Abortions

[Deck Knight]

@Morm: "For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. (Matthew 7:2)"

I have already provided you with an aggregate of the abortion culture. In order to justify abortion, whose object is the taking of human life, you must minimize the moral value of that object. Rationalizations like gene cesspool, overpopulation, and rote denial are simply the various means to that end. I assure you my aggregation was only the most popular theories (technically, just the one's brought up in this thread alone), not the most exhaustive ones. It is a culture that does indeed justify the killing of human beings in the womb, a stepping stone to apply that precept elsewhere. Eugenics is not a new thing Mormoopid, it is not just one "crazy bitch," it is a legion of people striving to purify the human race by selecting out undesirables. You accept that there is evil in the world, or else you wouldn't rail against what you believe to be its source (which for you is religion). What was that about there being no moral absolutes again?

Earlier you were using snark in denying the obvious uniqueness of the human embryo. How can this not be a function of culture when it is consequential knowledge in this discussion? There is no objective reason for denying this crucial element. Since it is irrational, emotionally-based, and widespread I choose to call it a crisis of culture, because cultures do not bear the burden of rationality or internal coherence. You and Chris is me are both guilty of this. If you don't think the issue is important enough to treat seriously then why bother posting about it?

In regards to rights, the philosophy of might makes right is an ancient one, but it does not override the fact that rights-based theories have reliably cast it off. The yearning to be free from oppression is part of the human condition, any victory against it is fleeting.

Your digs at religion are standard, boring fare. You are of the mind that science and religion are opposed when they are not, and we do not need to get into a war of words over whether religious or secular tyrants have done more harm. Religious tyrants are violating the precepts of their religion while secular tyrants consider themselves an absolute religious authority. None of that is relevant to abortion anyway.

 

[Morm]

Don't bible verse me, troll.

A few points:

1. It's not a culture, just a group of people you disagree with. Seriously dude, I don't think a group of people base an entire culture on abortions. The popularity of the idea doesn't have any bearing- let me remind you that people do things en mass like idiots all the time! How can you reasonably say that abortion is just a stepping stone? Are you REALLY proposing that because abortion exists in your hypothetical culture based around abortion what I think you are proposing? That it will soon open the door to killing whoever you want, whenever you want? You really are deluded if you think that. Oh god, Eugenics...I can see the merit of it but I sure as fuck won't be the first to cast the first stone.

I need to clear something up with you: Religion is not the source of evil in the world, I never said that. There is no such thing as a moral absolute that is ubiquitous- those are the words I said, please don't take fragments and drive them out of context. I rail on faith because it is completely and totally retarded. Do you understand this paragraph? I want to be unambiguous on that.

2. Your second paragraph is actually not terrible. You call it a crisis of culture and I honestly don't care what a woman does with parasites in her body. Everyone is different and on a person to person basis it really is none of my business. Of course Human Embryos are unique- genetically and (eventually) morphologically. Spiritually, as I am guessing you base things, is entirely different- show me a spirit empirically while showing that animals lack that same quality and I'll yield (so yeah, again, why bother arguing it). I just think it's silly to put humanity on a pedestal, but you are someone who believes in fairy tales...so we won't see eye to eye.

This was one of your least terrible posts I've read, actually. Seems like you put some decent thought into it. :D

 

[Acritter]

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



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?

Non-morality in that it has no relation to morality. I'm not trying to be moral, simply taking what I want.

Whoa, I must say I'm quite shocked to see YOU accusing people of presupposing omniscient knowledge. Assuming you believe in a god (I'm pretty sure I know which one), then you assume more omniscient knowledge on a daily basis than I ever will, bar that brief period when I was 3 and thought I was the ruler of the universe. Who are you to say that a human life has ANY value? That is a subjective opinion you can't even begin to back up, which will always end in "because I think it is" or "because *religion*". I'm not implying my opinion on the matter is magically different; it's just an opinion as well. However, it seems to me that mine will make more humans more happy, which makes it all worthwhile.

About your rich/poor comparison: wow, you've really opened my eyes to the truth here. We shouldn't have freed the slaves, they sang songs of joy even though they were poor and so were happier than any of us. By freeing them we only took that away. We should be fine making anyone's life as miserable as we want, after all, "you make your own quality of life." It's only their fault if they feel bad.

Pfft.

If you'd ever read anything written by someone in a disadvantageous position, you'd know that it's not all about a bright&cheery Sambo attitude. Poor people are depressed BECAUSE THEY HAVE IT TOUGH. It pisses me off, seeing (presumably) well-off people like you saying that they're the hope of mankind because they STAND UP UNDER HARD TIMES. It's like the fucking Catholic Church all over again. Here are a few books you should read: The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair; A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain; Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, by Frederick Douglass.

And as a final side note, consider this. BEING RICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS HAPPINESS. Being rich means you "have it all", and as a result have nothing to strive for. A focus is a necessity for human happiness, even if the focus is nothing more than resting. If you lose a focus, you lose your happiness. That is why you see the happy rich people with some little hobby they carry out, such as gardening (P.G. Wodehouse's famous Lord Emsworth), helping the poor, and so on. Similarly, the incredibly poor lose their focus because there is nothing they CAN strive for, on account of wage slavery, literal slavery, debt, and so on. None of this changes the FACT that a mother that doesn't want a child will be less happy if it is born and that the child will be less happy than if it were born when its mother wants it. Abortion never happens when the mother wants the child, so all it CAN do is eliminate unwanted children, raising life standards.

 

[Veedrock]

IN THE BIBLE.

Oh, substance, right. The bible and "God's law" cannot transcend time. But that's another topic, so...

Don't want to have abortions? Don't have sex. It's that simple.

Don't want to have abortions? Have the baby. Abortion is as much a choice as sex is.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Whoa, I must say I'm quite shocked to see YOU accusing people of presupposing omniscient knowledge.

Deck was decrying a human being presupposing that he has omniscient knowledge in regards to which humans should and should not breed. I'm sure your hostility to the idea of religion provides you with a significant bias, but please try to understand that it is more likely that a god exists and is omnsicient than a human being omniscient.

The burden is on you to prove that humans don't have inherent value, because such a position is a radical one mostly only internet wannabe nihilists.

If you'd ever read anything written by someone in a disadvantageous position, you'd know that it's not all about a bright&cheery Sambo attitude. Poor people are depressed BECAUSE THEY HAVE IT TOUGH. It pisses me off, seeing (presumably) well-off people like you saying that they're the hope of mankind because they STAND UP UNDER HARD TIMES.

You missed the point again. The point isn't that the poor are happier than the rich (though they often are), the point is that a healthy (mentally, physically, spiritually) can produce more happiness than a supposedly "well-off" lifestyle despite having far less materially. They often have stronger families (depending on the area), stronger communities, and are more connected to spiritual values. If they're simply "poor" and not "destiute", they probably eat better too.

It's like the fucking Catholic Church all over again. Here are a few books you should read: The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair; A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain; Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, by Frederick Douglass.

Funny thing about Upton Sinclair - he was a liar with a socialist agenda who peddled bullshit to make people hate capitalism. So throw that out right there.

I haven't read the second book but I don't know what it has to do with poverty.

Conflating slavery with simply being poor is utterly ridiculous. Do you honestly think that, if you lived like a middle-class American, and were a slave, you'd be happier than a poor person who was free?

Please, do read more than your high school assigned reading list, okay?

And as a final side note, consider this. BEING RICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS HAPPINESS. Being rich means you "have it all", and as a result have nothing to strive for. A focus is a necessity for human happiness, even if the focus is nothing more than resting. If you lose a focus, you lose your happiness.


That is why you see the happy rich people with some little hobby they carry out, such as gardening (P.G. Wodehouse's famous Lord Emsworth), helping the poor, and so on. Similarly, the incredibly poor lose their focus because there is nothing they CAN strive for, on account of wage slavery, literal slavery, debt, and so on.

You clearly know nothing about poor people and rich people outside what you read in fiction. Firstly, rich people often (but not always) have to work exceptionally hard to maintain their wealth (inb4 trust fund babies and inheritance), while a person can maintain a "working poor" lifestyle relatively easily depending on what skills they have. And then, this seems to assume that, if a person gets rich doing something they'll enjoy, they'll stop doing it because they're rich.

None of this changes the FACT that a mother that doesn't want a child will be less happy if it is born and that the child will be less happy than if it were born when its mother wants it. Abortion never happens when the mother wants the child, so all it CAN do is eliminate unwanted children, raising life standards.

I guess we should kill all unwanted persons then? Maybe we should do drive-by shootings on homeless people, because society doesn't want them, right? I'm sure that will raise life standards! Or let's just stop at killing unwanted children after they exit the womb.

 

[cantab]

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.

No. Abortion is premised on the idea that an embryo is not a person. That is a premise that is debatable, and one that I am presently on the fence about.

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.

Organised religion is about control. It is about controlling people by instilling hope of reward or fear of punishment. It is antidemocratic and discourages critical thinking. Most religions' teachings about physical and moral matters I do mostly agree with, but that does not change the overall mindset. I will not tolerate a civil society ruled by religion - I will not tolerate the UK becoming like Saudi Arabia. And I will not tolerate anyone imposing their morals on the society I live in. (As long as democracy is upheld, and people exercise their civil rights, it will be impossible for any morals to be imposed upon the populace without their consent).

Abortion takes a human life. This is an absolute truth, this is the substance of what an abortion is.

No it does not, no it is not, and no it is not. The question is whether a ball of cells with a genetic makeup different to the host, that may or may not develop into a baby, constitutes a human life. To answer that question, you have to figure out what exactly you mean by 'human' and by 'life'.

Eugenics is not a new thing Mormoopid, it is not just one "crazy bitch," it is a legion of people striving to purify the human race by selecting out undesirables.

That isn't even the original concept of eugenics. The original concept was the selective breeding for positive traits. It might even work (depending on how inheritable the traits are) and we still have it today, with various organisations acting as sperm/egg banks for people with certain characteristics). But it got perverted by Hitler and others who used it as an excuse for genocide.

None of this changes the FACT that a mother that doesn't want a child will be less happy if it is born and that the child will be less happy than if it were born when its mother wants it.

This I contest. Just because a parent doesn't want a child doesn't mean that parent will hate raising the child if they have it. (I have no children, but in general most of the best things in my own life have been unexpected and unplanned). In the event of failed contraception, not every woman rushes to the abortion clinic, even among those who are not morally opposed to abortion.

 

[Acritter]

Deck was decrying a human being presupposing that he has omniscient knowledge in regards to which humans should and should not breed. I'm sure your hostility to the idea of religion provides you with a significant bias, but please try to understand that it is more likely that a god exists and is omnsicient than a human being omniscient.

The burden is on you to prove that humans don't have inherent value, because such a position is a radical one mostly only internet wannabe nihilists.
Why is the burden on me? I see the burden being on YOU to prove ANYTHING has value, and assuming value exists, why a human has more value than anything else.

You missed the point again. The point isn't that the poor are happier than the rich (though they often are), the point is that a healthy (mentally, physically, spiritually) can produce more happiness than a supposedly "well-off" lifestyle despite having far less materially. They often have stronger families (depending on the area), stronger communities, and are more connected to spiritual values. If they're simply "poor" and not "destiute", they probably eat better too.
I think we have different ideas of poor. Your idea of poor seems to be "can only afford one Xbox 360". Mine is being so short on funds that getting past each day is tough. Guess what? You need a certain amount of money to be happy. If you're so poor you're starving, I'd like to see you be bright and cheery.

Funny thing about Upton Sinclair - he was a liar with a socialist agenda who peddled bullshit to make people hate capitalism. So throw that out right there.
Nicely done, genius. I was talking about THE WAGE SLAVERY, not the tainted meat. I couldn't care less about the tainted meat, and neither did he. Do you even know why he WROTE it? Not to complain that Americans were eating bad sausage.
I haven't read the second book but I don't know what it has to do with poverty.
It is set in medieval England and had scenes describing serfs and "freemen". It was written by a man who lived in the South under Reconstruction. That's all you need to know.
Conflating slavery with simply being poor is utterly ridiculous. Do you honestly think that, if you lived like a middle-class American, and were a slave, you'd be happier than a poor person who was free?
Do you know what wage slavery is?
Please, do read more than your high school assigned reading list, okay?
Ad hominem.
You clearly know nothing about poor people and rich people outside what you read in fiction. <<<<You're referring to an autobiography as fiction. Firstly, rich people often (but not always) have to work exceptionally hard to maintain their wealth (inb4 trust fund babies and inheritance), while a person can maintain a "working poor" lifestyle relatively easily depending on what skills they have. And then, this seems to assume that, if a person gets rich doing something they'll enjoy, they'll stop doing it because they're rich.
No, no they don't. You clearly don't know the first thing about capitalism. Here you go: MONEY ATTRACTS MONEY. If you have a large amount of money to invest, you can easily make safe bets and get enough to live comfortably as well as actually increase their capital. And no, it's pretty tough to maintain a "working poor" lifestyle. Let's say you're a coal miner in a third-world country, and a rock crushes your foot. Guess what happens? YOU STARVE. The slightest slip-up or disturbance, and you die painfully. The rich never have to deal with that.

I guess we should kill all unwanted persons then? Maybe we should do drive-by shootings on homeless people, because society doesn't want them, right? I'm sure that will raise life standards! Or let's just stop at killing unwanted children after they exit the womb.
Sure, let's do that, if you want to remove the people who collect bottles from our streets to put in recycling centers for nickels. I personally like having things just that little bit neater, and remember, I'm SELFISH.

You clearly have had right-wing propaganda shoved in your ears since childhood. You know, the lies that business cares about more than making money, that the rich are an elite race, and that God blesses the humble and downtrodden. Watch more than Faux News, please.

Oh, and about the rich/poor thing. I have personal experience. My father inherited a ton of money from my grandfather, and barely has to work. More than that, he's actually making money. Personal experience, I know, but it seems like you are the one with little knowledge of the system.

And cantab, sorry for the lack of clarity, but I meant unwanted rather than unintended. Unintended means that there was no intention of it happening: say, you unintentionally change your TV channel and find something you like watching (or don't, as the case may be). Unwanted means that something you want not to happen happens: say, someone mugs you. You seem to be arguing that an unintended child can be wanted, and I agree with that.

 

[cantab]

And cantab, sorry for the lack of clarity, but I meant unwanted rather than unintended. Unintended means that there was no intention of it happening: say, you unintentionally change your TV channel and find something you like watching (or don't, as the case may be). Unwanted means that something you want not to happen happens: say, someone mugs you. You seem to be arguing that an unintended child can be wanted, and I agree with that.

I'm not sure if it makes much difference whether it's "unwanted" vs "unintended". My point is that a woman who discovers she is pregnant may not at that point want to have the baby, but if she doesn't abort then when the baby is born her position may change dramatically. A woman may think she'd hate being a mother, but if she became one then find it was the best thing that ever happened to her. Basically, people are often crap a predicting what they will or won't enjoy.

 

[Quaily]

It's difficult to skirt the line between is it a living being or not because an early stage zygote is essentially cancer(a mass of nonspecializing cells), and cancerous cells can actually grow into.. unusual... things, but we're not about to outlaw chemo-therapy . But if one draws the line too far you risk bringing in things that like autistic people and why shouldn't we just abort them. The one thing I can say about against religious arguments is that I would not accept anything on the basis of it being in the bible. This isn't Iran; we're not a theocracy so shut up.

The best argument for it is, in my opinion, that outlawing abortions will not stop them. it's meaningless whitewash that would create far more risk for people who feel they have no other choice. Abortion is a societal issue that can only be eliminated through societal change.

 

[Scoopapa]

I know it is hard to draw a line between a bundle of unspecialized and a conscious being (lets face it, we don't care about life, we care about conscious awareness), but I'm confident that a fetus that has not developed nerve cells yet is not a conscious being and so it's removal is not murder. Thus (I don't know exactly how long it is before that happens) I think that there is nothing wrong with abortions before this point. I know that argument is too nuanced for many people, and it's hard to see what bandwagon I'm "jumping on" but there it is.

There is a conversation we can have about when the fetus has various properties or is various things, but it seems like many people (mostly to pro-life crowd) absolutely refuse to have that conversation. Their strategy is to shout "you're killing humans! you're killing babies!" till they're blue in the face. Some of these people may be simply stating their opinion without seeing the presuppositions they are making, but others I think are making a conscious decision to obscure the argument with appeals to emotion. Perhaps they are doing this to avoid what may be their actual justification, the logically indefensible position that the fetus is a sentient, conscious, being because it "has a soul".

Also, quoting Bible verses does nothing to aid your point - other than to inform us that you are convinced beyond doubt that your position is unassailable and are not willing to take part in any actual discussion.

 

[cantab]

Nothing is stopped by outlawing it, so that argument isn't quite as simple as it seems. However, I would say that laws people disagree with they are more likely to break. Illegal alcohol production during Prohibition springs to mind, as does the speed limit (broken by millions of people every day). So you are right that it would not work to outlaw abortion in a society that accepts it.

I'm confident that a fetus that has not developed nerve cells yet is not a conscious being and so it's removal is not murder.

That something is unconscious does not mean killing it is not murder. Otherwise I could kill someone who faints in the street, or walk into a coma ward and shoot all the patients.

 

[Fishy]

Sigh, abortion. Ultimately, I am pro-choice, but it is a sickening thought to think of all the teenage girls aborting because of their own careless mistakes, or women aborting because of the aftermath of rape. I think it's silly to believe that there will ever be any legislation dictating when it is "okay/right" to abort a fetus, and when it would otherwise be morally wrong and unacceptable, much like murder is considered. If the world is ever going to come to a general consensus (speaking very hypothetically here) about abortion, I think that it would have to be all or nothing.

Even now I'm asking myself how different it is to abort a fetus while it's still very young and within your body, or simply smothering your baby in its sleep because you simply don't want it anymore? There's been talk in the thread about children/babies being dependent on their mothers (at least) and fathers until about age 6 or so, whatever, until they realize that they can do the things they want and have a pretty good handle on what they actually need to survive. So, is that it? Is aborting a fetus the same as killing a two year old child, since both basically depend on you to survive, and it is your choice whether or not you want to put forth the effort? I don't really believe that, but I'm just sort of thinking my way through this.

Ultimately, a woman's body is her choice. I think it was AncienRegime that said something like "it's terrible to refer to children as mistakes" and that the blame should instead be put on the irresponsible sex and whatever else. So does that just make children a very serious consequence, and life lesson for the future? I don't think that's necessarily fair either. What good is a life if it won't be a life that is nurtured in the beginning, if it doesn't belong to a baby that will have the love of parents and the security of a family and household that will ensure proper development and later happiness? Not to say that human life is subjective in quality, but if you know you can't really take care of a child, why put it through a terrible life by going through with it and giving birth?

However, this totally brings up the option of adoption! Which I think is great! Even if you can't raise a child yourself, do the deed of having it and giving it to a family that can raise a child, that is maybe incapable themselves of having children, but would very much love to have one. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect, and even families willing to adopt are not families that can be considered grade-A material, and the life of a child circuiting through foster care can still potentially be a emotionally scarring journey, who knows.

Over all, I think that offspring, born or not, should be dealt with responsibly. If you got pregnant through unprotected, heat-of-the-moment, STUPID TEENAGER SEX, then you have a huge load of decision making on your shoulders. I think anyone who says that teenagers just run out and get abortions like it's a national past time are idiots--the emotional turmoil of the decision at all has got to be amazingly scary, and if I were to somehow wind up pregnant at present, I really don't know what I would want to do. It would not be a decision I would make lightly. Regardless of the emotional regret I may feel by dousing the potential for life, I don't know how I would instead feel if I chose to have the baby and put it up for adoption. Personally, I wouldn't want to bring a baby into the world that couldn't even enjoy the love of her true parents. Having a child is never a decision that should be taken lightly.


tl;dr: PRO-CHOICE.

 

[cantab]

There's been talk in the thread about children/babies being dependent on their mothers (at least) and fathers until about age 6 or so, whatever, until they realize that they can do the things they want and have a pretty good handle on what they actually need to survive. So, is that it? Is aborting a fetus the same as killing a two year old child, since both basically depend on you to survive, and it is your choice whether or not you want to put forth the effort? I don't really believe that, but I'm just sort of thinking my way through this.

The difference is that a baby is dependent on humans, but it is not dependent on any SPECIFIC human. Any capable person can raise any baby. An embryo or foetus, before the age it can be viable if delivered, is only able to live with the biological support of a specific individual woman.

This does lead to an interesting possibility. If abortion is outlawed, what about induced premature delivery? When the foetus is of an age that the risk of negative health impacts is very small, is there any reason this should not be allowed?

 

[Scoopapa]

The difference is that a baby is dependent on humans, but it is not dependent on any SPECIFIC human. Any capable person can raise any baby. An embryo or foetus, before the age it can be viable if delivered, is only able to live with the biological support of a specific individual woman.

A Siamese twin is dependent on a specific person as well, but killing one of them would obviously be murder of a human. This issue (and really all moral issues) is based on the outcome towards beings with conscious experience. Biological complexity and other biology-related issues are commonly used as indicators of conscious experience (i.e. in animals we can't talk to) but they are not directly what we are worried about when deciding moral issues. Knowing about embryonic development can help us decide things about the fetus, but be careful that you don't confuse biological status (parasite, symbiote etc.) with status as a conscious being.

Otherwise, you'll get all sorts of annoying counter examples ;).

 

[Ancien Régime]

utter drivel

first off, the burden of proof is on you because it's you and your psuedo-intellectual nihilist rantings against the totality of human thought and philosophy.

secondly, if Sinclair is not credible on the conditions of the setting of his book, what the hell makes you think he's credible on "THE EVILS OF CAPITALISM". Of course, other than your own bias.

Sure, wage slavery (though a far cry from REAL slavery) is a problem in market systems. I could list for you at least 5 different state interventions that make wage slavery possible, but that's neither here nor there.

You clearly have not read anything outside your high school reading list. This is not ad hominem, this is an indictment of the implication that you know what the fuck you are talking about.

and of course, anyone who disagrees with you has had right-wing ideas shoved in his ear since childhood, because YOUR ideas are the only true and good ideas and any deviation must be due to ignorance or something. Maybe I should just say "hurr you've had left-wing ideas shoved in your ears, stop listening to air america or whatever".

Basically, you read a few books in English class, found atheism on the internet and live off grandpa's inheritance and now you think you know enough about the world to lecture about capitalism, ethics and the value of life?

 

[Hipmonlee]

first off, the burden of proof is on you because it's you and your psuedo-intellectual nihilist rantings against the totality of human thought and philosophy.

You know this isnt an acceptable argument in any sort of discussion..

Actually fuck it, I dont know why you are talking about wage slavery, but it isnt abortion.

Have a nice day.