Abortions

[Obsessed]

Well it's almost impossible to debate anything being wrong or right if you have no morals.

I do have morals. I just realize that they are ultimately subjective.

Anyway it is not worth my time debating with you any further. If you try and bring god into the debate then it is going to turn into shit, because you won't be able to prove that your god actually exists without straying from the topic. That is why arguments are generally made with logic, and not with "my religious convictions > your opinions/facts."

 

[MrIndigo]

As far as I can tell every treatment involving embryonic stem cells is highly experimental. Whether they will ever cure anything is still to be seen. I am doubtful as to the practicality of those treatments especially if they are experimental like I suspect. Fair point if they are being used to cure people and the treatments have a good rate of success.

Gene Wilder was one of the first recipients of stem cell cancer treatment.

EDIT: Actually, I should add, the stem cell issue is entirely unrelated. Embryonic stem cell research is only conducted on fetuses that are to be aborted anyway. It's similar to how organ donors aren't forced to give up their liver while alive, Monty Python style.

You assume a lot. You have no way of knowing if the kid's life will be miserable. I wonder what's worse for a kid, growing up in a troubled home or being killed?

We have statistics on what happens to kids raised by families that don't want them. We also have statistics that show that plenty of people find death preferable to life for various reasons, some of which overlap with the first set of statistics

My point was only that you cannot justify the belief that the woman should be forced to raise the child she had by mistake as for the benefit of the child. You have to recognise that it's not your motivation.

How is a sperm on the same footing as a fetus? A fetus is not potential life, it is alive. If you leave a sperm alone it will die. If you leave a fetus alone it will grow and live.

If I hand you a fetus, that's not going to happen. The fetus only survives in the same way a cancer cell or a sperm cell survives. By parasitically absorbing blood and nutrients from the host.

 

[cantab]

I believe that absolute truth exists. It does not vary, it is not subjective, it is absolute.

But how do you determine 'absolute truth'?

All the limits on when you can perform an abortion and when you can't are arbitrary.

I gave a limit that is not arbitrary - one based on the time when the foetus is viable outside the womb with modern medical care. (The choice of probability doesn't add abitrariness either, because below a certain probability changes in the value are below the errors in our estimates anyway).

1+1=2

Not if you're doing modulo-1 arithmetic.

If you do not believe in God then you have no true morality. Every moral you have is arbitrary and subjective.

On the contrary, if you DO believe in God then your 'morality' is shaky. Behaving a certain way because you believe God says so is not morals, it's doing as you're told. Behaving a certain way because you believe you will avoid hell or enter heaven by doing so is not moral's, it's covering your own ass. Morality is behaving a certain way because you believe it to be the right thing to do, even if it disadvantages you personally.

And yes morality is subjective and ill-defined. I do not see that as a problem. In the vast majority of cases there is a good enough consensus between people, especially within the same society but even between different societies in many cases. Of course there are differences of opinion - they create debates such as this one.

Because I accept there is no absolute morality, I do not feel the need to force my morals upon those I will not have significant interaction with. And when issues do need debating, I am in a position to consider arguments and be willing to change my opinion regarding the specific issue, without my overall outlook crashing to the ground.

 

[lati0s]

Not if you're doing modulo-1 arithmetic.

Actually the statement is still valid in mod 1 it is just not simplified. The remainder when (1+1) is divided by 1 is the same as the remainder when 2 is divided by 1.

 

[cantab]

In 'proper'/'pure' modulo-1 arithmetic the number that conventional arithmetic denotes as '2' does not exist - the only integers are 0 and 1. In such a system "1+1=2" has as much meaning as "1+1=✑".

 

[lati0s]

You know what I meant. the statement "1+1=2 in standard arithmetic" is absolute truth.

 

[cantab]

'In standard arithmetic' is the key.

To generalise, no statement can be shown or proven to be true without initially assuming something else is true. In maths and logic you have starting axioms and premises. In science, you assume that our observations are basically correct.

I would interpret 'absolute truth' as meaning a statement that is always true no matter what. So having to clarify a statement with "in such-and-such" makes it not absolute truth. (If you disagree, then we're simply not arguing over the same thing - and something I stated in another thread was that the definition of a term used in a debate really needs to come from the first person to bring the term up, meaning there's little point us arguing what 'absolute truth' is.)

I argue that no such statement is provable.

 

[lati0s]

No statement can be proven without axioms, but the way I interpret it statements of the form "if x then y" could be considered absolute truth if y is deducible from x.

 

[billymills]

I don't get how anyone can claim that there are any rights that exist a priori. Certainly, there's certain actions that are right almost 100%, but that's just because of the circumstances under which they happen.

 

[Morm]

I don't get how anyone can claim that there are any rights that exist a priori. Certainly, there's certain actions that are right almost 100%, but that's just because of the circumstances under which they happen.

I would hug you a priori, had you shown up that one time in edmonton, for this post. I'd like to add that had certain values progressed in our society, people would be crucified for being disobedient slaves to the delight of those around them. It's all a crapshoot from society, so assuming there is a baseline for rights really begs the question of who or what the fuck set those rights and why anyone should give a shit about them. Enlighten me as to why they exist a priori while I shower billymills with praise. Billy, you bring the lube and I'll bring the handsome women.

 

[cim]

I would hug you a priori, had you shown up that one time in edmonton, for this post.

I'm going to have to admit I seriously groaned when I read this.

Dr. Attack, what is morality? How do you define the concept of "morals"? I'm curious as to what you say. I'm not interested in where they come from (so saying "morals are what god says" wouldn't be right), but what you think morals actually are.

 

[rbygsc kid 251]

1) I am pro life. I would never pay for an abortion.
2) If I ever got a woman preg, I would advise her NOT to get an abortion and I would man up, and help raise that child.
3) If the woman still wanted to get an abortion, I would probably never see her again. Seeing her would only bring up the constant nightmare of that abortion. I believe that abortion=death, NO MATTER WHAT. I don't care about 8 months, or 8 seconds after finding out the woman is pregnant.
4) I completely realize that I can never tell any woman what to do, but I can stand by any woman that is pregnant as a result of me having sex with her.

Trying to tell people what they can and cannot do is pointless and I have accepted this long ago.

 

[cim]

2) If I ever got a woman preg, I would advise her NOT to get an abortion and I would man up, and help raise that child.

For all your consideration about "not telling people what to do", you're awfully inconsiderate of the woman you want to carry your child to term. It's not like shitting, you don't just wait 9 months and out comes a baby.

 

[Luduan]

I'm glad you liked it! I mean to say that if you don't believe in God then you should perceive all morals as subjective and arbitrary. It's not that they actually are because God does exist and his laws are not arbitrary and whether you believe in God or not Absolute truth does exist and absolute morality does as well.

Divine Command Theory is still a form of subjective morality under any rigorous definition, so what is your point?

 

[Morm]

It kind of bothers me that there are people out there that effectively believe that people don't have the right to off themselves. This applies to this discussion because, lets say hypothetically, a child is to be born with cystic fibrosis, fibromyalgia (just generic pain shit), epilepsy, painful angina, crohn's, celiac AND the kid is so fucking ugly he'd get his own 4 part series on TLC...yeah just lets say that if this kid were a fruit he'd be an absolute lemon. The kind of lemon that's gone so bad that you can't even make lemonade. Most certainly this kid will have a short, horror of a life.

Is it okay to hit the abort button on their behalf (assuming we had identified all these issues)? Yeah, yeah it's murder but the kid is a total lost cause and yeah yeah it's hypothetical, but it sets a precedent for "okay or not okay" since so many of you are so hideously black and white.

 

[HeroMasaki]

Ah, the ageless question "What is a Non-Human?"

A few things I'd like to mention.

- Someone brought up some the possible traumatic experiences of pregnancy, unwanted or wanted. He did bring up a few points but most of the things he listed were more "inconveniences" than full blown traumatic experiences. On that note, why doesn't anybody list the traumatic experiences of having an abortion? Have you ever interviewed a person who had an abortion? It's not pretty. The women in question feels the guilt, cowardice, fear and other emotions that could very well haunt them for the rest of their lives.

- Secondly if you were in the position of a fetus, would you like to die or live? I'm sure most, if not all of you would answer "live". How would you appreciate your mother taking your life despite your innocence? I mean after all, despite the depiction of a certain Family Guy episode, you didn't choose this. Why should your life because of the decision of another? Then again, fetus' can't think these thoughts so who cares right? Psh who cares if we're missing a couple of million people right?

One thing is for sure, you are denying a person's chance to live when you have an abortion. But I guess the same holds true when you use other contraceptives.

- Third, you can have an abortion before the 18th to 26th week. Well if those "things" weren't alive, how to some "survive" and grow into people? Obviously a lot of premature babies have life long complications but again, I'm sure those people still would choose to live.

- Lastly, if a person is raped (including incest) or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, you should have the option of abortion. I know a lot of people who say no abortion under any circumstances but none of them have been in those circumstances.

tl:dr - I'm Pro-Life

That's my thoughts on the matter. A lot of good points have been shared for both sides.

 

[tape]

If you were in the position of the fetus you wouldn't even be thinking about it.

Just sayin'.

 

[cantab]

- Lastly, if a person is raped...you should have the option of abortion. I know a lot of people who say no abortion under any circumstances but none of them have been in those circumstances.

But for those who say that an embryo is a person and abortion is murder, the mother having been raped can be no excuse. If person A rapes person B, that does not give person B the right to murder person C. The fact that C is the child of A and B, and depends on B to survive, doesn't change that.

There seems to be a dilemma for pro-lifers. Either they must oppose abortion on a basis other that "it's murder", or they must not allow any exception for pregnancy due to rape. Otherwise their position is inconsistent.

 

[cim]

Psh who cares if we're missing a couple of million people right?

We're missing billions more who died of preventable death (starvation / malnourishment), and they were intelligent enough to know what life and death are. If your aim is to save lives, then I suggest you start with those.

One thing is for sure, you are denying a person's chance to live when you have an abortion. But I guess the same holds true when you use other contraceptives.

I denied a few million people's chance to live earlier today under this logic. Women kill people every month. Men every time they ejaculate. You can't expect to prevent all of these deaths.

- Third, you can have an abortion before the 18th to 26th week. Well if those "things" weren't alive, how to some "survive" and grow into people? Obviously a lot of premature babies have life long complications but again, I'm sure those people still would choose to live.

You can do the work of getting the survival rate of babies born 3 months premature. (That's the 24th week) It's not really true.

- Lastly, if a person is raped (including incest) or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, you should have the option of abortion.

But you're denying that person's right to live! I thought that was more important than the mother's emotional or physical health, or if the baby has genetic defects, or is born prematurely.

 

[Morm]

most deaths are preventable in our society; just ask tuberculosis.

Some people shouldn't have rights- those in nations that were just conquered, for example. If you let them have rights, you end up with bullshit like Iraq where soldiers know the guy is gonna do something but they can't fire until fired upon.

People have the right to live, but some people shouldn't have the right to reproduce. With such a cesspool of a gene pool, do you honestly think it is anything but completely selfish to allow those with aids or huntingtons to reproduce? We could theoretically eradicate aids in ONE generation and transfer that money to diseases like cancer or something. So those babies born with serious deleterious genes probably shouldn't exist, at least in this upcoming generation (we have the technology to screen for that kind of shit).

 

[Deck Knight]

most deaths are preventable in our society; just ask tuberculosis.

Some people shouldn't have rights- those in nations that were just conquered, for example. If you let them have rights, you end up with bullshit like Iraq where soldiers know the guy is gonna do something but they can't fire until fired upon.

I always did think that some people shouldn't have rights - those who would trade essential liberty for a little security [~Ben Franklin]. People fight wars to preserve and protect their rights. The right to self-determination for the people of a free nation is one of the highest ideals that can be fought for.

No one is the arbiter of who should have rights. Rights are intrinsic to humanity, they come with humanity itself. It's a package deal. Rights also come with responsibilities necessary to uphold and defend those rights. If your right doesn't have a corresponding individual responsibility to non-interference in others rights (among any other responsibilities specific to it) then it isn't an actual right.

People have the right to live, but some people shouldn't have the right to reproduce. With such a cesspool of a gene pool, do you honestly think it is anything but completely selfish to allow those with aids or huntingtons to reproduce? We could theoretically eradicate aids in ONE generation and transfer that money to diseases like cancer or something. So those babies born with serious deleterious genes probably shouldn't exist, at least in this upcoming generation (we have the technology to screen for that kind of shit).

And your expertise regarding the quality of the gene pool comes from firsthand experience, presumably? Philosophy matters to me more than genes.

This is part of what I'm talking about with the abortion culture. Abortion is premised on the idea that human life itself has no intrinsic value. In absence of that universal standard people invent arbitrary measures for the value of a human life. They deem the retards as unworthy of life because they gunk up the gene pool. They deem infants unworthy of life because they are solely dependent upon another human being for the earliest years of their life. They deem humanity as a whole unworthy of life because they've been reading too much Paul Erhlich and John Holdren, and think the world is overpopulated anyway so we need to get rid of a few of us (just not ME, I am clearly important!). Some even go so far as to suggest that all the children we've slaughtered in the womb in America are actually a good thing because they would have been unwanted.

Well, only you can decide you don't love the child in your womb. If they aren't wanted after they are born it's illegal to execute them, isn't it? A person's want is subject to a daily whim. Human life is more important than a whim. Furthermore there's a reason that social security is fiscally insolvent. When it was first dreamed up there were 33 workers to each single retiree, now it's three workers to every two retirees. Killing off 45 million children over 30 years will get you that kind of math pretty easily. That doesn't even address the psychological toll that abortion has on all the women that have had them.

Abortion has a culture that is antithetical to human life. A culture that lacks compassion and empathy for each individual human being. A culture that will rationalize any reason to destroy another to get ahead. A culture of moral layabouts who see a woman in crisis and respond by killing her child as if it would do something to improve her lot. I do believe in imposing my morals because law is the imposition of morals on society, and I believe my morals are the most just way to govern society based on their foundation in essential liberty, life, and the pursuit of self-determination (property). Religion is ultimately a philosophy about how to treat your fellow human beings. The only reason to separate religion from civil society is to cheapen the human experience for personal gain.

Abortion takes a human life. This is an absolute truth, this is the substance of what an abortion is. This is not like asking about how many angels dance on the head of the pin, there is an objective reality that can be viewed objectively. Moral relativism is that soft squeamishness that demands we rationalize our failings. Abortion is a moral failing whenever it occurs, the object of a decent society should be to abolish its underpinning reason for being by any manner that preserves human dignity. This requires a call back to Faith, Hope, and Charity. A humanity that is connected of their own free will with no coercion from an overbearing state. That society is a rising tide, and raises all boats.

 

[Acritter]

If morality is so debatable, how about the lack thereof?

I am pro-choice because I am SELFISH. I want anyone I screw to have the option to not have the child, because I don't want one to deal with. Now, who are you to tell me my lovers can't have this option? Are you being so self-centered in your beliefs that you think they override the rights of humans? I believe that whatever group of the population you belong to shouldn't be allowed to vote because my God has decreed it to me. My beliefs override your rights. Who are you to disagree?

For a less inflammatory, more real opinion:

I value quality of life above all else. I see no purpose in a human's existence unless it is made to mean something. A miserable human that gives no help to the population would be just as well off dead. If I were to weigh the life of a child that would make its mother miserable and be miserable itself against the life of a later-born child that would make its mother happy and be happy itself, I know for certain which I would pick. Ethics is just mathematics with a few interesting variables that appear to move in multiple dimensions.

 

[Deck Knight]

If morality is so debatable, how about the lack thereof?

Non-morality is still a morality because it shapes how you interact with other people.

I value quality of life above all else. I see no purpose in a human's existence unless it is made to mean something. A miserable human that gives no help to the population would be just as well off dead. If I were to weigh the life of a child that would make its mother miserable and be miserable itself against the life of a later-born child that would make its mother happy and be happy itself, I know for certain which I would pick. Ethics is just mathematics with a few interesting variables that appear to move in multiple dimensions.

Your premise presupposes omniscient knowledge over the course of a being's lifetime and places you in a seat of judgment over it. No human being has that knowledge or that power (or even right, if both of the previous were true). Human beings have a right to self-determination. You make your own quality of life. The poor have a demonstrably inferior "quality of life" [in the materialistic terms most people mean] to the rich, and yet people in Haiti have weathered the destruction of an earthquake and sing songs of joy after a time of sorrow while American pop stars OD and commit suicide.

Who has the better quality of life, again?

 

[Morm]

No one is the arbiter of who should have rights.

If you lose the war, you lose the rights, especially if you are the instigator.

Rights are intrinsic to humanity, they come with humanity itself.

No, they really super don't. Historically, culture tends to agree with me. So does biology. In nature, if you win the battle you win the right to do whatever you want with your quarry. Just ask killer whales, cats or other nasty as fuck predators that enjoy playing with their catch.

Rights also come with responsibilities necessary to uphold and defend those rights. If your right doesn't have a corresponding individual responsibility to non-interference in others rights (among any other responsibilities specific to it) then it isn't an actual right.

So you're saying that I can have my rights but so long as they don't interfere with others? Jeez it's a good thing I don't drink coffee, all those plantation workers must appreciate my acknowledging of their cause.

And your expertise regarding the quality of the gene pool comes from firsthand experience, presumably? Philosophy matters to me more than genes.

Nice dig there, fuckhead. It comes from the power of observation and deduction, something people with your background tend not to be too strong at understanding. I invite you to mate with the fatest, greasiet and most unappealing woman you can find, preferably with many genetic problems beyond being unfortunate looking. Lets see how your philosophy trumps genetics then.

This is part of what I'm talking about with the abortion culture. Abortion is premised on the idea that human life itself has no intrinsic value.

It has no more value than any other living thing.

In absence of that universal standard people invent arbitrary measures for the value of a human life.

You mean like religion, right? Or your own personal philosophies, perhaps?? You do know that your universal standard is an invented arbitrary measure.

They deem the retards as unworthy of life because they gunk up the gene pool.

I deem them of selfish to pass on their genes and I deem it the call of an objective and measurable determination of degree of suffering as to whether or not they should be removed.

They deem infants unworthy of life because they are solely dependent upon another human being for the earliest years of their life.

Yeah, they want to kill EVERY baby.

Some even go so far as to suggest that all the children we've slaughtered in the womb in America are actually a good thing because they would have been unwanted.

It's situation by situation, but unfortunately your black and white thinking doesn't allow for you to understand this. :(

Well, only you can decide you don't love the child in your womb. If they aren't wanted after they are born it's illegal to execute them, isn't it?

True story, but then again my beliefs are different from the clinical definitions as well as the legislation so I won't comment.

A person's want is subject to a daily whim. Human life is more important than a whim

So a human's life is more important than holding off on sex? Are you in favor of free lovin'?? Human life is no more important than any other life, stop being so self centered. Probably not your fault though, I do know you were raised to believe you have dominion over animals.

Abortion has a culture that is antithetical to human life.

Where can I find this abortion culture? You really are making it sound like a tribe of people out to get you and your faith or ideas on the subject. A group of people completely devoid of morals, ethics or compassion. That is atrocious.

The only reason to separate religion from civil society is to cheapen the human experience for personal gain.

Or, perhaps, to disallow bullshit scientific impediment. Remember reading about what happened to my man Galileo? That is a PRIME example of why religion so deeply infiltrating society is harmful: Dogma.

Abortion takes a human life. This is an absolute truth, this is the substance of what an abortion is. This is not like asking about how many angels dance on the head of the pin, there is an objective reality that can be viewed objectively.

With you so far

Moral relativism is that soft squeamishness that demands we rationalize our failings. Abortion is a moral failing whenever it occurs, the object of a decent society should be to abolish its underpinning reason for being by any manner that preserves human dignity.

Morality is determined by the holder of the morals and/or the society they are in. There is no black and white morals ubiquitous to every person, therefore you are a fool for saying this.

This requires a call back to Faith, Hope, and Charity. A humanity that is connected of their own free will with no coercion from an overbearing state. That society is a rising tide, and raises all boats.

You are so up your own ass preachy with this it's frightening. Overbearing state...sounds a TON like Christianity or other organized religion that has predetermined absolutes.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Just as a comment on Galileo:
The church didn't mess with him until he published a book saying that the Pope was a simpleton. Sure it was crushing dissent, but he made fun of the ruler, not something you did back then. Can't blame it on the religious opinions, plus when they held the trial, there were real scientists on the jury, whom Galileo had pissed off over the years, in a number of cases where he was wrong and they were right.

Note, I do not believe that religion has not try to suppress science from time to time, witness Texas in the present, but the age old example of Galileo is as true as Columbus discovering America. Read parts of the following in a religion class.

Source:
Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20548-0.

P.S. Deck Knight, your poem was one of the winners for my giveaway, congrats.