First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Pregnant Mother’s are Hermaphrodites
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/9/09



When I was in second grade I was molested by a group of older boys. With that in mind, I understand very much what it’s like to have something bizarre, something foreign, and something life changing going on with your body against your will much better than you might imagine. You can’t immediately devalue my opinion because I’m a man. Now, maybe because I’ve never been pregnant, but you can apply that to women as well. Many women have never been pregnant, so how can they understand what it's like without having experienced it? Many women CAN'T become pregnant. Do they have no idea what they're talking about because of that?

And how can you say these women attaining abortions aren’t acting superior to somebody else? They’re pretending like their life is more important than their child’s life. Like their career is more important than their child’s life. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute 50% of all abortions being attained are being attained by women who’ve had one or more prior or abortions. In other words, half of the women attaining abortions will do it repeatedly. They’ll use it as a birth control.

Yes, you’re very right. There’s a lot going on in their mind. They’re in states of emotional panic. Still, in the case of late term abortions I give them the same measure of sympathy I would give any mother avulsing the limbs of and decapitating her newborn baby girl. That is, by the way, the standard procedure in an abortion. The fetus kicks, it claws, it even screams. The fetus’ heart begins to pound, it tries to escape but it is trapped. Any person, who for their career would sacrifice their child, who would subject their child to that kind of agonizing death….it’s hard to sympathize with them.

Yes, they’re in a state of emotional panic. Yet, so are ever so many murderers. Recently, there was a case here in which a young man murdered his ex-girlfriend. He himself was in a state of emotional panic and confusion. She’d broken up with him and in a moment of rage he’d made a poor choice. He’d hit her in the face. He was going to wind up in prison, and he was terrified of that. It would change his life. Even after his term in prison was up this man’s career was over. He was a college student, going to a branch campus of my university actually. In this state of confusion, heartbreak, hurt, anger, a sense of betrayal, and fear he panicked and beat her to death.

Do you sympathize with him? Do you think we should lovingly accept him back into our midst, to embrace him with love and compassion? I seriously doubt it. You probably think he should be punished for, of his own volition, choosing to extinguish the life of another precious human being.

So, I’ll say it again. Yes. I feel bad for these mothers. It’s terrible that anybody should ever face an unwanted pregnancy, even if they’re not a woman. Phillip, a boy I used to work with, is raising two children and he’s 18. One child is three and the other a newborn. He’s raising them alone, because the girl in question didn’t want children and he didn’t want to give his children up. So, he took them. How’s that more terrifying for her than him? How’re you going to generalize?

Yes, it’s horrifying. These women need some compassion, they need forgiveness, and they need everything human beings deserve. It’s our god given right, because we are human, it’s our intrinsic value. No sin can erase that. Yet, for all this, they deserve only so much compassion as that man who murdered his girlfriend…. Why do the women in your example deserve more compassion for extinguishing a life in a knee jerk reaction than the man in my example extinguishing a life in a knee jerk reaction? What makes them so special? They should be treated equally.

55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
59 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 10/9/09
I do not pretend to speak for every woman, nor do I choose to exhaust myself in thoughts & words with a self-righteous prig. I'm done here.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/9/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

What you said is pretty true about extremists in general, and is not at all limited to those who disagree with you. You’re simply ignoring, or at least neglecting, to acknowledge the extremists in favor of abortion because they’re on your side.


No, what I said only applies to pro-life extremists. They're the ones that should also be against war and desperately fighting for more foreign aid, and be willing to open their homes to homeless pregnant women and raise all the children properly, etc. Obviously there's serious problems with all extremists' thinking, but I was speaking specifically about them



Maybe it has slipped your mind, but until fairly recently it was the pro-choice extremists doing protesting and the harassing, and even today they continue. They all scream about women’s rights when discussing this issue, but how many of them have actually gone out and given money to the feminist cause? How many of these people have gone out to demonstrate against the limiting of women’s participation in military operations, or the gender gap in wage earnings? I dare say, only a very small minority amongst them.


I thought pro-life extremists were the ones murdering people and bombing clinics? I haven't seem much pro-choice "extremists." Who exactly do they harass?



Maybe you’re right, but from my perspective it looks more like you brought it up to avoid answering the actual argument. Whatever the case, trying to understand an issue has nothing to do with attacking the people who argue it. No, if you really wanted to understand the issue you would’ve asked a question about the issue, instead of attacking the people who fervently disagree with you. Even if you weren’t attacking everybody who’s against abortion, and clearly you were not, it was still an ad hominem dodge that has contributed nothing to understanding anything about abortion. Still, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and we can try to delineate and discuss the argument not the arguers. Attacking the extremists won’t accomplish anything except to divert our attention.


One of the first thing I said was your argument wasn't very meaningful, ok it's a human separate from the mother, but that doesn't really mean anything. So that was the response and then I went on explaining what was important concerning this issue.

Believe me, I wasn't trying to 'distract' anyone from anything, by explaining why their thinking is wrong it helps explain the whole issue, because they should be considering alot of other things if they hate abortion so much. They think it should simply be banned because it's murder, and that's all there is to it, and my point was there's alot more to it than that.




I disagree. I think that the issue is very simple. I think that we make it complex to cover up for a lack of argument, but let’s attack this like Socrates in the very same fashion that Peter Kreeft did with his book. By the way, I very much hope that you’re not including Peter in that ‘ignorant extremists,’ category. He’s really the polar opposite of ignorant, so much so that I would in fact say he’s my intellectual superior in every way imaginable. Coming from a walking ego like me, that’s high praise.


I don't know who Peter is. I sort of feel the same way about Noam Chomsky, but he's not even comparable to me, I just really look up to him. But of course, lots of people do, I think Time magazine said he was the most important intellectual in the world, and I agree with that.



Simply banning anything is a bad idea, from theft to murder and rape. You also have to find an effective way to enforce it, so we agree there. In most countries where abortion is illegal they don’t punish the women who attain abortions, they punish the doctors. That famous planned parenthood study stated ‘rather or not abortion is legal has little to do with a woman’s decision to attain an abortion,’ and of course that’s true because there’s no penalty for violating the ban for the woman. Why would they acknowledge a law that you’re not going to enforce upon them?


If it was illegal, the poor women are the ones who are going to suffer. All women will still be able to get them regardless, there's going to be people willing to do them illegally, or richer women can just go to another country and get it done. The poor women will do what they did in the past when abortion was illegal and tens of thousands will die from attempts at performing their own abortions. If we want to stop abortions, we can't just make it illegal, we should do something about the serious social issues that make so much women want to get abortions in the first place.





The issue here is human rights. Women’s rights are simply a sub-category of human rights. Why should we limit ourselves to looking at the twig but not the branch, the branch but not the tree? This minimalist scope is an attempt to keep the fetus out of the spotlight, but the fetus exists so it’s ignorant to ignore it. The only honest and educated way to look at this is a way that includes the existence of all items involved. That means the rights of the woman, yes, but also her respective child.

However, if we are going to narrow mindedly ignore human rights and only acknowledge women’s rights then you can call me an advocate for the rights of unborn women. Should we go a step further and ignore women’s rights as well as human rights and take this severely minimalistic scope of ONLY looking at the individual woman’s rights then I think abortion providers violate women’s rights every day by doing precisely what you’re doing-dismissing the status of a fetus. Planned Parenthood still uses the term ‘potential human being,’ but that’s false. Women have a right to INFORMED consent.


No, I meant the problem is why do women get into unplanned pregnancies and feel the need to get an abortion in the first place? Women are the ones who decide to get abortions, so they are the reason the issue even exists. I'm not ignoring the fetus, but I just see this issue it as more of a huge social issue (i.e. women's position in society) than just a simple moral and technical issue. People concentrate too much on the simple technicalities, the fetus is a person, killing it is wrong, and that's it? Well why would a women want to kill it in the first place and how did she get into that position?



I actually agree with you once again. That is to say, if we had to choose between banning abortion and educating women we should select the latter option. Luckily, we don’t live in this strangely demented world where the choices are mutually exclusive. You can choose to ban abortion and still provide women with education and health care. That’s the MOST logical approach.


Okay, that would bring abortions down a little. All the women who can afford it will get it done in other countries, and there will be alot of doctors performing illegal abortions (I wonder how they catch them). And of course tens of thousands of women will die horrible deaths. Seems like a horrible idea that only makes things worse.

Put yourself in the position of a poor girl/women who accidentally gets pregnant, and now she has to go through 9 months of pregnancy (which isn't pleasant), and then have this child which she can't properly support at all. In these kinds of situations, a women is ridiculously desperate to get an abortion and will stop at nothing to get it done, and I can't really blame them.

And of course you meant ban abortions, except for rape victims and women who's lives are threatened by the pregnancy.




Well, that’s another ad hominem attack. It’s also another way to avoid the argument. How can you answer a question if you never take it seriously? Still, you may be right. Yet, if we acknowledge that then we must accept something else. That if somebody doesn’t really care what the status of the fetus is, if it will feel pain when being decapitated and having its limbs ripped off, and is only seeing the issue as the equivalent of a woman aborting a parasitical growth, a part of her body, then they can’t be taken seriously. Why is it extremists on one side who ignore the mother are jokes but extremists on the other who say “Who cares if the fetus is human?” are progressive intellectuals?

Whatever the case, that’s irrelevant. After this post, and perhaps your response, can we pleas stop trying to attack the people and question the concepts?


Avoiding the argument? If you want me to put it in a way that you would understand better: You need to consider the women's situation and what situation the baby will be in after it's born. That's not irrelevant at all, I think you keep distracting yourself, I thought my point was very clear.

Like I said before, this issue is all about women's rights and their place in society, why do they get put in positions where they feel like they have to get an abortion and how can we prevent that or help them out when they do feel like they do need an abortion? That's what we should be focusing on, not simply the status and rights of the fetus, because people will be getting abortions regardless of whatever status we give the fetus, so there's no point.



By that logic I cannot do anything good for anyone without being a hypocrite. Why give food to this starving person when there’re other starving people in Africa? Why should I try to help the Palestinians when I could help somebody else? At some point you have to pick a cause. You can’t seriously expect everybody who takes a stance against anything to take a stance against everything.

To answer your question of why not do something for these children that are already born….well, maybe because they already have a voice of their own. Maybe because you already have the United Nations and a plethora of other human rights organizations that all to often, but not always, over look the unborn. OR, maybe because our nation is already doing something to stop the death of children in our nation. Hell, we're even doing everything to stop the accidental death of unborn children. it's only the unborn children being murdered who we're willing to over look.

Whatever the case, I think that the issue is as simple as the status of a fetus in a secular society. If a fetus is a living human being then why should they be treated differently than any other human being? Because they can’t speak? Because they’re located in a womb instead of a room? Because they’re intrinsically morally inferior? That’s simply bigotry. That’s religiously singling out one group of people and calling them subhuman.


First of all, it's the same cause, saving life, but one is much easier. You can spend years trying to ban abortion, but that's not going to do much to stop it, but you can easily send a couple dollars to some African child to get proper medical care and save his or her life. If the cause is saving lives, you can save more lives by focusing on the already born children who die from easily preventable causes than on the unborn that die in abortions. And plus there's no controversy there, everyone would support that cause.

Secondly, I don't equate the unborn children with already born people. I think if we kill a fetus a few weeks into the pregnancy, that's very different than killing a 3 year old. If it hasn't even developed that much, I'd say it's the same as women washing her hands. Chomsky says you can make the case that women washing their hands is immoral, because they're taking off and killing skin cells (which are life) and with some future technology those cells can be used to make a new human. But do you see that killing a conscious human being, that knows it exists and wants to continue living and has relationships and thoughts and memories, is very different than killing a cluster of cells that don't have an opinion on whether they exist or not.

The difficult part is figuring out at what stage the fetus becomes conscious and starts feeling things. So at the same time I think killing a 8 month old fetus is horrible, but still not as bad as killing an already born and developed human.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/9/09

farmbird wrote:

I do not pretend to speak for every woman, nor do I choose to exhaust myself in thoughts & words with a self-righteous prig. I'm done here.


Look, I’m sorry if I offended you because that wasn’t my intention. I suppose in retrospect I was a bit tactless, but try to at least consider what I’m saying because it’s not as aggressive as it came off. My point is that I do understand where the women are coming from who attain abortions, and I in no way think that this makes them necessarily bad people. However, in the case of late term abortions when the fetus is already the same thing as a newborn I don’t see how the case is any different than the example I gave.

Why should we treat these women better than the man in my example? Why should he be punished and chastised and ostracized while they should be loved, coddled, and welcomed? Both cases are the same thing, and if anything the man in my example’s sin was lesser because his victim wasn’t a defenseless child.

Do you see where I’m coming from? I’m not saying that the women are evil. I am saying that by the standard we hold other people to, however, the women are. We just aren’t holding them to the same standard, and that’s not fair to anyone else. We should treat everybody equally.

Also, I know you weren’t speaking on behalf of all women. You were, however, speaking on behalf of all men. You generalized, profiled me. You assumed that because I’m a man I can’t understand what a pregnant woman is going through. That’s simply not true, and it’s not fair, and it’s very offensive and irritating. Imagine if every time you tried to express an opinion somebody devalued it because of your race, or your looks. Like if you said that you don’t believe in ex-gay rehabilitation therapy and somebody said, “Well YOU don’t know what you’re talking about because YOU’RE not gay.” It’s really, very frustrating to be silenced, belittled, and to have my opinion silenced and ignored simply because I happen to be a man. Yet, that’s exactly what this argument does. I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, but that’s effectively what you did.

And what about the fetus? Why don’t we acknowledge the fetus? Why is the issue the woman when the fetus’ is the one losing its life? Why do we look at a twig but not the branch? Why is the issue not the whole picture? Why narrow the scope and zoom in on one feature while over looking the other? I don't understand that logic. In my opinion, an honest observation takes into account everything involved. That means that the woman is the issue, yes, but so is the fetus. Why not?

I'm not trying to be self-righteous, because honestly I'm a coward and I think in the woman's situation I may succumb to the same line of action...and I disagree with it, so that speaks a lot about my character or lack there of. I don't think I'm a great person, quite the contrary.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/9/09

No, what I said only applies to pro-life extremists. They're the ones that should also be against war and desperately fighting for more foreign aid, and be willing to open their homes to homeless pregnant women and raise all the children properly, etc. Obviously there's serious problems with all extremists' thinking, but I was speaking specifically about them



I thought pro-life extremists were the ones murdering people and bombing clinics? I haven't seen much pro-choice "extremists." Who exactly do they harass?


These two segments of your post are about the people, and like I said in my last post I don’t want to continue the conversation about the people after your post. I let you get your rebuttal to my argument out so you can have the last word, but I’m not interested in discussing this aspect, okay? Let’s talk about the issue, not the people.


If it was illegal, the poor women are the ones who are going to suffer. All women will still be able to get them regardless, there's going to be people willing to do them illegally… The poor women will do what they did in the past when abortion was illegal and tens of thousands will die from attempts at performing their own abortions



and there will be a lot of doctors performing illegal abortions (I wonder how they catch them). And of course tens of thousands of women will die horrible deaths. Seems like a horrible idea that only makes things worse.


Alright, let’s try to give this some structure. I’m going to simplify your argument for the sake of clear communication. Basically:

We should not make abortion illegal because women will still attain abortions. The women attaining the abortions, however, will do so illegally and tens of thousands of them will die.

There are two premises to this argument. The first is that banning abortion isn’t an effective way to mitigate the number of abortions being attained. The second is that banning abortion will cause tens of thousands of women to die to botched, back alley abortions “like they used to.” The conclusion of the argument is that abortion should be legal and not banned.

Premise one we’ve already addressed. Let’s recap.
Women will still attain abortions.

We both agreed that banning abortion is not alone. As I pointed out you must then find a way to enforce that ban. You ask how we catch the doctors and women who attain abortions. Well, we’d do this the same way we catch prostitutes. (Although I think that prostitution should be legal.) We have under cover law enforcement agents posing as the service provider. Have you ever seen “Police Women of Brier County,”? It’s a television series following the careers of female sheriffs and officers. One of these women, in charge of sex trafficking, disguises herself as a prostitute. When she’s propositioned she makes her arrest.

Prior to Roe v. Wade we didn’t do this. There was no penalty for women attaining abortions. There was only penalties for doctors providing the abortions. So, the law wasn’t entirely effective. However, after Roe v. Wade there was in fact a statistical spike in the number of abortions being attained in the United States. The difference is often over looked because it was only about a 25% increase, going from something like 400,000 a year to 500,000 a year. That’s because we weren’t effectively enforcing the law.

Now, let’s say we weren’t effectively enforcing a law to ban murder. Should we A) legalize murder so that fewer murders will die while killing their victims, or try to find a more effective way to enforce the law?
So, right there I think I’ve demonstrated the error of premise one. First off, my argument isn’t that we should just ban abortion right off. It’s that we should find a way to enforce a ban of abortion and then implement it. Second, even if only minutely the ban will still mitigate the number of abortions being attained because it did last time it was illegal. Third, even if the ban would not be effective that does not necessarily mean that we shouldn’t ban it.

The women attaining the abortions, however, will do so illegally and tens of thousands of them will die

The second premise is a bit stronger. The first premise doesn’t really give a reason why the ban shouldn’t exist. It simply says it wouldn’t accomplish anything. This premise augments the first premise and says, not only will the ban accomplish nothing positive, it’ll actually accomplish something negative!

I have to ask. What makes you think that tens of thousands of women will die? It is true that the pro-choice institutions made this argument prior to legal abortion, but since then the numbers have been proven false. In fact, Bernard Nathanson the co-founder of the NARA even came out and admitted that they’d essentially pulled the number out of their back-sides. They did in fact do the research to find out how many women died from illegal abortions each year, but the real number was 37.

According to the Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol. II, Mortality, Part A. 1960-77 the total number of all pregnancy related deaths including but not limited to abortions in 1960 was 1,579. This number decreased rapidly with medical advancements. The Vital Statistics reported 859 pregnancy related deaths in 1968. Only about 133 of these were attributed to abortions. In 1972 39 women died from illegal abortions and an addition 24 died from legal abortions. (Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance, Annual Summary,1978.)

In 2007 a California Abortion Clinic was temporarily closed down when they reported 40-50 abortion related deaths over the year.

So the second premise is factually incorrect. Tens of thousands of women didn’t die in the 1960s because of the abortion ban, why would tens of thousands of women die if there was an abortion ban now? There’s absolutely no evidence that there would be any significant increase in abortion related deaths. Women are still dying because of abortions today, so an abortion ban won’t have a real negative effect on the overall social issue with which you’re concerned.

Now that we’ve addressed the first and second premise the only thing that’s left is your conclusion. Now, it’s not actually necessary to attack the conclusion since we’ve already done so to the premises upon which it was based. Still, I’d like to do so.

We should not make abortion illegal

I do not feel that this conclusion follows. Even if we accept both of your premises. The first one doesn’t provide a reason the ban shouldn’t exist, it simply says that the ban would have a neutral effect. Abortions being attained since Roe v. Wade have exterminated the lives of tens of millions of unborn fetuses. So even if we acknowledge that legal abortion saves the lives of tens of thousands of women who would otherwise die attaining back alley abortions, it’s still unacceptable. That’s like nuking Gaza City to save the 12 Israeli’s who die from rocket and mortar fire each year.

In 1999 a study in Yemen showed that about 69% of women had been subjected to female genitalia mutilation. Only 9% of the women who’d been operated upon received the operation from a doctor. Should FGM be legal too, since the women being operated upon are receiving the surgery from illegitimate sources anyway? Actually, this same thing is happening in European countries where FGM is illegal. In Sweden it was such a major issue that they actually began making rules where Muslim girls had to be examined to make sure they hadn’t had their genitals mutilated.


…or richer women can just go to another country and get it done


All the women who can afford it will get it done in other countries


Well, the United States is very good at getting what it wants from other nations. Abortion in India is completely legal but you’re not going to find a provider. That’s what we here call the “international gag law.” Even if we couldn’t get people to stop giving Americans abortions, the process of transportation would likely be a surprisingly effective deterrent. In Mississippi, for example, there’s only one abortion clinic and it’s virtually under siege from those lovely extremists. So, women mostly go to bordering states. Now, you have roughly the same number of women getting their first abortion. However, fewer women are attaining second and third abortions, and like I said 42% of all women attaining abortions have attained at least one abortion in the past. And driving from one state to the next is a matter of gas and a couple hours free time. Last week my brother drove up to Texas and back just to have a cup of coffee with an old friend. Flying to France or crossing the entire nation to reach Canada is a much, much bigger inconvenience and it’s much, much more expensive.

Besides, sex-slave-traffickers and murderers are dragging teenage girls off to Mexico on a literally daily basis here. It’s so bad that Dr. Phil called for a boycott of Mexico on one of his shows since Mexico refuses to enforce laws when the victims are American. They see it as our problem apparently and never do anything to rescue the victims. Yet, you wouldn’t argue that we should legalize murder since rich people will just take you off to Mexico and kill your there anyway…

Some time ago I watched this documentary about FGM in Europe. After FGM was made illegal in Sweden there was a problem with Muslim families taking their daughters back to countries where it’s legal and having it done there, or simply doing it in their living rooms with knives and scissors. Should FGM also be legal, since these people are endangering themselves and their children doing it illegally?


Well why would a women want to kill it in the first place and how did she get into that position?


You know, the previous president of Planned Parenthood said that in an attempt to sympathize with pregnant mothers, or rather to appear that we sympathize with them, people have deceived themselves into thinking that these women don’t know that they’re killing a living human being.

I, however, disagree. What do you think? Personally, I legitimately believe that these women are under the impression that a fetus isn’t a living human being. I have a couple friends who’ve attained abortions. Literally, a couple. One of them talks pretty openly about it, but then she comes from a social environment in which abortions are not really taboo. The other is pretty quiet about it, but she was my brother’s ex-girlfriend. It wasn’t his kid but they were still pretty tight and she started asking him about rather or not she should attain an abortion. He talked to me about what to say to her since I know so much about the issue, having written about 900 papers on it. I told him that he should really back off and let her make the decision, but I kind of regret that. Point is, based on what she was saying and asking the girl legitimately believed that the fetus was not a human at all. Morally I agree, but whenever a doctor tells you that something is a potential cancerous tumor you believe him. I don’t see why that’d be different if they told you it was a potential human.

I think a lot of these women are being deceived and exploited for the sake of the perceived great good. It’s companies like Planned Parenthood violating women’s rights to informed consent. Don’t you think they should be required to say, in clear terms, that it’s a human if it’s scientifically a human?


People concentrate too much on the simple technicalities, the fetus is a person, killing it is wrong, and that's it?


Well, technicalities are tangible. You take away firm facts and all your left with is abstract metaphysics and moral quarreling. Neither of which have any place in a secular government. It’s like Obama said in his inauguration speech. I loved what he said. He said that we need to put science back in its place.

Now, if abortion is indeed just a medical operation then the technicalities are all that matter. When you go in for cosmetic surgery you don’t expect the government, your doctor, or political advocates to come out screaming about how it’s morally admirable or reprehensible. You want to know where there’s going to be an incision, what the process is going to be. Should the process be bizarrely dangerous it shouldn’t be allowed.


…The problem is why do women get into unplanned pregnancies and feel the need to get an abortion in the first place? Women are the ones who decide to get abortions, so they are the reason the issue even exists.


Like I said before, there’s no reason we can’t attack the social issues and pass the ban as well. So arguing that we should attack the social issues doesn’t really have much to do with the ban. Actually, it does suggest that our goal is to mitigate the number of abortions being attained. Assuming this is true the most logical thing to do would be to pass the ban and launch a campaign to attack the social issues, and a lot of pro-life extremists are doing just that. There’re organizations, one of which recently stirred up a shit storm for killing an abortion doctor, that also go around providing food, health care, and shelter for pregnant mothers who’re poor.



Like I said before, this issue is all about women's rights and their place in society, why do they get put in positions where they feel like they have to get an abortion and how can we prevent that or help them out when they do feel like they do need an abortion? That's what we should be focusing on, not simply the status and rights of the fetus, because people will be getting abortions regardless of whatever status we give the fetus, so there's no point.


Oh! Now I understand. I was on the way wrong page. My bad, sorry. Okay, I see what you're saying now. But, I don't think most women who get abortions feel like they have to do so. Most women who attain abortions do so for social reasons. It's not that they have to so much as that they'd prefer to do so. A bit like wearing a condom. Nobody feels like they have to, but most of us would rather cut back on the pleasure 20% for 15 minutes than risk an unwanted pregnancy. But again, we can adress the social issues and ban abortion at the same time.


As far as the situation of the fetus goes, I have to draw the parallel between abortion and FGM again. Both are operations being performed by parents on their offspring. In the case of FGM the parents think it’s important for their child’s well being for spiritual and moral reasons. Now, in the case of abortion most of the women aren’t thinking of the child. That’s a statistical fact, you can swing over to the Guttmacher Institute yourself if you would like to. They’re the research branch of Planned Parenthood and even they acknowledge this. Those who do consider the child convince themselves that it’s best for the child for reasons x-y-z. Various justifications, really…

But just as a Muslim father cannot choose to slice off his daughter’s clitoris, surgically extract the g-spot, and then sow her shut a mother does not have the right to decide that her child deserves death. That death is a positive alternative to life for her child. She does not have the right to say that it’s better for the child to have his/her arms and legs ripped off and head torn off than to live.

Besides, when is death a pleasant alternative to life? This argument often becomes frighteningly similar to US propaganda calling for the assimilation or eradication of the Natives. Basically we said that civilization is superior to savagism and that the Natives lived a lifestyle of savagism; therefore, if they cannot be made to live like whites it’s better we obliterate them. Now, we wound up assimilating them, but we seriously considered genocide when the education wasn’t working as well as we hoped.

Like how Sarah Palin got all those letters and e-mails (pro-choice extremists harassing her,) for giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome instead of doing the humane thing and having an abortion. What the hell? People with birth defects are inferior and should be eradicated for their own good? That’s like saying we should kill every cripple in the world.

As far as the mother not being able to take care of the child after birth…Obama was a mixed-race half black boy born to a single, immigrant mother in America. He became the first African American president of the United States in the history of mankind. And adoption is always an alternative. The mother doesn’t have to be able to provide for the child, the government will do so if she is unable to.


First of all, it's the same cause, saving life, but one is much easier. You can spend years trying to ban abortion, but that's not going to do much to stop it, but you can easily send a couple dollars to some African child to get proper medical care and save his or her life. If the cause is saving lives, you can save more lives by focusing on the already born children who die from easily preventable causes than on the unborn that die in abortions. And plus there's no controversy there, everyone would support that cause


Why would we try to fix Africa when our own nation has such a glaring flaw, a greater flaw. Why should we start marching over to other nations and lecturing them about the speck of sawdust in their eye, why should we try to take the sawdust out of their eye, when we have a log in our own?

Besides, it’s actually more effective than people want to admit. Abortions have been rapidly decreasing in popularity since George H. W. Bush. According to Planned Parenthood, one of the most major reasons for this is that there are no longer many doctors willing to perform the operation. They always had the 50-50 split where half of the doctors were pro-life and half were pro-choice. Now most that are pro-choice don’t want to give abortions because it’s too stressing, hurts their career, and they don’t want to deal with the risks.

In Mississippi these protesting extremists have succeeded in closing down 99.9% of their states abortion clinics. There is literally ONE abortion clinic left, and you know who you have to thank for that? Those extremists.

Extremism is ever so much more effective than you might imagine.



Secondly, I don't equate the unborn children with already born people. I think if we kill a fetus a few weeks into the pregnancy, that's very different than killing a 3 year old. If it hasn't even developed that much, I'd say it's the same as women washing her hands. Chomsky says you can make the case that women washing their hands is immoral, because they're taking off and killing skin cells (which are life) and with some future technology those cells can be used to make a new human. But do you see that killing a conscious human being, that knows it exists and wants to continue living and has relationships and thoughts and memories, is very different than killing a cluster of cells that don't have an opinion on whether they exist or not


I agree with you about the early term abortion thing, but that's just moral and religious arguing. The idea is a cultural belief that reigns directly from Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology. A secular society cannot take this into account. Nobody agrees about this. You can't construct policy over abstract metaphysics and moral arguements like that.


The difficult part is figuring out at what stage the fetus becomes conscious and starts feeling things. So at the same time I think killing a 8 month old fetus is horrible, but still not as bad as killing an already born and developed human.


Well, let’s take a look at this logic. Basically, you’re saying that an early fetus is not as morally significant as a late term fetus. From my religious perspective I can agree with your cultural perspective influenced by my religious perspective. However, let us look at this secularly.

If we say that an early term fetus is a lesser life form than a late term fetus because it’s less developed; if we say that a late term fetus is a lesser life form than an adult because it’s less developed, then we’re saying that it is the level of development that decides our worth. In which case there’s no logical reason why this should not be applied to any two stages of development.

A teenager, then, would be more significant than a pre-teen. After all, pre-teens don’t really have the same measure of self image as teenagers. That’s still developing, and at ten, eleven, and twelve we still identify ourselves more by our parents than our own sense of individuality. So then it would be less evil to maim, rape, and torture a 12 year old than a 16 year old.

Similarly a 16 year old has not yet fully developed his/her self image yet either. He/she is at an earlier stage of development than an adult. In which case the adult is a superior life form while the adolescent is an inferior life form and is not as morally significant as an adult.

So if you accept that premise then there’s nothing wrong with your logic. Except that it’s still bigotry, of course. A form of the exact same argument was used in the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott to say that African Americans were morally less significant than whites.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
59 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 10/9/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

(A)Look, I’m sorry if I offended you because that wasn’t my intention. I suppose in retrospect I was a bit tactless, but try to at least consider what I’m saying because it’s not as aggressive as it came off. My point is that I do understand where the women are coming from who attain abortions, and I in no way think that this makes them necessarily bad people. However, in the case of late term abortions when the fetus is already the same thing as a newborn I don’t see how the case is any different than the example I gave.

(B)Why should we treat these women better than the man in my example? Why should he be punished and chastised and ostracized while they should be loved, coddled, and welcomed? Both cases are the same thing, and if anything the man in my example’s sin was lesser because his victim wasn’t a defenseless child. Do you see where I’m coming from? I’m not saying that the women are evil. I am saying that by the standard we hold other people to, however, the women are. We just aren’t holding them to the same standard, and that’s not fair to anyone else. We should treat everybody equally.

(C)Also, I know you weren’t speaking on behalf of all women. You were, however, speaking on behalf of all men. You generalized, profiled me. You assumed that because I’m a man I can’t understand what a pregnant woman is going through. That’s simply not true, and it’s not fair, and it’s very offensive and irritating. Imagine if every time you tried to express an opinion somebody devalued it because of your race, or your looks. Like if you said that you don’t believe in ex-gay rehabilitation therapy and somebody said, “Well YOU don’t know what you’re talking about because YOU’RE not gay.” It’s really, very frustrating to be silenced, belittled, and to have my opinion silenced and ignored simply because I happen to be a man. Yet, that’s exactly what this argument does. I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, but that’s effectively what you did.

(D) And what about the fetus? Why don’t we acknowledge the fetus? Why is the issue the woman when the fetus’ is the one losing its life? Why do we look at a twig but not the branch? Why is the issue not the whole picture? Why narrow the scope and zoom in on one feature while over looking the other? I don't understand that logic. In my opinion, an honest observation takes into account everything involved. That means that the woman is the issue, yes, but so is the fetus. Why not?

(E)I'm not trying to be self-righteous, because honestly I'm a coward and I think in the woman's situation I may succumb to the same line of action...and I disagree with it, so that speaks a lot about my character or lack there of. I don't think I'm a great person, quite the contrary.



(A) Thank you.

I apologize for my harsh words to you. I also feel late term abortions are grave injustices to the unborn, especially when pre-mature babies, (born even earlier than some late term abortions take place), w/ the help of today's medical technologies can be kept alive outside the womb, & more + more often they are surviving, becoming growing thriving children. No argument here.

(B) Yeah, I wonder what it would be like to live in a perfect world, too. If life were always fair, I guess we wouldn't be discussing the issue or be forced to deal with these situations. I truly don't how to respond to your feelings about the double standard that confronts this issue. It's just that I personally can't agree w/ you about the man's unfortunate actions being on the same playing field as the women we've been discussing, except for the fact each one involves a death. I do not expect you to respond to this statement, my own feelings here are confusing. In fact, may I request you not respond to it?-- we'll just acknowledge we have two different opinions in the matter-- thanks.


(C) No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to fully understand what a pregnant woman goes thru-- it is physically impossible. I believe you are confusing -- Empathy & Sympathy. empathy --- imaginative projection of one's own consciousness into another being ( you may, one day, experience this with a wife or girlfriend who is the pregnant one) sympathy---- the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings, experiences, or interests of another; also, the feeling or mental state so induced.
I do not doubt your sincere compassion, your willingness to acknowledge the uniqueness of a pregnancy as experienced, exclusively, by women. It is not belittling you to say this & far be it from me to silence you, it doesn't appear to me anyone has been able to do that, yet ! However, you're a man ( so you have represented yourself ), & the fact remains, you will not be the one getting pregnant, you will be adding your material to the joint venture.

(D) I obviously am unable to make myself clear on one point, the reason for which you may have to guess. The reason for not acknowledging the fetus when facing this unexpected event of suddenly being pregnant, is because it is very hard to do so when trying to make a decision about what to do next. Maybe it's an emotionally triggered shut down of the rational side of the brain. Again, I tell you, that moment for a woman ( the 'oh, shit. -- what do I do now' moment) feels like being caught in trap, being painted into the corner, or digging yourself into a hole. Sadly, any excuse or rational (real or imagined) will be less a burden, or guilt trip, by removing the fetus factor. Panic cannot acknowledge the fetus, & I am not saying that in defense of choosing abortion, I am saying it as one of the reasons for rationalizing a decision for one. There is no rational logic during panic. & the fetus loses --1st, by mental omission, & then by physical elimination.


(E) I acknowledge your passionate puzzlement. I don't know whether you will find clear, rational answers to the questions you ask. In my initial response, & here, my goal has been to attempt to give possible reasons & causes for a woman choosing abortion over birth.


Now, I think it's safe to say, I am done here. Thanks.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 10/10/09 , edited 10/11/09

SeraphAlford wrote:



We should be more clear on exactly where we stand on this, because I can't figure out in what cases you think an abortion would be ok and not ok. Very early term abortions should be allowed but after a certain point they should be illegal. And obviously, if a women is raped, the morning after pill should be given to her, and if not and she is pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion. If the pregnancy threatens the women's life, an abortion is acceptable. So overall, the only illegal abortions should be after a certain point in the pregnancy.




These two segments of your post are about the people, and like I said in my last post I don’t want to continue the conversation about the people after your post. I let you get your rebuttal to my argument out so you can have the last word, but I’m not interested in discussing this aspect, okay? Let’s talk about the issue, not the people.


You were really right about that big ego thing lol


Abortion should not be illegal for similar reasons you think prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Murder is a bad comparison, people murder for completely different reasons and it's illegal for different reasons. Women don't get abortions because they want to murder their baby, the same way women don't go into prostitution because they think it'll be fun. There are some girls who are just sluts that are fully capable of having the baby and taking care of it properly, and then decide to get an abortion like it's nothing, but that's because they have a different point of view. Yes the doctor should tell them "Technically, it's a human," but technicalities like that don't change anything. You could tell people the zygote is technically human, but seconds beforehand it was just one sperm and egg cell.

Murder is illegal for obvious reasons, everyone agrees it's wrong to take another life, but more importantly, society would fall apart if anyone can kill anyone else. Who gets hurt when a women gets an abortion a few weeks after getting pregnant, what negative affect does that have on society? So the purpose of making abortion illegal would not be to keep society from falling apart but to uphold the moral logic of a certain group of people. That's the only real purpose, very similar to why prostitution is illegal. But if abortions still continue even after it's illegal, then the law fails at it's only real purpose, it would be pointless. Many people will get arrested, many women and children will be put in horrible situations, and of course the lives of many desperate women will be lost (which is not comparable to the fetuses that are a few weeks old). It makes much more sense to make it legal but regulate it (the same with prostitution).

I think any law that only serves the purpose of upholding a very subjective moral point of view is ridiculous.

I don't even know the statistics of how many women died from botched abortions in the past, but tens of thousands of women dying from abortions isn't a stretch if it was illegal now. Worldwide the botched abortion deaths are around 68000 annually and 5 million women do serious damage to themselves, and while it's true the deaths are both from women trying to do them themselves and legal abortions, obviously the legal, professional abortions are much safer than the ones women try with a coat hanger.

I don't see the parallel between FGM and abortion. Performing FGM on a child is cruel and goes against the child's rights, getting an abortion on a couple week old fetus is not cruel because the fetus is still just a cluster of cells; it is not even conscious yet, because it's neurons aren't even developed yet. Now after 8 months when everything is developed and the baby is conscious is a different situation.



Why would we try to fix Africa when our own nation has such a glaring flaw, a greater flaw. Why should we start marching over to other nations and lecturing them about the speck of sawdust in their eye, why should we try to take the sawdust out of their eye, when we have a log in our own?


Oh, so now the cause is specifically saving children's lives in your own country? Ok, I don't know how many born children die in the US annually but I bet they're easier to save than young fetuses. And what about specifically saving the late term fetuses, that would be good too, but I don't know how many really late abortions happen and aren't there laws already there in some states to stop those?



Well, technicalities are tangible. You take away firm facts and all your left with is abstract metaphysics and moral quarreling. Neither of which have any place in a secular government. It’s like Obama said in his inauguration speech. I loved what he said. He said that we need to put science back in its place.

Well, let’s take a look at this logic. Basically, you’re saying that an early fetus is not as morally significant as a late term fetus. From my religious perspective I can agree with your cultural perspective influenced by my religious perspective. However, let us look at this secularly.

If we say that an early term fetus is a lesser life form than a late term fetus because it’s less developed; if we say that a late term fetus is a lesser life form than an adult because it’s less developed, then we’re saying that it is the level of development that decides our worth. In which case there’s no logical reason why this should not be applied to any two stages of development.

A teenager, then, would be more significant than a pre-teen. After all, pre-teens don’t really have the same measure of self image as teenagers. That’s still developing, and at ten, eleven, and twelve we still identify ourselves more by our parents than our own sense of individuality. So then it would be less evil to maim, rape, and torture a 12 year old than a 16 year old.

Similarly a 16 year old has not yet fully developed his/her self image yet either. He/she is at an earlier stage of development than an adult. In which case the adult is a superior life form while the adolescent is an inferior life form and is not as morally significant as an adult.

So if you accept that premise then there’s nothing wrong with your logic. Except that it’s still bigotry, of course. A form of the exact same argument was used in the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott to say that African Americans were morally less significant than whites.


Yes the early fetus is less morally significant than the late term fetus, but that logic cannot apply to all cases, only ones involving the early fetus. The early fetus is so underdeveloped it has no consciousness, there's no pain, it doesn't know it exists it's still just a small group of cells, all other stages of life from the late term fetus to an adult are conscious, know they exist, want to continue living, etc. With the logic you're using a zygote could be considered the same as an adult. And technically, the zygote is a human (see how useful technicalities are?). But a zygote is just one sperm and egg cell, if those have the same moral significance as an adult human, then killing any couple of cells could be considered murder. Washing your hands is murder then because you're killing all those cells. Maybe the the sperm and egg cells are unique because they are potential humans? Well then I guess CecilTheDarkKnight_234 could be considered one of the biggest mass murderers on the planet. And I don't know about you, but almost every teenage guy would also be a mass murderer.
Posted 10/10/09

Yei wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:



We should be more clear on exactly where we stand on this, because I can't figure out in what cases you think an abortion would be ok and not ok. Very early term abortions should be allowed but after a certain point they should be illegal. And obviously, if a women is raped, the morning after pill should be given to her, and if not and she is pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion. If the pregnancy threatens the women's life, an abortion is acceptable. So overall, the only illegal abortions should be after a certain point in the pregnancy.




These two segments of your post are about the people, and like I said in my last post I don’t want to continue the conversation about the people after your post. I let you get your rebuttal to my argument out so you can have the last word, but I’m not interested in discussing this aspect, okay? Let’s talk about the issue, not the people.


You were really right about that big ego thing lol


Abortion should not be illegal for similar reasons you think prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Murder is a bad comparison, people murder for completely different reasons and it's illegal for different reasons. Women don't get abortions because they want to murder their baby, the same way women don't go into prostitution because they think it'll be fun. There are some girls who are just sluts that are fully capable of having the baby and taking care of it properly, and then decide to get an abortion like it's nothing, but that's because they have a different point of view. Yes the doctor should tell them "Technically, it's a human," but technicalities like that don't change anything. You could tell people the zygote is technically human, but seconds beforehand it was just one sperm and egg cell.

Murder is illegal for obvious reasons, everyone agrees it's wrong to take another life, but more importantly, society would fall apart if anyone can kill anyone else. Who gets hurt when a women gets an abortion a few weeks after getting pregnant, what negative affect does that have on society? So the purpose of making abortion illegal would not be to keep society from falling apart but to uphold the moral logic of a certain group of people. That's the only real purpose, very similar to why prostitution is illegal. But if abortions still continue even after it's illegal, then the law fails at it's only real purpose, it would be pointless. Many people will get arrested, many women and children will be put in horrible situations, and of course the lives of many desperate women will be lost (which is not comparable to the fetuses that are a few weeks old). It makes much more sense to make it legal but regulate it (the same with prostitution).

I think any law that only serves the purpose of upholding a very subjective moral point of view is ridiculous.

I don't even know the statistics of how many women died from botched abortions in the past, but tens of thousands of women dying from abortions isn't a stretch if it was illegal now. Worldwide the botched abortion deaths are around 68000 annually and 5 million women do serious damage to themselves, and while it's true the deaths are both from women trying to do them themselves and legal abortions, obviously the legal, professional abortions are much safer than the ones women try with a coat hanger.

I don't see the parallel between FGM and abortion. Performing FGM on a child is cruel and goes against the child's rights, getting an abortion on a couple week old fetus is not cruel because the fetus is still just a cluster of cells; it is not even conscious yet, because it's neurons aren't even developed yet. Now after 8 months when everything is developed and the baby is conscious is a different situation.



Why would we try to fix Africa when our own nation has such a glaring flaw, a greater flaw. Why should we start marching over to other nations and lecturing them about the speck of sawdust in their eye, why should we try to take the sawdust out of their eye, when we have a log in our own?


Oh, so now the cause is specifically saving children's lives in your own country? Ok, I don't know how many born children die in the US annually but I bet they're easier to save than young fetuses. And what about specifically saving the late term fetuses, that would be good too, but I don't know how many really late abortions happen and aren't there laws already there in some states to stop those?



Well, technicalities are tangible. You take away firm facts and all your left with is abstract metaphysics and moral quarreling. Neither of which have any place in a secular government. It’s like Obama said in his inauguration speech. I loved what he said. He said that we need to put science back in its place.

Well, let’s take a look at this logic. Basically, you’re saying that an early fetus is not as morally significant as a late term fetus. From my religious perspective I can agree with your cultural perspective influenced by my religious perspective. However, let us look at this secularly.

If we say that an early term fetus is a lesser life form than a late term fetus because it’s less developed; if we say that a late term fetus is a lesser life form than an adult because it’s less developed, then we’re saying that it is the level of development that decides our worth. In which case there’s no logical reason why this should not be applied to any two stages of development.

A teenager, then, would be more significant than a pre-teen. After all, pre-teens don’t really have the same measure of self image as teenagers. That’s still developing, and at ten, eleven, and twelve we still identify ourselves more by our parents than our own sense of individuality. So then it would be less evil to maim, rape, and torture a 12 year old than a 16 year old.

Similarly a 16 year old has not yet fully developed his/her self image yet either. He/she is at an earlier stage of development than an adult. In which case the adult is a superior life form while the adolescent is an inferior life form and is not as morally significant as an adult.

So if you accept that premise then there’s nothing wrong with your logic. Except that it’s still bigotry, of course. A form of the exact same argument was used in the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott to say that African Americans were morally less significant than whites.


Yes the early fetus is less morally significant than the late term fetus, but that logic cannot apply to all cases, only ones involving the early fetus. The early fetus is so underdeveloped it has no consciousness, there's no pain, it doesn't know it exists it's still just a small group of cells, all other stages of life from the late term fetus to an adult are conscious, know they exist, want to continue living, etc. With the logic you're using a zygote could be considered the same as an adult. And technically, the zygote is a human (see how useful technicalities are?). But a zygote is just one sperm and egg cell, if those have the same moral significance as an adult human, then killing any couple of cells could be considered murder. Washing your hands is murder then because you're killing all those cells. Maybe the the sperm and egg cells are unique because they are potential humans? Well then I guess CecilTheDarkKnight_234 could be considered one of the biggest mass murders on the planet. And I don't know about you, but almost every teenage guy would also be a mass murderer.


;__; that hurts you know jk jk but yeah i know this is a little off subject but i do donate sperm >.>
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 10/11/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

;__; that hurts you know jk jk but yeah i know this is a little off subject but i do donate sperm >.>


lol I didn't mean any offense, I just picked you cause you're the first "perverted" guy I could think of ^_^ But almost all guys are perverted anyway.

Cool, you really donate sperm, for lesbian couples who want to have kids, or something like that? Wouldn't it be kind of weird knowing you might have biological kids somewhere you don't know about, though?
5780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 10/11/09

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/11/09

We should be clearer on exactly where we stand on this, because I can't figure out in what cases you think an abortion would be ok and not ok. Very early term abortions should be allowed but after a certain point they should be illegal. And obviously, if a women is raped, the morning after pill should be given to her, and if not and she is pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion. If the pregnancy threatens the women's life, an abortion is acceptable. So overall, the only illegal abortions should be after a certain point in the pregnancy.


Clarity is very important in any form of communication. However, in this case what I think about the issue isn’t really relevant because I’m not really trying to debate the topic with you. It’s not me trying to convince you that I’m right. No, I’m trying to work with you so that we can mutually discover what’s right. It shouldn’t be a matter of me arguing for the way I feel. It should be a matter of both of us following the path of our argument, an argument paved with stones of logic, reason, and deductions. That’s the Socratic Method.

Well, if you’re curious I see no harm in sharing. I think abortion should be legal in the case of rape. Let’s imagine that I have some kind of condition where I am physiological unable to sustain myself. So, I sneak into your house and attach myself to your body through a series of life supporting tubes. Now, it would be very nice of you to let me stay attached to you until I’ve recovered or developed enough for independent living. However, you have no obligation to do so. I think abortion should be legal in cases where it poses a legitimate, significant threat to the mother’s life. Some time back a woman attained a partial birth abortion in a state where that’s illegal because the fetus was supposedly a threat to her life. It came out later that she was more at risk eating fish than giving birth.


Abortion should not be illegal for similar reasons you think prostitution shouldn't be illegal


Prostitution shouldn’t be illegal because there’s no victim. It is two mutually consenting adults engaging in behavior that other people disagree with for cultural reasons. In abortion there obviously is a victim. This is true in any stage of abortion.


Murder is a bad comparison, people murder for completely different reasons and it's illegal for different reasons


Murder is a bad comparison if it is different than abortion. However, if it is similar to or the same thing as abortion it’s a fine comparison. So, let’s solidify our term with a definition that everybody will accept. Murder is the taking of the life of an innocent human. That’s pretty standard. It excludes animals, capital punishment, accidents like civilians caught up in the cross fire or the victim of a car accident, ext. Yet, abortion fits perfectly into that category. So, I wouldn’t say murder’s a bad comparison at all.

Now then, you say that women have abortions for different reasons than people kill each other. Well, first off abortion is just a person killing another person. Second off, murders of all kinds occur for many different reasons. Regardless of motive murder is murder and we both agree it should be illegal. Besides, the motives for attaining an abortion and killing a born person are actually very similar. Most killers don’t murder somebody just to murder somebody. Most of the time when somebody kills another person it’s a knee-jerk reaction to circumstances beyond their control, just like abortion…which is of course killing another person. The main reasons women give for attaining abortion are also very similar to reasons given by killers for murdering their victims. Relationship problems, money, to avoid being publically slandered, to avoid responsibility, to avoid losing a job or losing your education. Hell, most serial killers even convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the best interest of their victims. An even larger percentage of them convince themselves that their victims are morally inferior to them. Just as a woman convinces herself that the fetus isn’t a human to lighten the blow in her moment of understandable weakness, so to do serial killers degrade and dehumanize their victims.

I’m reminded of a celebrity criminal. That is, a woman who grasped vast attention by her criminal acts. She drowned her children. Her motivation for this? Well, it was in their best interest. The world, you see, is very corrupting. This woman very much wanted her children to go to heaven. She feared what the future would hold, how it would change their lives if she let her kids go on. Interestingly enough, one of the two most popular reasons women give for attaining abortions is that they fear what the future will hold for them.

So, the motives are actually the same but that’s a moot point because it’s irrelevant. You reason for committing a crime doesn’t make it any less a crime, and nor should it. Now, sometimes we take motive into account. A crime of passion, for example, entails a sentence lighter than normal murder cases. I think that’s about what we should do with abortion.


Women don't get abortions because they want to murder their baby, the same way women don't go into prostitution because they think it'll be fun.


Most murders don’t kill their victim just because they want to murder somebody. That woman who drowned her children did not abort their lives simply because she wanted to murder her children. Like I said, most murders aren’t done just for murder’s sake. Most murders aren’t even sociopaths. Most serial killers are sociopaths, but not most murders.


everyone agrees it's wrong to take another life


No, that’s pretty much just Buddhists and the extreme political left. I see nothing ‘wrong,’ with taking the life of an animal or an unborn child. You are advocating the legal industry of taking unborn lives in exchange for money. Republicans support capital punishment. Fascists say there’s nothing wrong with killing anybody as long as it doesn’t hurt society as a whole. In fact, they say that it’s good to kill people if it serves the greater good.

Who gets hurt when a women gets an abortion a few weeks after getting pregnant, what negative affect does that have on society?


The same person who gets hurt in any violent crime. The victim. In this case the victim is a fetus. In the case of the mother a fetus that’s had more time to develop. In the case of capital punishment the criminal is the victim. Tell me, how would it hurt society in Israel to kill a Palestinian? How would it hurt society if I walked around killing cripples, retards, dotards, and homeless people? Really, that has no effect on society. In fact, no individual case of murder has any real effect on society. Although, in China there actually was a case in which abortion did threaten their society. People were only aborting female fetuses and that caused an obvious problem, so much so that the government came in and put a stop to it. But, that’s actually irrelevant because I’m not a fascist. This isn’t about serving the greater good, it’s about individual rights.


So the purpose of making abortion illegal would not be to keep society from falling apart but to uphold the moral logic of a certain group of people. That's the only real purpose, very similar to why prostitution is illegal.


The purpose is to protect individual rights. But you know what? If we are going to talk about society, another reason is to prevent us from progressing to a form an extreme ageism in which infants are subject to infanticide. That’s what they did in Athens, you know? Parents had a certain time after their child was born in which they could place it in a vase and leave it outside to die. It was considered a form of abortion.

Now, on one hand it seems pretty bizarre to say that abortion may lead to infanticide. For the longest time I scoffed at this idea, but now it’s actually a serious movement. Peter Singer and his followers advocate forms of infanticide when the child is mentally handicapped, ill, or simply born into an under privileged family. Personally, I don’t see how having a poor family makes a child any less valuable than somebody with a rich family be they postnatal or prenatal. I could use some help understanding that logic.


But if abortions still continue even after it's illegal, then the law fails at it's only real purpose, it would be pointless


Murder continues even though murder is illegal. Is that law useless? No, it’s a deterrent. It mitigates the number of murders going on just like a law banning abortion would mitigate abortion, as you yourself agreed just a post or two ago. Like I said before, the answer to an ineffective law is to find a way to enforce it, not to abolish it altogether.


Many people will get arrested many women and children will be put in horrible situations


I’ve always found that kind of a funny statement, but one that always occurs on this topic. Well of course people are going to get arrested if they violate the law, but that’s no reason that we shouldn’t establish the law. That’s like saying that any law in which violators will be arrested should not be established because arresting people is bad. Unless you’re an anarchist I don’t understand.


and of course the lives of many desperate women will be lost


Go back and look at my statistics. Legalized abortion didn’t make any significant difference in the number of women dying while attaining abortions. So, roughly the same amount of women will die either way. So that’s another strange argument, and you’re just repeating it. We already covered that ground. I think maybe we need to take this from another angle. Perhaps we should try to establish one concept before we move onto the next? Because attacking the whole issue at once is causing a lot of shuffling.


(which is not comparable to the fetuses that are a few weeks old).


What makes the woman more valuable than the fetus? If the fetus’ life is so insignificant what’s the point in mitigating the number of abortions being attained at all?

It makes much more sense to make it legal but regulate it (the same with prostitution).


I don’t support government regulation of prostitution, just so you know. I think it should be treated exactly like the porn industry. Held to universal health standards but nevertheless privatized. That’s another topic.


I think any law that only serves the purpose of upholding a very subjective moral point of view is ridiculous.


I agree, but virtually every moral question is entirely subjective. Honestly, nihilists and honest atheists actually admit that there’s no moral value to people. Yet we have laws protecting them, laws based on this very subjective moral point born into our society from religion that humans have intrinsic value and are not just biological robot vehicles as Richard Dawkins claims.


I don't even know the statistics of how many women died from botched abortions in the past, but tens of thousands of women dying from abortions isn't a stretch if it was illegal now.


You must not have read my last post. I gave you the statistics. About 37 a year, and that’s in the third most populated nation in the world.


and while it's true the deaths are both from women trying to do them themselves and legal abortions, obviously the legal, professional abortions are much safer than the ones women try with a coat hanger.


No, actually it’s not much safer. I showed the statistic in my last post. 20-something women died from legal abortions and 30-something died from illegal abortions….and that was in a time before Roe v. Wade in which the number of legal abortions were a mere fraction of the number of illegal abortions. There is some difference, however. Amateur abortions are a bit more dangerous than professional abortions, and all the more reason to properly enforce the law. Not only are we protecting children from their mothers we’re protecting emotionally unstable, frightened, confused, and inexperienced young girls from themselves.


I don't see the parallel between FGM and abortion. Performing FGM on a child is cruel and goes against the child's rights, getting an abortion on a couple week old fetus is not cruel because the fetus is still just a cluster of cells; it is not even conscious yet, because it's neurons aren't even developed yet. Now after 8 months when everything is developed and the baby is conscious is a different situation.


In the standard abortion the child actually feels pain and comprehends that it’s being threatened. The fetus tries to escape, screams, claws, and fights as best it can. You should watch The Silent Scream. Forget eight months, by eight weeks the child is already producing brainwaves. Obviously the child feels pain, whereas if you give a girl pain killers before you mutilate her genitals she won’t feel a thing.

Even if it couldn’t feel the pain it IS a violation of the human right to live, and the fetus is in fact a human. We don’t have the right to say, “Human rights do not apply to these humans because they don’t have this attribute that I personally, for cultural or religious reasons, feel is important.”


Oh, so now the cause is specifically saving children's lives in your own country? Ok, I don't know how many born children die in the US annually but I bet they're easier to save than young fetuses. And what about specifically saving the late term fetuses, that would be good too, but I don't know how many really late abortions happen and aren't there laws already there in some states to stop those?


That’s true; it would be easier to save these born children. Luckily, they don’t need us because they have the government. The unborn children have nobody. Yes, there are some laws in some states that supposedly limit late term abortion. However, the United States has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. As of 2003 most states adopted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban which prevents women from aborting a fetus while it’s being born unless there’s a threat to her health. However, the language is so ambiguous that the laws are ineffective.

Like the example I gave above. Anytime any woman gives birth there’s some threat to some aspect of her health. Doctors, like what’s-his-face that just got killed, use that to get around the laws. Like giving a woman an abortion because there was a 5% increased chance that her vagina would tear because she was slightly smaller than the average woman. The ironic thing about that is that this woman had a partial birth abortion, and in a partial birth abortion you still birth the child, albeit dead.


Yes the early fetus is less morally significant than the late term fetus, but that logic cannot apply to all cases, only ones involving the early fetus. The early fetus is so underdeveloped it has no consciousness, there's no pain, it doesn't know it exists it's still just a small group of cells, all other stages of life from the late term fetus to an adult are conscious, know they exist, want to continue living, etc.


So you’re saying that it’s not the developmental stage itself that gages our moral worth but rather the level of consciousness that comes with that stage? Alright, so then we agree you don’t measure someone’s moral worth based on how developed they are. You gage it on how conscious they are. A zygote is less conscious than an eight week old fetus so it’s inferior. An eight week fetus is less conscious than a thirty-two week old fetus (at that point the fetus is completely developed and no different than a newborn baby except in location,) so it’s less morally significant. A sleeping child is less conscious than a waking child so it’s less significant. And if I drug your mother and put her into a drug induced stupor rendering her temporarily brain-dead she’s no longer morally human and I should be able to killer her, so long as it has no backlash on the greater good of society, and that’s fine?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 10/12/09 , edited 10/12/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Well, if you’re curious I see no harm in sharing. I think abortion should be legal in the case of rape. Let’s imagine that I have some kind of condition where I am physiological unable to sustain myself. So, I sneak into your house and attach myself to your body through a series of life supporting tubes. Now, it would be very nice of you to let me stay attached to you until I’ve recovered or developed enough for independent living. However, you have no obligation to do so. I think abortion should be legal in cases where it poses a legitimate, significant threat to the mother’s life. Some time back a woman attained a partial birth abortion in a state where that’s illegal because the fetus was supposedly a threat to her life. It came out later that she was more at risk eating fish than giving birth.


Ok, so you think abortions should only be legal in the case of rape, and when there's a significant threat to the women's life? No other cases?



Murder is a bad comparison if it is different than abortion. However, if it is similar to or the same thing as abortion it’s a fine comparison. So, let’s solidify our term with a definition that everybody will accept. Murder is the taking of the life of an innocent human. That’s pretty standard. It excludes animals, capital punishment, accidents like civilians caught up in the cross fire or the victim of a car accident, ext. Yet, abortion fits perfectly into that category. So, I wouldn’t say murder’s a bad comparison at all.

Now then, you say that women have abortions for different reasons than people kill each other. Well, first off abortion is just a person killing another person. Second off, murders of all kinds occur for many different reasons. Regardless of motive murder is murder and we both agree it should be illegal. Besides, the motives for attaining an abortion and killing a born person are actually very similar. Most killers don’t murder somebody just to murder somebody. Most of the time when somebody kills another person it’s a knee-jerk reaction to circumstances beyond their control, just like abortion…which is of course killing another person. The main reasons women give for attaining abortion are also very similar to reasons given by killers for murdering their victims. Relationship problems, money, to avoid being publically slandered, to avoid responsibility, to avoid losing a job or losing your education. Hell, most serial killers even convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the best interest of their victims. An even larger percentage of them convince themselves that their victims are morally inferior to them. Just as a woman convinces herself that the fetus isn’t a human to lighten the blow in her moment of understandable weakness, so to do serial killers degrade and dehumanize their victims.


Well like I said in the last post, if murder was legal, society would be pretty screwed up. Society won't get screwed up if abortion is legal. When someone is murdered, all their family and friends get hurt or affected somehow.


The same person who gets hurt in any violent crime. The victim. In this case the victim is a fetus. In the case of the mother a fetus that’s had more time to develop. In the case of capital punishment the criminal is the victim. Tell me, how would it hurt society in Israel to kill a Palestinian? How would it hurt society if I walked around killing cripples, retards, dotards, and homeless people? Really, that has no effect on society. In fact, no individual case of murder has any real effect on society. Although, in China there actually was a case in which abortion did threaten their society. People were only aborting female fetuses and that caused an obvious problem, so much so that the government came in and put a stop to it. But, that’s actually irrelevant because I’m not a fascist. This isn’t about serving the greater good, it’s about individual rights.


I wouldn't say the fetus is a victim if a women gets an abortions after a few weeks, that would be like saying your skin cells are the victims when you wash your hands. Technically they are the "victims" when you wash your hand, because they are being killed, but should we make it a crime to wash your hands then?



No, that’s pretty much just Buddhists and the extreme political left. I see nothing ‘wrong,’ with taking the life of an animal or an unborn child. You are advocating the legal industry of taking unborn lives in exchange for money. Republicans support capital punishment. Fascists say there’s nothing wrong with killing anybody as long as it doesn’t hurt society as a whole. In fact, they say that it’s good to kill people if it serves the greater good.


I think it's pretty obvious I was talking about murder.



The purpose is to protect individual rights. But you know what? If we are going to talk about society, another reason is to prevent us from progressing to a form an extreme ageism in which infants are subject to infanticide. That’s what they did in Athens, you know? Parents had a certain time after their child was born in which they could place it in a vase and leave it outside to die. It was considered a form of abortion.

Now, on one hand it seems pretty bizarre to say that abortion may lead to infanticide. For the longest time I scoffed at this idea, but now it’s actually a serious movement. Peter Singer and his followers advocate forms of infanticide when the child is mentally handicapped, ill, or simply born into an under privileged family. Personally, I don’t see how having a poor family makes a child any less valuable than somebody with a rich family be they postnatal or prenatal. I could use some help understanding that logic.


The purpose is to uphold the moral point of view of a certain group of people, that's it. If Buddhist monks start protesting and saying we should make it a crime to kill bugs, plants or any life because of their views, they could also say it's to protect 'individual rights'. But that's their view, it's a logical and valid view, but unfortunately not everyone is Buddhist and has to follow their beliefs. And not everyone has to agree that killing a zygote is the equivalent of killing an adult, that's just one group of people's view.



Murder continues even though murder is illegal. Is that law useless? No, it’s a deterrent. It mitigates the number of murders going on just like a law banning abortion would mitigate abortion, as you yourself agreed just a post or two ago. Like I said before, the answer to an ineffective law is to find a way to enforce it, not to abolish it altogether.

I’ve always found that kind of a funny statement, but one that always occurs on this topic. Well of course people are going to get arrested if they violate the law, but that’s no reason that we shouldn’t establish the law. That’s like saying that any law in which violators will be arrested should not be established because arresting people is bad. Unless you’re an anarchist I don’t understand.


No the law isn't useless because making murder illegal helps keep society from falling apart, like I said before, abortion being illegal would only be there to uphold the views some people may have on abortion.

What I really don't like about prostitution being illegal is how they treat prostitutes. Poor, desperate, uneducated women resort to prostitution, they need help not punishment. It's like they're punishing them for being desperate and poor. So by making it illegal, it just makes life even harder for these poor women who are so desperate they will try to do it even if it's illegal. That's nothing like saying any law in 'which violators will be arrested should not be established because arresting people is bad.' They don't need to be arrested they need help.




What makes the woman more valuable than the fetus? If the fetus’ life is so insignificant what’s the point in mitigating the number of abortions being attained at all?


The same thing that makes the women more valuable than the cells she kills when she washes her hands. And obviously, I'm only talking about the early fetus.



I agree, but virtually every moral question is entirely subjective. Honestly, nihilists and honest atheists actually admit that there’s no moral value to people. Yet we have laws protecting them, laws based on this very subjective moral point born into our society from religion that humans have intrinsic value and are not just biological robot vehicles as Richard Dawkins claims.


Stealing from other people is wrong, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. Some people may have different opinions, but I wouldn't say these ideas are controversial, and the serious negative effects they would have on society if they were legal are obvious and that has nothing to do with morality. Abortion, like prostitution, is not something everyone can agree on morally, and there are no negative consequences for society if they are legal. So making it illegal would basically be to force the views of some people on others' lives. It would be like the Buddhist belief that killing insects or any form of life is wrong, being turned into law. But we're not all Buddhists, so why should we have to follow that?



You must not have read my last post. I gave you the statistics. About 37 a year, and that’s in the third most populated nation in the world.


Where did you get that statistic? Now that I tried to look it up myself, 5000-10000 deaths per year and much, much more serious injuries were what happened when abortion was illegal.

And this was interesting too: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060203.html

It shows what happens in other countries where abortion is or was illegal, and how many women die or suffer serious consequences. Romania is the clearest case where deaths from botched abortions soared when it was made illegal for 3 years.

Even if abortion is illegal, women in certain situations don't care, they will try to do all they can to get the abortion, and that clearly will cause alot more deaths and injuries than if abortion was legal and done by professionals.




In the standard abortion the child actually feels pain and comprehends that it’s being threatened. The fetus tries to escape, screams, claws, and fights as best it can. You should watch The Silent Scream. Forget eight months, by eight weeks the child is already producing brainwaves. Obviously the child feels pain, whereas if you give a girl pain killers before you mutilate her genitals she won’t feel a thing.


Standard abortion? You mean the most common time in the pregnancy when women get an abortion?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html


Then that would be less than 9 weeks. You're saying in less than 9 weeks the fetus has the ability to understand it's being threatened, feels pain, screams, claws and tries to escape? Well that's just scientifically impossible. According to what I learned in bio class, at the beginning of the fetal stage (11th week) it is still not capable of voluntary movement yet, much less consciousness. The muscles and brain are just beginning development at that point, 89% of abortions occur before the first 12 weeks, so there's no screaming or clawing or any of that stuff for 89% of abortions. Actually neurons don't even develop until 20-28 weeks. So before the neurons show up, there's no pain or consciousness, so there can't be any clawing or screaming or fighting in even more than 98.9% of abortions then. There can be movement though, but involuntary movement like twitching and reflexes as the brain, muscles and neurons develop.

But I'm sure this "Silent Scream" is based on science and is very credible, and nothing like ridiculous propaganda movies like "The Hard Truth," right?



That’s true; it would be easier to save these born children. Luckily, they don’t need us because they have the government. The unborn children have nobody. Yes, there are some laws in some states that supposedly limit late term abortion. However, the United States has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. As of 2003 most states adopted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban which prevents women from aborting a fetus while it’s being born unless there’s a threat to her health. However, the language is so ambiguous that the laws are ineffective.


Yeah, the government really takes good care of all the suffering children who are already born, especially the ones in the orphanages. My mom works for the Children's Aid Society here in Canada, and this government organization has caused so many kids to commit suicide it's ridiculous. IMO, we should go with quality of life over quantity. Personally, I would not want millions of more children to be born into poverty and lead tragic lives. An unwanted pregnancy is simply not meant to be, early abortion is almost the equivalent to birth control, and people should be given proper birth control, especially ones in poverty.



So you’re saying that it’s not the developmental stage itself that gages our moral worth but rather the level of consciousness that comes with that stage? Alright, so then we agree you don’t measure someone’s moral worth based on how developed they are. You gage it on how conscious they are. A zygote is less conscious than an eight week old fetus so it’s inferior. An eight week fetus is less conscious than a thirty-two week old fetus (at that point the fetus is completely developed and no different than a newborn baby except in location,) so it’s less morally significant. A sleeping child is less conscious than a waking child so it’s less significant. And if I drug your mother and put her into a drug induced stupor rendering her temporarily brain-dead she’s no longer morally human and I should be able to killer her, so long as it has no backlash on the greater good of society, and that’s fine?


No.

What makes killing a 3 year old worse than someone washing their hands and killing all those cells? Those cells are technically life. Or the masturbation example would be better because sex cells are all potential humans.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/09 , edited 10/12/09

Yei wrote: Ok, so you think abortions should only be legal in the case of rape, and when there's a significant threat to the women's life? No other cases?


Politically, yes, that’s how I feel. Personally, I see nothing wrong with abortion. It’s just the politics that makes me question it.


Well like I said in the last post, if murder was legal, society would be pretty screwed up. Society won't get screwed up if abortion is legal. When someone is murdered, all their family and friends get hurt or affected somehow.


Well, if murder in general were legal I’m sure society would fall apart. Yet, abortion is simply a form of murder that you feel is morally permissible because in your opinion the group being victimized is inferior. Society hasn’t toppled yet. Why not expand that to infanticide? I seriously doubt that would topple society, it’d probably help with over population. When some people are murdered it hurts all their friends and family. In other cases they don’t have any friends and family. Are their lives suddenly less valuable? Are their rights any less important than mine? Should I get away with killing them but not somebody with a loving relative?

So, if abortion is acceptable because it doesn’t hurt anyone except the victim and possibly the victimizer then so is murder in which a single mother kills her baby and so is murdering the homeless vagabonds living in my ditch, and so is murdering anybody who happens to be a shut in because they live a different lifestyle than you. Otherwise, the argument is dead.

Also, who says abortion only affects the victim and the victimizer? I know a guy whose child was aborted against his will, and it certainly crushed him. He’d let himself believe that he’d convinced her to have the child and let him take care of her. They’re both teenagers but HIS mother said that if he took the child she’d adopt her and help him raise her. I don’t know that I could imagine what that must’ve been like. He’d gone out and started buying clothes, preparing himself for fatherhood, was just getting past the initial shock and into the eager excitement and then it was all ripped out away from him…


I wouldn't say the fetus is a victim if a women gets an abortions after a few weeks, that would be like saying your skin cells are the victims when you wash your hands. Technically they are the "victims" when you wash your hand, because they are being killed, but should we make it a crime to wash your hands then?


We need to solidify our terms again. When I was using the word victim I was using it in the conventional sense of a person harmed or adversely affected. Besides, a skin cell isn’t a member of the human species.

I think it's pretty obvious I was talking about murder


I didn’t think so, but whatever the case what I said still applies. You advocate the legal industry of murdering unborn children and don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. So obviously not everybody agrees that murder is wrong in all circumstances as you were suggesting, and fascists do support murder as long as it benefits or at least doesn’t hurt society.


The purpose is to uphold the moral point of view of a certain group of people, that's it.


The moral point of view that violating the rights of other people is wrong, perhaps. So what about killing people who have no ties to society? What about killing illegal immigrants? What about infanticide? None of those really have an adverse affect on society. So, why have laws protecting these individuals except this moral view of a certain group of people that violating the rights of other people is wrong? There’s no other reason, that’s it.


If Buddhist monks start protesting and saying we should make it a crime to kill bugs, plants or any life because of their views, they could also say it's to protect 'individual rights'. But that's their view, it's a logical and valid view, but unfortunately not everyone is Buddhist and has to follow their beliefs. And not everyone has to agree that killing a zygote is the equivalent of killing an adult, that's just one group of people's view

Not everyone agrees that killing an abortion doctor is the equivalent of killing somebody else, that’s just one group of people. Not everybody agrees that killing a black is the equivalent of killing a white, that’s just one group of people. It wasn’t that long ago that this group of people was only a tiny minority. By comparison, a recent Gallop Poll found that for the first time in fifty years more people are describing themselves to be pro-life than pro-choice.

My point is that you can’t take the morality into question. You’re the one advocating a law based on a moral judgment. You’re the one saying that a group of people are inferior to other people because they don’t have some attribute that you have, making you superior. I’m saying that regardless of the moral status of a fetus the factual status is that it’s a human. We don’t have room to be discriminating based on our own individual religious, cultural, or moral perspectives.


No the law isn't useless because making murder illegal helps keep society from falling apart


So there should be no law against infanticide or any crime that doesn’t make society fall apart because those are only put in place to serve the moral perspective of some people? What if you lived in a nation where abortion was illegal. How would making a law allowing abortion keep society from falling apart? It wouldn’t, so you wouldn’t advocate abortion rights in that case? You can’t make this argument and then jump back and say, “yeah but this argument,” and then when I answer that argument you jump back to the first argument. That’s called a circle argument and a logical fallacy.


What I really don't like about prostitution being illegal is how they treat prostitutes. Poor, desperate, uneducated women resort to prostitution, they need help not punishment. It's like they're punishing them for being desperate and poor. So by making it illegal, it just makes life even harder for these poor women who are so desperate they will try to do it even if it's illegal. That's nothing like saying any law in 'which violators will be arrested should not be established because arresting people is bad.' They don't need to be arrested they need help.


No matter what a law, there will be poor, desperate, uneducated people punished for violating it. You can’t discriminate and say that only middle-class/rich, able, educated people can be punished. That’s prejudice, that’s class bigotry. You can give somebody help, there’s nothing wrong with that. There’s also no point in helping somebody who doesn’t need it. It’s like trying to fill a hole on level ground, or repair a window that’s not broken. However, if somebody violates a law they should be punished on equal ground as everybody else.


The same thing that makes the women more valuable than the cells she kills when she washes her hands. And obviously, I'm only talking about the early fetus.


I didn’t ask for an example, I asked for an answer. What is it, if not your moral perspective, if not the moral perspective of one group of people, that makes the mother more important than the fetus she’s murdering? What makes her more important than the skin cells she’s shedding?


Stealing from other people is wrong, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. Some people may have different opinions, but I wouldn't say these ideas are controversial, and the serious negative effects they would have on society if they were legal are obvious and that has nothing to do with morality.


So it’s controversy? Abortion should be legal because it’s controversial and people disagree about it. Not just a few people, a lot of people. Alright then, how about nuking Iraq? Shortly after 9/11 I’d say most Americans would’ve supported that. Should we do it? What about ethnically cleansing Westbank and occupying Gaza? I’m sure plenty of Palestinians support that. What about capital punishment? What about murdering abortion doctors? What about murdering women who attain abortions? All of these things are controversial topics and there’s a lot of disagreement about them. How about child molestation? You’d be astounded how many people argue about this. For example, I think we should have psychologists create a sort of test designed to gauge your maturity level and that regardless of age if you’re at a certain maturity level you should have the right to choose whoever you want to date, fuck, or vote for.


Abortion, like prostitution, is not something everyone can agree on morally, and there are no negative consequences for society if they are legal


Again, there’s no negative consequence for society to legalize postnatal abortion, infanticide. No more so than there is aborting a fetus. There’s no downside to late term abortion which you said you’re against, not for society, anyway.


So making it illegal would basically be to force the views of some people on others' lives. It would be like the Buddhist belief that killing insects or any form of life is wrong, being turned into law


It would be like a liberal trying to make a law against murdering abortion doctors, or a humanitarian making a law against infanticide, or the United Nations trying to stop child executions, or you trying to stop FGM.


Where did you get that statistic? Now that I tried to look it up myself, 5000-10000 deaths per year and much, much more serious injuries were what happened when abortion was illegal.


I’m not questioning your integrity, Yei. That’s a widely cited number. It’s just not true.

The claim that 5,000-10,000 women died to illegal abortions was originally stated in “Abortion, Spontaneous and Induced,” a 1936 book by Dr. Frederick Tausig, a political activist and proponent of legalized abortion. In 1942 Tausig admitted that he used “the wildest estimates,” to generate the bogus numbers and even apologized for doing so.

Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the NARAL, was one of the people who spread that statistic. However, after the legalization of abortion he admitted that he and his colleagues had known that the numbers were false and simply proliferated them because they felt that it was a sort of noble lie.

Dr. Tausig’s numbers were not alone fabricated they’re also out dated. First off, numerous other studies during that time rated the number of abortion rated deaths (be they legal, illegal, or spontaneous) to 1,500. Tausig’s numbers were never adopted by the academic community, never accepted by legitimate sources. The number of abortion deaths also went down with the end of the Second World War and the advancement of medical technology. As the medical director of Planned Parenthood Mary Calderone stated in 1957 that the total number of abortion related deaths (legal, illegal, and spontaneous) was 260. In 1967 the number was 110. The Center for Disease control stated that in 1972 only 34 women died from illegal abortions.

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/century/aahxpt2prn.htm
The CDC didn't start doing surveillance until 1972, and there were no standard reporting criteria in 1966 — the CDC didn't develop criteria until 1978. According to the CDC:


Since CDC's surveillance of abortion mortality began in 1972, the annual number of deaths associated with legal induced abortion has decreased by 54% (as of 1991) (31). In 1972, 63 women died as a result of induced abortion. Of those deaths, 24 were associated with legal abortion and 39 with illegal abortion. In 1991, 12 women died as a result of induced abortion: 11 of these deaths were associated with legal abortion and one with illegal abortion. The case-fatality rate decreased approximately 80% between 1972 (4.1 deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions) and 1991 (0.8 deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions). These rates, consistent with previously published data for the 1970s and mid-1980s (32-34) indicated that the risk for death from legal induced abortion continues to be extremely low.



http://www.volokh.com/posts/1178067737.shtml



Even if abortion is illegal, women in certain situations don't care, they will try to do all they can to get the abortion, and that clearly will cause a lot more deaths and injuries than if abortion was legal and done by professionals.



When abortion was illegal more deaths came from illegal abortions because there were more of them. Now that abortion is legal, more deaths come from legal abortions. Yet, either way, the number is not significant. It’s minute.


Then that would be less than 9 weeks. You're saying in less than 9 weeks the fetus has the ability to understand it's being threatened, feels pain, screams, claws and tries to escape? Well that's just scientifically impossible. According to what I learned in bio class, at the beginning of the fetal stage (11th week) it is still not capable of voluntary movement yet, much less consciousness. The muscles and brain are just beginning development at that point, 89% of abortions occur before the first 12 weeks, so there's no screaming or clawing or any of that stuff for 89% of abortions. Actually neurons don't even develop until 20-28 weeks. So before the neurons show up, there's no pain or consciousness, so there can't be any clawing or screaming or fighting in even more than 98.9% of abortions then. There can be movement though, but involuntary movement like twitching and reflexes as the brain, muscles and neurons develop.

But I'm sure this "Silent Scream" is based on science and is very credible, and nothing like ridiculous propaganda movies like "The Hard Truth," right?


This reminds me of how you said “Dead Meat,” was propaganda and bullshit but told me that “Sicko,” was not and I still had the onus of explaining the individual cases it brought up. Like I said, the fetus doesn’t understand the pain. Fish don’t understand pain either, but they still feel it. And voluntary or automatic, the fetus is still resisting. The resistance may be instinctive, but it’s resistance all the same.


Yeah, the government really takes good care of all the suffering children who are already born, especially the ones in the orphanages. My mom works for the Children's Aid Society here in Canada, and this government organization has caused so many kids to commit suicide it's ridiculous. IMO, we should go with quality of life over quantity. Personally, I would not want millions of more children to be born into poverty and lead tragic lives. An unwanted pregnancy is simply not meant to be, early abortion is almost the equivalent to birth control, and people should be given proper birth control, especially ones in poverty.



Did I ever tell you my cousin was adopted? Her parents waited on a list for two and a half years just to get a baby. There’s no short supply of parents wanting to adopt newborn babies.

In any case this is silly. You’re saying you shouldn’t try to save unborn children when you can save born children. But it’s okay to save born children while overlooking unborn children. So, if somebody’s advocating something you agree with they’re doing good. If they’re advocating something you disagree with they’re hypocrites. Whatever the case, this is more bickering about people. Let’s stick to the issue.



What makes killing a 3 year old worse than someone washing their hands and killing all those cells? Those cells are technically life. Or the masturbation example would be better because sex cells are all potential humans.




That’s what I’m trying to figure out. So it’s not sentience? Sentience has nothing to do with it? That’s not what makes us more significant? And it’s not the stage of development. So what is it? What makes us more morally significant than fetuses or skin cells? So what is it? The onnus of proof is on you. You're saying there's something there, now prove it. It's not my job to prove a negative. It's your obligation. So explain to me. Don't answer my question with a question, don't answer it with an example, give me an answer. \
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

SeraphAlford wrote:
That’s what I’m trying to figure out. So it’s not sentience? Sentience has nothing to do with it? That’s not what makes us more significant? And it’s not the stage of development. So what is it? What makes us more morally significant than fetuses or skin cells? So what is it? The onnus of proof is on you. You're saying there's something there, now prove it. It's not my job to prove a negative. It's your obligation. So explain to me. Don't answer my question with a question, don't answer it with an example, give me an answer. \


I think it's pretty obvious sentience and development have alot to do with it.

This is the main aspect of the issue, all the other points I made were made with this idea in mind, but you took them all as if abortion is the same as murder, and so there's no point in continuing the other parts of the discussion until we settle this part.

A skin cell is not as morally significant as an adult human being.

First of all, just being human or a human being is not enough to give something the same moral status as you or me:

A zygote is technically human, and that is because of its DNA. The DNA is that of the species homo sapien. But wait, a skin cell also has the DNA of the species homo sapien, they are human as well. But individual skin cells do not each deserve the same rights as we do. What about it specifically being a 'human being', by 'being' most people mean it is unique from it's parents (the DNA). Ok, so by that criteria, a skin cell and all other cells in the body are not human beings because they all have the same DNA, but a zygote is unique because it has new DNA. And by the same criteria, a petri dish filled with living human cells from someone's cancerous tumor is also just a huge group of human beings. Each cancer cell is human, it's DNA makes it part of the species homo sapien, and it's DNA is different from its parents, therefore each cancer cell could be considered a human being. But each individual cancer cell does not deserve the same rights that you and I have.

I think you made a topic related to this a long time ago about how if we gave animals or inanimate objects human traits, like in movies, we suddenly can empathize with them and give them more moral value. Imagine if an alien came to Earth and had the similar intelligence as us (like ET). And if this alien was sentient, rational, could communicate, had emotions, possessed a future valued by him, and he was involved in relationships, then he would have the equal moral significance as you and me, even though he isn't human. Just simply being 'human' is not what makes something morally significant, it's the special characteristics of humans. A zygote doesn't have those characteristics anymore than a skin cell does.

Secondly, individual cells have lower moral significance than of animals, or anything that is sentient, can suffer and wants to continue living. A skin cell cannot suffer, it is not sentient, it isn't capable of having an opinion on whether it should exist or not. It doesn't know it exists. If you kill a skin cell, it doesn't care, it's not capable of caring. It's like ripping up a piece of paper, there's nothing morally wrong with that. That part is clear, the zygote doesn't care if you kill it or not and it doesn't suffer, just like the skin cell.

Thirdly, I've been asking some of my expert Muslim friends on abortion and they gave some pretty surprising answers. I thought they would be similar to what Christians believe, but they weren't. One said it was ok as long as the fetus isn't too developed, another said it all depends on the intentions and reasons for getting the abortion. Another said it was ok period, it's better to not let the baby be born into a bad life, God will take care of it because it goes straight to heaven anyway (makes sense). But one logical point was made about the case when the life of the mother is threatened. If the mother's life is seriously threatened, an abortion should be acceptable because the baby's life is not as significant as the mother's, because the mother has already established a life on Earth and has built many relationships with people that would be hurt or affected by her passing.

Human beings are very morally significant because the relationships they build with each other, their thoughts and morals, their hopes and beliefs just the overall complexity and beauty of our psyche. I am more valuable than a skin cell because a skin cell is not capable of emotion or love or thought or anything near that level of complexity. We don't give insects the same moral value as we give ourselves because they don't have those complexities, we give dogs and cats alot more moral value than insects because they are capable of love and communication with us, but ET gets a moral value equal to us because he is on the same level of emotional and mental complexity ( I never watched the movie tho, I'm just assuming).

The only thing I can think of that separates a zygote from a skin cell is that the zygote has potential to become a sentient, intelligent, valuable human being. But with some technology in the future, skin cells also could be potential humans. And sperm and egg cells are potential humans. Potential is not a good basis for something to be given moral significance on. Once the zygote turns into a sentient being with feelings and emotions, then it gains it's moral significance. And the "level" of sentience or feeling doesn't matter, once it has it, then it has significant moral value and deserves rights.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

Yei wrote:

I think it's pretty obvious sentience and development have alot to do with it.

This is the main aspect of the issue, all the other points I made were made with this idea in mind, but you took them all as if abortion is the same as murder, and so there's no point in continuing the other parts of the discussion until we settle this part.

A skin cell is not as morally significant as an adult human being.

First of all, just being human or a human being is not enough to give something the same moral status as you or me:

A zygote is technically human, and that is because of its DNA. The DNA is that of the species homo sapien. But wait, a skin cell also has the DNA of the species homo sapien, they are human as well. But individual skin cells do not each deserve the same rights as we do. What about it specifically being a 'human being', by 'being' most people mean it is unique from it's parents (the DNA). Ok, so by that criteria, a skin cell and all other cells in the body are not human beings because they all have the same DNA, but a zygote is unique because it has new DNA. And by the same criteria, a petri dish filled with living human cells from someone's cancerous tumor is also just a huge group of human beings. Each cancer cell is human, it's DNA makes it part of the species homo sapien, and it's DNA is different from its parents, therefore each cancer cell could be considered a human being. But each individual cancer cell does not deserve the same rights that you and I have.


Every cell in your body has the same dna, so in that sense a single skin or blood cell has the same level of being as the completed animal.

An animal is nothing more than a multicellular being, a mass composed of billions of individual single celled beings working together, nothing more, so really, every skin or blood cell is just as important as an entire human being, for without them, us as an completed animal wouldn't work the way its supposed to, and besides it too is a living thing, is it not important just because its not a "cute and / or fuzzy" multicellular being. if it wasn't for single celled beings there would be no such thing as multicellular life. so those single cells deserve the same if not more respect than the multicellular animal that it helps create.


I think you made a topic related to this a long time ago about how if we gave animals or inanimate objects human traits, like in movies, we suddenly can empathize with them and give them more moral value. Imagine if an alien came to Earth and had the similar intelligence as us (like ET). And if this alien was sentient, rational, could communicate, had emotions, possessed a future valued by him, and he was involved in relationships, then he would have the equal moral significance as you and me, even though he isn't human. Just simply being 'human' is not what makes something morally significant, it's the special characteristics of humans. A zygote doesn't have those characteristics anymore than a skin cell does.


Its not that animals don't have human traits, its the other way around, its humans who have lost some of our animal traits, but being animals ourselves, we can never entirely lose them.


Secondly, individual cells have lower moral significance than of animals, or anything that is sentient, can suffer and wants to continue living. A skin cell cannot suffer, it is not sentient, it isn't capable of having an opinion on whether it should exist or not. It doesn't know it exists. If you kill a skin cell, it doesn't care, it's not capable of caring. It's like ripping up a piece of paper, there's nothing morally wrong with that. That part is clear, the zygote doesn't care if you kill it or not and it doesn't suffer, just like the skin cell.


The only reason you say that is because you have skin cells to spare, if you weren't going to produce even one more skin cell in your entire life and were losing them at the same time(due to standard everyday stuff, electromagnetic radiation mainly), you probably wouldn't say that, besides a living thing is still a living thing regardless of whether or not its capable of human level tasks.


Thirdly, I've been asking some of my expert Muslim friends on abortion and they gave some pretty surprising answers. I thought they would be similar to what Christians believe, but they weren't. One said it was ok as long as the fetus isn't too developed, another said it all depends on the intentions and reasons for getting the abortion. Another said it was ok period, it's better to not let the baby be born into a bad life, God will take care of it because it goes straight to heaven anyway (makes sense). But one logical point was made about the case when the life of the mother is threatened. If the mother's life is seriously threatened, an abortion should be acceptable because the baby's life is not as significant as the mother's, because the mother has already established a life on Earth and has built many relationships with people that would be hurt or affected by her passing.

Human beings are very morally significant because the relationships they build with each other, their thoughts and morals, their hopes and beliefs just the overall complexity and beauty of our psyche. I am more valuable than a skin cell because a skin cell is not capable of emotion or love or thought or anything near that level of complexity. We don't give insects the same moral value as we give ourselves because they don't have those complexities, we give dogs and cats alot more moral value than insects because they are capable of love and communication with us, but ET gets a moral value equal to us because he is on the same level of emotional and mental complexity ( I never watched the movie tho, I'm just assuming).


Thats true, however Its those individual cells that give you the ability to love and the ability to think, without those individual single cells you would be nothing more than a mindless autonomation who only cared about survival and where her next meal is going to come from, if even that, just like that insect, it is those very individual single cells that you hold insignificant that give you all the things that in your regard make you more morally significant that those single cells. You owe all your moral significance to those "insignificant" single cells, as without them you'd be nothing more than a piece of paper or an insect morally.


The only thing I can think of that separates a zygote from a skin cell is that the zygote has potential to become a sentient, intelligent, valuable human being. But with some technology in the future, skin cells also could be potential humans. And sperm and egg cells are potential humans. Potential is not a good basis for something to be given moral significance on. Once the zygote turns into a sentient being with feelings and emotions, then it gains it's moral significance. And the "level" of sentience or feeling doesn't matter, once it has it, then it has significant moral value and deserves rights.


Exactly.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.