• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Abortion. Pro-choice reasoning correct?

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,935
#51
I'm pro choice.
The entire debate rests on two questions:
(1) - When does jizz'n'egg become life with intrinsic value?
(2) - How do the rights of an unborn child compare against those of the unwilling mother?

I personally think that a person's life is only worth something once they are capable of fearing losing it. Furthermore the distinction between people and animals is our intelligence, so if a human is as intelligent as an animal then their life is worth as much as that animal's. The zinger being that if a baby is not more intelligent than a monkey, I sincerely believe that the monkey is worth more at present.
This belief also supplies my answer for the second question: the mother's rights are more important than those of the unborn child.
 

Solitaire U.

Last of the V-8 Interceptors
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
1,462
#52
All the rationale in the world doesn't amount to shit when you're facing the decision yourself, something I suspect few participants in this thread have done.

Also, it's bullshit to legislate that it should be at the woman's sole discretion. Obvious reasons there.
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
3,679
#53
So you just don't want to adhere to a law? What makes this law any different than any other law? Why is it too personal and situational a decision? (This is simply to receive an understanding on your point of view)

It involves life and the weighing of possible outcomes for a child and it's parents. That makes all the difference. It needs to be considered on a case by case basis. If it has to be legislated then we need to have some sort of screening process in which the potential parents have a say, their ability to raise the child in a healthy manner is assessed, and the likelihood of the parents' continued interest in the child in question. The screeners themselves would act as an unbiased third party sort of like the supreme court in the US.

Of course, I don't really think this would actually work because nobody is ever unbiased. Also, this process would have to be impossibly fast since the life in question is growing unstoppably while everybody ponders what the right decision is. However, in utopia it'd be nice. Therefor, I lean toward leaving the decision up to the parents instead of creating a law that is enforced in every case regardless of the particulars. Actually, I think its a good idea to make sterilization of humans the norm and then if a person wants to have a kid they submit an application to have the sterilization reversed. No more questions about abortion except for those cases that involve fetuses with serious birth defects. Again, I'm generally against over-legislation but at this point we are breeding like rabbits and it's got to be put to a stop.
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,325
#55
Personally I think that a human life should not be trivialized and thrown out simply because of an unplanned pregnancy. I figure that upon conception a human life is made. Using contraception is Ok because they inhibit the sperm and the egg from coming together and since the sperm and the egg do not constitute a human life in and of themselves then it is perfectly fine to use them. The problem for me lies in killing an unborn baby simply because of the complications of a unplanned pregnancy. Isn't a human life worth more than that? Understand that I am arguing with the premise that a human life is constituted upon conception. Sure it can't feel, can't voice its opinion, but it is human because it will grow into a human adult if circumstances allow it to. It has the potential for perhaps making huge scientific discoveries, or making possible seemingly impossible feats. This is why I don't enjoy the prospect of abortion because it limits the possible potential for humanity.

This is more of a general post.


I don't understand the argument about possibility and potential. Anything is possible. But that that does make it probable or likely to happen at all.

Every time we eat there's a possibility would could choke and die.
Every time we get into a car, there's a possibility we could crash and die.
None of that stops us from eating or going to our desired destinations.

The child might become a brilliant scientist who benefits the mankind in many ways. Although, how many people accomplish that in reality? How likely is that to happen? Not likely at all in my opinion. I can't say that for sure, because I have no way of knowing, but if the current trends have any validity to them, then I think that decision has at least some merit over just saying "I don't know."

I'm not sure why people mostly feel a greater moral obligation and attachment toward human life but they are willing to indiscriminately destroy the lives of other species.

I think we've had the sanctity of genetical and familiar bonds hammered into our heads enough. Not all parents love their children. They may often feel like they have to love them, but they don't always come through in reality. Another big tripping stone in this discussion is what happens to the child after it is born.

The mother could easily be abusive to the child - and I wouldn't blame her, if the child did effectively ruin her life. By which I mean, ruined her dreams, education, perspectives, relationships. It could have drove her to depression, misery, poor financial quality of life. Huge amounts of stress. She could blame and guilt the child its entire life, and it would end up just as miserable, depressed and will probably carry the scars for the rest of its life. A lot of time the childhood experiences can have long lasting detrimental effects on our lives.
 

Solitaire U.

Last of the V-8 Interceptors
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
1,462
#56
Every time we eat there's a possibility would could choke and die.
Every time we get into a car, there's a possibility we could crash and die.
None of that stops us from eating or going to our desired destinations.
Those of us who chew, drive and fuck with care face vastly reduced risks...

The mother could easily be abusive to the child - and I wouldn't blame her, if the child did effectively ruin her life. By which I mean, ruined her dreams, education, perspectives, relationships. It could have drove her to depression, misery, poor financial quality of life. Huge amounts of stress. She could blame and guilt the child its entire life, and it would end up just as miserable, depressed and will probably carry the scars for the rest of its life. A lot of time the childhood experiences can have long lasting detrimental effects on our lives.
You're saying people have abortions to curb these things...I'll counter that these are reasons why some people have children.

Pro-Choice® is all good and well, but it's a shitty excuse to support a plasticine irresponsible existence.

@ gcomeau, read between the fucking lines.
 

MissQuote

kickin' at a tin can
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,175
#57
I've been sitting here trying to figure out exactly what a "care face" is and how you use one in the above context. :kilroy:
 

MissQuote

kickin' at a tin can
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,175
#63
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but I think he meant to put a comma after "with care".
The lack of a comma caused me to read the sentence as something along the lines of:

"Those of us who chew, drive, fuck and care face, have vastly reduced risks..."

It wasn't sarcasm (meant to be rude or picky), I was making fun of myself for putting too much thought into the whole sentence when my brain misinterpreted it.

Anyway, quieting down now. I'm going to stay out of this topic now, I have a lot to say about it, and everyones posts on both sides of the argument are provoking me to think, but it isn't a subject I really want to voice a loud opinion on all over a public forum, and I'm not sure my little jokes are helping much.

*resumes lurking the topic.
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
3,679
#64
No, don't go! This is what a forum is for! Spew forth your ideology so that we might pick at it like vultures on a battlefield! :smiley_emoticons_mr

Besides, if your jokes here haven't gone over well it's not your fault I suspect. More a matter of prickliness on their part.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
25
Location
Ohio
#65
I wonder if these kinds of discussions ever change an individual's opinion on the issue, or if they are purely masturbatory. Anyone change his or her mind?
 

cheese

Prolific Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
3,182
Location
internet/pubs
#66
^Discussions like this do change my mind. I've changed my mind on this topic a few times as a result of talks like this and have reached neutral (ie cowardly) ground.
 

GottabeKB

Lover of Truth
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
51
Location
In your head
#67
It helps me to see the arguments against what I am advocating for. Which is always good as it helps you to understand other people's POV and helps to create a better or more holistic argument for yourself.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,153
Location
US of A
#68
Killing is killing no matter how many words you put around it.

I am against killing other human beings. I just don't know what a human being is just yet....?
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#69
I guess that's the rub, then, isn't it?
After all, there's so many miscarriages in the first three months.

I would say it's a lot different to have an abortion versus killing a human being of any age outside the womb, experientially as well as in terms of practical ramification.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#70
"During the first trimester, a fetus has no idea what is happening, as its brain is not developed enough for such advanced forms of awareness, thought and emotion."
We are all unaware of our surroundings for about one third of our life, of which infancy is but a small part.

"In the first trimester, a growing fetus cannot possibly understand what life is. It does not understand that it is being deprived of anything when an abortion is taking place."
Clearly pro-choicers don't understand that the fetus is being deprived either, or they wouldn't put forth such arguments, so do they not meet the conditions for termination?

"If my parents aborted my birth, I would not have been upset, as I could not have experienced any emotions during those early weeks of life. Although it could be argued that I would be missing out on future experiences, I would not have been aware of this deprivation and would therefore not have experienced this deprivation."
Yes, you would have missed out on those experiences. All of them. This is inarguable. Whether the you perceive the deprivation at the time or not, it still takes place.

The way I see it, abortion is acceptable in cases where delivery would be harmful to either the mother or the child. However, if the only reason for the abortion is because the mother-to-be has decided she doesn't want to be a mother, then I don't see any reason for that abortion to be performed.
I agree. That is, the reason given is insufficient. And the harm described better be bloody serious.

The reason many pro-choicers have an issue with pro-lifers boils down to infringement. In order to facilitate a "pro-life" society, we must infringe upon the rights of adults. Facilitating a "pro-choice" society only infringes upon the rights of an unborn fetus. Thus, it really comes down to how much of an infringement one thinks it is to terminate the rights of an unborn fetus.
The rights of the adults are not infringed upon, because it is not their right to take a life. Your freedom ends where another begins. Abortion is unacceptable because you're causing irreversible, all-damaging harm to another individual. Recognition of such harm and its corrosive effect on a moral society forms the conceptual bedrock of our ancient judicial traditions.

abortion should be treated as any other form of contraception, including but not limited to: condoms, morning after pills, birth control pills, and the diaphragm.
All the methods listed are just that, contraceptive. Once pregnancy takes place, contraceptive measures are useless. It's time to consider what the child will need, or else do something evil and dishonest ("Pfft, I can kill my unborn child. It's not like I could have a conversation with him or anything. Poor bastard doesn't even know what he's missing. That makes it okay to kill, right? I mean, it's not like ignorance is a necessary stage on the way to awareness and knowledge, particularly in the early development of a human being.").

the wiles, the outright cunning of nature to couple an act which humans are programmed to enjoy immensely with nine months of pain for one member and a lifetime of it for the other. this is no accident.

if raising a kid where intrinsically rewarding it would not need to be met with a volcanic rush of neurochemicals in mommy.
Birth may be violent, but it's also the only means of continuing the species. Everything "intrinsically rewarding" for us humans followed from birth.

i wonder if the views presented by female members differ chiefly from the views presented by male members (i'd look deeper but i don't actually know the sex of most of the members here). because, let's face it, a dude can never really know what it's like to have to face the reality of pregnancy and the decision to keep it or kill it. it's not easy, i promise.
Aye. Especially since the wrong choice is so seductive.

i personally am pro-choice for the fact that i believe in the rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn child, if for no other reason than the mother already has a life that could be more than "inconvenienced" by an unplanned pregnancy. what i seem to be reading into many of these posts is that people who make stupid mistakes don't deserve a second chance? because i have to tell you honestly, if i happened to say get insanely drunk and have unprotected sex with somebody (without really having the capability of saying no due to my inebriation) then i'd be fucking pissed if i conceived and then somebody told me NO YOU MUST KEEP THE BABY YOU IRRESPONSIBLE FOOL! i'd like to be able to consider things and then make a choice. i wouldn't want to be completely fucked on the results of one mistake. doesn't everyone deserve that opportunity?
You might like to be able to make that choice, but it's not all about you. Some reckless behaviors are more damaging than others, an example being driving drunk and killing a pedestrian. To me, abortion is far less responsible than whatever caused the pregnancy in the first place, because like the drunk driver, you have taken a life, except in your case you made a conscious decision to do so.

i suppose my viewpoint on abortion doesn't really consider the life of the fetus much, but as far as i'm concerned, an unborn life is simply not as important as a life already in the making. and babies really can ruin lives. think about it, would you want to be born to a mother that didn't want you?
A fetus is a life in the making, though. And a life is utterly ruined when you terminate it so prematurely.

This is not utilitarianism, though my views lean in that way.

My focus is on acknowledging that morality is unreliable and trying to decide if an action is moral or not can be largely insignificant to the situation.
We're very different, you and I. To a moral being, morality never truly falters in its reliability, instead changing when it becomes irreconcilable with itself. In fact, morality dictates the worth of everything else. Whether those "morals" are truly theirs is another matter, but, well, anyway, carry on.

If the motivation behind an action(i.e. abortion) is reasonable, I consider it okay and free from the concept and constraints of morality.

In my opinion, the concept of morality is inherently flawed, for it seeks standardize itself through consistency, which is dehumanizing, not to mention impossible, to uphold.
Your post both proposes and demonstrates an alternative to moral consistency: nonsensical immorality. Personal value is the arbiter of what is reasonable (follows from valuing logic, and whatever purpose you are using that tool in service of, provided it's more abstract than physical needs) and what is dehumanizing (follows from valuing humanity, whatever you consider that to be).

Again, if the motivation behind abortion was, for example, that the mother would die otherwise, then the situation has been reasonably considered and is justified, in my opinion. Morality is irrelevant. The qualification of an action should not be subject to the concept of morality, which deals with too many arbitrary factors to actually be a valid system.
Your system is far more arbitrary. If morality was not a part of making this decision, we can just as easily decide to keep the baby, or kill them both. Your position changes nothing.


The reason pro-choicers claim that there is a right involved with an abortion is because of the impact to a woman's body and life in order to go through with a pregnancy. That isn't something to be taken lightly.
I'll take it more lightly than clear-cut issues of life and death.

Things always sound better when you phrase them with passion, emotion, and bias, right? How does a handicapped person infringe upon the rights of another person? A better analogy would be murdering a conjoined twin. Of course, the difference in that scenario is that each twin has as much right as the other...
I already encountered something similar (see my fifth cluster).

At any rate, I'm also going to bring up the "do we really need more babies in this world?" argument, as well. I mean, seriously...there are a lot of people on this planet :\ .
Great we just we need to kill a convict every time a baby is born. After all, we already take all kinds of rights away from them as retribution for their criminal choices, right? Of course not. Denying others life, and keeping your own, in accordance with what you believe to be the greater good may be the greatest expression of arrogance (see "A Modest Proposal", by Jonathan Swift).

To make abortion illegal would be in a sense to tell all females that the biological fuctions of their bodies are of higher worth than their own sentient existance or anything they could contribute to society with it, including their own intelligence over whether said biological function is something they wish to have happen to them.
A human life is not a biological function, and pro-lifers do not all want females to go through with pregnancy, even if it kills them.

I believe abortion should be discouraged, mainly by means of pregnancy prevention education, but always allowed without the need to prove necessity (i.e. prove one was raped).
I disagree obviously, for reasons already stated.

A second argument can be made towards it being legal when the actual medical aspect is considered. Making abortion illegal will not cease it from happening and people who choose to abort shouldn't have to resort to risky and/or shady means that would not only endanger them but also encourage exploitation of people in vulnerable situations.
I would argue that people shouldn't choose to abort at all, but of course that's very idealistic. No doubt abortions would still take place were the act illegalized, but this does not mean legalizing would be the solution.

The are the first couple of logical arguments that come to mind. I think the entire topic is one that is rife with emotion on both sides, one problem is both sides are arguing different points, one arguing for the rights of the baby, the other arguing for the rights of the woman, and neither is able to bend.
If we accept that the baby has rights at all, the pro-choicers lose because none's rights extend to infringing upon another's. The disagreement comes from people who think babies are worthless because they haven't yet demonstrated their potential to become mature, intelligent humans like you and I.

Now... in order to extend my life do I have the right to use someone else's body against their will to accomplish that end? Why no, I damn well do not. If there is a conflict between my right to life and someone else's right to control over their own body I am out of luck.

What if it's *their fault* I'm in this situation? Let's take it to the most extreme unlikely condition... Some idiot hit me with their car, I need a blood transfusion (fust a freaking BLOOD transfusion, a little damn prick in their arm!!!!), the jackass that hit me is the only compatible donor that can be located before I'm going to bleed out.

They say no.

Guess what? Too bad for me. I STILL don't have the right to force them to use their body in *any way whatsoever* against their will, even to save my life. NO person has that right.

So if the fetus is a person, so what? People don't have the right to use other people's bodies against their will. Not to do a tiny ittle thing like draw blood, sure as HELL not to use their body as an incubator for nine months. The end.
I'll kick his ass! That person has a responsibility to give you the damn blood transfusion. Sort of like how you're obligated to help a police officer make an arrest if he needs/requests your help. The danger to him is infinetecimal compared to what will happen if he doesn't help you. A prick in the arm <<<<< death in terms of severity, and it's not some huge stretch of his capacity for empathy. I thought this went without saying.

I have yet to hear any convincing or rational argument for making abortions illegal. It's a total non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Abortion isn't murder, it isn't killing a baby, it's preventing a bunch of cells from reaching their potential to become an independent human life.
You say it's not killing a baby, but when you describe it it sounds the same.

There are enough people on the planet already, why not keep child birth for those that are ready for it and want to become parents?
Because it doesn't politely wait at the door.

I was eating an egg for breakfast today and the thought of abortion came to mind. I mean, you are by somehow inhibiting that egg from becoming a living creature. In abortion you destroy the embryo instead of the zygote - It's a matter of when live "begins". A curiosity: In some asian countrys, Balut, an boiled egg with an embryo inside is considered a delicacy.
The finest chicken specimen is a prizewinner at the fair at best. The greatest human can change the world.

I'm a pro-choicer mostly because I value having the opportunity to make a choice over strangers making a law and then forcing me to follow it. It's way to personal and situational a decision to make a blanket law for it.


Laws in the United States are supposed to protect the rights of the people. I believe this includes undeveloped fetuses, as they will develop into a mature human. Heck, development never ends.

I'm pro choice.
The entire debate rests on two questions:
(1) - When does jizz'n'egg become life with intrinsic value?
(2) - How do the rights of an unborn child compare against those of the unwilling mother?
(1) - When they combine and become a multi-celled organism. Conception.
(2) - Closely. Not to mention the fact that 100% of abortions result in the death of the former.

I personally think that a person's life is only worth something once they are capable of fearing losing it.
That's almost as arbitrary as the Islamic "four month rule." Why not accept those people who are alive and possess the genes of their progenitors as having worth?

Furthermore the distinction between people and animals is our intelligence, so if a human is as intelligent as an animal then their life is worth as much as that animal's. The zinger being that if a baby is not more intelligent than a monkey, I sincerely believe that the monkey is worth more at present.
This belief also supplies my answer for the second question: the mother's rights are more important than those of the unborn child.
This again? That monkey will never be as intelligent as a full-grown human. To value it the same as a human baby is incredibly short-sighted.


This is more of a general post.


I don't understand the argument about possibility and potential. Anything is possible. But that that does make it probable or likely to happen at all.

Every time we eat there's a possibility would could choke and die.
Every time we get into a car, there's a possibility we could crash and die.
None of that stops us from eating or going to our desired destinations.

The child might become a brilliant scientist who benefits the mankind in many ways. Although, how many people accomplish that in reality? How likely is that to happen? Not likely at all in my opinion. I can't say that for sure, because I have no way of knowing, but if the current trends have any validity to them, then I think that decision has at least some merit over just saying "I don't know."
It hasn't. You can speculate as to what a child will become until the cows come home, but in the end, you won't know, and to say pro-choice gets the benefit of the doubt starts the debate all over again. Why not just kill that one guy from high school that became a junkie gas station attendant in the middle of nowhere? His future is far less prom- oh wait, I forgot. You approve of murder.

I'm not sure why people mostly feel a greater moral obligation and attachment toward human life but they are willing to indiscriminately destroy the lives of other species.

I think we've had the sanctity of genetical and familiar bonds hammered into our heads enough. Not all parents love their children. They may often feel like they have to love them, but they don't always come through in reality. Another big tripping stone in this discussion is what happens to the child after it is born.
Wanting people to live isn't the same as promising them that life will be perfect, or even pleasant for most of it. They say life is short, but there's more to experience in this world than familial relationships.

The mother could easily be abusive to the child - and I wouldn't blame her, if the child did effectively ruin her life. By which I mean, ruined her dreams, education, perspectives, relationships. It could have drove her to depression, misery, poor financial quality of life. Huge amounts of stress. She could blame and guilt the child its entire life, and it would end up just as miserable, depressed and will probably carry the scars for the rest of its life. A lot of time the childhood experiences can have long lasting detrimental effects on our lives.
There are other options besides raising the child yourself though. Not ideal, but certainly not worse than death or a life being ruined. Detrimental effects, maybe, but you'll still have a life.

I would say it's a lot different to have an abortion versus killing a human being of any age outside the womb, experientially as well as in terms of practical ramification.
Dictators can order the deaths of thousands without feeling remorse or exerting themselves. It isn't the experience, nor the method that makes it killing. It is ending a life.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#72
Sperm:alive:comes from a living thing
Egg:alive:comes from a living thing

Yup, even before conception, the baby is alive.

Cells are alive
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#73
Dictators can order the deaths of thousands without feeling remorse or exerting themselves. It isn't the experience, nor the method that makes it killing. It is ending a life.
Is a clump of non-conscious cells that is non-viable outside the womb (and having a 30% chance of natural abortion AKA miscarriage) the same as a baby, a toddler, or an adult with consciousness and accumulated experience?

That's the point of distinction you seem to be ignoring in this statement by opting for a blanket word like "kill".

Legally here in the states, the age of viability seems to be the definitive factor at which abortion is prohibited. There's a reason for that.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#74
Is a clump of non-conscious cells that is non-viable outside the womb (and having a 30% chance of natural abortion AKA miscarriage) the same as a baby, a toddler, or an adult with consciousness and accumulated experience?
Not the same, however not to be discarded. Unlike a fetus, a baby can survive outside the womb, but it's still dependent on its caregivers for everything but the air it breathes. This doesn't make it worthless, just undeveloped.

That's the point of distinction you seem to be ignoring in this statement by opting for a blanket word like "kill".

Legally here in the states, the age of viability seems to be the definitive factor at which abortion is prohibited. There's a reason for that.
What exactly do you mean by viability?
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#75
Not the same, however not to be discarded. Unlike a fetus, a baby can survive outside the womb, but it's still dependent on its caregivers for everything but the air it breathes. This doesn't make it worthless, just undeveloped.

What exactly do you mean by viability?
?

Any discussion of abortion has always involved the notion of viability -- the point in development at which a fetus be removed from the mother's womb and still have a chance for survival.

(Lung development is one of the typical factors, the lungs are not viable until after a certain point in development where they can inject the baby with steroids to strengthen them.)

Due to technological increases, the viability age has become increasingly earlier. In fact, I credit technology with increasing restrictions on abortion and public perceptions of abortion; when you can look at a fetus in the womb very early in development and when you can find out you are pregnant (and thus start picking names for your child) just a month in, people are usually wanting to restrict abortion rights.

The bulk of abortion laws in the USA (each state has their own) ban abortion after the 20-24 week mark.

Quick quote about Roe vs Wade:
One aspect of the legal abortion regime now in place has been determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the "life" of the fetus is its own (and therefore subject to being protected by the state). In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." When the court ruled in 1973, the then-current medical technology suggested that viability could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are a few weeks less than 24 weeks old to survive outside the mother's womb. These scientific achievements, while life-saving for premature babies, have made the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#76
?

Any discussion of abortion has always involved the notion of viability -- the point in development at which a fetus be removed from the mother's womb and still have a chance for survival.

(Lung development is one of the typical factors, the lungs are not viable until after a certain point in development where they can inject the baby with steroids to strengthen them.)

Due to technological increases, the viability age has become increasingly earlier. In fact, I credit technology with increasing restrictions on abortion and public perceptions of abortion; when you can look at a fetus in the womb very early in development and when you can find out you are pregnant (and thus start picking names for your child) just a month in, people are usually wanting to restrict abortion rights.

The bulk of abortion laws in the USA (each state has their own) ban abortion after the 20-24 week mark.
This is a good explanation of the concept of viability in a general sense as it relates to the abortion debate, however...

Legally here in the states, the age of viability seems to be the definitive factor at which abortion is prohibited. There's a reason for that.
...you still haven't explains how it excuses abortion, other than by reinforcing the notion that it's not murder if it doesn't feel like murder, which you've already expressed:

I would say it's a lot different to have an abortion versus killing a human being of any age outside the womb, experientially as well as in terms of practical ramification.
The problem with this is that there's more to a human life than how other people would feel about losing it. You've spoken at length about the state of abortion legality in the United States. I would argue that to illegalize it is consistent with the rest of your criminal justice system, which assumes that life has inherent value. Ultimately, they're not asking how an alleged murderer made other people feel, but whether he did it or not.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#77
...you still haven't explains how it excuses abortion, other than by reinforcing the notion that it's not murder if it doesn't feel like murder, which you've already expressed:
You have not explained yet why abortion should be considered "murder." that is an arbitrary choice on your part. Why should I provide you leverage by assuming it's a murder that I'm then expected to justify somehow?

There is no legal status for a clump of cells. It's not a viable autonomous individual. It owns no property. It has no friends or describable relationships with existing human beings (aside from assumptions made of its "family.") It has no describable personality. Any attachment to it is assumed on the part of the existing human being, versus actual tangible details that can be articulated objectively.

In that context, it comes down to the moral views of the people in a position to make the decision. Everything else is just assumptive.


The problem with this is that there's more to a human life than how other people would feel about losing it. You've spoken at length about the state of abortion legality in the United States. I would argue that to illegalize it is consistent with the rest of your criminal justice system, which assumes that life has inherent value. Ultimately, they're not asking how an alleged murderer made other people feel, but whether he did it or not.
Our system protects legal entities and/or recognized viable individuals.
 

Lot

Don't forget to bring a towel
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,246
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
#78
If I think I should have the right to kill someone for threatening my life, then it would be hypocritical for me to not let a woman kill someone that is threatening their life.

:elephant:
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#79
You have not explained yet why abortion should be considered "murder." that is an arbitrary choice on your part. Why should I provide you leverage by assuming it's a murder that I'm then expected to justify somehow?
If it pleases you, ignore the instances of my calling it murder. That's just my opinion. Abortion is killing, and I believe it to be unjustified, therefore I consider it to be unjustified killing. Not strictly speaking murder, but you get the idea. If you want an explanation as to why I feel this way, look no further than my mammoth post above. My main points were that it was arrogant to deny life, and the organism having no awareness, intelligence, personality, etc. instantaneously does not make it okay to preclude the development that will bring those things about.

There is no legal status for a clump of cells. It's not a viable autonomous individual. It owns no property. It has no friends or describable relationships with existing human beings (aside from assumptions made of its "family.") It has no describable personality. Any attachment to it is assumed on the part of the existing human being, versus actual tangible details that can be articulated objectively.

In that context, it comes down to the moral views of the people in a position to make the decision. Everything else is just assumptive.

Our system protects legal entities and/or recognized viable individuals.
We are all clumps of cells, albeit larger and more complex ;)

Why is family in quotation marks? A baby isn't some tumor or other affliction acquired through sexual intercourse, it is a human being in the making. it's undivorceable from the genetic union that brought it about, yet this unique nature makes it human, and demands that we respect its right to life, if we can respect our own. Its dependence and inability to appreciate its surroundings and defend itself invoke responsibility, not act as an excuse to extinguish its life in order to avoid the pain of rearing it. I need only look upon my younger brother as he stands on his own two feet (with considerable support of all kinds from his family, which would call into question how "viable" he really is) and demonstrates his burgeoning critical thinking skills, of which there were no signs in his infancy, to see the horror that is abortion.

Sure, property and autonomy are things you can describe objectively. What you can't describe objectively is why we should give a damn about them, because that deals with personal value. Children are valuable as well, because they are persons, just not now. You would curse the time traveller who went back in time and killed your infant self*. The child's property and autonomy can be summed up in one word: future, which pro-choicers disregard for its unquantifiability, but is nonetheless a frequent focus of restitutive justice, though that is inapplicable in the case of abortion, or murder for that matter, at least to the victim.

*At least, until you remembered that you wouldn't be there to curse him if he were truly able to carry out the act.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#80
If it pleases you, ignore the instances of my calling it murder. That's just my opinion. Abortion is killing, and I believe it to be unjustified, therefore I consider it to be unjustified killing. Not strictly speaking murder, but you get the idea. If you want an explanation as to why I feel this way, look no further than my mammoth post above. My main points were that it was arrogant to deny life, and the organism having no awareness, intelligence, personality, etc. instantaneously does not make it okay to preclude the development that will bring those things about.
Whatever. You're free to make up your beliefs as you wish.


We are all clumps of cells, albeit larger and more complex ;)
Many things are clumps of cells, but we still distinguish between them.

Why is family in quotation marks?
Because it's not yet a "baby." It has no actual relationship that can be realistically described, as I've said. it's a bunch of floating cells that cannot communicate and isn't even conscious.

A baby isn't some tumor or other affliction acquired through sexual intercourse, it is a human being in the making. it's undivorceable from the genetic union that brought it about, yet this unique nature makes it human, and demands that we respect its right to life, if we can respect our own. Its dependence and inability to appreciate its surroundings and defend itself invoke responsibility, not act as an excuse to extinguish its life in order to avoid the pain of rearing it. I need only look upon my younger brother as he stands on his own two feet (with considerable support of all kinds from his family, which would call into question how "viable" he really is) and demonstrates his burgeoning critical thinking skills, of which there were no signs in his infancy, to see the horror that is abortion.
We're not talking about a baby. We're talking about either a zygote, or a fetus, or an embryo. "Baby" is the term used when it is no longer within the womb. This is a distinction I am capable of drawing, whereas to you it seems to be all one and the same. I've explained where some of the distinctions between these things are, but you seem to not accept them as valid, so... what is there to discuss?

Sure, property and autonomy are things you can describe objectively. What you can't describe objectively is why we should give a damn about them, because that deals with personal value. Children are valuable as well, because they are persons, just not now. You would curse the time traveller who went back in time and killed your infant self*. The child's property and autonomy can be summed up in one word: future, which pro-choicers disregard for its unquantifiability, but is nonetheless a frequent focus of restitutive justice, though that is inapplicable in the case of abortion, or murder for that matter, at least to the victim.

*At least, until you remembered that you wouldn't be there to curse him if he were truly able to carry out the act.
Enforceable laws demand quantification so that such laws can be applied. This is why these laws currently exist as they do; you need a legal entity in order to have it legally violated in some way. I seem to be discussing the law in practical definable terms, where it seems like you are focused more on ethics.... but ethics are subjectively driven and if you don't share the same assumptions with someone, can you come to an agreement over ethics?

I mean, my personal values is that I see abortion as something that should be rare -- it's invasive and better ways to avoid having children. However, realistically, I can imagine scenarios where it might be the lesser evil.... and that depends on the specifics of the situation. I'm not highly motivated to defend the POV you seem wanting to hoist on me, I just don't see it as murder in every situation -- it's in a gray area up to a certain point of gestation, that's all, so I'm wary of it without blanketly condemning it -- and yet I see you as equating a blastula with a human adult, which might be overstepping what can be assumed.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#81
If I think I should have the right to kill someone for threatening my life, then it would be hypocritical for me to not let a woman kill someone that is threatening their life.

:elephant:
The question is, how would you kill them? Would you crush their skull with something that looks like a torture device? :p
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,153
Location
US of A
#82
If I think I should have the right to kill someone for threatening my life, then it would be hypocritical for me to not let a woman kill someone that is threatening their life.

:elephant:
A person who would disagree with you would be considered a radical pro-lifer. Most Pro-lifers would accept abortion under such circumstances.
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,325
#83
Abortion is murder, sure. People kill a lot of things. Microbes when they get sick and clean, animals for food, sport and science and ultimately kill each other. They also decimate entire species and wreak havoc on habitats and ecosystems.

Ultimately it's about what we value more. We kill animals because we value the enjoyment of meat. We kill them because we value having safe and effective medication. We kill other people because we have an emotional, values based stake in it (war, self defense, passion crimes) or because they are in the way (organised crime, theft etc) We abort fetuses because they endanger our present way of life, our health and because they are unwanted or because the parents are not financially solvent.

Unwanted children do not live happy lives. Orphanages are not happy places and bad parents have ruined many lives. Don't underestimate the profound effect the immediate environment and family have on children. I support abortion from a position of practical compassion. Abuse, lack of love and parental rejection and abandonment and in my opinion worse than abortion.

People who are adamantly pro-life in cases where a child is unwanted or the parents to be are poor should perhaps take on the burden of raising these children to fully comprehend the plight of the women to whom they moralize.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#84
So Fukyo, are you saying if you can't be happy it is better not to live?
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#85
Because it's not yet a "baby." It has no actual relationship that can be realistically described, as I've said. it's a bunch of floating cells that cannot communicate and isn't even conscious.
It has an immediate relationship with its mother, in which it is a passive participant ;)

We're not talking about a baby. We're talking about either a zygote, or a fetus, or an embryo. "Baby" is the term used when it is no longer within the womb. This is a distinction I am capable of drawing, whereas to you it seems to be all one and the same. I've explained where some of the distinctions between these things are, but you seem to not accept them as valid, so... what is there to discuss?
You're right. I should have applied the right terminology in the beginning, but it remains that development is continuous from the womb to wherever one may be, so to think of the embryo purely in terms of its instantaneous state is a mistake.

Enforceable laws demand quantification so that such laws can be applied. This is why these laws currently exist as they do; you need a legal entity in order to have it legally violated in some way. I seem to be discussing the law in practical definable terms, where it seems like you are focused more on ethics.... but ethics are subjectively driven and if you don't share the same assumptions with someone, can you come to an agreement over ethics?
Quantity advises judgement where an offense has been committed (ex. 2 abortions is more than 1), whereas ethics come into play when determining what an offense is in the first place (ex. abortion is wrong, since it deprives human fetuses of life, therefore instances should be punished, future instances deterred). Since I'm arguing that abortion should be seen as an offense (as others argue that it should not), it's only natural that I argue from the point of view of ethics. Practically, it's a question of whether fetuses are entitled to human rights, and the protection thereof. If the answer is no because they can't actively participate in life, nor developed any attachments to the outside world, due to conditions out of their control that naturally resolve themselves, I believe that society's definition of "human" is incomplete. (shrug)

I mean, my personal values is that I see abortion as something that should be rare -- it's invasive and better ways to avoid having children. However, realistically, I can imagine scenarios where it might be the lesser evil.... and that depends on the specifics of the situation. I'm not highly motivated to defend the POV you seem wanting to hoist on me, I just don't see it as murder in every situation -- it's in a gray area up to a certain point of gestation, that's all, so I'm wary of it without blanketly condemning it -- and yet I see you as equating a blastula with a human adult, which might be overstepping what can be assumed.
I'm not equating the two, but they are inextricably connected because even with a blastula, conception has already taken place, and the DNA from each person has been combined to form a new organism with an established phenotype throughout each developmental stage, cradle (or embryo, as the case may be) to coffin.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#86
Abortion is murder, sure. People kill a lot of things. Microbes when they get sick and clean, animals for food, sport and science and ultimately kill each other. They also decimate entire species and wreak havoc on habitats and ecosystems.

Ultimately it's about what we value more. We kill animals because we value the enjoyment of meat. We kill them because we value having safe and effective medication. We kill other people because we have an emotional, values based stake in it (war, self defense, passion crimes) or because they are in the way (organised crime, theft etc) We abort fetuses because they endanger our present way of life, our health and because they are unwanted or because the parents are not financially solvent.
Yes...

Unwanted children do not live happy lives. Orphanages are not happy places and bad parents have ruined many lives. Don't underestimate the profound effect the immediate environment and family have on children. I support abortion from a position of practical compassion. Abuse, lack of love and parental rejection and abandonment and in my opinion worse than abortion.

People who are adamantly pro-life in cases where a child is unwanted or the parents to be are poor should perhaps take on the burden of raising these children to fully comprehend the plight of the women to whom they moralize.
So now we're killing to "save" people from living hard lives? That's a dubious motive for suicide*, let alone abortion. At least with suicide, the agent is the one who gets screwed by acting on this sort of ersatz excuse for morality. Abuse and abandonment are issues that can be worked through or risen above. Death isn't. People are more than the nothingness they'd leave if all trace of them were erased, if not to you, than to someone else.

*Most of the time.
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,325
#87
The thing is there is nobody to get screwed. It is not as though we are talking about killing an individual of age who has a stake in living and an attachment to their life. The child in question is a bundle of cells lacking sentience and awareness. It does not get screwed out of anything as it has not experienced life in the way that sentience allows them and it can feel no loss.
 

Lot

Don't forget to bring a towel
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,246
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
#88
The question is, how would you kill them? Would you crush their skull with something that looks like a torture device? :p
Whatever is necessary, but the preferred method would be quick and clean. Not dismembering them and removing them piece by piece. But what ever. People will do what ever debauchery they want to do.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#89
Whatever is necessary, but the preferred method would be quick and clean. Not dismembering them and removing them piece by piece. But what ever. People will do what ever debauchery they want to do.
Can't thank you enough for indulging me.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#90
The thing is there is nobody to get screwed. It is not as though we are talking about killing an individual of age who has a stake in living and an attachment to their life. The child in question is a bundle of cells lacking sentience and awareness. It does not get screwed out of anything as it has not experienced life in the way that sentience allows them and it can feel no loss.
Why do we have to be so biased in favor of the past when judging these things? It will, has and is experiencing life in the future, provided you don't flush its pre-natal state down the drain. Who gives a damn what grammar and the fundamentally limited mechanisms of memory have to say about it. Past, present, and future are all 3D cross sections of a 4D continuum anyway. Beings from the reverse-universe (our universe, viewed with a future bias), where cause is our effect would probably see us as billions of life forms rising from the grave, shrinking down, and then stuffing ourselves inside each other until there was barely anyone left, all the while forgetting everything we know, and never learning anything new. Who even cares? :mad:

And yes, I will state this theory as if it were fact, despite its lacking experimental support, and allow my confirmation bias to tie up the loose ends. Basically, act like a pseudoscientist. If I can't do that on INTPf, I don't know where I can.

Seriously though, there are good things to be experienced in life, common and numerous enough that I don't consider abortion to be an act of mercy. I'm not sure what else to say.
 

Aviator8

I'm sorry.......Geronimo
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
36
Location
This meaningless rock
#91
It all boils down to the definition of life. If we went to Mars in the next few decades, and found life there, we would keep it. Why? Scientific reasons. However, if we found it to be intelligent, or capable of being intelligent, we would not experiment on it, but let it grow to potential, even at the burden of the astronaut, even to the point of extensive pain because he signed up for the joy of the mission. He might not have expected the consequences, nor done what they did had they known, but they need to bring the life home. While they can terminate the life against orders, they had the choice, and we have the choice as the nation who sent them to say wether it is acceptable or not.

The other scenario is that we value the astronaut over whatever benefits or diseases the alien might be able to share *imagine a uncontainable time born virus* as a people we have that choice, but we would consider it wrong to kill the alien.

The main difference between aliens and fetuses (to the common people, when drawing this distinction) is the novelty of a new kind of life, or one already present.

I might be taking this tithe absurd, but when we decide to kill a new life before it is formed, we make the same value judgement.

There is no contract signed between the alien and the astronaut, but between the country and the astronaut the astronaut has decided to follow the law and order he is charged with.

Abortion as it is legally concerned is what we *the voters* ask the government to force upon the astronauts *the women* to do. Since we are evenly split, and indecisive, (according to the previously posted wiki article, two thirds are pro life) we should not pay for one side or the other to be favored.


*ps. I'm not a feminist, every citizen has to pay taxes and subject themselves to the law, not just women. Nor does this issue encompass only females, but all people directly or indirectly involved. Personally I would do my best to keep the life, knowing that even thought I value my own very little, this life is new, and should have the ability to be autonomous. If I deemed myself pro choice it would be equally his/her choice as it was mine, and I already made mine.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Canada
#92
Hmm, I certainly acted antagonistically in this thread. Maybe I was too close to the issue. Maybe I still am. At any rate, a year later I'm pro-choice because the practise of abortion does in fact reduce suffering. I suppose the last vestiges of the belief in "souls" have left my body...or something.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,650
#93
Hmm, I certainly acted antagonistically in this thread. Maybe I was too close to the issue. Maybe I still am. At any rate, a year later I'm pro-choice because the practise of abortion does in fact reduce suffering. I suppose the last vestiges of the belief in "souls" have left my body...or something.
What a shame. You really got going there for a while:

Who gives a damn what grammar and the fundamentally limited mechanisms of memory have to say about it. Past, present, and future are all 3D cross sections of a 4D continuum anyway.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,124
Location
someplace windswept
#94
Who gives a damn what grammar and the fundamentally limited mechanisms of memory have to say about it. Past, present, and future are all 3D cross sections of a 4D continuum anyway. Beings from the reverse-universe (our universe, viewed with a future bias),
Pro-life, cos' tralfamadorians would think so...lol. Amazing mental masturbation. Porn rating 9/10.

Better not violate our treaty with tralfamadore, they'd be pissed.
 

higs

My word is my bond.
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,693
Location
Armchair
#95
No uterus with potential embryo in it no say in the matter. Sorry. Piss off. Not your body.

Yeah I know it's a shit argument but seriously, I mean it. Go away. Or wear condoms.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,650
#96
No uterus with potential embryo in it no say in the matter. Sorry. Piss off. Not your body.

Yeah I know it's a shit argument but seriously, I mean it. Go away. Or wear condoms.
Maybe you try wearing condoms and see how "easy" it is.
 

higs

My word is my bond.
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,693
Location
Armchair
#97
More easy than abortion tho

But yeah I know they are not nice, for either party :o
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,153
Location
US of A
#98
The problem I have with abortion is that another organism is paying for the lack of responsibility of the original organism. A responsible couple who does it right has a 2% chance of pregnancy while most people have a 50% chance of an unwanted pregnancy. It is frustrating that both men and women can be so irresponsible.

I dont think a zygote is a living organism but somewhere along the way it becomes one before it leaves the uterus. Since we cannot fully know when that is, the only reasonable thing to do is to define by it's potential for having feelings and thoughts and experiences. This means having developed some form of a brain.

Preferably we would fine the mother and father of an abortion at a rate that starts at 1 month and increases for every day past that. The money would go to offset adoption costs.
 

Tannhauser

angry insecure male
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
1,470
#99
The problem I have with abortion is that another organism is paying for the lack of responsibility of the original organism. A responsible couple who does it right has a 2% chance of pregnancy while most people have a 50% chance of an unwanted pregnancy. It is frustrating that both men and women can be so irresponsible.

I dont think a zygote is a living organism but somewhere along the way it becomes one before it leaves the uterus. Since we cannot fully know when that is, the only reasonable thing to do is to define by it's potential for having feelings and thoughts and experiences. This means having developed some form of a brain.

Preferably we would fine the mother and father of an abortion at a rate that starts at 1 month and increases for every day past that. The money would go to offset adoption costs.
Does this also mean that there should be a smaller penalty for killing an 8-year old kid than a 80-year old person? Or is it the other way around.

And does it also mean that killing blind person should be less harshly penalized than killing a person with vision? After all, the blind person has less potential for experience.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,153
Location
US of A
Does this also mean that there should be a smaller penalty for killing an 8-year old kid than a 80-year old person? Or is it the other way around.

And does it also mean that killing blind person should be less harshly penalized than killing a person with vision? After all, the blind person has less potential for experience.
That is a false analogy.

It isn't about the level of experience and development but about whether or not it can experience at all.

It is the equivalent of taking a brain dead patient off life support. Such a person isn't really alive although some of their organs are functioning.

In the beginning of a fetus' development it isn't really alive. Potentially, when it's brain starts to form at 1 month the chance of it being alive increases. There is no certainty of the exact date in which the fetus is known to have thoughts, experiences, and feelings. We know a blind person, old person, and an 8 year old child have thoughts, experiences, and feelings.
 
Top Bottom