Are you Pro choice or Pro Life?

[Thurlor]

Whilst I realise anecdote doesn't equal data, I have never met anyone who wishes they had been aborted. I know victims of abuse, poverty and disease and none of them want to have been aborted.

 

[Sinny91]

Well, here's someone, so shove that in your data.

 

[smithcommajohn]

Whilst I realise anecdote doesn't equal data, I have never met anyone who wishes they had been aborted. I know victims of abuse, poverty and disease and none of them want to have been aborted.

Well, here's someone, so shove that in your data.

Shit just got real. *backs the fuck off*

 

[Sinny91]

Does John have anything of value to add the discussion? One wonder's...

 

[smithcommajohn]

Does John have anything of value to add the discussion? One wonder's...

I love you, Sinny. <3 Plus abortion sucks. Literally, sometimes.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I used to think anarchy and indoctrination were an oxymoron until I met sinny.

lol

Whilst I realise anecdote doesn't equal data, I have never met anyone who wishes they had been aborted. I know victims of abuse, poverty and disease and none of them want to have been aborted.

Suicidal people?

If you think about it, suicide is just delayed self-abortion.

 

[smithcommajohn]

If you think about it, suicide is just delayed self-abortion.

Ok, that one just made it into my sig

 

[Fukyo]

Well, here's someone, so shove that in your data.

Can you talk to people who disagree with you in a less emotionally charged, coarse language laden way?

If the issue bothers you (and I realize it is a sensitive subject matter) and you can't converse without hostilities it'd be best to disengage.

 

[TBerg]

Well, here's someone, so shove that in your data.

I have become too acquainted with thoughts that I am a Darwinian mistake, but let us learn to turn rotten grapes into wine.

 

[dang]

Pro-choice. I find pro-lifers to be hypocritical. How many non-religious pro-lifers are there anyway? Probably not many. And for the record, I support physician assisted suicide as well.

 

[redbaron]

Whilst I realise anecdote doesn't equal data, I have never met anyone who wishes they had been aborted. I know victims of abuse, poverty and disease and none of them want to have been aborted.

People who've attempted suicide maybe?

Also, "I wish I'd been aborted" is probably not a phrase that comes up with regularity and even if you asked people it's likely a lot of them wouldn't admit to it for a number of reasons.

 

[dang]

People who've attempted suicide maybe?

Also, "I wish I'd been aborted" is probably not a phrase that comes up with regularity and even if you asked people it's likely a lot of them wouldn't admit to it for a number of reasons.

True.

 

[Tannhauser]

Whilst I realise anecdote doesn't equal data, I have never met anyone who wishes they had been aborted. I know victims of abuse, poverty and disease and none of them want to have been aborted.

Has an unborn individual ever complained about not having been born? I know I would be very indifferent to whether I was aborted or not, because if I would be aborted, I would never be there to have feelings about it.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

If you think about it, suicide is just delayed self-abortion.

People who've attempted suicide maybe?

Geez, redbaron, have an original thought once in a while

Edit: But seriously, yeah, the phrase "I wish I'd never been born" is common enough that there was a whole movie based on the premise (fuck you, jenny, it's a classic).

 

[smithcommajohn]

Geez, redbaron, have an original thought once in a while

Edit: But seriously, yeah, the phrase "I wish I'd never been born" is common enough that there was a whole movie based on the premise (fuck you, jenny, it's a classic).

I was really hoping that linked to The Butterfly Effect. Remember that one?

Spoiler

Dude aborts himself as a fetus! That's just badass!

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I was really hoping that linked to The Butterfly Effect. Remember that one?

Spoiler

Dude aborts himself as a fetus! That's just badass!

I actually haven't seen that.

I saw like the first minute of it once while flipping channels, but then I think I had to go somewhere so I had to turn it off.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Fifty-years-ago, the United States created the most powerful weapon of all time, capable of destroying not just the Earth, but the entire Universe - then managed to lose it. Now, it's been found, by a thirteen-year-old boy, named Alex Graham, who decides to sell it on eBay.

- Chaos Theory, by Colin J Robertson

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Pro x/y, it shouldn't at all be a discussion. There's no way a woman can be forced to continue the pregnancy without ignoring her freedom.

People who think they have any right to participate in any decision pertaining another person (unless requested by said person) are deluded and greedy. The thinking about humans as objects, subjects of laws or commodities to stimulate economic/communal growth should be put to an end.

The highest priority should be given to the individual right to self-governance, all other laws and rights are subordinate to it.

Same should apply to freedom to commit suicide/euthanasia (in a way that doesn't harm or threaten others).

 

[Seteleechete]

Pro x/y, it shouldn't at all be a discussion. There's no way a woman can be forced to continue the pregnancy without ignoring her freedom.

(in a way that doesn't harm or threaten others).

But the thing is most anti-abortion arguments isn't about freedom or depriving it but about protection of human life(with the assumption that the fetus is alive or could be "potentially alive").

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

But the thing is most pro-abortion arguments isn't about freedom or depriving it but about protection of human life(with the assumption that the fetus is alive or could be "potentially alive").

You mean anti-abortion?

On the surface they aren't, but the basis for their worldview is that they believe they can dictate what others can and can't do with themselves, which violates individual right for self-governance.

What I meant to say that this can't really be discussed, it would then mean that individual freedom of decision has become a subject of debate of whether it should exist or not.

 

[Jennywocky]

I was really hoping that linked to The Butterfly Effect. Remember that one?

Yeah, the theatrical release was kind of a dud, but the alternate ending you described in your spoiler (for the director's cut) is pretty much the major selling point that makes it worth a watch especially if you don't know it's coming. That was freaking ballsy, I wish they would have just gone with that from the start. It tied in with various points in the movie in terms of explaining some particular history.

 

[Grayman]

But the thing is most pro-abortion arguments isn't about freedom or depriving it but about protection of human life(with the assumption that the fetus is alive or could be "potentially alive").

This.

If you see it as a human life it is like giving someone the right to kill their child because they dont want to go through the effort of feeding it and carrying it around.

 

[Grayman]

But the thing is most pro-abortion arguments isn't about freedom or depriving it but about protection of human life(with the assumption that the fetus is alive or could be "potentially alive").

You mean anti-abortion?

On the surface they aren't, but the basis for their worldview is that they believe they can dictate what others can and can't do with themselves, which violates individual right for self-governance.

What I meant to say that this can't really be discussed, it would then mean that individual freedom of decision has become a subject of debate of whether it should exist or not.

There is no such thing as freedom of the individual. It is all a compromise. The best we can hope for is equality in rights and privilege.

 

[Cipher]

I am categorically pro choice. The reason is simple: I have not seen a compelling argument for why a foetus, that is, a collection of cells to-be-a-human, should be the equivalent of a grown, sentient, conscious human being.

This, obviously. Isn't that just common sense?

These instincts are deep and biological and are not obstructed or destroyed by ideas and concepts of the mind.

Uh, I thought this was an INTP Forum.

A lump in your uterus isn't sacred. You know what's sacred? Parenting. Shitty parenting hurts us all way worse than abortion.

Also this.

I don't get the fuss. There's no meaningful difference between destroying an embryo and not creating it in the first place.
Birth control is murder!

 

[Grayman]

This, obviously. Isn't that just common sense?

Uh, I thought this was an INTP Forum.

Also this.

I don't get the fuss. There's no meaningful difference between destroying an embryo and not creating it in the first place.
Birth control is murder!

I forgot, INTPs dont deeply rooted biological instinct or emotions. My bad.

 

[Cipher]

They just tend to question them for the sake of sanity.
Sanity that's needed to make good ethical decisions.

 

[Grayman]

They just tend to question them for the sake of sanity.
Sanity that's needed to make good ethical decisions.

Bah. Sanity is a load of crock.

 

[Cipher]

To reject your humanity is sanity?

I'd argue so, but that doesn't even matter.

Ethical decisions are best taken rationally. That's f'ing common sense, too.
Emotions don't add anything of value to a consideration, they just bias it in arbitrary ways.

Edit: Nah, it isn't.

 

[Grayman]

I'd argue so, but that doesn't even matter.

Ethical decisions are best taken rationally. That's f'ing common sense, too.
Emotions don't add anything of value to a consideration, they just bias it in arbitrary ways.

Edit: Nah, it isn't.

Nothing in my original statement was directed at INTPs.

If emotions are irrational it is because your perceptions are. They are important indicators.

The chicken or the egg.

 

[Seteleechete]

Grayman, you seem to be arguing that being emotionally invested in the delusion that a fetus is sentinent (because subjective emotional investment is the only argument you are giving to support that thesis), is somehow sufficient reason to support it...

Irrational emotional investment should never be the main reason to support a stance, that's how rational decision making stops happening.

 

[smithcommajohn]

Yeah, the theatrical release was kind of a dud, but the alternate ending you described in your spoiler (for the director's cut) is pretty much the major selling point that makes it worth a watch especially if you don't know it's coming. That was freaking ballsy, I wish they would have just gone with that from the start. It tied in with various points in the movie in terms of explaining some particular history.

Oh, you're right! It's been too many years since I watched it to remember that was an alternate ending. It's the only ending I remember, so, obviously, it was the best.

 

[Grayman]

Grayman, you seem to be arguing that being emotionally invested in the delusion that a fetus is sentinent (because subjective emotional investment is the only argument you are giving to support that thesis), is somehow sufficient reason to support it...

Irrational emotional investment should never be the main reason to support a stance, that's how rational decision making stops happening.

I presented an observation without judgement or meaning. It isn't an ethical argument so much as a statement of what is.


But if you believe sentience is the factor that defines whether it is ethical then killing a child that is born is as ethical as destroying a fetus.

 

[Seteleechete]

I presented an observation without judgement or meaning. It isn't an ethical argument so much as a statement of what is.


But if you believe sentience is the factor that defines whether it is ethical then killing a child that is born is as ethical as destroying a fetus.

Then I misinterpreted what you said.

On a side note I do hold that view to a degree, if I consider a fetus 0% sentinent I would consider something like 40 months maybe 5% and a newborn 30%(or about the same as a monkey, smart dog or dolphin). Though there is no point in killing any of those smarter animals without at least a semi decent reason.

(The numbers are poor estimates and shouldn't be considered as representative in the later cases).

 

[Grayman]

20 weeks => potential to feel pain

24 - 28 weeks of gestation => Biological Potential for awareness
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

Sometime before 1 year after birth => awareness

 

[Minuend]

I guess I recently wrote about this in another thread, but I'd say consciousness isn't an on/ off button per se, it's more of a gradual and changing thing. A 1 year old baby is less consciousness than a child, and a child is less conscious than an adult. And even consciousness between adults are not identical or to the same degree

Actually, I'll just link this again

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/k_ZTNmkIiBc

Anyway. I guess it wont be relevant much longer because technology, but I'd even go along with allowing euthanasia of babies if they had debilitating diseases or similar.

I don't see a reason to not being allowed to abort a fetus. I don't think human life has value in itself, I guess (if one argues that as a point for not being allowed to abort).

 

[smithcommajohn]

Good grief. Leave it to Minuend to post a video that is essentially the length of a movie.

 

[Minuend]

When you start listening, it's going to suck you in so it will only feel like 10 minutes ~

 

[Grayman]

I guess I recently wrote about this in another thread, but I'd say consciousness isn't an on/ off button per se, it's more of a gradual and changing thing. A 1 year old baby is less consciousness than a child, and a child is less conscious than an adult. And even consciousness between adults are not identical or to the same degree

Before I watch the video...

I view awareness as the definitive point in which creature (or machine) can identify itself as separate from it's environment or other creatures.

Identity is the developed (self Image) and how it relates to it's environment.

A more intelligent being can have a more complex identity and a more complex understanding of its environment. Essentially, since the environment is the reference point of ones identity it makes sense that your ability to perceive, sense, and understand the environment and those around you is what makes your own identity more complex.

Consciousness to me is the full process of developing identity through the use of senses functions thoughts and feelings. It is also the process of altering your thought process and feelings by being aware of them.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Why choose one or the other? Isn't having the choice between the two what really matters. Where's the equality?

(It's psy- ops to distract you from them making you lazy)

 

[smithcommajohn]

When you start listening, it's going to suck you in so it will only feel like 10 minutes ~

More than 10, but less than 94. It was a really good video. Thank you for sharing!

 

[Minuend]

Consciousness to me is the full process of developing identity through the use of senses functions thoughts and feelings. It is also the process of altering your thought process and feelings by being aware of them.

I've redefined how I perceive consciousnesses. I see it something like the "sum of the signals" in a system. Which is probably a very bad verbal representation of the abstract image I have in my mind. It includes plants, animals, insects and so on. You could also say there are conscious systems within a conscious system. Insects have a consciousnesses in this regard, they fly around (not all of them obv), procreate, fight and die, but their consciousnesses is not the same as an adult human or a dog. They have different bodies and the "sum of their signals" is something very different from a human. Even between two humans it's not identical.

Well, it wasn't meant as an argument in itself, just a side note since I had recently been thinking about it. Even if children spawned aware in their mother's bellies, I'd still be pro-abortion. It's the path of least suffering as I see it. Else you end up with more children growing up with hereditary diseases, broken homes, uncaring families etc. I've seen too much suffering to think life is always the better option, and I've seen too much shit in humans to think all life is sacred.

Also, I guess we can't force someone to use their body to save/ maintain a life. I mean, we're not allowed to force a a person to donate organs to another to save its life. You can't even use the organs of the dead to save someone living without some permission. In that regard it seems odd to me that we should be able to force someone to sustain that in their bellies for 9 months so it could live on its own.

 

[Rook]

Also, I guess we can't force someone to use their body to save/ maintain a life. I mean, we're not allowed to force a a person to donate organs to another to save its life. You can't even use the organs of the dead to save someone living without some permission. In that regard it seems odd to me that we should be able to force someone to sustain that in their bellies for 9 months so it could live on its own.

Pretty much this. Abortion has been with humanity throughout recorded history, at least since the Greco-Roman period.

If there's a will there's a way, pregnant humans who truly wish to abort will find other humans who are willing to do so, whatever their motivation may be.

Even with abortion legal in South-Africa(challenged once, ConCourt ruled constitutional rights do not apply to fetuses), when you walk in a town or city many of the streetlamps/electrical line poles are plastered with posters offering abortion, usually by those unqualified to do the procedure. (not sure about proficiency, seeing as they do advertise in abundance I would guess they are at least proficient for the purposes of business)

Whether abortion is 'moral' or not is beside the point, chances are it will always be part of the human existence, in some form or another. Making it illegal has the same effects as the banning of drugs or alcohol: a general decrease in quality of service due to no regulatory frameworks, and a new form of black market that does not aid the state.

 

[Thurlor]

Worse than black market or back alley abortions (in some regards) are self performed abortions.

Without going too far into the details (because I don't know them), my grandmother and two of her sisters-in-law carried out abortions on themselves using knitting needles. In the case of my grandmother and one of my great aunts it was apparently a case of not being able to support another mouth to feed. For the other great aunt it was due to the fact that she was married to a violently abusive man who maintained that he could only father sons and if his wife ever gave birth to a girl he would know she had cheated on him and he would kill her and the baby. Needless to say she took him seriously.

I'm not sure where I am going with this. Just pointing out that some women will always have a need to receive an abortion and if they are illegal or difficult to obtain then said women will be forced to resort to more dangerous methods.

 

[Grayman]

Back alley abortions are more a consequence of lack of support and a failure of society to build awareness of the available options. Abortion is one option but not the only one.

 

[Grayman]

This sums up my views on pro-life pretty well:
[bIMGx=350]http://i.imgur.com/ofuZJUX.jpg[/bIMGx]

"Pro-life" is a misnomer. The majority of people who are 'pro-life' are coming from religious values or political line-toeing and don't necessarily care about the welfare of the baby, mother or family in general; they just wish to control others and that is not pro life at all. The minority of them are bleeding hearts who just don't feel comfortable about aborting human life. If you are truly pro-life you should also be supporting things like easy access to sex education, birth control, sti/std protection, clinic visits, and general monetary welfare for new parents, in addition to recognizing the fact that abortion can prevent the trend of single mothers and uneducated parents that become stuck in poverty and raise unproductive kids.
.

Your stance is rooted in ignorance or perhaps bigotry and hate. Christians play a large part in social welfare they just dont believe that the government should lead it or enforce it. How many christian adoption agencies are there? How many christian facilities help the homeless. Dont have food? Go to a church and see if they turn you away. Get off your high horse.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Your stance is rooted in ignorance or perhaps bigotry and hate. Christians play a large part in social welfare they just dont believe that the government should lead it or enforce it. How many christian adoption agencies are there? How many christian facilities help the homeless. Dont have food? Go to a church and see if they turn you away. Get off your high horse.

Stop defending charities, especially religious ones. It's a huge scam similar to scientology. So what they feed the poor? Of course they can afford to look charitable when they have masses of clueless sheep donating money every sunday. It's not a big sacrifice to use 10%(an insignificant %) of their income to boost their PR by tending to the needy. Where else does the remaining money go one should ask, it goes to the priests pockets, it flows up in the hierarchy of redistribution, it's used to educate new generations of priests, indoctrinate new children with religion classes and sponsored activities, etc.

It's actually difficult to find transparent, efficient charities that aren't devouring majority of what they collect on wages, premiums or draining it out to private individuals via some kind of subcontractors.

What do you think happens with pregnant women who are forced to rely on church's help? At least where I live it's out of the question to abort and be accepted in the church community. News of such transgressions spread like wildfire in small villages, so women do consider what their future perspectives will look like once they offend 60% of the village people for example.
Most of the time they have to play the role of obedient followers and abide by the tenets of the charity or religious organisation they've been absorbed by. That is assuming they aren't already forced to do what their husbands and only providers tell them to do.

Even less charities think about long-term solutions for the people they tend to. Feeding seems fine, but what about increasing their self-sufficiency, will they feed them indefinitely? Of course they want to keep helping them as long as government subsidises it or cuts their taxes in return.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Close... I'm on a camel.

Spoiler

I didn't say anything about churches buddy (which would warrant a whole different discussion itself), seems like you're looking for a fight.

 

[Grayman]

Stop defending charities, especially religious ones. It's a huge scam similar to scientology. So what they feed the poor? Of course they can afford to look charitable when they have masses of clueless sheep donating money every sunday. It's not a big sacrifice to use 10%(an insignificant %) of their income to boost their PR by tending to the needy. Where else does the remaining money go one should ask, it goes to the priests pockets, it flows up in the hierarchy of redistribution, it's used to educate new generations of priests, indoctrinate new children with religion classes and sponsored activities, etc.

It's actually difficult to find transparent, efficient charities that aren't devouring majority of what they collect on wages, premiums or draining it out to private individuals via some kind of subcontractors.

What do you think happens with pregnant women who are forced to rely on church's help? At least where I live it's out of the question to abort and be accepted in the church community. News of such transgressions spread like wildfire in small villages, so women do consider what their future perspectives will look like once they offend 60% of the village people for example.
Most of the time they have to play the role of obedient followers and abide by the tenets of the charity or religious organisation they've been absorbed by. That is assuming they already aren't forced to do what their husbands and only providers tell them to do.

Even less charities think about long-term solutions of the people they tend to. Feeding seems fine, but what about increasing their self-sufficiency, will they feed them indefinitely? Of course they want to keep helping them as long as government subsidises it or cuts their taxes in return.

If you specify that an offering is for a specific purpose every church I know of has put it 100% to that purpose. The majority of the time people tithe without specification with the purpose of supporting the christian community because they find the social structure to be supportive and the message to be good. It seems that your experiences with a specific social structure have shaped your views in way that prevents you from seeing any value in it.

 

[Grayman]

Close... I'm on a camel.

Spoiler

I didn't say anything about churches buddy (which would warrant a whole different discussion itself), seems like you're looking for a fight.

Your argument was directed toward pro-lifers which you then acknowledge are mosly comming from religious views. You attempt to paint them as hypocrites and people who are out to control others. At first I assumed you were the one trying to pick a fight because your presentation seems so ludicrous and far from reality. Sure you can pick out a few who fit this mold but the vast majority who are truly religious Christians go to church and support the religious community. The ones who are more spokenly anti-abortion are people who have strong values and empathy toward children and responsibilities in that regard.

 

[Yellow]

Your stance is rooted in ignorance or perhaps bigotry and hate. Christians play a large part in social welfare they just dont believe that the government should lead it or enforce it. How many christian adoption agencies are there? How many christian facilities help the homeless. Dont have food? Go to a church and see if they turn you away. Get off your high horse.

I've spent many years working for secular charities, and working alongside religious ones. Most stay on their high horses the entire time. They have no problem treating the poor, huddled masses like piles of shit. They have no problem telling their own impoverished members (let alone nonmembers) to go fuck themselves because they're not worthy of help. Some go a step further and outright exploit those in need.

They get away with it because they're churches. They don't have to be accredited, licensed, or overseen by any objective entities, and they take full advantage of that fact.

Catholic Charities' signs might as well read, "Pregnant? Scared? Illiterate? Perfect. Just sign here."