Poll

What

is
0 (0%)
your
0 (0%)
stance
0 (0%)
on
1 (9.1%)
abortion
0 (0%)
?
10 (90.9%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Author Topic: QUESTION  (Read 6543 times)

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #45 on: September 11, 2008, 09:33:55 PM »
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.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Emillith

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Joyful Light of the Stargarden
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #46 on: September 11, 2008, 09:49:43 PM »
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.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2008, 01:39:04 AM »
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.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2008, 01:50:53 AM »
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.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2008, 01:59:10 AM »
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.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2008, 02:03:20 AM »
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.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2008, 03:43:02 AM »
I wish people would stop doing bad stuff. I wish people would help their neighbors not do bad stuff.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2008, 03:57:15 AM »
??? OOk
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2008, 04:44:45 AM »
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.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2008, 06:14:51 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 06:26:28 PM by Ookla The Mok »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2008, 06:21:52 PM »
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)
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #56 on: September 12, 2008, 06:34:05 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 06:49:05 PM by Ookla The Mok »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

Loud_G

  • Level 11
  • *
  • Posts: 438
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Drawer of Dragons
    • View Profile
    • George the Dragon
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #57 on: September 12, 2008, 06:56:21 PM »
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.
George the Dragon   <---- My webcomic. 

WARNING:
Features a very silly dragon. Hilarity MAY ensue.

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #58 on: September 12, 2008, 07:00:35 PM »
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.
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #59 on: September 12, 2008, 07:11:42 PM »
The idea that when a child is a child is something that's up for debate is appalling. Appalling, dangerous, and fundamentally wrong.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!