or immorality of abortion is a non-issue when it comes to making a blanket law about it. There are some rules that all people of all creeds can live by, but as for the rest--we have too many rules trampling a person's ability to be free as it is. Do we really need more, especially on such a controversial issue as this?
(that being said, I know nothing I say could convince you against your point, and likely the same is in reverse. I make these statements more to demonstrate why I believe what I believe, rather than try and convince you to change what you believe)
-
I think that the phrase "Many religions and ethical codes (including my own) do exactly that." sums up perfectly the problem with anti-choice argument, and that is it assumes that a person holds a specific religion or moral code, or that a specific religion/moral code is correct. Morality is seen differently from every person in every situation, and morality is seen differently by an individual in different circumstances. You may be surprised to know that your perception of morality shifts more than you might think, as "personality traits", including personal belief, only run about +.3 to +.4 correlation with a persons response to a situation. Which means that the rest of the time, despite a person's beliefs on ethics, the outcome is largely decided based on factors outside his or her control, such as the situation (which also runs about a +.3 to .+4 correlation between individuals, for example).
OK, I didn't follow that at all; I don't understand all those correlation numbers - I assume it's something to do with statistics (which I've never studied)? In any case, regarding that first sentence, are you not afraid that your own specific moral code regarding sentient beings having natural rights is also incorrect?
I'll cut off the argument of "unborn babies are persons and thus should not be able to be aborted, just as slaves are persons and should not be put into slavery" now. This would be a valid argument if an embryo or fetus before the third trimester had an ability to feel pain, like a person of African descent does. As it is now, our leading scientists state that it is hard to determine exactly when a fetus has the capacity to feel pain, but it is extraordinarily unlikely that this point is reached until AT LEAST the third trimester.
So you would support a third-trimester abortion ban, if it were shown that third-trimester embryos feel pain? And you would support euthanasia in cases of total paralysis? You believe it is the ability to feel pain that grants a being the right to live?
And an embryo is no different than a single egg or a single sperm in the matter of "sentiency"--the only difference is it is growing. But it is most definitely not a sentient being--if it is, then all simple organisms could be considered sentient beings, at which point the it would become immoral to trample on the rights of the common cold germ (and our thoughts about natural rights would have to be completely re-examined).
Are you saying that all sentient beings have the same natural rights, that there is no distinction between human rights and animal rights? If so, I disagree. Humans are special, are different, in the eyes of the law and in centuries of history (as well as in many religions, including mine, which I realize is not relevant to this argument). It could be that someday the majority of people will not feel this way, but will begin to treat animals with the same deference as practitioners of Eastern religions do. However, as we stand now, in the majority opinion in America (which seems to be your standard for laws concerning morality), this is not the case. In American law, there is a distinction between personal rights and property rights - person felonies (assault, rape, murder) receive harsher sentences than non-person felonies (burglary, embezzlement). The only reason there is controversy over abortion is that people disagree over whether a fetus / embryo is a person or property; at what point does this entity acquire human rights? The abolition of slavery was essentially a transition in the law from viewing slaves as property to viewing them as persons, with human rights. I believe that one day, there will be a similar transition in abortion law, and people in future centuries will be horrified at our generation's genocide against the unborn. I know many people (including you) disagree with me on this prediction, and I don't mean to imply that you should change your mind based on my opinion of what will happen in the future. I'm no Aes Sedai Foreteller, nor am I burning atium with a duraluminum flare. I'm simply trying to explain why I feel the way I do about abortion, and why I believe it should be banned as soon as possible, even before consensus is achieved on the issue.
(that being said, I know nothing I say could convince you against your point, and likely the same is in reverse. I make these statements more to demonstrate why I believe what I believe, rather than try and convince you to change what you believe)
Finally we agree on something! We both know these discussions rarely, if ever, persuade. Still, I feel they can be useful in better understanding the other side, and thus helping us to formulate our thoughts ever more clearly.
-
as for the statistics, it essentially means that less than half of the time people react in a predictable way according to their personality, which includes personal beliefs. Also, about thirty to forty percent of times any person is in the same situation they react in the same way, despite differences in personal beliefs. It was just an example to show how morality, along with other parts of who we consider ourselves, is more or less shifting all of the time, depending on dozens of unrealized factors.
As for my view on animal rights, I didn't mean to say all creatures have the same rights as humans (and while this is getting off topic, I don't really feel it matters because this thread usually would have fallen into degenerate flaming and been shut down by now, anyway). I simply mean to say that all sentient beings have some natural rights (or so I feel is obviously correct, but you are also right in saying I may not be). After that, self-aware beings such as humans have additional natural rights because of our ability to use said rights. It doesn't do a cow any good to give it free speech, after all. But the right to life (within reason) is a right I feel that all beings have. That is, the natural way of things is creatures kill other creatures to eat. That's fine--there are situations in which it is perfectly okay to kill, or even to raise with intent of killing. But there's no use in going about an simply killing animals (except for overpopulation), and there's simply no need to put animals through suffering when killing them (in the instance of veal, for example, which I think is a terrible and brutal practice).
As for third-trimester abortions, I feel this could be a good compromise (as long as both sides of the issue understand it is a compromise--not a step to full outlaw of abortions). Honestly, if you've gone through six months of pregnancy and haven't yet decided to get the abortion, clearly something is stopping you.
I think the ability to feel pain is the simplest way to determine if something is a complex living being, and more importantly, a living being which will have any (if only a vague) realization that it is being killed. I don't think there should be a law about euthanasia in the situation of full paralysis for similar reasons to no law about abortion: it tramples on people's rights. At a certain point in full paralysis, the brain begins to die. At that point, the creature itself is no longer but a shell of itself. It should primarily be up to the individual creature whether or not it wants to live (in the form of a living will), and secondly it should be up to those that know the creature best to decide at what point it would want to be let go of. I mean, sometimes (because of the way our world is set up) neither of those is the case, and people who are in paralysis are let to die because of monetary issues. It's a shame, but that is how the world works.
-
Thanks for the statistics explanation, I think I understand better now. To me, though, they say more about our ignorance of the details of personality and belief than about the inconsistency in people's responses. I'd also like to know more about how they define "the same situation". No two situations are identical; how closely did the lab replicate these "same situations" and in what ways did they differ? We're probably saying the same thing, after all, you mentioned the "dozens of unrealized factors" that help determine our choices. My point is that if more of these factors were understood, the percentage of predictability would rise.
I'm glad to hear you don't believe animals have the same rights as humans. I think we essentially agree on this; I too believe that sentient creatures should not be treated cruelly. I wouldn't exactly say they have a right to life, but I would say they have a right not to suffer unnecessarily.
Thanks for your concession on third-trimester abortions. I have to admit that while I believe all abortions are wrong, the ones involving tissue that looks like the babies in the NICU are far more disturbing to me than the ones where the tissue looks like a vaguely humanoid blob.
Regarding the euthanasia analogy, would you then say that before the abortion of an early (presumably non-sentient) fetus, those who know the fetus best should decide whether that fetus would want to be let go of? "Oh, surely the little darling would prefer just to die now, and save me all the trouble and expense of carrying him/her to term, than to grow up knowing that he/she was unwanted and caused his/her mother a lot of inconvenience." ;)
-
As for the personality psychology statistics, it's a pretty new field compared to most sciences (like mathematics and physics, which are centuries old--psychology in general is a just a baby, and personality psychology has just been around a few decades). This doesn't mean it doesn't have strong data--if you're interested in how the statistics are found, I'd recommend taking a course at a local university/community college or picking up a used textbook and leafing through it. I would say, though, that the statistics are pretty reliable and have been found through several methods, including laboratory study, interviews with people and their close friends/relatives, and surveys and have been found to be repeatable, which is the sign of good statistics.
But, yes, if we understood all the factors influencing a person's judgment, the predictability would rise. However, it would not be likely to rise significantly because of personality traits, but because of other factors (such as situation or social factors).
I would say a fetus is incapable of wanting, at least in the sense that you and I know it. A fetus could want in the sense that our cells want. It does not have capacity for complex thought and has not realized itself, and thus paralysis of a born human (especially a grown human) and abortion are separate issues. I think the comparison does not take into account the hugely different scientific differences in the situation--one creature is dying, and the question is how dead is "dead." The other is growing, and the question is how grown is human.
-
A fetus cannot want in the sense that adult humans can, but then neither can a paralyzed adult or, for that matter, a 3-month-old child. None of those have the complex thought necessary to realize what death means. Yet for the paralytic without a living will, we put ourselves in his shoes, and decide (hypothetically) whether or not he would wish to live if he was capable of wishing anything. For the 3-month-old, we protect his life until he is old enough to make his own decisions.
You're right that euthanasia and abortion are separate issues, but if anything I think euthanasia is more morally defensible. The dying person has lived (often what we call "a full life"), and in many cases is the one deciding on the termination of his life, whether through a living will or through physician-assisted suicide. With abortion, the fetus has not has a chance to live or to decide. It just seems unfair for other people to make the death decision for him, before he's even had a chance to have opinions on the subject.
-
With abortion, the fetus has not has a chance to live or to decide. It just seems unfair for other people to make the death decision for him, before he's even had a chance to have opinions on the subject.
I think this statement means a lot. The main idea is that your correct in saying that the unborn fetus has yet had the chance to live. This fetus has yet take a breath of air or ingest food. Wouldn't you say that until a being is wholly its own being and has the ability to survive life on its own than it is not yet a being at all. Don't get me wrong this goes along with the whole third trimester thing. At a certain point in a babies development the baby is at a stage where it can survive outside of the womb on its own. So I would think that until a baby has the ability to maintain its own organ function that it isn't yet a baby.
-
So I would think that until a baby has the ability to maintain its own organ function that it isn't yet a baby.
I don't agree, again because of the comparison to end-of-life issues. Would you say that an adult on a ventilator or a dialysis machine is not a human?
-
I think there's a difference between somebody who has a machine as an organ and a growing creature which is not yet advanced enough to have said organ, and I think you know there is a difference. Again, just like the comparison between paralysis and abortion, it is something that is just not a good comparison because of hugely different circumstances.
The idea behind my statement was that a fetus is not a human as we perceive humans, people try to humanize them because they know it will someday become a human. The decision to abort isn't usually made on behalf of the fetus, it is usually made on behalf of the mother. Every sperm in the future could be a person, should we make a law against masturbation or safe-sex practices which kill sperm? Every egg has the ability to become a human, why aren't we arresting women for murder once a month?
We should not judge something based on what it could be, or what it will be, but what it is. And what a fetus is, especially before the third trimester, is a growing parasite which will someday (in most, but not all cases) become a human. But it is not a human. No harm, no foul as long as you are not harming another sentient being. What is the difference (other than religiously, which is not a valid reason to put a rule over everybody) between a couple who used safe sex practices and killed off the chance of a baby during sex, or a couple who did not and got an abortion, thus doing the same thing to the same sperm and egg? We are not causing any pain, or any suffering and the outcome is the same. For that matter, what is the difference between a couple who did not have sex and thus killed off the sperm and egg over time? All three end in the same result, that is, a suffer-free removal of the sperm and egg, sometimes in the form of an embryo or fetus. At the point in time when you are causing suffering, abortion laws are separate issue which need to be considered separately.
-
With abortion, the fetus has not has a chance to live or to decide. It just seems unfair for other people to make the death decision for him, before he's even had a chance to have opinions on the subject.
I think this statement means a lot. The main idea is that your correct in saying that the unborn fetus has yet had the chance to live. This fetus has yet take a breath of air or ingest food. Wouldn't you say that until a being is wholly its own being and has the ability to survive life on its own than it is not yet a being at all.
Define "on its own." A two year old can't survive by itself. If you were trapped on an island could you survive? I don't think you can define what is a "being" by ability to survive on its own.
-
I think there's a difference between somebody who has a machine as an organ and a growing creature which is not yet advanced enough to have said organ, and I think you know there is a difference. Again, just like the comparison between paralysis and abortion, it is something that is just not a good comparison because of hugely different circumstances.
To be honest, I didn't think your comparison between a fetus and a cold virus was exactly perfect, either. As for undeveloped organs, some babies are born missing certain organs; would you say that they are therefore not people?
The idea behind my statement was that a fetus is not a human as we perceive humans, people try to humanize them because they know it will someday become a human. The decision to abort isn't usually made on behalf of the fetus, it is usually made on behalf of the mother. Every sperm in the future could be a person, should we make a law against masturbation or safe-sex practices which kill sperm? Every egg has the ability to become a human, why aren't we arresting women for murder once a month?
It is not until the egg and the sperm have joined that the individuality of the person is determined. A sperm is half a potential person; an egg is half a potential person; the two joined together make a potential person.
We should not judge something based on what it could be, or what it will be, but what it is.
Well, you've been judging things (paralyzed people) based on what they once were. I don't see a difference, other than chronology.
[EDIT] If we should consider things as they are now, then by your admission the paralyzed person is now just a shell. By your reasoning, the wishes of the person that shell used to be should not hold any weight. The only thing that should matter in the determination to end the shell's "life" would be the convenience of the people taking care of it.
-
The statement wasn't meant to imply the babies ability to provide for itself it was meant to say that if the baby were to be born at that exact moment would it even live. If the baby hasn't had the proper am out of development then it doesn't have the basic physical ability to live yet. After a certain point in the development stage a baby has the ability to survive but before this point it does not.
-
The statement wasn't meant to imply the babies ability to provide for itself it was meant to say that if the baby were to be born at that exact moment would it even live. If the baby hasn't had the proper am out of development then it doesn't have the basic physical ability to live yet. After a certain point in the development stage a baby has the ability to survive but before this point it does not.
OK, so what exactly do you mean by "the basic physical ability to live"? Do you mean the guarantee of the ability to live without medical intervention? Because in that case, most premies and even many full-term newborns would not be human. Do you mean a slight chance to live if all possible medical techniques are used? Because in that case, your standard of which fetuses/embryos are human will continue to shift as medical technology improves. That is, a 30-week fetus in 1800 would not be human, but a 30-week fetus in 2008 would be.
-
The idea behind my statement was that a fetus is not a human as we perceive humans, people try to humanize them because they know it will someday become a human. The decision to abort isn't usually made on behalf of the fetus, it is usually made on behalf of the mother. Every sperm in the future could be a person, should we make a law against masturbation or safe-sex practices which kill sperm? Every egg has the ability to become a human, why aren't we arresting women for murder once a month?
It is not until the egg and the sperm have joined that the individuality of the person is determined. A sperm is half a potential person; an egg is half a potential person; the two joined together make a potential person.
Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.
-
Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.
My point was that the individuality of a person is determined by DNA. That DNA is first seen in the zygote formed by the egg and the sperm. That is why I believe a fetus is a person, but an egg or a sperm, individually, is not.
-
Darn I wrote a response but had a network error and lost it and now I have lost the heart to retype it.
-
Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.
My point was that the individuality of a person is determined by DNA. That DNA is first seen in the zygote formed by the egg and the sperm. That is why I believe a fetus is a person, but an egg or a sperm, individually, is not.
Agreed. Well I kind of agree anyways. DNA does determine most of the PHYSICAL individuality of a human being but the jury is still out on how a person becomes who they really "are". (Nature vs. Nurture) If you believe the common theory that it is a little of both then a person can not really be an individual until experiencing life with at least some of the mental capacity of a human being..... My point in the last post was where do you draw the line when it comes to allowing the government to rule over ones own body?
-
Thats a good question but why ask it. Why do we have to draw a line or better yet why does the government. I dont feel they have the right to outlaw something of this nature.
-
I love the nature versus nature debate. Personally I'm in the both camp, however, I don't believe experience is everything, because a five year old is as much a person as a sixty year old with more experience. :) I happen to fall into the both category, mostly because of the twin studies I've read. Though, admittedly those were rare and selective and could have been chosen to prove the point as opposed to disproving it.
where do you draw the line when it comes to allowing the government to rule over ones own body?
That's a tough question. The way I view that is somewhat cynical, because what I would want, even with voting, things may not go the way I want. However, the way I see it is that most things are cyclical and while I may disagree with how things go at one point in time, we have a wonderful governmental design allowing things the opportunity to change at a later date.
-
Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.
My point was that the individuality of a person is determined by DNA. That DNA is first seen in the zygote formed by the egg and the sperm. That is why I believe a fetus is a person, but an egg or a sperm, individually, is not.
That would only be a logical argument if a person was the equivalent of his or her DNA. This is untrue. The DNA is a building block for the person, as proven by identical twins.
The nature Vs nurture debate has boiled down to behaviorists, who say that you are born with a tabula rasa (blank slate) and everything about your personality is learned. This is a ridiculous statement, because studies have proven that some people have, for example, higher natural aggression. Then there are those who say we are predetermined to be who we are, which is also proven wrong (most identical twin studies show nurture is more important than nature). It comes down to most modern and reasonable scientists agree that it is a match somewhere in the middle, the question is is it 50/50, or mostly nurture? I don't think I've run into many recent studies that try to say that who we are is mostly nature.
Imagine a person to be a nice radio, with bass, treble, left and right, volume and forward and backward tuners, an FM/AM switch and seeking track, favorites--all of the bells and whistles. The DNA would be what everything is set at when you get the radio. Then, over your life, you may change the presets according to your nurturing/the situations that you find yourself in. Things like how you are raised, personal experiences, who you are friends with, etc. will slightly alter your radio to make it what we would really consider the person.
Nobody looks at a person and says, "He has blond hair and blue eyes, that is who he is." What makes a human distinct isn't the DNA itself, but how the DNA is used to make a person. The individuality of a person has very little to do with the DNA, as I'm sure you've met two people who are almost exactly alike, even if they look different.
And, according to your argument that origin of individuality is the point that we should consider it a person, it shouldn't be considered a person until it's experienced, which means probably not until birth or after. That is, of course, ridiculous, because you could easily argue that a baby hasn't consciously experienced and started to gain individuality until the second, sometimes the third month, when it actively shows emotion and has a mostly fully developed brain.
-
I did not mean to imply that I'm entirely on the nature side of the debate; like Emillith and most other people I believe that both are important to defining individuality and personality. However, as you've pointed out, the experience factor is very tough to pinpoint, as to exactly how much experience it takes to make a person into the person they are. After all, our personalities continue to develop throughout our lives. So in my opinion it makes sense to take the other half of the equation, the DNA; for this aspect, it is much easier to determine the moment of beginning: conception.
-
I did not mean to imply that I'm entirely on the nature side of the debate; like Emillith and most other people I believe that both are important to defining individuality and personality. However, as you've pointed out, the experience factor is very tough to pinpoint, as to exactly how much experience it takes to make a person into the person they are. After all, our personalities continue to develop throughout our lives. So in my opinion it makes sense to take the other half of the equation, the DNA; for this aspect, it is much easier to determine the moment of beginning: conception.
So, let me get this straight. You're saying the since it is EASIER to define the point in which the two haploid cells converge and make DNA that that should be used as THE reference point when making a law to prevent abortions?
-
I think the more important question is: Should we allow a potential life to be forfeited because it is inconvenient? And if the answer is yes, then why stop in the womb? Maybe we should give every family 6 months after the birth to decide whether or not they made the right choice. After all, a baby is completely unable to take care of itself, so is that where we draw the line? There are certainly situations where abortion is a viable option, but it should definitely be tempered with wisdom and common sense. I certainly believe that any fetus that makes it to the 2nd trimester should be allowed to go to term unless there is a direct threat to the mother, or the baby is not viable.
-
I think the more important question is: Should we allow a potential life to be forfeited because it is inconvenient? And if the answer is yes, then why stop in the womb? Maybe we should give every family 6 months after the birth to decide whether or not they made the right choice. After all, a baby is completely unable to take care of itself, so is that where we draw the line? There are certainly situations where abortion is a viable option, but it should definitely be tempered with wisdom and common sense. I certainly believe that any fetus that makes it to the 2nd trimester should be allowed to go to term unless there is a direct threat to the mother, or the baby is not viable.
The only problem is by making a law you trample on the rights of the mother but if you don't make the law and you truly believe that a human life is produced at conception then you trample on the "babies" rights. I find it hard to call it a mere inconvience for the mother seeing how I'll never go through it and from my point of view carrying a baby to term looks like it takes a toll on not only the womans body but her mind as well. I believe that every zygote/blastula/fetus should have a chance at life but I just can't accept the government controlling what happens inside someones own body.
-
I think the more important question is: Should we allow a potential life to be forfeited because it is inconvenient? And if the answer is yes, then why stop in the womb? Maybe we should give every family 6 months after the birth to decide whether or not they made the right choice. After all, a baby is completely unable to take care of itself, so is that where we draw the line? There are certainly situations where abortion is a viable option, but it should definitely be tempered with wisdom and common sense. I certainly believe that any fetus that makes it to the 2nd trimester should be allowed to go to term unless there is a direct threat to the mother, or the baby is not viable.
The only problem is by making a law you trample on the rights of the mother but if you don't make the law and you truly believe that a human life is produced at conception then you trample on the "babies" rights. I find it hard to call it a mere inconvience for the mother seeing how I'll never go through it and from my point of view carrying a baby to term looks like it takes a toll on not only the womans body but her mind as well. I believe that every zygote/blastula/fetus should have a chance at life but I just can't accept the government controlling what happens inside someones own body.
I completely agree.
-
The only problem is by making a law you trample on the rights of the mother but if you don't make the law and you truly believe that a human life is produced at conception then you trample on the "babies" rights. I find it hard to call it a mere inconvience for the mother...
Perhaps it is more than an inconvenience, but surely you would not put pregnancy on a level with death, when it comes to rights being trampled?
-
Yes but what death? The death of the fetus? I'm not sure. The reality is that the taking away of any rights at this point is just wrong. Ok so when a child is born and the mother has custody don't the medical arrangements go to the guardian? If so then say a child was born and needed life support, does this baby have the right to live forever on a machine? Or does the mother have the right to make the decision to terminate the care? I understand that later on in life a person who has the capacity to choose and write a living will would be able to handle the decision but until a child is old enough to consider what is being done then the decision falls to the legal guardian. Either prior to or during the pregnancy. All decisions come from the guardian. There should never be any legal intervention in that decision. Say someone had a child and due to the law against abortion chose to have the baby. Then the mother didn't raise the child right due to whatever the situation and the child lived a horrible life. Who is the government to decide the course of this possable life? Do they raise the child? No. And if they do, in some form of foster care do you think that's the way a child should be raised? Hoping that someone will take them in and truly care for them. I find it hard to think that people would want to take this choice away. I'm not saying that all babies should be aborted I'm just saying that some babies are better off aborted than being born into a horrible life that they cant change.
-
It sounds to me like you're equating an unborn child with a born child - if this is true, you're already essentially pro-life, since that's the major distinction between the two sides. Think about it. If the pregnant woman is considered the guardian of the child in her womb, then she legally needs to consider what is best for that child, just as the guardian of a child out of the womb must consider that child's welfare. You're saying that some fetuses, in some situations, would be better off being aborted. If that's the case, are you also in favor of infanticide? Say a mother bore a child, voluntarily, then a couple years later her situation changed (say, she became disabled and lost her job and her marriage dissolved) and she realized that the child would have a horrible life, whether with her or in foster care. Should the government then allow her to kill that child?
I sincerely hope you do not say yes. But yes is the only logical answer, based on your previous argument.
-
Ok so on the one hand I see what you mean. And no I dint feel that way. I do feel that as a guardian or better yet the only rel representative of said fetus the mother has a right to decide the outcome of the pregnancy. Once the child is born the life is validated and can be given up for adoption although this may not be the best thing the baby is already born an so there is no other choice.
-
There are some really interesting points that have been brought up that I'm evaluating my own personal feelings against them. I appreciate the opportunity to think things through again on multiple levels.
-
I think the more important question is: Should we allow a potential life to be forfeited because it is inconvenient? And if the answer is yes, then why stop in the womb? Maybe we should give every family 6 months after the birth to decide whether or not they made the right choice. After all, a baby is completely unable to take care of itself, so is that where we draw the line? There are certainly situations where abortion is a viable option, but it should definitely be tempered with wisdom and common sense. I certainly believe that any fetus that makes it to the 2nd trimester should be allowed to go to term unless there is a direct threat to the mother, or the baby is not viable.
This is a fallacy of argument in logic--you are using a gross exaggeration of a point to make it seem irresponsible by extending its bounds beyond the point where it was meant to be extended to. I think you know that the line was implied to be drawn at birth (or perhaps at the point when the fetus can feel pain, as it has been in my arguments). The reason for this is it is simply a "potential life", like you said, and not a life, as it is in you infanticide example. As long as you are causing no physical harm you are not creating any outcome different than using a condom or a birth control pill, or not having sex at all.
And, like you said, there are some cases where abortion is simply a viable option, like when both the mother and fetus is at risk (or so I think most people would agree--there's no use in putting both lives, the human and fetus, at risk). Who can decide where the line is drawn. Who is to say, "you can have an abortion, but you cannot." Humans are imperfect, and no person or group of people is truly wise enough to make decisions for everybody--especially not when those decisions are being based on holy doctrines or ideas that not everybody conforms to, as a majority of anti-choice arguments stem from (either underneath the argument or blatantly in it).
Also (and this is simply food for thought, not an argument necessarily for pro-choice) a large percentage of abortions are had by the lower classes, theoretically because the woman cannot afford the to raise a child in some resource (money, time or love--something). If you outlaw the choice in the case of abortions, you're likely to have one of three outcomes.
A) The law does not have a large effect on the illegal behavior, but instead the behavior is happening in an undocumented, unsupervised and unsafe way, leaving nothing but a negative effect (as was the case with prohibition).
B) The law is effective to a capacity, and slightly more fetuses are allowed to be made babies than the number of extra lives put at risk. A slight gain if you are in the camp that a fetus life is equivalent to a human life. This is probably the least likely of these three "likely" scenarios, and will still eventually have the effect of the third situation...
C) The law is effective to a moderately large capacity, more lower class children are being born. Note that back alley abortions are still going on, and you are adding to the pool of those who are most likely to RECEIVE an abortion, especially a back alley abortion. This is also the group of people who are most likely to have pregnancy at a young age. As you raise the number of people in this category (which, if your law is somewhat successful, will occur at a steadily exponential rate generation to generation), you are also increasing the number of people receiving unsafe, illegal abortions. While your percentage of abortions will have gone down, as time goes by you will actually be RAISING the number of abortions, and doing so in a way that is unsafe for both mother and fetus instead of just the fetus.
A situation in which an abortion law is completely successful is a statistical impossibility and therefor not even worth looking at. The likelyhood of an abortion law being even 90% successful is extraordinarily low, as people who have made the decision to receive an abortion have already made a very difficult decision to which legality probably is hardly an issue. I mean, if laws against marijuana, which is not a hugely driving decision, can hardly keep people from using it, then laws against abortion, which is a much more serious, life changing situation, are not likely to have a near-perfect effect.
-
Wow Gorgon you definitely can express your opinion well and at length. Not that I'm complaining, I have enjoyed this thread for its muti perspective conversation and you have helped a lot. SarahG and a couple others as well.
-
Yeah, I'm often accused of just liking to talk and argue, which is probably true, since I'll often take a side I don't believe in just for the challenge of doing so... so I've gotten fairly verbose. But the downside is often people don't give a monkey's change basket if you take too long to say something.
-
The up side is if you've been following a thread or read one from the beginning and you like it. Then the long winded posts are often the strongest opinions. Plus I like the points made on both sides so I'm sure we don't mind it if you rant a little.
-
I wish people would stop doing bad stuff. I wish people would help their neighbors not do bad stuff.
-
??? OOk
-
I wish people would stop doing bad stuff. I wish people would help their neighbors not do bad stuff.
I wish people would not do bad stuff on their own conviction, and that their neighbors would stop trying to define what is bad stuff to them. I wish people would not negatively interfere with anybody else's life and I wish they would be left to negatively impact their own life how they see fit. I wish people would give each other advice as to what they think could be done without trying to force their advice on the other, and I wish I had a chocolate goat.
-
Does anyone here think abortion is a fundamentally good thing to do? Leaving aside possible exceptions like health and rape.
I don't think the government should be a nursemaid that watches out for every bad behavior, but I think there are some things that are bad enough that they should not be allowed. Abortion is one of those things. It negatively impacts more than just the mother's life.
-
Something being fundamentally good and unforgiveably bad are very different things. It's not good to call somebody else names. It's completely acceptable and covered by the right to free speech.
The question is do abortions actually cause harm, which is what would make them a BAD behavior worth regulating. Since they cause no pain (to the fetus) and end in the same outcome as many other legal means of preventing child birth, it does not have the equivalency of a bad behavior in logical terms. If you personally feel abortions are unforgivably evil for reasons that don't follow this logic, then perhaps there are multiple logical ways of looking at things, in which case it is unfair for one group of people to force onto another group of people their rules based on their logic.
Or perhaps you feel abortions are unforgivable because of religious views, and are trying to find some way to justify those views in a way that people who disagree with your religious views will accept so you can force your religious morals onto other people. I'm not accusing anybody in particular of that, but it does happen. A lot.
("you" in this case isn't Ookla, I mean it as in any given reader)
-
I don't agree with the focus on "does it cause pain?"
The end result is not the same as any other form of birth control. But you know all the facts I could tell you and have chosen to interpret them incorrectly. Yes, I say incorrectly and not differently. Arguing about your right to say 2+2=3 is pointless.
Also, I'm not talking about whether or not something is unforgiveable. It's possible to show mercy and hold responsible at the same time.
-
This whole argument always boils down to "fetus /= human so its ok to kill it" or "if killing fetus = bad, then not using sperm/egg = bad"
The first is an artificial logical construct to protect the person holding that position from feeling pain/remorse for the life being truncated.
The second is an abismal attempt at logic, and does not hold up to basic biological truth. And Egg is a impotent thing, just as a sperm is an impotent thing. It becomes potent when combined, not before. The Egg and sperm are building blocks, the combination is a creature. Whether it is human or not, it is living and growing.
Do we have the RIGHT to kill a living creature? Should dogbreeders kill off the puppies that don't have nice coloring or that they don't want so as to make their lives easier? No. Should we kill off our offspring to make our life easier?
As for the "it doesn't feel pain" argument. If that is the sole basis of whether or not we can allow abortion, then the obvious conclusion is that we cannot, because we cannot determine whether or not it feels pain.
It all boils down to an understanding/respect for life. All life is valuable. Even the life that must be ended in order to save another is valuable. The only reason germs and such are killed is because they endanger other lives. If they did not, we would leave them be. The only reason we should kill animals, is for food, or self preservation.
So why does human offspring get different treatment? If it is endangering the mother's life, then the choice is obvious. If you are going to eat it, fine. (Even though that is also quite gross...) But if the only reason you are getting rid of it is because it will cramp your style, or any other reason short of killing you, then I do not see a valid reason for killing another living being.
-
Gorgon, there was no fallacy in my argument. The whole crux of this debate hangs on an opinion, and that opinion is when a child is a child. Many pro-choice arguments rest on the fact that a fetus would be unable to survive outside the womb, so it is not really a baby yet. I just noted that a baby's dependancy continues long after birth. Also, you are wrong about most abortions being from low income families, as it is actually almost 50 50 between those who make less than 30,000 a year versus those who make more. In any case, my previous postwas not to debate the legality of abortion, it was to debate how often it is necessary. Everyone gets so hung up on the right to do something, they miss the point on whether you should. I don't think the government should make 1st term abortions illegal, I just want the choice to be given the weight it deserves.
-
The idea that when a child is a child is something that's up for debate is appalling. Appalling, dangerous, and fundamentally wrong.
-
Does anyone here think abortion is a fundamentally good thing to do? Leaving aside possible exceptions like health and rape.
I don't think the government should be a nursemaid that watches out for every bad behavior, but I think there are some things that are bad enough that they should not be allowed. Abortion is one of those things. It negatively impacts more than just the mother's life.
Well, I've been hesitating to say it but I've HAD an abortion and I felt - feel - that I had very good reasoning for it. I'm glad that there weren't any restrictions that would have disallowed this opportunity for me in a monitored, healthy environment. (As opposed to the "back alley/dirty knife.") Now, situations have changed a lot in the intervening ten years so if I was presented with the option again, I would chose otherwise. However, for the entire situation at the time I think I made the best choice. The situation was not based on health or rape, but I still feel it warranted it. But then, part of my decision was the belief (which is ok that we all differ on this point) that a fetus is not a child until it's life can be supported either on its own or through machines as opposed to by being a 'parasite.' (Gods, that sounds awful!) Plus, I was within the 12 weeks window set by the law, and many people with much more experience and education than I have even now decided that it was safe to do so before that point (with the assumption that past that point the ethics get more gray.)
-
I respect your willingness to share your experience, and I see no reason not to respect you as a person as well. Your experience is not something that I, being male, would ever go through. You didn't share your reasons, but I assume they were extremely personal, and even if you did share them, it wouldn't affect my reaction.
I'm not afraid to stand up for right and wrong. Right and wrong are concepts that exist. I am saddened by the arguments put forth by other people in our culture which you believed when you made your decision. I don't think that decision ever should have been possible or legal to make. And I lament the lack of support which would lead anyone to contemplate back alleys and dirty knives. But I don't think wrong choices should be made legal just to make them safer to one party.
Just responding to a minor point in what you said, machines right now aren't good enough to support the life of a fetus, but it's inevitable that someday they will be. (See earlier in the thread.) To me that says that's not a reliable dividing line.
Also, when something "sounds awful," that's often an indicator that it very well may be.
-
Sometimes things sound awful because of an unfair cultural distinction between what is acceptable and what is not without reason. In fact, that's usually why things sound awful--right and wrong are concepts that exist, but you'd be hard pressed to get everybody to agree to your perspective of right and wrong. How do you know yours is right with such conviction that you'd be willing to trample on other people's ability to live their lives.
If I thought that believing in God was wrong because it caused people to waste their lives in a pointless chase after a non-existent entity, which essentially led them to a pointless life of pain followed by death, is it okay for me to outlaw the belief in God? Or the belief in a God other than my own?
If I think that defending yourself against an attacker with fatal force, even when it is the only means necessary, was wrong because I perscribed to the "turn the other cheek" mentality, is it okay for me to outlaw killings in defense? What YOU think is right and wrong because of your personal beliefs are what YOU believe. Until you can use a non-biased reasoning for it (like, for example, getting a large amount of scientists to agree that an embryo can feel pain and is thus warranted the right to not be harmed), you have no right to press your morals on another person, no matter how strongly you feel. If you want to be able to press your own morality into law, live in a theocracy.
-
My reason for disliking abortion are not religious. There exist certain reasons in the religious sphere that also add strength to my reasons, but the religious/'moral' reasons are not the driving force.
I will never understand the logic of saying that one person's right to happiness overrides another's right to life. It doesn't even compare. If I had to choose between disaster and death, I would choose disaster. The Anti-Life advocates always take the most extreme views on this subject to try and ridicule the Anti-Choice people (and yes, I used both groups most hated names).
As I wrote in my last post, it is all about life. Not just human life. (Missed the post? go back and read it, I'd be curious as to your take on my ideas)
Leave religion out of it, that's fine. There are PLENTY of non-religious reasons not to allow this in most cases.
-
Yet by stating someone can't press their morals into someone, you are putting your moral belief above theirs. There are many who believe it should be OK for full grown men to have sex with young boys. Is that wrong, or are we just imposing our morality on them as well? Let's get more specific regarding abortion. I have said that I am OK with 1st trimester abortions (less than 12 weeks), but would hope that the decision is not taken lightly, or done because it is the easy or convenient thing to do. This means no regulation. However, I feel very differently about partial birth abortion. So I will ask you, Gorgon; Should late-term and/or partial birth abortions be legal?
-
Loud_G, your reason for not wanting abortion outlawed is the most valid reason, and that is preservation of life (not HUMAN life, but life).
However, your argument from your last post and your second-to-last post conflict. You say that it is okay to kill any living being (you went as low as germs) if they harm us, and you said that the only reason germs are killed is because they endanger humans. That is blatantly false, we kill things every day because they are inconvenient. We do our best to kill light flus and colds which are not fatal (to over 99% of the population), and we are so willing to do so that we are okay potentially making them stronger. We rip out tree because they block our satellite dishes (and in doing so kill plenty of animals who were using our subdivisions as an ecosystem). Should it be illegal to build homes because they inflict damage and take lives of animals, plants and germs? It would make us uncomfortable, but you said that being uncomfortable is never a reason to kill. We allow dogs to be put down because they bark too aggressively, even if they've never attacked a person--in fact, if a dog seems to aggressive it is LAW that it is killed.
And saying that it is immoral to push one's views on another, and therefor it should not be done is only pushing morality in a very slight sense of protecting myself. It is not putting ANY law in place telling others what to do, nor am I suggesting we do so. I am not advocating any national FORCE to push this morality into order. That is the difference.
Darxbane, like I said, at the point that the fetus is functioning enough to be able to recognize suffering (which is AT EARLIEST the third trimester according to modern estimates, and CERTAINLY not within the first several weeks of pregnancy), it should be protected as a sentient creature, and should be given the natural rights of a sentient creature, which includes not being forced to suffer needlessly.
-
Non-biased reasoning does not exist.
Additionally, humans are reasoning creatures, but humans are also irrational creatures. A solution that only takes one of those into account is not a complete solution. There are plenty of things which are entirely valid to the human experience which are plain not rational.
Also, I find it ironic that you talk about trampling on other people's ability to live their lives, when that is exactly what abortion does.
-
I misspoke. I meant not non-biased, but I meant a reasoning that is something that can be used universally despite creed based on provable, logical or scientific fact/probability. This is biased, of course, but it is also something that all people can be shown.
And abortion only tramples life if you count a fetus or an embryo as a life. It is technically living, but so is grass--we don't worry about its rights.
-
I agree that abortion should not be a means of birth control. That being said, I'm glad that it is available to all women who might need or want it. When my 14-yro sister was raped, she was Not ready to have a child, nor by her words, could she have loved this child of violence. If that could be true to this day or not, I cannot say, but she is doing wonderfully now. So I do not want to see some law come to pass that tells the women in my life what they can and cannot do. This is not out of any belief that I may have, but that it is my responsibility, to protect the rights of my daughter, wife, mother, or any future children or grandchildren. It is their choice.
-
Gorgon, Grass does not grow up to laugh if you don't mow it. Your arguments against counting a fetus as human are ridiculous—indeed, they deserve to be ridiculed—even if many people have convinced themselves they are not.
Remember what I said about humans being irrational as well as reasoning creatures. If you rely solely upon reason, you fall into a (popular) trap. You're also going to fail in your goal to find an argument for allowing abortion that can be used universally and that all people, when shown, will accept as valid and reasonable.
Necroben, I am not going to argue against possible exceptions like rape. And I have never met anyone who believes a woman impregnated through rape should be forced to keep and love the baby.
It has never been about "telling women what they can and cannot do." It has always been about protecting the most defenseless of our human family. Indeed, you should protect the rights of any future children.
-
Necroben, I am not going to argue against possible exceptions like rape. And I have never met anyone who believes a woman impregnated through rape should be forced to keep and love the baby.
It has never been about "telling women what they can and cannot do." It has always been about protecting the most defenseless of our human family. Indeed, you should protect the rights of any future children.
Unfortunately, I have met those who do believe, "a woman impregnated through rape should be forced to keep and love the baby." There are far too many who would just make a blanket statement and say, "No, you may not do this,” period. Heck, I've seen that in some of the posts here. It's unfortunate that some of the people who take one stance or another, have never seen or spoken to a woman, or a girl, who has to agonize over this decision.
To the discussion on whether it would continue upon being abolished. Yes, I think it would. The practice has been around for thousands of years, why would it stop now? Discounting alleyway practices, Herbs have been used in the past and would no doubt be used again. Yeah, there would be risks as to dosage but, well, it never stopped anyone before.
-
Adoption would be much more kind to the child than being raised by someone who was forced to have a living, breathing reminder of rape near them every day. That would be cruel and unusual punishment.
It's very hard to make any kind of statistically valid statement about historical use of herb-type abortions, because that's generally not something that any record was ever kept of. I don't have any idea how widespread it might have been. I do know that people used to have a ton more children than they typically do nowadays. (The child mortality rate was also much, much higher of course.)
-
Yeah, people had more children because of cultural differences, specifically NEED for more children. Children used to be livelihood, without them you didn't have enough WORKERS to survive, nor did your genes get passed on because chances are your child wouldn't live to adulthood. We don't have fewer children now because we have more abortions (we might have more abortions, I don't know, but that's not the reason we have fewer children).
The fact that we should make any rule that encompasses all people in all situations based on irrationality is silly. Also, saying what something WILL be and what something IS are two different stories. You said grass doesn't grow up to laugh, but that means you are judging a situation based on what could be, not what is. The fact of the matter is the fetus cannot feel, it cannot think, it barely reacts to its environment (in early stages) and an embryo is even less so. It isn't protected based on what it could be.
Also, who do you think is going to adopt all of the children who are now being born (assuming that outlawing abortion even works, which it probably wouldn't)? We have too many children who can't find families and spend most if not all of their youth moving from foster care to foster care or adoption clinic.
You're not taking a life by preventing a life, or we should use every facet at our disposal to create as many children as possible, seeing how we have the ability to have far more children than we do. You say my argument is ridiculous because I try to base it on sense, and fact, rather than bluntly on my own emotions. You'll note I've never said what I personally think of abortions, and that is because my opinion on whether or not abortions in certain situations are okay--the question is commanding other people to think how you think by threat of force okay? Depending on your point of view abortions could be anywhere from appalling to nothing of any concern--and putting your opinion into law is not the way of a democracy, nor is it the way of an enlightened people (which at this point I would hope we are). We ALREADY have too many laws dictating what is okay and what isn't when it should be a person's own choice. Most laws are unnecessary dictatorial garbage, because one party thought it was more important or somehow more naturally correct than another. One party thought itself superior to another and thus it must protect the other from itself. If I want to screw up my own life, it should be my own choice. If I want to remove a parasite from my body (which a fetus is BY DEFINITION) and it does NO HARM to the parasite whatsoever, who are you to stop me?
And how COULD you? Like Necroben said, abortion can and will be done or attempted in as many ways as can be conceived--from using doctors who will work illegally because they believe it is immoral to dictate to somebody what she can do to her body, to trying to use a coat hanger, to drinking Pennyroyal Tea or using other herbs.
And, Ookla, before you joined the discussion nobody name-called, nor ridiculed each other. It was a purely hypothetical discussion for entertainment and enlightenment on all parties parts. I would hope that you would be more mature than to blurt out negative statements about other parties--it is pretty common to bash an opponent instead of defending yourself. I would expect better from the people on these boards. And as it stands, I haven't seen any argument of counting a fetus as a human other than "it will grow into one", which is also ridiculous. You don't count an egg as a chicken, and they are the same equivalency in life cycle. I can't sell you wooden planks and give you a tree because that is what it will become. Why is it different if the thing in question will be a human?
-
I haven't ridiculed anyone or called any names. I don't believe in name-calling. I have ridiculed a few ideas in this thread that deserved it. You came in here and started throwing around words like "trampling" and "disgusting" and making farfetched analogies in your first post in the thread. Before your first post, we were having a hypothetical discussion for entertainment and enlightenment.
I also said that both reason and irrationality need to be considered, not just one or the other. I did NOT say you should base your argument bluntly on emotions.
If you've never said what you personally think of abortions, what the heck have you been doing in all your long-winded rants in this thread? You've basically been saying your opinion about fetuses is the only rationally acceptable one. I'm saying you're wrong and that your opinion about fetuses is not rational. Even if you disagree with me, can you say what I'm doing is worse than what you're doing?
Killing is not doing no harm. Sorry! You're advocating allowing killing. I am advocating not allowing killing. Which is preferable is obvious.
If something is against the law, and you want to do it anyway, who's going to stop you? That doesn't mean something that's wrong shouldn't be against the law. I don't buy the argument that things that are difficult to enforce shouldn't be illegal. Personally, I don't know what kind of legal punishment would be appropriate for illegal abortions. But I do think something that's wrong should be against the law.
I would indeed count a fertilized chicken egg as a chicken. Is it not a parasite though because it's outside the chicken's body and all it has to do is sit on it to make it hatch? Or does the need for sitting make it a parasite? (I wouldn't count a fertilized egg as a hatched chicken, because it might not hatch. Sometimes things go wrong. Miscarriages happen.)
Yes, unborn babies need their mothers in order to survive. So do born babies.
I don't count unborn children the same as adults. I don't count born children the same as adults either. Children take time to develop. My daughter will be 8 months old in two days; I've seen her every step of the way and it's been amazing to see how she grows and learns. She didn't suddenly turn human when she was born; I was there. She may have started out as a clump of cells that didn't feel anything or think anything, but she grew and developed because that's the way nature works. You can't say there's suddenly some point in some trimester when a fetus turns into a human; it's a gradual transformative process that takes years. When do wisdom teeth come in? Age 19? 20? Growth and change. That's what human life is, and it starts as a fertilized egg. (Though I believe another important part of human life is the spirit, which is the offspring of God rather than the body that's the offspring of the earthly parents, and I do not know at what point the spirit enters the body.)
I know people who are jumping through hoops in order to adopt. I also know that the foster system can be very difficult too, though.
I don't expect to convince you. You sound as convinced of your ways as I am. But I do want you to know that you're wrong and that this is not a place where everyone will toe the rationalist line. (I'm not saying that everyone here will agree with me, but this is a place where it's acceptable to be pro-life without being laughed at and scorned.) You didn't come in here respecting other people's opinions or saying "I think this" or "I think that." You came here spouting your opinions as facts. If you hadn't tried to ram your opinions down everyone's throats, I would have responded quite differently.
-
Alright, Ookla--if somehow me expressing my opinion and not expressly saying, "I think" before every statement offended you, I apologize. Obviously what I say is opinion. Secondly, the idea behind a debate is to convince the other side of your point of view (well, actually the idea is to convince those not participating of your view, but that's really getting into a different area of discussion). If I wasn't attempting to make my point seen, then I wouldn't be talking. I never ridiculed anybody's ideas, no matter if I thought they were stupid or not. I simply countered them with my take. I used words like "disgusting" as imagery to strengthen what I am saying, not as an attack on what somebody else had said. I didn't call somebody else disgusting, I didn't say somebody else's idea disgusting--I said that I considered a specific act disgusting--and I was NOT the first to do so. Nobody except you seems to have misconstrued my intent, as I haven't heard a complaint from any other person. This leads me to believe that my intent was clear, and if you misconstrued it, it is of your own doing.
I, however, may have been vague or unclear, and if I was, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who feel I have intended to insult their views or themselves.
Secondly, I have been expressing my opinion of a law about abortions, not my opinion about abortions themselves. Based on this thread, you could make assumptions about whether or not I would support a friend of mine, a girlfriend of mine or a relative of mine getting an abortion, but you would have no way to know for sure. Because it is irrelevant if I would support it or not--the fact that I dislike something does not give me the right to not allow somebody else to do it.
As for abortion not doing harm, science shows it is extraordinarily unlikely that pain is caused by early abortions. At risk of repeating myself, killing a fetus is simply not killing a baby--it has the same outcome with the same amount of suffering as not having the pregnancy at all. Now, personally, do I consider that fetus a person--I may. But I understand that others may not, and since I have no evidence to show otherwise, I refuse to push onto another by law what they do not believe.
I would definitely be in favor of laws that require abortion education before abortion, in which a to-be mother must be told what will happen in an abortion, and that while it is considered unlikely by medicine, it is possible that the fetus may be able to feel pain. I would also be in favor of a law that prohibits abortion past the seventh month, at which point modern medicine states it is much more likely the fetus can feel pain. I would even support a law that stated those who want to receive abortions must do so on a waiting list or three or four days, to make sure that she has had time to think about the decision. None of these solutions trample her ability to do so, but they do encourage serious thought on the serious issue before engaging in abortions, and they also draw a line of when an abortion can be had at a point that all people can see, using science, that suffering is caused.
A fetus isn't a parasite because it needs its mother to survive. It's a parasite because it drains resources from inside of another creature for survival without giving resources in return. A chicken egg doesn't do that, neither does a born baby.
There are people who jump through hoops to get a child in adoption, that doesn't change the fact that there are tons of children who don't get adopted. There aren't going to be more people jumping through hoops to get children when there are more of them, there will just be more kids who wont get adopted (at least this is the most likely outcome).
I don't believe that not making a law because it is difficult to enforce is okay, either. I do believe, however, that if there is a law which is so difficult for people to agree on even being a good law to make, the fact that it would be difficult to enforce is a piece of information which should be weighed, since clearly morality is difficult to determine.
And, as I have stated earlier, I'm just expressing my views, I'm not hell bent on convincing anybody. If I do, great, if I don't, also great. I'm more interested in the friendly exchange of ideas than I am of the results of said exchange. I never "laughed at" anybody, nor did I scorn a single person. I simply took their ideas, and gave a response. I never made any personal insults at ideas or people, nor did I tell anybody explicitly they are wrong (I only did so by disagreeing, which is perfectly acceptable), and I openly said that I was not expecting to persuade anybody of anything, but that I was just expressing my opinion. If me being long-winded is a sign of "ramming" opinions down throats, simply because I like to speak my mind and try to do so clearly, then I guess I have a habit of ramming my opinion down others' throats. Fortunately, free speech allows me to do so, ESPECIALLY when I'm doing so in a manner which does not include any negative remarks about the ideas of others--you have the right to ignore me, and you have the right to ridicule me or my ideas. I was just suggesting ridicule is probably not the best route, and not something I would have expected from such a distinguished member of such a fine community. Especially somebody who feels so strongly about the issue, as I'm sure you've heard you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
If I gave you the impression that I was laughing at your ideas, I think you were reading my messages with an intent that they did not have, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. I never meant to make you or anybody else feel alienated or undercut simply because I disagree--I just meant to disagree.
-
First you said it was a hypothetical discussion for discussion for entertainment and enlightenment. Then in the first paragraph of this latest post you say you're trying to convince people of your view. Then in the 2nd to last paragraph you said you weren't bent on convincing everybody. Make up your mind, please.
I did not attempt to convince you because it was clear from your voluminous posts that you could not be convinced. It wasn't worth the effort, and I hate debate.
Do you not understand that I've already said suffering is not the point? Why do you keep bringing it up? The ending of human life is not wrong because it causes a human to suffer; if so, it would be perfectly OK to end as many human lives as you want as long as you find a way to do it without causing suffering.
The ending of a human life is wrong because that life is human. There is something special about being human that is not shared by animals or plants or minerals. If you don't think being human is special, I'm not going to try to convince you.
Or if you're only making these arguments because other people might believe that way, and not you specifically, since you might believe a fetus is human—what are you doing in this thread? The topic of the thread is what is your stance on abortion. Not what do you think other people might think about abortion which might cause you to believe it shouldn't be illegal and-hide-your-own-opinion? If you're not willing to share your own opinion, please stop countering the opinions of others.
I understand the dilemma about not wanting to make laws that are based on opinion and don't take diverging opinions into consideration. However, in some few things a line must be drawn where the opinions of other people must be overridden by what you believe is right. Human life is one such area. At the moment, I can't think of any other area as important. As a general rule I am all for laws that the vast majority of people can agree on. I know that decisions that barely pass due to one side or another can be a source of divisiveness, and divisiveness is bad. However, the protection of human life overrules that desire for consensus. If a huge minority of people disagree with me—or even if a huge majority of people disagree with me—I cannot ignore my conviction. Human life trumps opinion, and I will support leaders who support the overturning of Roe v. Wade.