Abortion, Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Swaggersaurus, laws can't be based on morality because then laws wouldn't be for the good of the people. Some people's morals are based on their religion. If government is a secular compact, then laws can't be made based on morality because some people(see most of republican GOP) are deeply religious. Additionally, morality is based off common sense, and common sense is not the same for most people. For example, if I saw a five dollar bill on the seat of an unlocked car, it would be common sense for me to not take the bill. But, for others, it may be common sense to take the five dollar bill. I know it's kind of weird to understand, but laws can't ever be based off morality.
 

az

toddmoding
is a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
sure, but i think deck was explaining that abortion (and laws allowing it) are immoral

the only difference between laws and morality as far as i can see in your account of laws are that they are codified. laws are objective because of that, but they can change with a government. morality might differ from person to person, but most of us in this likely share a great deal of common ground re: morality. it's no coincidence that abortion is consistently a controversial subject

what maybe suits 50% of the population's beliefs is imposed on the the other 50% as law because it is the former's version of morality

i dont think i worded this post well at all because i'm very tired but do you see what i'm getting at? it's easy to want to dismiss morality from the discussion because of it's subjective nature, but it is the crux of it at the same time

eta: sir you're arguing against yourself there... laws can't be based off morality because morality is subjective and different for different people... but is also based upon common sense? whhh? i don't think such a generic term as "common sense" is useful here

if you genuinely believe laws have no grounding in morality (i'm not saying it has to be your version morality) then we need to backtrack a loooooooong way

etaa!! actually let me be more specific here -- it wasn't my intention to be obtuse. put simply, your post is wrong. what is for the good of the people is based on a moral standard, and laws were originally derived from (and maintain a strong tie to) religions. religions arose up out of what people believed was good for the people. it's all a moral code one way or another. it's not a question of "laws can't be based on morality" -- they have been, for thousands of years

re: protection of the people, well, see my post about the origin of morality on the last page. that's what morality is, or was
 

Lemonade

WOOPAGGING
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Swaggersaurus, laws can't be based on morality because then laws wouldn't be for the good of the people. Some people's morals are based on their religion. If government is a secular compact, then laws can't be made based on morality because some people(see most of republican GOP) are deeply religious. Additionally, morality is based off common sense, and common sense is not the same for most people. For example, if I saw a five dollar bill on the seat of an unlocked car, it would be common sense for me to not take the bill. But, for others, it would be common sense to take the five dollar bill. I know it's kind of weird to understand, but laws can't ever be based off morality.
On the contrary, laws MUST be based on morality or the people who break the laws won't care about breaking them over and over. Take the scenario of a rich man who refuses to wear a seatbelt. He gets fined and fined, but what is it to him? He's rich. The only thing that will stop him from breaking this "law" is if he felt some guilt--say he had a family. Common sense screams wear a seatbelt, but if he doesn't care about leaving his family, what's going to stop him from not wearing his seatbelt? Nothing. If he feels guilty that the possible danger of neglecting his seatbelt will place a burden on his loving family, he is more inclined to follow this "law." that is all I wish to say.
 
On the contrary, laws MUST be based on morality or the people who break the laws won't care about breaking them over and over. Take the scenario of a rich man who refuses to wear a seatbelt. He gets fined and fined, but what is it to him? He's rich. The only thing that will stop him from breaking this "law" is if he felt some guilt--say he had a family. Common sense screams wear a seatbelt, but if he doesn't care about leaving his family, what's going to stop him from not wearing his seatbelt? Nothing. If he feels guilty that the possible danger of neglecting his seatbelt will place a burden on his loving family, he is more inclined to follow this "law." that is all I wish to say.
The comparison you're making doesn't make any sense. The point of wearing a seatbelt is to help save your life. If he doesn't care about paying a fine then whatever, he'll just die in an accident. Fines are used as an incentive to prevent people from breaking the law. I see your point but I don't understand how the whole rich guy scenario makes any type of sense.
 

az

toddmoding
is a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
also sir you should really reread this part of your post:

For example, if I saw a five dollar bill on the seat of an unlocked car, it would be common sense for me to not take the bill. But, for others, it would be common sense to take the five dollar bill. I know it's kind of weird to understand, but laws can't ever be based off morality.
what you are talking about here is either not common sense at all, or we have to give common sense up as a term

it's not helpful
 
The point i was trying to make is that common sense is different for different people. Lets say I'm a rich guy and i see the five dollar bill on the car seat. My reaction would be to not take it because I'm rich and I don't want to risk going to jail. If I don't have a job, and I'm broke, it would be common sense for me to take the five dollar bill. Understand now?
 

az

toddmoding
is a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
i understand that that your account renders common sense a completely unhelpful term!
 

Lemonade

WOOPAGGING
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
The point i was trying to make is that common sense is different for different people. Lets say I'm a rich guy and i see the five dollar bill on the car seat. My reaction would be to not take it because I'm rich and I don't want to risk going to jail. If I don't have a job, and I'm broke, it would be common sense for me to take the five dollar bill. Understand now?
Or take it, if I'm greedy. After all, rich people I am familiar with don't like passing up more free money.


The comparison you're making doesn't make any sense. The point of wearing a seatbelt is to help save your life. If he doesn't care about paying a fine then whatever, he'll just die in an accident. Fines are used as an incentive to prevent people from breaking the law. I see your point but I don't understand how the whole rich guy scenario makes any type of sense.
In the off chance that he is in an accident (he's a good driver), he feels no moral obligation to be safe since he is single and cool.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
If a rich guy and a poor guy do things have different viewpoints that is called perspective. Two people cannot have different common sense, some people just have a lack of it.
 
To take the old argument a bit further, and hopefully get slightly back on track, why should there be any difference between the "potential for life" argument, and the argument which goes "every woman should become pregnant as soon as possible and as frequently as possible"? I know it's crude, but to rehash some of the things I've seen in this thread, the children born as a result wouldn't go back and say "hang on, I wish you hadn't done that - I didn't want to be born". There is no logical point at which you can terminate the potential-for-life regress. After all, when a girl says to a boy "Sorry, not tonight, I've got a headache" they are potentially depriving a baby of life, in almost exactly the same sense that a woman having an abortion is depriving a clump of completely dependant, non-sentient cells of becoming a baby.
 

az

toddmoding
is a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
the difference to me there is the choice

the two instances aren't almost exactly the same at all because this is all about actions and consequence. there's no irresponsibility in a girl saying "i have a headache, no sex", there's plenty in saying "screw now, think later"

the main reason i can't abide abortion is because of that monstrously high figure someone posted earlier itt about 90%+ of abortions being out of convenience

we have made it so disgustingly easy for people to ignore the consequences of their actions

bear in mind i am a principle of double effect man, though

abortion is fucked up to me, but sometimes it is genuinely the lesser of two fuck ups
 
So Swag, your point is that if a women is pregnant they should continue to have the baby if they want to abort the fetus based on convenience?

If that is true, wouldn't it be safe to conclude that if a women wants to have an abortion based on convenience does not deserve to be in control of her own body and live on with the burden of an unwanted baby?
 
I have a question. Say, for example, that the mother is extremely poor. In debt, whatever, choose your reason as to why she has no money. Now, is it better that she brings a child into a world, where they will both struggle endlessly just to get by?
 
i think that abortion should be illegal, because if pro-choice people have abortions, they won't pass on their genes, and the next generation will be flooded with pro-lifers.

...


i was hoping i would get to be the first to answer these, but then dm posted and i went to sleep. my answers are mostly the same as his (but trollier). oh well.

i tend to think that humanity is defined by consciousness. i think that any creature that can be thought of as self-aware is entitled to a lengthy set of rights and dignities. the challenge here is that consciousness is extremely difficult to define, understand, or recognize. i would be alright with killing people if they could be shown to have no consciousness, but that is currently not possible -- and i value every conscious person's life very highly. as such, i take a very safe route: if there's a chance that a creature might have achieved consciousness, then i'm strongly against killing it. that includes all people, as well as dolphins, whales, many apes, elephants, and several birds (including penguins). i think all of these groups have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

so now let's deal with this:

1. fetuses are obviously not conscious until a certain point in their development. many live babies don't even appear to be self-aware. however, that's not a safe assumption to make. i don't think any fetus could be conscious until at least the 3-4 month range, so that's where i think the cutoff should be. that gives women plenty of time to decide as well as guaranteeing that no thinking baby will be harmed.

2. what stops us from legalizing infanticide is the Big Government

3. but those are like exactly the same argument why would one be valid and the other not

4. my conscious tells me that not excercising is a bad thing but i do it anyway and nobody's rights are violated

5. you are dreadfully abusing the word 'imposed'. if i said you must get an abortion, that's imposing a rule. if i said you can't get an abortion, that's imposing a rule. but when i say that you can get one if you feel like it, that's not imposing anything (well, i suppose it's imposing a choice, but we tend to assume that's good).

6. sorry but this question is just too dumb to answer

7. when men start having babies, they'll get to choose whether or not to have an abortion. if your girlfriend doesn't want a child and you do, break up with her and find a better match.

8. women already have the choice to look at fetuses if they feel like it. why would you force people to look at something gross if they don't want to? this question is like something straight out of a clockwork orange

9. yes

10.
It is difficult to live without religion after having known it because it is difficult, after knowing religion, to take earth seriously. And unless one is a saint, it is difficult to live without taking earth seriously.
look, i've taken a quote about opium and substituted 'religion' for 'opium'. doesn't that bother you?
opium is the religion of the people.
ah! i've gone and done it again. does that bother you at all?

11. if i had been aborted before i was conscious, by definition i wouldn't have noticed. besides that, being in favour of giving women a choice doesn't mean i want them to choose abortion.

12. i'm pretty sure every one of these questions was built on the premise that fetuses are people, which i don't accept. as such, there's no way for me to answer this. (it doesn't help that there really isn't a question.)

13. it is discrimination. it discriminates against creatures that aren't people, which society already does en masse.

14. "Suppose we bracket for the moment the idea that the unborn child is a human being with human rights. Let's suppose that these things are uncertain, which in fact they are not." i should probably skip this question only for making this absurd statement, but anyway: there definitely is a degree of uncertainty. that's why i make the very generous estimate that fetuses become humans 5-6 months before birth.

15. the main reason that nobody wants to cut up kittens is because they're cute. fetuses aren't cute. i don't think the law should ban killing cats or dogs for food. to me, it's equivalent to hunting game.

16. damn this question is brilliant why doesn't all logic work this way it's like man i'm arguing so i'm right okay

17. why do you care who puts their hands into my vagina??? these questions are getting dumber

18. i would sort of like to see this happen, actually. if you're the sort of person who would abort a child for being gay, then there's like a 99% chance you're against abortions too. it would be a hysterical dilemna. anyway, since the fetus isn't a human, the mother can still do whatever she wants with it.

19. jaded indifference.

reading tayla's post and then her location made me laugh way harder than it should have

edit: holy cocks you are all posting so fast
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I think abortion more than any other topic has good arguments (and bad) on both sides. I should know, I've been on both sides. The fact that we so often comes to blows and demonization over this is so much more telling about the sad state of the country than the topic itself.

I can say I'm a libertarian because that's where I fit best, but I don't have a checklist of libertarian tropes I should be following. No political party has totally consistent views, and it's stupid that we've come to a point where people have to be as extreme as possible to get elected.

Coming back to being a libertarian, it is my belief that government in our society is still in its infancy when the first and best solution to any problem is simply to outlaw it. In spite of all the problems with having a criminal law in place, if you simply don't like something then the majority of the population still thinks it is ok to make it illegal.

Where abortion is illegal some people will still try to have them and some people WILL die as a result. This is the position I used to take, it seems like a very obvious one but it isn't. The ugly part here is people manufacturing definitions of life so that they can sleep better night. "It's alive if it has to rely on two people instead of one," they say, meaning that under their definition a single mother should be free to commit infanticide. Or following that logic, why should third trimester abortion be illegal? We learn in middle school science what life is, then throw that out the window in a college philosophy class. It is absurd.

At some point you have to draw the line and say "People are going to commit the crime anyway, but this should still not be allowed." Everyone knows that line falls somewhere between abortion and infanticide, and even I can't say that in a year I won't change my mind but right now I feel abortion is crossing the line. I feel for the 10% that think it is their only choice. But acting like it's better than infanticide, coming up with any definition that suits my goals, sweeping a death under the rug is something I cannot do.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Frankly, I guess I'd fall on the pro-choice side, seeing as I value the convenience of being able to deal with that 1/a million tough situation for a loved one or lover. Also sex is not something I can just choose to not do, sorry Deck. xD

That said, I have to be amused at the unintelligible swearing and slander pointed at DK as he honestly, respectfully, and calmly outlines his beliefs. Why are the majority of pro-choice posts in this thread (starting with brain's at the start) so aggressive, and packed with profanities?

There are plenty of women who choose abortion, or would choose abortion, who still feel great remorse at the loss of their child to be. It's a painful emotional decision for a reason. For a couple who has been trying hard to get pregnant, and finally achieves it, to them, that child is already their living baby, and a tremendously precious existence. I don't personally believe that a small group of cells has human rights, but I think that not acknowledging the fact that abortion does erase human life is truly sad.

I think appreciating the value of unborn life is only natural, so it's unnatural and quite scary not to at least understand the motives of the pro-life side.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's better to give the mother a chance at a happy ending. Forcing women without means to birth will only create more orphans and broken homes. Abortion can be a tool for what I see, as a greater good. That said, I don't think it's something we as humans, with hearts, should do without remorse.
 
To suggest some "right" to abortion is to suggest there is an inherent right to have sex, get pregnant, then have someone place instruments into a vagina to slaughter the life that was made through an act of procreation.
Yes.

The ugly part here is people manufacturing definitions of life so that they can sleep better night. "It's alive if it has to rely on two people instead of one," they say, meaning that under their definition a single mother should be free to commit infanticide. Or following that logic, why should third trimester abortion be illegal? We learn in middle school science what life is, then throw that out the window in a college philosophy class. It is absurd.
The issue isn't the definition of "life". The issue is that saying that "all life is valuable" is asinine. What gives value to life is not the fact that it's "life" - the processes behind life are just way too simple and mindless to be endowed with any kind of value, let alone rights. There are many things you could see as a source of value for life: its complexity, self awareness, its relationship with its environment, its self-reliance, and so forth. An embryo, quite frankly, offers none of these things, so it's fair game to say that it is life without value. You can't say "it is alive, therefore it is valuable" without trivializing the concept of life.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
The word majority does not mean "all" (and no, I didn't mean yours brain...), and I will admit that I didn't actually count to see if it was a majority.

I was just shocked at some of the comments made by posters who I normally have great respect for. People are way too hot about this subject...
 

Nastyjungle

JACKED and sassy
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
The word majority does not mean "all", and I will admit that I didn't actually count to see if it was a majority.

I was just shocked at some of the comments made by posters who I normally have great respect for. People are way too hot about this subject...
It's an important issue to be hot about, isn't it?
Why shouldn't people be fired up about it?
Especially when people think they are arguing against something they think is wrong?

Just because you can dress up an opinion in nice tone and cordial words doesn't mean it deserves a nice response, btw
 
That said, I have to be amused at the unintelligible swearing and slander pointed at DK as he honestly, respectfully, and calmly outlines his beliefs. Why are the majority of pro-choice posts in this thread (starting with brain's at the start) so aggressive, and packed with profanities?
There is a general intense hatred of the far right among moderates and lefties in America and I believe people are just visualizing Deck Knight as the embodiment of their values and are lashing out at him. It is an extremely harsh partisan climate here in the US. If you want to see aggressive criticism laced with profanities, just watch Fox News once and you'll be set for the next year.

It's a hopeless issue anyway. Human rights mean nothing in the face of religion. In fact, it's invention was made for the purpose of taking human rights away and controlling the population and it's a wonder that it still has influence today in our supposedly advanced, "educated" (a term I use loosely) society.
 
az: good laws are not based on morals, they're designed to protect human rights. murdering isn't illegal because it's inherently wrong, that's patently absurd; it is illegal because humans have a certain right to not be killed, and the purpose of government is to defend that right.

every good law is an example of this: humans have a right to property, so theft is banned; they have a right to security, so assault is banned; they have a right to good health, so health care is provided; and they have a right to a dignified living, so welfare exists.

problems arise when laws start to be created for reasons other than protecting human rights. for example, banning gayness because much of the population considers it 'immoral' is a major infringement on human rights. banning guns because it makes people feel better is another example. also, banning drugs because (i don't actually know what the argument for banning drugs is).

how this pertains to abortions: if you think pre-people are people, then obviously you think they have a right to be protected. however, if that's the case, then you seriously need to come up with a good definition of 'person' and apply it consistently, which has thus far proven nigh impossible. if you think that everything that is alive has a right not to be killed (an honourable position), then you will starve, because you have to kill to eat. else if you consider only things born from current humans to be human, then you're in trouble, because the original human was born from some kind of ape (decidedly non-human).

until then, there's no reason to protect fetuses. they don't have rights. women are people, and thus, they have rights.
 

Ace Emerald

Cyclic, lunar, metamorphosing
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
That said, I have to be amused at the unintelligible swearing and slander pointed at DK as he honestly, respectfully, and calmly outlines his beliefs. Why are the majority of pro-choice posts in this thread (starting with brain's at the start) so aggressive, and packed with profanities?
To add to what iDunno said, the abortion argument is one that easily gets people frustrated because the controversy is a matter of opinion; no display of facts or arguments will get people to switch sides, which gives people the impression of arguing against brick wall, and thats inherently frustrating. At least thats the the feeling I've gotten arguing similar controversies against similar people. Granted, this doesn't excuse any aggressiveness, I only mean to explain.
 
I'm pro-choice and liberal, but I agree with DK on one thing and that is that we could all stand to be a little more civil. Yelling and getting fired up doesn't make your point more valid, and really it puts a bad taste in the mouth of the opposition and makes it a lot harder to preserve the credibility that you're trying to cultivate.

To be honest I don't really want to read the rest of the thread but to play devil's advocate and to mix up the discussion a bit, here's an interesting pro-choice argument (that I may or may not actually find compelling). J7r is right that morality is subjective and not something the government has the right to enforce- this is why we allow adultery and stuff like that. So ignore morality in the next argument, since America is for the most part morally relativistic. Since the very idea of government is to protect the governed from each other, why should the state take any measures to protect an unborn fetus? Fetuses don't pay taxes, or really much of anything save some health risks for the pregnant (and obviously, eventually becoming a human being!). Whey, then, should the government, in a struggle between a citizen and a complex group of cells, take the side of the group of cells? If the government is acting in the best interests of the governed, why is it forcing the governed into a dangerous, painful, financially taxing endeavor that will occupy much of her life?

oh. and "overpopulation"
 
I find it amusing how this is still an on going debate in some parts of the world. Truth be told, no matter how much people argue about this, abortion will still and forever exist one way or another. I'm a liberal and a realist, and I lol at the individuals who try to enlighten me otherwise with their morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top