[Thread Split] Abortion

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:29 pm

aside from the numbers above, who of us(males especially) is to say that a decision to carry a child full term, which could cost a woman her livelihood, her home, her family ties, etc, is a mere 'inconvenience'? Not I.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Who's saying it's a "mere" inconvenience? And yet next to a human life all of those things are but inconvenience...

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:11 pm

snoopy wrote:
Pandora wrote:Individual human life should be respected and protected. However, I also believe that this principle should be tempered by other principles, in this case, the right of the woman to decide about her body. After all, it is her that supports the fetus for 9 months and goes through the pain of birth.
....And beyond, in most cases.

I have serious problems with this notion of a woman's "right to decide about her own body."

What does that even mean from a legal standpoint? Do I have the right to decide about my own body pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at someone else's head? Do I have the right to decide about my own body by running around naked in the streets? Do I have the right to decide about my own body killing my two year old who's dependent upon me? I'm fine with you saying that any person has a right to decide to or not to play the pregnancy lottery.... but when you do the deed and it creates another human life (presuming that we're to the stage of it being defined as another human life) then that life has rights, too. Considering the fact that in one case these supposed "rights" are being infringed upon by a party that has no other choice, and only for a limit term; compared to permanently and finally infringing upon the other's right to life... I'd say that the woman's rights are going to have to suffer.

Furthermore, if you set aside the cases where there wasn't consensual intercourse, the woman entered into the situation willfully, knowing the possible consequences that could occur and the effect that said consequences would have on her body. In short, if consensual intercourse happened, she put herself into the situation that you're trying to use to justify permanently ending a human life.

In the cases where it wasn't consensual, yes the woman's rights were violated.... so prosecute the violator and protect the collateral damage.

The bottom line is this: The whole argument about a woman "choosing about her body" pits one person's temporary comfort and convenience against another's life... and when stated in those terms the verdict is clear. I'll give you civil lawsuits against rapists and the like pain and suffering of violating the woman's right to choose for nine months... I won't give you killing a human life over someone's comfort.

(you guys should go back and read the whole thread)

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:33 am

callmeslick wrote: Still 5 to 7 times CUDA's claim.

WOW!!!!! thank you captain mellow dramatic. do you realize that's a 1% difference by your calculations of 5 to 7 times

do you know how stupid that sounds????
I said 99% and the actual number was 95% excuse the F out of me... the point still remains
MOST
95%
of all abortions are done for the reason of pure convenience. I find the fact of taking a human life in any form disturbing. but the taking of a life purely for your own convenience. is disgusting.
it is life. if science was able to recreate what was going on inside the womb it would be medical history. hell we make a big deal out of our ability to copy cells(cloning). not create an entirely new set of them from scratch
.
and my analogy to slavery and the Jews is valid and correct. calling it a fetus instead of a baby is just a way to make it more acceptable. it's much easier to say your killing tissue or a fetus, or a parasite then it is to say your killing a baby. but that is the fact. that is what we chose to do.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:25 am

Well, since I was the one to introduce the term parasite, I guess I need to clarify, at least for CUDA.

I used the parasite reference in the generic sense, not the pejorative, simply to imply an organism living off of a host with different DNA, to counter the idea that a developing baby is just another body part.

I guess it was a mistake, because of the negative connotations, sorry.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:45 pm

Not a problem Spidey. I had heard the term used before.

But I was more trying to get a point across, then to point to an actual term. and my point is correct, we try to portray an in the womb child as something less than it is. just so the sting of our actions, it's death for our convenience. isn't as painful. make no mistake it WILL DIE and 95% (just for you slick) of abortions or infanticide is for committed for convenience not for the physical health of the mother.

Dehumanization (or dehumanisation) describes the denial of “humanness” to others and is theorized to take on two forms: animalistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely intergroup basis, and mechanistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely interpersonal basis.[1] Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality) and prevents one from showing compassion towards stigmatized groups.

Prove me wrong ANYONE.

CobGobbler · Post by **CobGobbler** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:14 pm

It's your opinion that people do that for convenience. Pretty amazing that you presume to know and understand the situations of every pregnant woman--I certainly do not. I cannot imagine having to make such a decision and I do not believe women make such a decision in such a cavalier way that you seem to describe.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:20 pm

Its not an opinion. Its a statistical fact based on surveyed information of why women have abortions

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:45 pm

Now go stand in the corner with Slick, Cob.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:02 pm

CUDA wrote:
Dehumanization (or dehumanisation) describes the denial of “humanness” to others and is theorized to take on two forms: animalistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely intergroup basis, and mechanistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely interpersonal basis.[1] Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality) and prevents one from showing compassion towards stigmatized groups.
Prove me wrong ANYONE.

You're accusing someone who takes emergency contraception of ignoring "the creative and interesting aspects of [the embryo's] personality"? Pro-choicers [edit: corrected] contend that the immediate product of conception isn't a person. Just look at your own definition, unless you contend that embryos have personalities, much less creative and interesting ones.

There's room for intelligent people to disagree on when life becomes a person, but accusing a pro-lifer of dehumanizing or murdering is circular at best and trolling at worst.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:53 pm

And you chose to ignore the definition of viable. The pro-abortion crowd say its OK to abort because its not viable life.
But by the very wording that they choose, an embryo is viable life. Anyway you cut it most cases of infanticide is a choice of conveinience. I never said the choice was easy, or that I understood the pressures each individual faces. I just stated that its a choice. And it's a choice that doesn't need to be made. There are other options.
And they are dehumanizing it. Because it they weren't then they wouldn't be so insistent on calling it a fetus. And that's the justification that they use. It's just a lump of cells, its not viable, it's not able to sustain itself without a host. If those terms are not meant to make a description of it being less than life then what is the purpose?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:54 pm

CUDA wrote:And you chose to ignore the definition of viable. The pro-abortion crowd say its OK to abort because its not viable life.

I'm not talking about their bad arguments right now. I'm talking about your bad arguments right now.

CUDA wrote:But by the very wording that they choose, an embryo is viable life. Anyway you cut it most cases of infanticide is a choice of convenience. I never said the choice was easy, or that I understood the pressures each individual faces. I just stated that its a choice. And it's a choice that doesn't need to be made. There are other options.

The only relevant question is when or from what properties do our moral obligations toward people arise. There's nothing wrong with choices of convenience per se. They're only wrong when those choices negatively impact others or ourselves. Everyone agrees with you that people shouldn't murder each other for convenience. What you have to convince me is that an embryo or a fetus has enough personal qualities to make it a person.

CUDA wrote:And they are dehumanizing it. Because it they weren't then they wouldn't be so insistent on calling it a fetus. And that's the justification that they use. It's just a lump of cells, its not viable, it's not able to sustain itself without a host.

Then listen to my argument. From your very definition, dehumanizing is ignoring the creative and interesting aspects of one's personality. Neither embryos nor fetuses have creative or interesting personalities.

Your argument is circular because it already assumes that fetuses are people. If they aren't people, then you aren't dehumanizing them by not considering them people.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:58 pm

I think it's all about potential. Everyone here was an embryo at one time. So I think it's safe to say that every abortion kills a person, no matter when you want to define that moment. From the time of fertilization the process to create a human being is started. To stop it at anytime after that is to prevent it's potential. Correct?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:05 pm

The Catholic Church uses the same argument to argue why any birth control--even preventing conception--is immoral. Do you think that that follows from your argument?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:25 pm

My argument is a simple one. Is it or is it not a potential person? If so, then it is being disenfranchised of it's personhood.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:46 pm

flip wrote:My argument is a simple one. Is it or is it not a potential person? If so, then it is being disenfranchised of it's personhood.

Well, by some extreme logic a cocktail of chemicals in a jar is "potentially" a person.

I'd argue that any pair (sepatated) of sperm/egg is potentially a person... My challenge is: give me a good, robust, non-arbitrary definition for human life (the same human life that the declaration of independence states has inalienable rights... particularly to life) and then let's work from there.

In my opinion, if you strip away all of the caveats and arbitrary requirements, you end up with a living organism with a unique, full, set of human DNA.... so now, try to justify to me why there should more stipulations than that, and I'll tell you why those stipulations could be expanded to include a lot more people than you really want them to... unless you want to start making it obvious how right CUDA is about dehumanizing people....

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:52 pm

Well, I was trying to make an argument without being obtuse

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:22 pm

I stopped reading the same arguments over and over again and skipped down to post this. It's something you probably don't think about much, or have never thought about.

Eventually, there won't be an abortion argument. Sometime in the future, maybe a couple hundred years or so (maybe less), every embryo will be viable. That is to say, they won't be dependent on the mother for survival through to term. Babies won't have to be aborted, but rather, unwanted pregnancies can be fulfilled in artificial wombs. It will be no different than giving a child up for adoption except you won't have to give birth. A minimal surgical procedure will extract the embryo and it can be incubated for the gestational period.

So keep on fighting for your entertainment, because eventually you both win. No babies will die and there will be no unwanted pregnancies (practical definition).

The End.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:01 am

what vision says is likely true......then, the question will become what to do with all these people sucking the resources dry?

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:09 am

My question never got answered. Again, but I think Slick just hit on the real heart of the matter anyways

. Abortion actually cuts down on the population without it being unsightly. A silent genocide if you will.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:50 am

callmeslick wrote:what vision says is likely true......then, the question will become what to do with all these people sucking the resources dry?

Send them to your place, of course.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:11 am

seriously, though. That is the elephant in the room, whether debating around abortion, contraception, or other means of birth control or family size regulation. There already are more people than this planet ought to be supporting, and the numbers keep growing. At some point, basic population dynamics kicks in, and you'll have a massive die-off. Works in any population, or any species. You'll see Darwinian biology at it's best......

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:55 am

Just kill all pro-choicers, they don't seem to have a problem with it

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:14 am

[Ah, back from a long weekend.]

callmeslick wrote:There already are more people than this planet ought to be supporting, and the numbers keep growing. At some point, basic population dynamics kicks in, and you'll have a massive die-off.

That only happens if population growth outstrips food-production. The former is slowing significantly worldwide, the latter is still making big strides. It's still a danger, but by no means a certainty.

-----------

Back on topic:

Okay, so looking back over the thread, we've seen a number of flawed rationales for/against abortion:

"Legalization makes it safe for women" - Snoopy referred to the hypocrisy of using 'safety' as a moral rationale when considering a question about intentional life-taking.
"Life begins at conception" - Spidey noted life began long before that, and Jeff250 pointed out the fallacy of "magic 0-or-1 moments".
"The line should be drawn at [ trimester X / week Y / independence / birth / measure Z of personhood or viability ]" - Multiple folks pointed out how ill-defined and arbitrary these metrics are.
"You should ask, 'What if your mother had aborted you?'" - Vision pointed out this is a nonsensical / illogical question.
"It's the woman's body / functions like one of the woman's organs" - Multiple people pointed out that the fetus is medically a separate-but-supported body, and that there is no comparable organ.
"It's murder, plain and simple" - This is a presumption of personhood, not an argument demonstrating a reason for it.
"It's not you, so it's not your choice / you can't tell someone else what to do / kiss my ass" - Top Gun and Snoopy and others pointed to the fact that protective law overrides personal privacy.
"Women have done this for centuries / it's never been illegal" - callmeslick clarified that this excludes post-1920's moral legislation.
"It happens because of unthinkable situations / out of convenience" - The relative sizes aside, both reasons are statistically significant, and warrant consideration.
"It's because we've dehumanized the embryo/fetus" - Jeff250 pointed to the pre-suppositions this argument depends on.
"Medical science will render this moot" - Until then, this is a legitimate topic.

As I've said before, this topic tends to push people toward the "poles", where pro-lifers are calling for an end to any abortion at any point after conception, and pro-choicers are pushing to allow abortions all the way up to birth. So, in an attempt (possibly in vain) at productive dialogue, let me ask this:

Is there anything both sides can agree on here?

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:27 am

That's where I was going with potential personhood. Without trying to be too philisophical about it. If allowed to continue it's natural growth, it does inevitably at some point gain personhood right? I don't want to go as far back as Spidey so to clarify, I mean an individual embryo inevitably gains personhood unless the process is stopped. I figured everyone could agree on the obvious.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:33 am

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:39 am

Flip, I've seen that pic/caption before. Unfortunately, some of the claims being made about the image and the doctor performing the surgery aren't entirely true.

That's actually an example of what I see as a poor way to argue against abortion. In a way, it's similar to arguments for abortion which play up images of girls in agony and clusters of cells.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:40 pm

I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm stating my views on it. I see every embryo as having it's potential personhood stolen and if that 21 week old baby was pulled out it would look just like a miniature person. I do have problems with rape, because i don't think a woman should have to suffer something outside of her freewill, but stop the process before it even gets started.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:10 pm

Some in the field of medical ethics think it should be all right to kill after the birth and still call it abortion.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/0 ... 4c41ba5a9d

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:18 pm

Foil wrote:Is there anything both sides can agree on here?

Certainly we can all agree that Heretic's example is wrong.

Perhaps we can all agree that waiting until the third trimester is wrong, except for perhaps when the mother's life is in grave danger?

Can we agree that abortion is justified when not terminating the pregnancy puts the mother's life in grave danger? When the mother is expected to die but the child is expected to live? When both the mother and the child are expected to die?

Can we agree that taking the morning after pill--even if you think it is morally wrong--isn't first degree murder?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:31 pm

Just a clarification…

Life began billions of years ago.

A new individual begins at conception.

I know…I’m anal.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:57 pm

I have no problem with the morning after pill. I say stop it before it gets started, especially in cases of rape, but I have problems with people being able to be irresponsible and then snuff a life out, not only for the life of the baby but for the sake of their conscience too. It's like a dui in my mind. If you get drunk and drive, you are not shown mercy for being reckless. I could give many examples where recklessness is not pitied in the least, but when it comes to pregnancy it's ok. That's inconsistent.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:02 pm

Foil,
food production is not exactly 'keeping up' with population when the number of people who starve to death annually remains where it does.
Also,food might not be half the issue that potable water might be.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:13 pm

The last I heard food distribution was the major factor in starvation, not production, but I do agree with the potable water.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:20 pm

nm, I was gonna go after ya Slick but I won't. Let's just suffice it to say that if I wasn't a believer in God, I would also think that legalized abortion would be the best way to clean the gene pool and cut down on population numbers without "seeming" barbaric. I guess it's a good thing I am believer, because my next thought would be to rid ourselves of the rich and start over there too

.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:34 pm

Sorry, Flip, but I don't think God has a thing to do with what I'm talking about. It's a subject called Population Dynamics, and the outcomes are the same, no matter what the species. Population hits a viable peak and then goes over that peak and plummets. Can be due to disease, famine, dehydration, war
or some other factor, but it happens in every situation ever studied.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:46 pm

Back to the topic, are you arguing that population dynamics (i.e. the risk of overpopulation) is a valid ethical rationale for abortion?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:57 pm

Foil wrote:Back to the topic, are you arguing that population dynamics (i.e. the risk of overpopulation) is a valid ethical rationale for abortion?

no, it was, frankly, a complete digression, based upon vision's view of future developments. Sorry for veering off course.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:27 am

Jeff250 wrote:
Foil wrote:Is there anything both sides can agree on here?
Certainly we can all agree that Heretic's example [ link ]is wrong.

Agreed. In fact, I'm wondering if that paper was intentionally extreme, in order to make a point or become a catalyst for dialogue.

Jeff250 wrote:Perhaps we can all agree that waiting until the third trimester is wrong, except for perhaps when the mother's life is in grave danger?

I'd draw the line earlier, but I'll certainly agree in principle.

Jeff250 wrote:Can we agree that abortion is justified when not terminating the pregnancy puts the mother's life in grave danger? When the mother is expected to die but the child is expected to live? When both the mother and the child are expected to die?

Agreed, although the case where the child is expected to live and mother is expected to die is murky (I'd want to avoid legislation in that case).

Jeff250 wrote:Can we agree that taking the morning after pill--even if you think it is morally wrong--isn't first degree murder?

Meaning that it's not morally equivalent to first-degree murder, or that it shouldn't ever be legally prosecuted as such?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:35 pm

I originally meant morally, but I'd also be curious to hear you out if you thought that it was morally first-degree murder but that it should not be legally enforced as such. Is your concern about legislating religious principles?