Evidently Jeffrey Dahmer works as an ethicist for Oxford University.
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.
They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.
Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'
He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.
What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?
"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."
Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."
When personhood is established is a point of contention.
Though it seems more convenient to regulate via trimester, or actual birth.
That said, the dependent status of the fetus is distinct from that of the newborn. Children can be given up to adoption, fetuses cannot. The idea that the two are equivalent is idiocy.
Ask any doctor who performs an abortion, or person who has had one, if that feeling would be akin to killing a newborn baby.
I always think anyone who makes blanket assertions of 'abortions are fine' or 'abortions should be illegal', without understanding that there are extremely convoluted areas of grey in-between, which can only be understood on an individual basis, needs to have a serious reality check.
Absolute, utter nonsense, the Telegraph continues to go the way of the Mail in writing confrontational articles that only serve to encourage a polarisation of opinion for topics such as these.
I recall a well-respected (in his field, not so much publicly afterwards) ethicist made this argument a few years ago...
Its an interesting argument, and one that extends to the handicapped, but it won't fly with most; as Western society tends towards the sanctity of life.
Still, it doesn't escape the argument from implicit dependency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Does this strike anyone else as an elaborate case of devil's advocacy?
It strikes me as numerous things, that among them.
... some anti-abortionists have welcomed its publication, saying it casts a bright light on what abortion actually is.
Anthony Ozimic, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said the article, which he described as a "chilling promotion of infanticide", showed how abortion was "creating a culture of death".
While he was appalled at the suggestion that newborns should be killed for their parents' convenience, he nevertheless said it showed the logical framework behind infanticide and abortion was the same.He said: "The paper proves what pro-lifers have long been arguing: that the common arguments for abortion also justify infanticide.
"There is no difference in moral status between a child one day before birth and a child one day after birth.
"Birth is merely a change of location, not a change from non-personhood to personhood."
I don't understand the issue. Of course it's similar and should be allowed.
Once upon a time, the parents (usually fathers) of offspring were allowed to decide whether their newborn was 'viable', and if not, it was left out for exposure and nature to take its course. Food was scarce and investing in a deformed or deficient child was a luxury that couldn't be afforded.
Of course, that was back when humans needed to be hardy, and there weren't seven billion of us littered across the planet. Nowadays, we'd rather ban peanut butter in an entire school than let one kid with a genetic defect die.
Seven billion humans is non-sustainable. We are using the planet's resources faster than they can be replenished. In order to pack another billion of us in, we condemn untold numbers of other species to extinction. Is that ethical? Killing off non-useful humans is hardly an unethical decision.
Redbeard wrote:I don't understand the issue. Of course it's similar and should be allowed.
Once upon a time, the parents (usually fathers) of offspring were allowed to decide whether their newborn was 'viable', and if not, it was left out for exposure and nature to take its course. Food was scarce and investing in a deformed or deficient child was a luxury that couldn't be afforded.
That was also when the Romans had slaves and fathers could wipe out their entire family legally under the law. Since then we've discovered the earth is neither flat nor the center of the solar system.
If you have no inherent value then you have no right to exist? Really? Then quick, everyone better get wiener dogs because hey otherwise you have no inherent value. You! Off my planet!
It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?
Some people draw the line at conception (when sperm meets egg). Some people draw the line at pregnancy (when fertilized egg secures to the uterine wall). Some people draw the line at when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Some people draw the line at birth. These guys draw the line sometime after birth (it's not clear when, perhaps when the child achieves sentience?).
No one is entirely wrong. Every side has it's arguments for and against their definition. Society just needs to sit down and figure this out in a calm and civil manner. (And, when that happens, I'll cheer from the back of my pig flying over the frozen wasteland of hell.)
Manchu wrote:The question here is not what is human but who is a person.
Very true. As soon as egg meets sperm you have a unique and distinct "human organism."
Grakmar wrote:It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?
Not for most pro-choice advocates it doesn't. The dividing line on abortion isn't when the fetus is human, it is when does the interest of the potential child overcome the interest of the mother in not having a child.
Redbeard wrote:Seven billion humans is non-sustainable. We are using the planet's resources faster than they can be replenished. In order to pack another billion of us in, we condemn untold numbers of other species to extinction. Is that ethical? Killing off non-useful humans is hardly an unethical decision.
One human isn't sustainable, the Earth is slowly decaying. I don't think there's anything wrong with seven billion people, it's clear that the planet can conceivably support a lot more humans.
Disclaimer: I value human life over non-human life.
Agreed with above, I should have said "person" when I wrote "human".
biccat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?
Not for most pro-choice advocates it doesn't. The dividing line on abortion isn't when the fetus is human, it is when does the interest of the potential child overcome the interest of the mother in not having a child.
I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
I think that the pro-life side is in fundamental agreement with this statement. They just view a fertilized egg as already being a "child", so terminating the pregnancy is killing the "child".
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
That's my exact point.
Both sides are in agreement: Intentionally preventing a hypothetical person from existing is acceptable. Killing a real person is unacceptable. The issue is, where do we draw the line between the two?
Kilkrazy wrote:Many people feel it is acceptable to kill a "real person" in time of war, or in self defence, or via capital punishment.
In your opinion, would you classify an unborn child as an enemy (as in war), assailant (as in self defense) or criminal (as in capital punishment)?
Grakmar wrote:Both sides are in agreement: Intentionally preventing a hypothetical person from existing is acceptable. Killing a real person is unacceptable. The issue is, where do we draw the line between the two?
I disagree that both sides are in agreement. Both sides like to talk past eachother on the issue - pro-choice activists frame the issue as one of women's health while pro-life advocates frame the issue as depriving a child of life.
You could also argue that both sides are in agreement: a woman has the right to decide whether she wants to become a woman or not. The issue is, where do we draw the line on responsibility? (pre-sexual intercourse or post-sexual intercourse).
biccat wrote:
One human isn't sustainable, the Earth is slowly decaying.
One human is plenty sustainable, even if the earth is very slowly decaying. Humans are, essentially, predator species. Predators and prey exist in a symbiotic arrangement where predators prevent overpopulation of prey, and prey reproduce fast enough to enable the predators to take a few without harming the system. Eventually predator and prey populations fall into a stable state, where there may be slight fluctuations in either's number, but these fluctuations cause a natural response. (Similar relationships exist between herbivores and plant life).
However, overpopulation of predators will see their numbers first grow, and then fall rapidly as the prey is destroyed faster than it is replenished. Predators then must either find new places to hunt or new species to prey upon, or themselves die out.
Humans keep pushing into new places. One could argue that this is natural, and there are plenty of new places to go, but this is short-sighted. As we further expand, we do so into land that was either previously deemed uninhabitable, and must expend even more resources to enable us to live there (migrations into desert areas) or we must force out more of the non-human occupants of that land.
Disclaimer: I value human life over non-human life.
So this obviously doesn't bother you. I, however, view this as more of a diminishing returns problem. Take tigers, for example. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were estimated to be over 100,000 tigers in the wild. Today, there are less than 5000. From 1997 to 2007, the habitat available to wild tigers decreased by 41%, due to human encroachment on lands historically occupied by tigers. Tiger populations decreased by a similar amount.
To me, the life of one wild tiger is worth far more than the life of one human. From a biodiversity standpoint, one tiger may represent as much as .02% of the entire species, whereas one human is less than .00001% of our species. Yet forecasted human population estimates will require us to push further into these territories. And tigers are only one of many many examples.
One more human adds relatively little to the overall human condition. We're well past the point of diminishing returns. One more tiger, however, is one more chance for that species to hang on.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seven billion people, it's clear that the planet can conceivably support a lot more humans.
I disagree. Even if you are willing to accept the eventual destruction of all non-human species in order to accommodate more human living spaces, there are other resources to consider. The current number of people are causing alarming depletion of our natural water tables. Irrigation and industrial uses of water are drawing down water reserves that have existed for centuries. Wells are drying up, and increases in water prices are one of the first signs that this is a serious issue. Consider the following: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html Groundwater levels have decreased 900 feet around Chicago. Over 100 feet in the high plains and pacific northwest. 200 feet around Baton Rouge, 400 feet around Houston. These are reserves, and they're being used up. Saying that you think we're able to support more people now, is like saying that because you have $100 in the bank, and you're losing $10/month, that you can easily afford to spend more. Well, except that there are no credit cards for water and no deficit spending to take over when you run out.
Redbeard wrote:Humans are, essentially, predator species. Predators and prey exist in a symbiotic arrangement where predators prevent overpopulation of prey, and prey reproduce fast enough to enable the predators to take a few without harming the system. Eventually predator and prey populations fall into a stable state, where there may be slight fluctuations in either's number, but these fluctuations cause a natural response. (Similar relationships exist between herbivores and plant life).
I promise that cows, corn, and wheat aren't in any danger of being lost. In fact, we produce far in excess of those products we need to survive; so right now we have an overpopulation of prey (and plant life).
Redbeard wrote:To me, the life of one wild tiger is worth far more than the life of one human.
I'll make you a deal. Take out a life insurance policy on yourself. Name me as the recipient. I promise that if you die within 60 days, I will use the proceeds from that insurance policy to produce at least one more wild tiger. Maybe set up a nature reserve or something. You can likely find a lot of other people who agree with your position (valuing the life of a tiger over human life), I will extend this offer to anyone you can get to buy into the plan.
Say $1 million per person? It shouldn't be too hard to get that kind of insurance policy.
Redbeard wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with seven billion people, it's clear that the planet can conceivably support a lot more humans.
I disagree.
Do you disagree that we can support a lot more, or that there's nothing wrong with 7 billion people? If it's the former we can have a discussion, and I think you'll quite quickly be proven wrong; If it's the latter, there's not much to discuss.
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.
biccat wrote:
Do you disagree that we can support a lot more, or that there's nothing wrong with 7 billion people? If it's the former we can have a discussion, and I think you'll quite quickly be proven wrong; If it's the latter, there's not much to discuss.
Oh, there's no doubt that the planet's ecosystem can hypothetically support much more than 7 billion people. Technically, there's enough food production to support the amount of people we have quite happily.
However, the problem comes not in the amount of food but the distribution of it. Richer countries have far more access to food simply because they can pay for it, whereas the poorer countries cannot.
As a result, we have starvations in places like Africa whilst obesity is becoming an epidemic in the West.
Don't get me wrong, I simplified the hell out of that, but to illustrate the point that until we fix the problem of supply, then in practice supporting such a huge population is wishful thinking at best.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seven billion people, it's clear that the planet can conceivably support a lot more humans.
I disagree.
Do you disagree that we can support a lot more, or that there's nothing wrong with 7 billion people? If it's the former we can have a discussion, and I think you'll quite quickly be proven wrong; If it's the latter, there's not much to discuss.
I disagree that we are able to sustain the current number of people long-term. You are confusing what we can do currently, drawing down reserves that have accumulated over very large periods of time, with what we can do indefinitely. Did you even bother to read the link I provided that shows how we are depleting our water tables? We may be able to grow corn, grass, and cows currently, because we're overusing our water. What do you think happens when those reserves are all gone, and the water needed to irrigate all those lands is no longer available?
Living off one's reserves is not sustainable behaviour.
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.
Dude, you need to stop posting on Dakka while you are high.
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.
Dude, you need to stop posting on Dakka while you are high.
Don't do that stuff. I i'm just terrible at spelling.
Kilkrazy wrote:Anyone can have an opinion on a topic, however its validity (or worth, relevance, etc.) may vary depending on their knowledge.
Women have a fundamentally different life experience of pregnancy to men.
What I take from this comment is you're saying is that you're not going to share your opinion on the issue. If so, why bother posting in the thread at all?
One might wonder why you would throw out a bombshell statement and then refuse to answer any follow-up questions.
Redbeard wrote:To me, the life of one wild tiger is worth far more than the life of one human.
I'll make you a deal. Take out a life insurance policy on yourself. Name me as the recipient. I promise that if you die within 60 days, I will use the proceeds from that insurance policy to produce at least one more wild tiger. Maybe set up a nature reserve or something. You can likely find a lot of other people who agree with your position (valuing the life of a tiger over human life), I will extend this offer to anyone you can get to buy into the plan.
Say $1 million per person? It shouldn't be too hard to get that kind of insurance policy.
Good reply, bicat. It's been my experience, without fail, the ones that seem to think they sit in the emperor's box above it all are the ones to be most anxious to let the killing begin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
biccat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.
What do you tell parents that just found themselves out of a job and unable to support their kids? Pick who lives and who dies?
There is always the option of adoption. I find the idea of abortion for convenience wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote:Anyone can have an opinion on a topic, however its validity (or worth, relevance, etc.) may vary depending on their knowledge.
Women have a fundamentally different life experience of pregnancy to men.
What I take from this comment is you're saying is that you're not going to share your opinion on the issue. If so, why bother posting in the thread at all?
One might wonder why you would throw out a bombshell statement and then refuse to answer any follow-up questions.
You are free to draw whatever inference you like from my comments.
Kilkrazy wrote:Women have a fundamentally different life experience of pregnancy to men.
I only dispute that a woman's opinion about whether an unborn child, regarding ending her or his life, is like an enemy combatant in battle, an assailant in the commission of assault, or a criminal convicted of a capital offense is any more or less valid or relevant than a man's.
biccat wrote:
In your opinion, would you classify an unborn child as an enemy (as in war), assailant (as in self defense) or criminal (as in capital punishment)?
You're of the opinion that those are the only principles according to which a life can be taken?
Kilkrazy wrote:Women have a fundamentally different life experience of pregnancy to men.
I only dispute that a woman's opinion whether an unborn child, regarding ending her or his life, is like an enemy combatant in battle, an assailant in the commission of assault, or a criminal convicted of a capital offense is no more valid or relevant than a man's.
Surely the woman's opinion is more relevant as she is in the position of making the decision.
biccat wrote:
I'll make you a deal. Take out a life insurance policy on yourself. Name me as the recipient. I promise that if you die within 60 days, I will use the proceeds from that insurance policy to produce at least one more wild tiger. Maybe set up a nature reserve or something. You can likely find a lot of other people who agree with your position (valuing the life of a tiger over human life), I will extend this offer to anyone you can get to buy into the plan.
Say $1 million per person? It shouldn't be too hard to get that kind of insurance policy.
So you're of the opinion that one can apply value to life categorically, according to species?
Shall I therefore assume that you place a greater value on the life of Pol Pot than that of the family pet?
Manchu wrote:I wouldn't assume that, dogma. Biccat was just responding to examples KK gave.
I'm not assuming it, that's why I posed a question.
Manchu wrote:Women have no greater or lesser ability to answer the question posed by biccat than men.
But it affects women much more than it affects men... about 20 years worth, in modern society. That's 20 years of drain on the woman's resources that the man doesn't have to endure... without a paternity lawsuit, anyway.
Personally, I'm not terribly fond of abortion on an ethical level, but on a practical level I think we just have to cope.
First: Many anti-abortionists make no disticntion about the reasons for the abortion. Child of rape? Of molestation? Nope, the raped woman and the molested girl must bear the burden of the child. It's almost like they blame the female for the acts of the male. Medical necessity - the mother will DIE if the fetus is not aborted? Nope, No Abortions, Period. Better to loose both than kill the fetus!
Second: Outlawing abortion in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to an abortion - a quick vacation to China takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a woman knows she is pregnant before she 'goes to China' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be pregnant, getting tested there, having the abortion there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Third: Accidents happen. No form of birth control is 100% effective. A woman can be VERY careful, stacking the Pill with Spermicide with Condom... and still wind up pregnant. Even getting surgery for it is not 100% - I KNOW of one case where a married man got the procedure, then his wife got pregnant. He filed for divorce, being SURE she had had an affair even though she swore otherwise. His lawyers persuaded him to get a paternity test and sperm count test just to cover all the bases. Surprise! The child WAS his, and his sperm count, though low, was not 0. So... in cases like that, should the couple who had decided to NOT have children, and taken very sound precautions to avoid pregnancy, STILL be forced to have the child against their will?
Additionally, people being people, mistakes happen as well. Intoxicated people are often not careful... and yet getting drunk and getting laid on the weekend is a very common American pastime amoung young people. We can't legislate morality - look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the constant battle against Prostitution for how that turned out. We cannot legislate intelligence (if only!). We can only deal with the real world, and not what we all would wish it to be.
And don't say 'just don't have sex!' Sex is a biological function, like eating and excreting. Starting in our mid-teens, sex becomes part of your life, like it or not. Sexual frustration can bleed over into other aspects of your life. Some people can handle prolonged abstinence... and more power to them. I, on the other hand, get irritable and cranky after a month or two... which often leads to issues at work, not to mention the stresses on the relationship. And yet, I don't want kids. I find them annoying, loud, smelly, irritatiing... and you mean I have to PAY to deal with this 24/7? The mere sound of a child screaming cocks my hand to the "<SMACK> Shut Up Kid!" position; I rather suspect that I would make a terrible father. So... do I give up sex, or run the (granted, tiny) risk that my wife MIGHT get pregnant and NOT have the option to abort the child that NEITHER of us want (or can even afford anymore, for that matter)?
Fourth: The bitter parent who was, for whatever reason, forced to have the child.
My mother got pregnant at 19 (pre-Roe v. Wade), had to drop out of college, use her college money to set up housekeeping with my father, and go straight from careing for her baby sisters to caring for her baby, with no gap in the middle to find herself. As a result, she was miserable until... well, she just retired and it looks like she's finally getting a handle on it. But you can imagine what it was like being that child. You know the old saying, "If momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY gonna be happy!"? I lived it. For 18 years. She blamed ME for ruining HER life. Nothing I did was EVER good enough. "Go sweep the floor!" "No, it's not right, I might as well do it myself, you're totally useless!" Never mind that she had never SHOWED me how she wanted the floor swept. "What do you mean you got a A-? You should have gotten an A+! You're stupid and worthless!" I cut and ran as soon as I could and didn't talk to her for YEARS thereafter, so that I could try and get a handle in the issues she had given me (and I might just have them under control by the time I retire). Of course, this meant I missed college, which leaves me here making a whopping $16K a year, and while money won't buy happiness, it would have paid for therapy which might have helped...
Fifth: Right about now, anti-abortionists are screaming at the screen "Why not just give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion?"
Two things about this. First, it is SO difficult to adopt a child in America that many potential middle-class parents DO NOT QUALIFY to adopt. You've got to be pretty high on the economic totem pole to be able to adopt in America... which means that you can also afford medical procedures to make it possible to have kids that are biologically your own. With enough medical support, there aren't that many issues that can totally prevent two people from having a child of their own genetic legacy. So among the people who CAN afford to adopt, there isn't much demand for children TO adopt. Which means there is a massive number of childred that never get adopted... with all the attendant emotional issues ("nobody wants me!").
So who cares for the kids? Yep, the state has to deal with it. Sure, some charities help, but there just isn't enough to go around. So now we get to the Foster care system - people who, for whatever reason, CANNOT adopt the kids, instead VOLUNTEER to take care of them with the attendant lowered standards and requirements. [sarcasm] Sounds good, don't it? [/sarcasm]
Now, I personally know three people who were in the Foster Care system. I personally know people who personally know five more. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WAS PHYSICALLY ABUSED BY A FOSTER PARENT. I'm not talking about spanking, I'm talking about massive beatings, getting locked in cloests, that sort of thing. Of the 8, 7 were SEXUALLY ABUSED BY FOSTER PARENTS. Boys as well as girls, almost always by the men. Additionally, see my first point again.
While under a dozen is hardly a staticital sampling of the many thousands of children in the Foster Care System, that still means there are SEVERE issues in the Foster Care System. Until this is dealt with, the last thing we need are MORE children to feed to these victimizers.
Sixth: Many women (especially in the lower income brackets) do physical labor. Anything involving any sort of action, or even merely standing in place, is difficult-to-impossible to do while in the third trimester. These same woman can often ill-afford to loose income by not working for three to four months - by law they may have to give you maternity leave, but they are NOT required to pay you for it. So again we have a poor vs. rich issue - a poor woman cannot afford to loose work, much less actually pay the medical expenses of the pregnancy and birth. This means the state winds up picking up the tab... which is a HECK of a lot more expensive than an abortion. And again, simple abstinance is not a solution - many of these women are actuall married, public perception notwithstanding. Likewise, poorer people are a bit more likely to indulge in the 'get drunk on the weekend' escape... with the attendant risks. Poor vs. rich again... and the rich who find themselves in a similar situation can still 'go to China'...
Seventh: Do you really think that if you outlaw legal abortions, that the back-alley abortion clinic won't make a massive comeback?
People forget about that. Before Roe v. Wade, if you wanted to terminate a pregnancy, you went to a dark, dirty place in the 'bad' section of town. There, often with little regard to antiseptics, with alchohol and illegal drugs the only painkiller, someone with a passing knowledge of how to do an abortion would perform the procedure, often with improvised tools (the rusty coat hanger is the oft-mention implement). No small number of women died from such 'treatments'. And yet, women still went to have it done, because point number 6 - inability to work while pregnant and inability to survive while not working, not to mention inability to bear the ongoing financial burden, made it necessary.
OF course, only the poor would have to deal with this potentially lethal issue. Again the rich can just 'go to China' to get around it.
Ethically, abortion is questionable. Economically, it is almost a necessity - we can't tell poor people they can't get abortions while the rich can - and will. Pragmatically.... it's gonna happen. The least we can do is make it safe.
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.
This supports Biccat argument actually. Both sides don't agree that the definition of life decides the issue.
Kilkrazy wrote:You are free to draw whatever inference you like from my comments.
Just not to express them, obviously.
Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the woman's opinion is more relevant as she is in the position of making the decision.
My decision of how fast to drive is much more relevant than a police officer's, or a legislator's. Why should either of them have a say one way or the other?
dogma wrote:When personhood is established is a point of contention.
Though it seems more convenient to regulate via trimester, or actual birth.
That said, the dependent status of the fetus is distinct from that of the newborn. Children can be given up to adoption, fetuses cannot. The idea that the two are equivalent is idiocy.
Personhood is an invented concept.
This thread will have to go Godwin but essentially we are going back to Roman practices where children are the property of the father and can be killed/sold/whatever.
If such neonates are not 'people' then we should have no problem using them for medical research or selling to pœdophiles (so that they won't abuse 'wanted' children)
I agree with the logic, though I question the cut off point. If I go into my city centre and start a killing spree when I go to court can I argue that I'm performing post-birth abortions on people I judge unworthy of life? What right has anyone got to kill another human, let alone 'person'?
Phototoxin wrote:Personhood is an invented concept.
That's the very crux of it, in this case. For the purposes of determining who may be ethically killed, I do not find Giubilani and Minerva's definition of personhood compelling.
Vulcan wrote:
First: Many anti-abortionists make no disticntion about the reasons for the abortion. Child of rape? Of molestation? Nope, the raped woman and the molested girl must bear the burden of the child. It's almost like they blame the female for the acts of the male. Medical necessity - the mother will DIE if the fetus is not aborted? Nope, No Abortions, Period. Better to loose both than kill the fetus!
That is total bullsh*t. A medical procedure with the intent of saving the mother's life but having the side effect of terminating the pregnancy is not an abortion as it's explicit aim is not to terminate the pregnancy. In Ireland such procedures happen if necessary to save the mother despite the fact that Ireland does not have abortion.
Second: Outlawing abortion in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to an abortion - a quick vacation to China takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a woman knows she is pregnant before she 'goes to China' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be pregnant, getting tested there, having the abortion there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Second: Outlawing paedophilia in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to paedophilia - a quick vacation to Thailand takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a man knows he is a paedophile before he 'goes to Thailand' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be paedophile, getting tested there, having the child sex there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Nice logic :-)
Third: Accidents happen. No form of birth control is 100% effective.
Abstinence. 100% guaranteed
And don't say 'just don't have sex!' Sex is a biological function, like eating and excreting. Starting in our mid-teens, sex becomes part of your life, like it or not. Sexual frustration can bleed over into other aspects of your life.
Anger, murder, theft, rape are all part of our biological makeup. However being human we might be above these urges?
Fourth: The bitter parent who was, for whatever reason, forced to have the child.
Rare that pregancy occurs from rape. If you're adult enough to have sex life with the consequences of your actions.
Seventh: Do you really think that if you outlaw legal abortions, that the back-alley abortion clinic won't make a massive comeback?
Again this logic, by using it we should legalise rape and murder as it will just happen anyway ya know? Drugs and child sexploitation too - cos it's better if it's regulated?
biccat wrote:
That seems like a logical conclusion, assuming you ignore secondary considerations.
For example, my cat has murdered far fewer people than Pol Pot.
So you're saying that if Pol Pot wasn't Pol Pot he would be more valuable than your cat even if it were your cat?
In other words, generic human that exhibits no human characteristics beyond DNA is more valuable than generic cat that exhibits no cat characteristics beyond DNA?
If that's what you're getting at then, well, I find it needlessly simplistic. Lazy, if I'm honest.
Vulcan wrote:
First: Many anti-abortionists make no disticntion about the reasons for the abortion. Child of rape? Of molestation? Nope, the raped woman and the molested girl must bear the burden of the child. It's almost like they blame the female for the acts of the male. Medical necessity - the mother will DIE if the fetus is not aborted? Nope, No Abortions, Period. Better to loose both than kill the fetus!
That is total bullsh*t. A medical procedure with the intent of saving the mother's life but having the side effect of terminating the pregnancy is not an abortion as it's explicit aim is not to terminate the pregnancy. In Ireland such procedures happen if necessary to save the mother despite the fact that Ireland does not have abortion.
Second: Outlawing abortion in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to an abortion - a quick vacation to China takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a woman knows she is pregnant before she 'goes to China' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be pregnant, getting tested there, having the abortion there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Second: Outlawing paedophilia in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to paedophilia - a quick vacation to Thailand takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a man knows he is a paedophile before he 'goes to Thailand' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be paedophile, getting tested there, having the child sex there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Nice logic :-)
Third: Accidents happen. No form of birth control is 100% effective.
Abstinence. 100% guaranteed
And don't say 'just don't have sex!' Sex is a biological function, like eating and excreting. Starting in our mid-teens, sex becomes part of your life, like it or not. Sexual frustration can bleed over into other aspects of your life.
Anger, murder, theft, rape are all part of our biological makeup. However being human we might be above these urges?
Fourth: The bitter parent who was, for whatever reason, forced to have the child.
Rare that pregancy occurs from rape. If you're adult enough to have sex life with the consequences of your actions.
Seventh: Do you really think that if you outlaw legal abortions, that the back-alley abortion clinic won't make a massive comeback?
Again this logic, by using it we should legalise rape and murder as it will just happen anyway ya know? Drugs and child sexploitation too - cos it's better if it's regulated?
You're arguing morality, and I agree with you there. It's the practicality of if that I argue.
dogma wrote:When personhood is established is a point of contention.
Though it seems more convenient to regulate via trimester, or actual birth.
That said, the dependent status of the fetus is distinct from that of the newborn. Children can be given up to adoption, fetuses cannot. The idea that the two are equivalent is idiocy.
Personhood is an invented concept.
This thread will have to go Godwin but essentially we are going back to Roman practices where children are the property of the father and can be killed/sold/whatever.
If such neonates are not 'people' then we should have no problem using them for medical research or selling to pœdophiles (so that they won't abuse 'wanted' children)
I agree with the logic, though I question the cut off point. If I go into my city centre and start a killing spree when I go to court can I argue that I'm performing post-birth abortions on people I judge unworthy of life? What right has anyone got to kill another human, let alone 'person'?
Well if wack those neonatals you'll be repsonsible to their owner for damage to their property but thats about it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-some preachy bit of fluff.
Vulcan wrote:Right about now, anti-abortionists are screaming at the screen "Why not just give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion?"
Two things about this. First, it is SO difficult to adopt a child in America that many potential middle-class parents DO NOT QUALIFY to adopt.
Assuming for the moment that adoption for children who are 5 years or old becomes more difficult, would your argument justify murdering children before their fifth birthday? If not, why does the justification "adoption is difficult" only apply before birth and not until some point after birth?
Presumably, this justification would apply to 5-year-olds, but taking the totality of circumstances (all of the reasons you posted) justifies the ethical negative of abortion, but would not justify the ethical negative of infanticide.
If so, you're not really refuting the issue raised in the lead story, you're simply drawing a different line in the sand.
Vulcan wrote:Ethically, abortionauto theft is questionable. Economically, it is almost a necessity - we can't tell poor people they can't get abortionsFerrari's while the rich can - and will. Pragmatically.... it's gonna happen. The least we can do is make it safe.
That seems to be the same argument. What's the difference?
You say that middle class people cannot adopt except under extremely difficult circumstances, yet there are people all around me adopting children. I have good confidence that I could adopt children, yet the people I cite, nor myself are above middle class on the economic toem pole you speak of.
If we're going to take religious sources into consideration, 99.999999% guaranteed. Still, pretty darn good.
Frazzled wrote:I don't know, your cat looks pretty shifty to me. TBone says its best to nuke all cats from orbit, just to be sure.
Pot murdered at least a million people (not personally, of course, giving him another advantage). The cat sleeps 16 hours a day, spends at least 4 grooming, and 2 more eating and crapping (or playing in the box). There's only so much you can do for 2 hours a day.
If we're going to take religious sources into consideration, 99.999999% guaranteed. Still, pretty darn good.
Frazzled wrote:I don't know, your cat looks pretty shifty to me. TBone says its best to nuke all cats from orbit, just to be sure.
Pot murdered at least a million people (not personally, of course, giving him another advantage). The cat sleeps 16 hours a day, spends at least 4 grooming, and 2 more eating and crapping (or playing in the box). There's only so much you can do for 2 hours a day.
Well facts are in evidence, however as cats are the bane of TBone's existence, he proffers its better to be safe than sorry. What can I say? Wiener dogs are hardcore.
Phototoxin wrote:
Personhood is an invented concept.
So is humanity, it wasn't that long ago that having a particularly dark complexion rendered one subhuman, or a lesser human.
Phototoxin wrote:
I agree with the logic, though I question the cut off point. If I go into my city centre and start a killing spree when I go to court can I argue that I'm performing post-birth abortions on people I judge unworthy of life? What right has anyone got to kill another human, let alone 'person'?
I'm not arguing for post-birth abortions, I'm arguing that there is a clear and meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child. This stands in contrast to the argument made in the OP article, and the argument that we cannot abort fetuses because they're really just neonates.
Manchu wrote:
dogma wrote:I'm not assuming it, that's why I posed a question.
Whether KK's example constitute the only acceptable instances of taking human life is beside the point.
I disagree, if those are the only justifiable instances of taking a human life, then abortion must be justified on those grounds.
If they don't, then greater flexibility is afforded.
I would be interested to know whether the author of this report has kids, and for that matter how many of her supporters or detractors have kids too.
In my experience someone who has been present at the birth of a child would have to be one cold fish sociopathic mother fether to think that what they are holding was not a person, or worthy of life.
On the disability angle: The problem is not whether someone has the potential to live a meaningful life, it is who we should allow to decide such a thing.
On the economic angle: A newborn, judged on the economic situation of its parent? When did the world decide that Original Sin should extend to credit ratings?
Finally: I can't believe that anyone could be so dense as to publish an article like this and then be shocked and surprised that it makes people angry. Dr Dumbass should go outside more often, IMO.
dogma wrote:I'm not assuming it, that's why I posed a question.
Whether KK's example constitute the only acceptable instances of taking human life is beside the point.
I disagree, if those are the only justifiable instances of taking a human life, then abortion must be justified on those grounds.
If they don't, then greater flexibility is afforded.
Excellent point. It's a matter of organization. KK offered those three examples regardless of them of forming an exhaustive list. We only have to ask whether the list is exhaustive if abortion cannot be justified as similar to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I'm not arguing for post-birth abortions, I'm arguing that there is a clear and meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child. This stands in contrast to the argument made in the OP article, and the argument that we cannot abort fetuses because they're really just neonates.
As much as obliterating the distinction would clarify the imperative, I have to agree that it can't be done. Genetics aside, no one would confuse an acorn for a tree.
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.
What do you tell parents that just found themselves out of a job and unable to support their kids? Pick who lives and who dies?
There is always the option of adoption. I find the idea of abortion for convenience wrong.
Adoption isnt like the movies. It is hard, Just because someone wants to have a kid but cant doesnt mean they can go in an get one. And those who adopt want to make sure if they are going to pay alot get a good kid.
And because race is part of the abortion issue i'm going to bring it up. *Gulp*
Because of various racist policies in the past(and today) people of color tend t be underprivileged and do not make up a high amount of wealthy people who wish to adopt. And bcause few wish to adopt outside their race. So there are few around to adopt babies who are not white(and when they do it may be overseas) So for those of color who got pregnant adoption isnt really an issue, So by not allowing abortion we are still forcing a disproportional amount in a cycle of poverty.
And im off to hd from the war i just started.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:Does anyone else hear an echo of eugenics in the original article? Birth defects = unworthy of life? Didn't the extreme eugenicists also want this?
Yes, but that was just one aspect (and, a somewhat tame one) of their belief system.
I think this is a case of Hitler Ate Sugar (aka the Association Fallacy)
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:Does anyone else hear an echo of eugenics in the original article? Birth defects = unworthy of life? Didn't the extreme eugenicists also want this?
yes indeed. Interestingly one of the first big efforts of early Christians were to take in abandoned children and rail against the practice. Nothing new under the sun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:I think this is a case of Hitler Ate Sugar (aka the Association Fallacy)
You know who else demagogued Jews and wanted to drive them out of where they were living? Jimmy Carter.
We're not talking about yesterday now. We're talking Hitler because its ok to thump your chest about the evil nazis.
The fact that people will break the laws is not a valid argument against them. A better argument against a law is that it is unenforceable or that enforcing it will produce other, graver injustices than that which the law seeks to prevent. Women have no special insight into this.
I don't need to have a uterus myself to realize that poking at it with a coat hanger is dangerous. Similarly, lacking a uterus does not impede my comprehension of the clinical impact of pregnancy. To the extent that women, as opposed to men, have a particular stake in the topic of abortion, it is a question of a specific woman rather than women generally. In this respect, we see abortion as it is best understood: subject to conscience. The act is also subject to the conscience of the one who performs the abortion, which could be a man. This person cannot dismiss the responsibility to act in accordance with his conscience simply because he is not a woman.
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.
Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.
Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.
Dude, you need to stop posting on Dakka while you are high.
Don't do that stuff. I i'm just terrible at spelling.
Come on, I was just having a joke with you man, chill.
Grakmar wrote:I think this is a case of Hitler Ate Sugar (aka the Association Fallacy)
You know who else demagogued Jews and wanted to drive them out of where they were living? Jimmy Carter.
The height intellectual honesty is clearly comparing the Holocaust to advocacy of the two state solution.
And, I'm really not sure how Carter appealed to American antisemitism. At least assuming that's what you mean, because demagogue isn't, you know, a verb.
Manchu wrote:The fact that people will break the laws is not a valid argument against them. A better argument against a law is that it is unenforceable or that enforcing it will produce other, graver injustices than that which the law seeks to prevent. Women have no special insight into this.
An argument that people will break the law, at least break it en masse, is basically an argument that the law is unenforceable. In essence, while you may punish some, you cannot punish enough of the actual law breakers to render the law forceful.
Manchu wrote:
I don't need to have a uterus myself to realize that poking at it with a coat hanger is dangerous. Similarly, lacking a uterus does not impede my comprehension of the clinical impact of pregnancy. To the extent that women, as opposed to men, have a particular stake in the topic of abortion, it is a question of a specific woman rather than women generally. In this respect, we see abortion as it is best understood: subject to conscience. The act is also subject to the conscience of the one who performs the abortion, which could be a man. This person cannot dismiss the responsibility to act in accordance with his conscience simply because he is not a woman.
Ultimately, though, the procedure is one undergone by women. They bear the health risks related not only to the abortion, but the pregnancy itself. They also bear the economic risks related to pregnancy.
The argument "Well, you shouldn't have had sex." is nice and all, but what someone should or should not have done has no bearing on how the consequences of what was done are dealt with; especially if initial options are limited.
According to US law, the difference between killing babies and abortion involves location and technique. The fetus must have a certain portion of its physicality remaining within the body of the woman. Standard practice is to simply leave the entire fetus within the woman. Using ultrasound, the fetus is injected with a terminating solution and then removed. If the fetus is removed from the woman beyond the restricted limit before termination occurs than the procedure could be considered illegal. This would be US law as introduced by Rick Santorum and signed by George W. Bush.
Phototoxin wrote:While the Nazi regeme was known for its eugenics it wasn't uncommon in many other other countries at the time. The Nazi just turned it up to 11.
The US had a eugenics movement, as I suspect did England and most of Europe.
Fair point, but that would mean your initial statement either entailed Carter manipulating "the Jews", or that "the Jews" were simply a political issue.
Unless, of course, you meant "Israel" instead of "the Jews", but that would entail its own set of, potentially antisemitic, implications.
Unless, as before, you're siding with unsubstantiated claims regarding Carter claiming that certain things were "too Jewish". I suppose that might be the foundation for your position, but I suspect that its merely an excuse that you're using to justify a rather thinly veiled appeal to the notion that being anything other than pro-Israel is tacit to being antisemitic.
Basically, you saw Carter being not pro-Israel, decided that made him antisemitic, and further have concluded that anything else pointing to that antisemitism must therefore be true. We call this confirmation bias.
And of course, this also dovetails nicely into your standard "liberals/Democrats are evil" refrain.
This is clearly crossing the line.
Aborting a fetus before it can survive outside its mother seems perfectly reasonable.
If that line keeps getting pushed back then we keep pushing the time limit back.
If it comes to the point where we can keep a fetus alive outside its mother no matter how old then we just ban abortion all together.
Finally: I can't believe that anyone could be so dense as to publish an article like this and then be shocked and surprised that it makes people angry. Dr Dumbass should go outside more often, IMO.
Probably because the majority of people don't bother to 'think'. Its an academic debate on ethics. Obviously it doesn't mean its what she believes. This is how society grows and progresses, through out-of-the-box thinking.
I wouldn't expect most people to understand it however. There is nothing to get angry over.
I see that even as I tried to get people to think about the issue, they still insist on responding emotionally.
In the final analysis, until the issues I raised can be dealt with, abortion - legal or not - is here to stay.
Personally, I think that rather than expending all this energy and funding on trying to force a pro-life belief onto people with pro-choice preferences, it would be more proftitable to spend the energy and funding trying to find a way to make abortions unneeded. Say, funding research into ways to bring a fetus to term outside the uterus, and ways to inexpensively and safely remove said fetus from the uterus in the first place. That would probably be a lot more productive than all this 'you want to kill babies!' vs. 'you belive women aren't smart enough to control their own bodies!' argument going on.
I'd bet once some sort of artifical womb service becomes economically competitive with abortion services, abortions will disappear overnight.
Vulcan wrote:
I'd bet once some sort of artifical womb service becomes economically competitive with abortion services, abortions will disappear overnight.
I can't see that ever happening. Abortion isn't particularly expensive, and with any particular artificial womb you're basically talking about the cost of MVA or aspiration, and the attendant cost of the artificial womb.
Maybe you can find political support for publicly fund artificial wombs, but my guess is that you won't because, as Polonius said up thread, its not just about killing babies.
Then, with an artificial womb, you're still left with the question regarding guardianship.
Relapse wrote:It would be probably cheaper and easier just to transplant the fetus into a surragate mother, a bit like what is done for livestock.
It depends on the available population of willing surrogate mothers.
Overpopulation of the planet is a myth, created by the people that want to decide who is worthwhile and who isn't. Using the pop density of New York, you could fit everyone on the planet into Texas.
Conservation of non-human life is a good thing, but no non-human species is worth a human life. More species have gone extinct then currently exist on the planet. $hit happens.
Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional (I don't care about a liberal decision by the majority of 9 people in bad robes with an agenda say. I can read too.) and immoral. It's amazing how the people that defend death row inmates and snail darters are the same people that want to shove human babies into garbage disposals. Unborn babies have REM sleep, which means they may dream. I doubt if they do that it would be hoping someone pokes them with a surgical tool.
Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional
I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.
Anyway, here's an interesting story. The parents didn't want a downs syndrome child, if the hospital had properly screened the fetus in utero, they would have killed aborted her.
In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?
Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional
I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.
Anyway, here's an interesting story. The parents didn't want a downs syndrome child, if the hospital had properly screened the fetus in utero, they would have killed aborted her.
In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?
Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional
I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.
Anyway, here's an interesting story. The parents didn't want a downs syndrome child, if the hospital had properly screened the fetus in utero, they would have killed aborted her.
In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?
Frazzled wrote:Thats the argument being made in the OP.
The OP is making the case that all forms of infanticide post-birth abortion are morally acceptable. This is a narrower case where infanticide post-birth abortion should only be available when there is some misconduct or negligence that the parents relied upon to avoid having an abortion.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't see how you linked the two here.
What two? The response to Phanatik and my link? Yeah, that was a little forced.
But if you're referring to the linked article and the OP: I think they're linked, per my response to Frazzled.
Frazzled wrote:Thats the argument being made in the OP.
The OP is making the case that all forms of infanticide post-birth abortion are morally acceptable. This is a narrower case where infanticide post-birth abortion should only be available when there is some misconduct or negligence that the parents relied upon to avoid having an abortion.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't see how you linked the two here.
What two? The response to Phanatik and my link? Yeah, that was a little forced.
But if you're referring to the linked article and the OP: I think they're linked, per my response to Frazzled.
I see what you're saying now. I still disagree, as the child is now considered a person. The fact that the parents would have had an abortion if they had been properly advised regarding the likelihood of down-syndrome doesn't make killing the child justifiable at all. At most you could sue the doctors in damages for raising and supporting a mentally ill child as opposed to a healthy one.
Frazzled wrote:Thats the argument being made in the OP.
The OP is making the case that all forms of infanticide post-birth abortion are morally acceptable. This is a narrower case where infanticide post-birth abortion should only be available when there is some misconduct or negligence that the parents relied upon to avoid having an abortion.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't see how you linked the two here.
What two? The response to Phanatik and my link? Yeah, that was a little forced.
But if you're referring to the linked article and the OP: I think they're linked, per my response to Frazzled.
I see what you're saying now. I still disagree, as the child is now considered a person. The fact that the parents would have had an abortion if they had been properly advised regarding the likelihood of down-syndrome doesn't make killing the child justifiable at all. At most you could sue the doctors in damages for raising and supporting a mentally ill child as opposed to a healthy one.
Well thats what actually occurred (wrongful birth suit) variant). The OP is arguing that as babies aren't people, its ok to just wack them and correct the error. I imagine the best procedure is to leave them at the fork of a road.
Frazzled wrote:
Well thats what actually occurred (wrongful birth suit) variant). The OP is arguing that as babies aren't people, its ok to just wack them and correct the error. I imagine the best procedure is to leave them at the fork of a road.
Yes, that is (roughly) what the OP was arguing. I was just disagreeing with biccat that this was in line with the pro-choice line of thought.
Frazzled wrote:yea they are arguing for any reason, but that was one of the underlying reasons for why someone would do it.
There seems to be a lot of objection, even from pro-choice advocates, with the idea that you could kill an infant for any reason. I agree that that logic is flawed.
However, for the narrower case - where an abortion would have occurred but for the negligence of the doctor - it's a more difficult argument to refute. The right to choose to have children (or not) surely must be an informed choice. If you make that decision based on negligently provided information you should get another bite at the apple, so to speak.
Frazzled wrote:yea they are arguing for any reason, but that was one of the underlying reasons for why someone would do it.
There seems to be a lot of objection, even from pro-choice advocates, with the idea that you could kill an infant for any reason. I agree that that logic is flawed.
However, for the narrower case - where an abortion would have occurred but for the negligence of the doctor - it's a more difficult argument to refute. The right to choose to have children (or not) surely must be an informed choice. If you make that decision based on negligently provided information you should get another bite at the apple, so to speak.
Only because the woman's right to have that choice is considered more important than the unborn foetus, not a newborn child which should and is to be considered a seperate person with equally important rights.
Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional
I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.
I know I inserted a long comment to qualify the unconstitutional part. I said it was unconstitutional AND immoral. Thus, it's against the laws of the founders and nature.
I understand that an immoral act could be constitutional. (Look at congress.)
I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.
Phanatik wrote:I know I inserted a long comment to qualify the unconstitutional part. I said it was unconstitutional AND immoral. Thus, it's against the laws of the founders and nature.
Well, I also disagree that abortion is unconstitutional, separate from its morality. There is a decent argument for it being unconstitutional, I'm curious what yours is.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Only because the woman's right to have that choice is considered more important than the unborn foetus, not a newborn child which should and is to be considered a seperate person with equally important rights.
Does the woman have a right to an informed decision on whether to abort or not?
Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.
Because all in all, they developed a system far ahead of its time. Plus they saved us from having to eat British food. Haggis is a war crime you know!
Hazardous Harry wrote:Only because the woman's right to have that choice is considered more important than the unborn foetus, not a newborn child which should and is to be considered a seperate person with equally important rights.
Does the woman have a right to an informed decision on whether to abort or not?
I would say she does. But if anything the proper remedial course would be to sue the doctor, not kill the child after the fact.
Frazzled wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.
Because all in all, they developed a system far ahead of its time.
Actually a lot of their ideas (not that the founding fathers actually invented the ideas) were popular among intellectual circles at the time. There's nothing odd about that.
Plus they saved us from having to eat British food. Haggis is a war crime you know!
Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.
Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).
Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.
Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).
I'm not saying the founding fathers were avid supporters of slavery, I just don't see why so many Americans (or at least the ones where this topic has come up) seem to idolise the founding fathers so. You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the level of devotion to centuries old political leaders in similar countries (bar perhaps Turkey with Ataturk).
Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.
Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).
I'm not saying the founding fathers were avid supporters of slavery, I just don't see why so many Americans (or at least the ones where this topic has come up) seem to idolise the founding fathers so. You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the level of devotion to centuries old political leaders in similar countries (bar perhaps Turkey with Ataturk).
British food does that to you. I have an antidote. Have you ever heard of something called chile rellenos?
Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.
Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).
I'm not saying the founding fathers were avid supporters of slavery, I just don't see why so many Americans (or at least the ones where this topic has come up) seem to idolise the founding fathers so. You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the level of devotion to centuries old political leaders in similar countries (bar perhaps Turkey with Ataturk).
Because beyond being the Founding Fathers, they were also brilliant men in a variety of fields.
George Washington was a pioneer of farming techniques. Benjamin Franklin was... well... Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Jefferson was quite the philosopher and also a fair bit of an inventor himself. Granted, some of them were duds (looking at you John Quincy Adams) but most of them were quite impressive people.
There's also the fact that they were not simply defacto leaders; they didn't inherit their titles like kings or queens. They are so revered because they worked, for the most part, alongside the people they "ruled". It's a rather unique position to be in, as opposed to places whose political leaders were simply there because of tradition.
Phanatik wrote:Overpopulation of the planet is a myth, created by the people that want to decide who is worthwhile and who isn't.
I'm glad that you oppose capital punishment, and self defense, or at least that you lack the foresight to consider the implications of your arguments.
Phanatik wrote:
Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional (I don't care about a liberal decision by the majority of 9 people in bad robes with an agenda say. I can read too.) and immoral.
There's a part of the Constitution that forbids abortion?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?
So the pro-choice model now necessitates the permission of after birth abortions?
biccat wrote:
However, for the narrower case - where an abortion would have occurred but for the negligence of the doctor - it's a more difficult argument to refute. The right to choose to have children (or not) surely must be an informed choice. If you make that decision based on negligently provided information you should get another bite at the apple, so to speak.
Why?
Once you've "had the child" (given birth) the question seems moot.
If you don't want it, then there are plenty of means by which to transfer custody.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:So the pro-choice model now necessitates the permission of after birth abortions?
No, it always has.
Nothing has changed.
So, the belief that women should have the capacity to abort a pregnancy, that is, kill a fetus, entails the belief that women should have the right to kill a child after giving birth to said child?
Are you really of the opinion that there is no meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child?
Does that, further, mean that there is no meaningful distinction between a 3 year old, and 50 year old?
biccat wrote:There is a decent argument for it being unconstitutional, I'm curious what yours is.
The Elephant Man aside, a human fetus grows into a human baby that grows into a human adult. Americans are protected by the Constitution from the government and the tyranny of the masses.
If an illegal alien is protected by the constitution (as some suggest (such as abortion advocates - my my the positions these people take)) than surely an American baby should be, regardless of it's 10-20. Consider the baby Occupies Wombstreet, to confuse the left.
If someone is unable or unwilling to defend themselves in a legal situation, an (objective?) attorney can and will be provided to speak on that person's behalf. (all of the t.v. legal dramas say so, so it must be true) A mother [hellbent - <grin>] on killing the child is subjective and might not have the child's best interests at heart.
R v. W supposedly created a woman's constitutional right to an abortion (I defy anyone to show me the paragraph where it says so) which if true, would create a conflict between the mother's rights and the baby's rights, which would have to be resolved (great, more lawyers). This leaves abortion advocates trying to argue that a baby isn't a baby to remove the conflict.
Once you've "had the child" (given birth) the question seems moot.
If you don't want it, then there are plenty of means by which to transfer custody.
There are also plenty of means for transferring custody of a child before it is born, it simply requires a short waiting period.
If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
dogma wrote:So, the belief that women should have the capacity to abort a pregnancy, that is, kill a fetus, entails the belief that women should have the right to kill a child after giving birth to said child?
Yes.
dogma wrote:Are you really of the opinion that there is no meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child?
Yes.*
dogma wrote:Does that, further, mean that there is no meaningful distinction between a 3 year old, and 50 year old?
Yes.*
* There's no meaningful distinction between the right of a 3-year-old to life and the right of a 50-year-old to life
Phanatik wrote:
The Elephant Man aside, a human fetus grows into a human baby that grows into a human adult. Americans are protected by the Constitution from the government and the tyranny of the masses.
So, you don't have an argument beyond "Constitution!".
Phanatik wrote:
R v. W supposedly created a woman's constitutional right to an abortion (I defy anyone to show me the paragraph where it says so) which if true, would create a conflict between the mother's rights and the baby's rights, which would have to be resolved (great, more lawyers). This leaves abortion advocates trying to argue that a baby isn't a baby to remove the conflict.
There is no right to life. If there were, capital punishment would be Unconstitutional.
There is also no right to abortion, at least considering the text of the Constitution itself.
But, as regards whether or not a baby isn't a baby, you seem awfully like an infant. You cannot argue that there is a line between a fetus and a baby if you're further going to maintain that there is no line between an infant and an adult. And I suspect you won't make the latter claim.
biccat wrote:
If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
9 months of pregnancy.
Or, in your language, a violation of her freedom, possibly religious.
biccat wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction between the right of a 3-year-old to life and the right of a 50-year-old to life
What about a -8 months "child"?
Or, more interestingly, a -12 months "child"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:There is no right to life. If there were, capital punishment would be Unconstitutional.
There's a right to liberty, but imprisonment isn't Unconstitutional.
biccat wrote:
If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
9 months of pregnancy.
Or, in your language, a violation of her freedom, possibly religious.
There is no constitutional right against someone violating your "freedom," religious or otherwise, if they are not a government actor.
Here it is the child that is restricting the woman's "freedom against pregnancy," not some government actor.
What you're asking for is remedial action by the government to free her from a perceived violation of her liberty interest.
If someone else violates my liberty interest - say by kidnapping me or holding me hostage - I cannot hire a squad of armed gunmen to kill the kidnappers.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:There's no meaningful distinction between the right of a 3-year-old to life and the right of a 50-year-old to life
What about a -8 months "child"?
Or, more interestingly, a -12 months "child"?
No meaningful distinction there either. Assuming you can find a potential human at -12 months.
dogma wrote:So you're saying that rights are fungible?
biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?
biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?
If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.
biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?
I'm trying to address the issue in a more compromising* manner, using the word "requiring" is to placate the opposition and not get dragged down debating whether this is a "life" issue or a "liberty" issue.
If you would prefer, I can say "what's the harm in preventing the mother from murdering her child."
* and by "compromising" I mean accepting, for the purpose of this discussion, the other side's arguments. "Compromise" to many on the left means accepting their ideas. Posters here would clearly be the exception.
biccat wrote:
There is no constitutional right against someone violating your "freedom," religious or otherwise, if they are not a government actor.
There is no Constitutional right against the state violating your freedom.
biccat wrote:
What you're asking for is remedial action by the government to free her from a perceived violation of her liberty interest.
No, that's not consistent with your initial question.
You asked where the harm lies in requiring a mother to carry her child to term. I pointed out that 9 months of pregnancy are widely considered to suck, and further that it harms her freedom to abort the child.
Then there's the fact that I've explicitly stated that there is a difference between abortion, and kill in a new born.
biccat wrote:
If someone else violates my liberty interest - say by kidnapping me or holding me hostage - I cannot hire a squad of armed gunmen to kill the kidnappers.
You can't call the police?
biccat wrote:
No meaningful distinction there either. Assuming you can find a potential human at -12 months.
Pretty easily. That cute girl who brings me coffee manifests such thoughts.
biccat wrote:
What? No. That comment doesn't even make sense.
I see you've spent very little time thinking about rights.
Fungibility entails the easy substitution between commodities. Rights can be conceived of as commodities. One can have equal rights without having rights that are identical to those of others. This is required by any right to liberty.
In order to have a right to liberty that includes law, and order, one must have "rights" that are fungible. In essence, the violations of right X cover the violations of right Y.
biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?
I doubt anyone here is advocating total anarchy.
We the People totally insist that the government force a person(s) not to rob a bank.
We The People utilize the government all the time to enforce laws, AND can resist the government trying to go beyond what we allow them.
Note that the people that want government to go beyond it's constitutional boundaries, advocate abortion but abhor capital punishment, love trees and snail darters to the detriment of humans, burn up SUVs but hate backyard grilling, Occupy other people's property while whining for a job, insist we have a national i.d. card but think showing i.d. to vote is disenfranchisement (etc etc) ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE.
Phanatik wrote:
We the People totally insist that the government force a person(s) not to rob a bank.
We The People utilize the government all the time to enforce laws, AND can resist the government trying to go beyond what we allow them.
Note that the people that want government to go beyond it's constitutional boundaries, advocate abortion but abhor capital punishment, love trees and snail darters to the detriment of humans, burn up SUVs but hate backyard grilling, Occupy other people's property while whining for a job, insist we have a national i.d. card but think showing i.d. to vote is disenfranchisement (etc etc) ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE.
Really, why is that?
Regards,
So, "The People" do things that you like, but "the people" do not?
dogma wrote:There is no Constitutional right against the state violating your freedom.
Sure there is.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Those are just the explicit mentions.
dogma wrote:No, that's not consistent with your initial question.
You asked where the harm lies in requiring a mother to carry her child to term. I pointed out that 9 months of pregnancy are widely considered to suck, and further that it harms her freedom to abort the child.
There's a right against having your life "suck" for 9 months? Where to I sign up?
dogma wrote:Then there's the fact that I've explicitly stated that there is a difference between abortion, and kill in a new born.
Ah, well dogma has spoken. I suppose that's the end of the discussion then.
Should I just forward this to the Supreme Court, or do you want to do it yourself?
dogma wrote:You can't call the police?
We're not talking about state action, we're discussing the legality of private action.
dogma wrote:I see you've spent very little time thinking about rights.
Yeah, dogma, I don't have the same ideas as you so quite obviously I haven't spent the same amount of time studying it. I suggest you try being less condescending. I accept the legimacy of your views that are different from mine, I would like, but do not expect, the same
dogma wrote:Fungibility entails the easy substitution between commodities. Rights can be conceived of as commodities. One can have equal rights without having rights that are identical to those of others. This is required by any right to liberty.
Only if you conceive of rights as commodities is fungibility required. Fungibility of rights stems requires a conception of rights as stemming from government, rather than naturally existing limitations on government.
You quite clearly apply the former, which I agree is a practical conception. However, it doesn't afford any distinction between a free society and a sufficiently tyrannical society, which is a problem. With a "states as grantors of rights" position, you cannot say that the United States is more or less free than North Korea.
dogma wrote:In order to have a right to liberty that includes law, and order, one must have "rights" that are fungible. In essence, the violations of right X cover the violations of right Y.
If rights are fungible, then they aren't "rights." They're concessions, and particularly fragile ones at that.
MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.
So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?
As shown before, around 10% of children in foster care actually end up getting adopted. Around 50,000 per year of 400,000 - 500,000 in foster care. Now, obviously that's not saying that a child can't get adopted; one of my friends and his 3 sisters were all adopted. I'm simply pointing out that "adoption is the answer", well, isn't.
As a nitpick, murder does not just "Prevent [someone] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", it ends that life. An attacker putting someone in a permanent vegetative state will "Prevent [them] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", but is not murder per se. Again, just a nitpick with no real bearing.
Phanatik wrote:I doubt anyone here is advocating total anarchy.
We the People totally insist that the government force a person(s) not to rob a bank.
We The People utilize the government all the time to enforce laws, AND can resist the government trying to go beyond what we allow them.
Note that the people that want government to go beyond it's constitutional boundaries, advocate abortion but abhor capital punishment, love trees and snail darters to the detriment of humans, burn up SUVs but hate backyard grilling, Occupy other people's property while whining for a job, insist we have a national i.d. card but think showing i.d. to vote is disenfranchisement (etc etc) ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE.
Really, why is that?
Regards,
I have no idea what you're saying, but I find myself wondering "What is a snail darter"?
One wonders why two people would so willingly faceplant themselves into brick walls so often.
Fun to watch though.
Snail Darters are a type of fish I believe, a dams construction was delayed due to them being found in the area of construction. They were at the time an endangered species.
Relapse wrote:It would be probably cheaper and easier just to transplant the fetus into a surragate mother, a bit like what is done for livestock.
That presupposes a steady supply of surrogate mothers, doesn't it? We're having enough trouble getting women to have the babies they conceive (however accidental or unintentional) as it is... which is the whole point of this disagreement.
Vulcan wrote:We're having enough trouble getting women to have the babies they conceive
The number of births still far outweighs the number of abortions. You make it sound like almost every woman is getting an abortion and that maybe a few women are having children.
Once you've "had the child" (given birth) the question seems moot.
If you don't want it, then there are plenty of means by which to transfer custody.
There are also plenty of means for transferring custody of a child before it is born, it simply requires a short waiting period.
If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?
Let's say she has a job that requires physical activity that is impossible in the third trimester and the month or so after giving birth. Let's further say that said job doesn't give pay to women on maternity leave. Let's further say that since she has this crappy job, she hasn't been able to save up enough money to NOT be able to work those 4-5 months without risking loosing her residence and everything she owns.
MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.
So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?
yep, i think forcing a women to bear a child so it may live is acceptable.
As shown before, around 10% of children in foster care actually end up getting adopted. Around 50,000 per year of 400,000 - 500,000 in foster care. Now, obviously that's not saying that a child can't get adopted; one of my friends and his 3 sisters were all adopted. I'm simply pointing out that "adoption is the answer", well, isn't.
then let foster care be the answer. Why kill a child when you could just as well give it to them?
As a nitpick, murder does not just "Prevent [someone] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", it ends that life. An attacker putting someone in a permanent vegetative state will "Prevent [them] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", but is not murder per se. Again, just a nitpick with no real bearing.
yeah, right. Still, why should we end lives just because they are not wanted/useful?
MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.
So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?
yep, i think forcing a women to bear a child so it may live is acceptable.
Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.
They still have the right and responsibility to decide for themselves what they think is right, even if they eventually come to a decision we don't like or agree with.
MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.
So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?
yep, i think forcing a women to bear a child so it may live is acceptable.
Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.
They still have the right and responsibility to decide for themselves what they think is right, even if they eventually come to a decision we don't like or agree with.
I disagree.
Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.
So we should legalize rape, murder, kidnapping, and robbery? Just because something won't end doesn't mean legalizing it is the answer (no comment on the actual issue of abortion or post-birth killing, just that this argument doesn't really have any meaning to any issue because its too broad).
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Those are just the explicit mentions.
No prohibition against the violation of freedom. Certain freedoms, sure, but not freedom as a general concept.
Even the prohibition against the deprivation of liberty is couched in "due process", which means that the state won't deprive you of freedom if the state doesn't feel like it. And maybe you can vote, or something.
And, before you delve into the "life" argument, personhood isn't tacit to humanity.
biccat wrote:
There's a right against having your life "suck" for 9 months? Where to I sign up?
Aww, its cute that you think I can be so easily redirected.
You asked where the harm lies, I told you where the harm lies. Rights don't enter into the equation without you injecting them into it.
biccat wrote:
Should I just forward this to the Supreme Court, or do you want to do it yourself?
I'm glad that you acknowledge your argument is facile, and that you shouldn't consider the pursuit of it.
biccat wrote:
We're not talking about state action, we're discussing the legality of private action.
It is a private action to call the police.
biccat wrote:
Yeah, dogma, I don't have the same ideas as you so quite obviously I haven't spent the same amount of time studying it.
No, I don't expect you to have the same ideas as me. That would be boring. I expect you to spend enough time thinking about things you comment on, philosophically, to understand what is and is not a factual error.
You'll find, or should have found, that I'm very open when it comes to possible arguments. The problem I have with you is based entirely on you tendency to do exactly what you're accusing me of.
biccat wrote:
I suggest you try being less condescending. I accept the legimacy of your views that are different from mine, I would like, but do not expect, the same.
I think you have perhaps misunderstood my worldview.
I don't mean this to be hateful regarding Breitbart himself, but I agree with the sentiment.
I am a bastard (possibly a lovable one), and I would be disappointed if no one said so.
biccat wrote:
Only if you conceive of rights as commodities is fungibility required. Fungibility of rights stems requires a conception of rights as stemming from government, rather than naturally existing limitations on government.
There are no naturally existing limitations on government, not even the SC agrees with that notion.
Insofar as rights exist naturally, they are properties of individuals. The state, or really just 'the other', respects them or does not respect them at its purview.
biccat wrote:
With a "states as grantors of rights" position, you cannot say that the United States is more or less free than North Korea.
Really?
State 1 grants rights X, Y, and Z.
State 2 grants rights Y and Z.
By what metric can state 1 be considered, in terms of freedom, equivalent to state 2?
biccat wrote:
If rights are fungible, then they aren't "rights." They're concessions, and particularly fragile ones at that.
No, they're still rights. Rights are just far more fragile than you want to admit.
I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.
There will never be an agreement on this subject, because there really isn't any moderates involved.
One side screams 'baby killers!"
The other screams 'woman haters!' (This is the short version of it, the long version is 'you don't think women are smart enough to make decisions!')
And nothing ever comes of it.
It might be a good idea to lock this thread now. No one is going to persuade anyone of anything, even the need for a change in the nature of the discussion.
Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?
This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.
However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.
So we should legalize rape, murder, kidnapping, and robbery? Just because something won't end doesn't mean legalizing it is the answer (no comment on the actual issue of abortion or post-birth killing, just that this argument doesn't really have any meaning to any issue because its too broad).
Hm, point. I suppose this is where logic abandons me; I feel that there is a difference between those things and abortion, but I cannot explain why.
This is, of course, why the subject is such a minefield for any ethical debate.
Vulcan wrote:Let's say she has a job that requires physical activity that is impossible in the third trimester and the month or so after giving birth. Let's further say that said job doesn't give pay to women on maternity leave. Let's further say that since she has this crappy job, she hasn't been able to save up enough money to NOT be able to work those 4-5 months without risking loosing her residence and everything she owns.
Still no harm?
Nothing that the government needs to involve itself in, no.
If you're in that precarious of a condition, do you really think it's a good idea to be having unprotected sex? Or engaging in any sort of risky behavior?
streamdragon wrote:So I know where we're arguing from, and I promise not intended as a trap in any way though it basically is:
Define "child" in this context for me? After a certain trimester? When it's viable outside the mother? At the moment of conception?
I feel it's an important enough distinction, although I realize that the article in the OP is saying that there is no distinction.
As I've explained before, using the term "child" here is a bit of shorthand. The actual interest I'm balancing is the future interest of the child in life. It is indisputable that a fetus, without further affirmative action from the mother (assuming everything goes well), will develop into a living child. That right is deserving of protection.
We can have a debate about at what point that interest develops. But we can't have a debateif you deny that the interest exists.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.
So we should legalize rape, murder, kidnapping, and robbery? Just because something won't end doesn't mean legalizing it is the answer (no comment on the actual issue of abortion or post-birth killing, just that this argument doesn't really have any meaning to any issue because its too broad).
Ah, but the laws against violent crimes ARE working. Violent crimes in America have overall been trending DOWNWARD for several decades now. Check the FBI website and look up the statistics yourself. (It just SEEMS like violent crime is getting worse, because the media tells us all about each and every story in glorious gory detail.)
On the other hand, laws against immoral behavior that ISN'T violent have a long history of NOT working. Again I refrerence Prohibition and and the War on Drugs. Most places have given up on enforcing Adultery laws, assuming the laws are even still on the books (many if not most have been removed). Same thing with sodomy laws, they are never enforced unless violence is involved.
So... why don't laws against immoral behavior work? In America, there is a strong tradition of personal freedom, to do as one wishes so long as no one else is harmed. And it is hard for most people to see a collection of cells in a woman's uterus as 'someone else;' the default belief is that it is a part of the woman until such time as it is 'disconnected,' so to speak.
Lazy thinking? Almost certainly. But that is the way it is. Stridently screaming 'BABY KILLER' just polarizes the issue and makes them defensive. And beleive me, making someone defensive just makes them entrench themselves all the more firmly in their beliefs.
Vulcan wrote:I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.
To be fair, logic is blind.
This argument is predicated on emotion, logic may or may not follow.
dogma wrote:No prohibition against the violation of freedom. Certain freedoms, sure, but not freedom as a general concept.
By "freedom" I was under the assumption that you were discussing a "liberty interest." Which certainly is protected.
There are certain Constitutional rights that make up the idea of "Freedom," but the word itself is so ambiguous to be meaningless.
dogma wrote:Even the prohibition against the deprivation of liberty is couched in "due process", which means that the state won't deprive you of freedom if the state doesn't feel like it.
Which is the point I was making in my original comment to you. There is no such thing as an absolute right, as understood by the Constitution.
dogma wrote:And, before you delve into the "life" argument, personhood isn't tacit to humanity.
That's pretty much the point made in the OP. Do you think infanticide is on the same ethical level as abortion?
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
There's a right against having your life "suck" for 9 months? Where to I sign up?
Aww, its cute that you think I can be so easily redirected.
You asked where the harm lies, I told you where the harm lies. Rights don't enter into the equation without you injecting them into it.
So if my life 'sucks' for some well-defined period of 9 months, I have the right to demand remedial action? Perhaps assassination?
dogma wrote:It is a private action to call the police.
Yes...what's your point? I still can't hire a private actor to do X. You're advocating for that.
dogma wrote:No, I don't expect you to have the same ideas as me. That would be boring. I expect you to spend enough time thinking about things you comment on, philosophically, to understand what is and is not a factual error.
You'll find, or should have found, that I'm very open when it comes to possible arguments. The problem I have with you is based entirely on you tendency to do exactly what you're accusing me of.
What, say one thing and then assert that it's the objective truth without explaining my rationale for it?
No, you're thinking of another poster.
dogma wrote:I am a bastard (possibly a lovable one), and I would be disappointed if no one said so.
I'm going to assume this is another false statement, based on the facts as you've presented them.
dogma wrote:There are no naturally existing limitations on government, not even the SC agrees with that notion.
That's not the argument I made.
dogma wrote:Insofar as rights exist naturally, they are properties of individuals. The state, or really just 'the other', respects them or does not respect them at its purview.
This is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of rights as fungible.
dogma wrote:State 1 grants rights X, Y, and Z.
State 2 grants rights Y and Z.
By what metric can state 1 be considered, in terms of freedom, equivalent to state 2?
State 2 doesn't recognize "X" as a right. Therefore, State 2 recognizes all freedoms, making it as "free" as State 1. Possibly more free if State 1 recognizes W as a freedom but doesn't grant it, or limits X in some fashion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:Ah, but the laws against violent crimes ARE working. Violent crimes in America have overall been trending DOWNWARD for several decades now.
If we made abortion illegal I'm pretty sure that abortion in America would trend downward as well.
Vulcan wrote:Let's say she has a job that requires physical activity that is impossible in the third trimester and the month or so after giving birth. Let's further say that said job doesn't give pay to women on maternity leave. Let's further say that since she has this crappy job, she hasn't been able to save up enough money to NOT be able to work those 4-5 months without risking loosing her residence and everything she owns.
Still no harm?
Nothing that the government needs to involve itself in, no.
If you're in that precarious of a condition, do you really think it's a good idea to be having unprotected sex? Or engaging in any sort of risky behavior?
So poor women with crappy jobs should stay out of relationships and never get married then? Is that what you are arguing?
That pisses me off on quite a few levels, not least of which being 'poor women don't deserve to have a relationship!'
Vulcan wrote:Ah, but the laws against violent crimes ARE working. Violent crimes in America have overall been trending DOWNWARD for several decades now.
If we made abortion illegal I'm pretty sure that abortion in America would trend downward as well.
Officially, it would go to near zero. Some doctors might continue to provide abortions on prinicple, but I wouldn't bet on them reporting it.
Unofficially, 'trips to China' and back alley abortions would climb very quickly. And we would not get good statistics on how many women choose those options... although we would get to hear about all the women who die from having back alley abortions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Vulcan wrote:So poor women with crappy jobs should stay out of relationships and never get married then? Is that what you are arguing?
Nope.
Vulcan wrote:That pisses me off on quite a few levels, not least of which being 'poor women don't deserve to have a relationship!'
I'm sorry that an argument I never made has upset you.
But you think that poor women who would be in major finacial difficulty from pregnancy should not engage in ANY sexual activity, married or not?
Since NO form of birth control is 100% effective, there is ALWAYS the possibility that sex can lead to pregnancy, no matter how careful you are. So the only way to totally prevent pregnancy is to NOT have sex, period. And, well, I can probably count the number of men in the WORLD who would stay in a marriage without sex on one hand...
Vulcan wrote:I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.
There will never be an agreement on this subject, because there really isn't any moderates involved.
One side screams 'baby killers!"
The other screams 'woman haters!' (This is the short version of it, the long version is 'you don't think women are smart enough to make decisions!')
And nothing ever comes of it.
It might be a good idea to lock this thread now. No one is going to persuade anyone of anything, even the need for a change in the nature of the discussion.
You're talking about abortion. Thats not the OP so who gives a . Talk about the actual topic.
You're talking about abortion. Thats not the OP so who gives a . Talk about the actual topic.
Oh, okay then.
The article is bullhonkey.
Euthanasia should not be used in that way, for definite.
Whether it should be used at all is another debate, but it should not be used like that.
Vulcan wrote:I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.
There will never be an agreement on this subject, because there really isn't any moderates involved.
One side screams 'baby killers!"
The other screams 'woman haters!' (This is the short version of it, the long version is 'you don't think women are smart enough to make decisions!')
And nothing ever comes of it.
It might be a good idea to lock this thread now. No one is going to persuade anyone of anything, even the need for a change in the nature of the discussion.
You're talking about abortion. Thats not the OP so who gives a . Talk about the actual topic.
Sorry, Frazzled. I was talking about the writer of the article, not the OP.
I think everyone should watch "If these walls could talk" the first one. And the first sequence. Look what happens to women when abortion is illegalized.
Its actually on youtube. But posting it would be against dakka policy. Really moving tail. And bloody, very very very bloody. If you re young dont watch it.
Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?
This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.
However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.
I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.
MrMerlin wrote:I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.
Which requires having the baby first, with all the attendant sacrifices therof.
So should a poor married couple be forced to carry the baby to term, taking the woman out of work for at least four months and potentially wrecking their precarious financial status?
Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?
This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.
However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.
I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.
And here I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that you were polite and calm with your points though.
Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?
This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.
However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.
I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.
And here I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that you were polite and calm with your points though.
I guess you're right. We'd just repeat ourselves.....
I think thats also the case in the rest of the thread.....
biccat wrote:
By "freedom" I was under the assumption that you were discussing a "liberty interest." Which certainly is protected.
There are certain Constitutional rights that make up the idea of "Freedom," but the word itself is so ambiguous to be meaningless.
Sure, because "liberty interest" is a very specific term, and totally not a passing of the buck to "freedom".
biccat wrote:
That's pretty much the point made in the OP.
No it isn't. You claimed that "water is wet" given that killing a fetus is tacit to infanticide.
I'm arguing that a fetus is not a person. These are clearly distinct arguments.
biccat wrote:
So if my life 'sucks' for some well-defined period of 9 months, I have the right to demand remedial action? Perhaps assassination?
Civil law seems to thrive on the idea that remediation is acceptable.
Additionally, the death penalty seems to continue on the basis of retribution.
biccat wrote:
Yes...what's your point? I still can't hire a private actor to do X. You're advocating for that.
To do what? Kill a fetus?
Sure, I'm advocating that capacity, it isn't the capacity to kill a person.
biccat wrote:
What, say one thing and then assert that it's the objective truth without explaining my rationale for it?
No, you're thinking of another poster.
I've claimed that things are objectively true?
biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:There are no naturally existing limitations on government, not even the SC agrees with that notion.
That's not the argument I made.
Really?
biccat wrote:
Only if you conceive of rights as commodities is fungibility required. Fungibility of rights stems requires a conception of rights as stemming from government, rather than naturally existing limitations on government.
I mean, I suppose you might not believe in the bold portion, but you still made the argument that rights stem from nature.
biccat wrote:
This is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of rights as fungible.
Nope.
Right X can exchanged for right Y, insofar as said rights are held in basic equivalence by either the rights holder, or the people establishing the rights holder.
biccat wrote:
State 2 doesn't recognize "X" as a right. Therefore, State 2 recognizes all freedoms, making it as "free" as State 1. Possibly more free if State 1 recognizes W as a freedom but doesn't grant it, or limits X in some fashion.
So you recognize that it isn't a question of free vs. not-free, and rather a question of degree.
It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.
The next time you are in dire trouble, don't call a human for help. Call your cutesy meme. See if it answers.
Phanatik wrote:It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.
One post to ad hominem, classy.
Anyway, I'm also backing out of this conversation. I forgot where I was going with my posts anyway.
It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.
The next time you are in dire trouble, don't call a human for help. Call your cutesy meme. See if it answers.
dogma wrote:Sure, because "liberty interest" is a very specific term, and totally not a passing of the buck to "freedom".
Only if you don't understand the distinction.
I have a sneaking suspicion you don't.
You're aware that "liberty" is basically just "freedom that I like", yes?
biccat wrote:
And the OP's article is arguing that an infant is not a person.
If an infant is not a person, then infanticide is legitimate. In fact, this is the same argument Peter Singer made a decade ago (or so).
Indeed it is. Shockingly personhood isn't an idea that is set in stone.
biccat wrote:
Do you think that personhood automatically attaches at birth?
I think it is convenient to make that presumption.
biccat wrote:
Or convenience. As in the instant case.
I don't know, I held a fairly significant grudge against my gamete and the gamete of my partner for deciding to merge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:
It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.
I'll be the first to say that I would shoot any random person directly in the head if forced to choose between doing that to said random person, and my pet chicken.
Human life carries exactly as much value as you place on it.
Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.
If the fetus is theirs it sort of is. I actually wonder sometimes why the father's opinion is considered so irrelevant in the matter of abortion. I get that he's not the one who has to carry the kid around for nine grueling months, but still. Then again I don't really care about this issue and I don't think about it much
Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.
If the fetus is theirs it sort of is. I actually wonder sometimes why the father's opinion is considered so irrelevant in the matter of abortion. I get that he's not the one who has to carry the kid around for nine grueling months, but still. Then again I don't really care about this issue and I don't think about it much
There's a whole set of issues involved.
The major one is, as you've noted, that men don't have to carry around a kid for 9 months or incur all the associated health risks. In instances in which the man wants the child aborted, and the woman does not, health again comes into play.
Then there's the broader issue of imposing upon the woman something she doesn't want, which fits into the whole idea of gender equality and the traditionally subservient role of the "weaker" sex.
I have no problem with the idea that the woman should have primacy regarding a biological situation that potentially endangers her life. If the guy wants another baby, he can go knock someone else up. The only really dicey issue is child support.
Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.
If the fetus is theirs it sort of is. I actually wonder sometimes why the father's opinion is considered so irrelevant in the matter of abortion. I get that he's not the one who has to carry the kid around for nine grueling months, but still. Then again I don't really care about this issue and I don't think about it much
Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.
Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.
Bull gak. None of your business maybe, in which case, here, take this test. Oops looks like you're not sustainable. Please go stand in that line. Our attendants will help you shortly.
Grakmar wrote:It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?
Some people draw the line at conception (when sperm meets egg). Some people draw the line at pregnancy (when fertilized egg secures to the uterine wall). Some people draw the line at when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Some people draw the line at birth. These guys draw the line sometime after birth (it's not clear when, perhaps when the child achieves sentience?).
Society just needs to sit down and figure this out in a calm and civil manner.
If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.
Manchu wrote:The question here is not what is human but who is a person.
The nazis tried that, first the disabled were not a person, then the jew's were not a person, then romanies/slavic people, captured americian/english soldiers were not people.
Let's not travel that route again.
Manchu wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:Personhood is an invented concept.
That's the very crux of it, in this case. For the purposes of determining who may be ethically killed, I do not find Giubilani and Minerva's definition of personhood compelling.
Neither do I
Vulcan wrote:
Additionally, people being people, mistakes happen as well. Intoxicated people are often not careful... and yet getting drunk and getting laid on the weekend is a very common American pastime amoung young people. We can't legislate morality - look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the constant battle against Prostitution for how that turned out. We cannot legislate intelligence (if only!). We can only deal with the real world, and not what we all would wish it to be.
But we do legislate on morality, don't steal/rape/molest children/lie/kill ETC. Why should killing children be any different.
Phototoxin wrote:
Vulcan wrote: Second: Outlawing abortion in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to an abortion - a quick vacation to China takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a woman knows she is pregnant before she 'goes to China' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be pregnant, getting tested there, having the abortion there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Second: Outlawing paedophilia in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to paedophilia - a quick vacation to Thailand takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a man knows he is a paedophile before he 'goes to Thailand' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be paedophile, getting tested there, having the child sex there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Nice logic :-)
Third: Accidents happen. No form of birth control is 100% effective.
Abstinence. 100% guaranteed
And don't say 'just don't have sex!' Sex is a biological function, like eating and excreting. Starting in our mid-teens, sex becomes part of your life, like it or not. Sexual frustration can bleed over into other aspects of your life.
Anger, murder, theft, rape are all part of our biological makeup. However being human we might be above these urges?
Fourth: The bitter parent who was, for whatever reason, forced to have the child.
Rare that pregancy occurs from rape. If you're adult enough to have sex life with the consequences of your actions.
Seventh: Do you really think that if you outlaw legal abortions, that the back-alley abortion clinic won't make a massive comeback?
Again this logic, by using it we should legalise rape and murder as it will just happen anyway ya know? Drugs and child sexploitation too - cos it's better if it's regulated?
If your old enough to have sex. Be mature enough to live with the result's of your labors
The rich will always try to circumvent the law, if you allow them. Just make your laws more robust
Vulcan wrote:
Additionally, people being people, mistakes happen as well. Intoxicated people are often not careful... and yet getting drunk and getting laid on the weekend is a very common American pastime amoung young people. We can't legislate morality - look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the constant battle against Prostitution for how that turned out. We cannot legislate intelligence (if only!). We can only deal with the real world, and not what we all would wish it to be.
But we do legislate on morality, don't steal/rape/molest children/lie/kill ETC. Why should killing children be any different.
Ok, Um, All those have victims. Abortion has no tangible living victim.
Vulcan wrote:
Additionally, people being people, mistakes happen as well. Intoxicated people are often not careful... and yet getting drunk and getting laid on the weekend is a very common American pastime amoung young people. We can't legislate morality - look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the constant battle against Prostitution for how that turned out. We cannot legislate intelligence (if only!). We can only deal with the real world, and not what we all would wish it to be.
But we do legislate on morality, don't steal/rape/molest children/lie/kill ETC. Why should killing children be any different.
Ok, Um, All those have victims. Abortion has no tangible living victim.
Manchu wrote:The fact that people will break the laws is not a valid argument against them. A better argument against a law is that it is unenforceable or that enforcing it will produce other, graver injustices than that which the law seeks to prevent. Women have no special insight into this.
An argument that people will break the law, at least break it en masse, is basically an argument that the law is unenforceable. In essence, while you may punish some, you cannot punish enough of the actual law breakers to render the law forceful.
This has troubled me over the last few days so I decided to look into it a bit. As of 2005, the number of abortions procured in the United States peaked at 1.6 million in 1990.* In that same year, 1.8 million murders were committed in the United States.* If 1.6 million instances of abortion in a year, the year in which there were more abortions than in any other (I doubt the figure would be higher if abortion were illegal in 1990), constitutes a sufficient argument that illegalization of abortion is unenforceable then one must wonder whether our laws against murder are similarly unenforceable.
loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.
Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.
I'm all for it. Lets say my Wife an I concieve a child and give birth to a serverly handicapped child that will need 24hr supervision. Who are you to tell me that I now must give up my job in order to provide care for and now hand out my begging hat to the state so other hard working people can pay for me to sit at home all day (life on benefits) to care for a child that will never contribute anything to society other than drain its resources.
The descision should be with the parents of that child. Here's another thought.......... Lets abolish state funded benefits. How many people can now afford to care for a handicapped child, or any child for that matter?
I do not submit to the PC brigade or the pro life people. And how many people here are commenting from opinion, or experience? If you are all 'pro life' then perhaps having to give up your lifestyle, to live on state welfare, caring for someone just because someone else thinks 'its the right thing to do', may change your opinion.
loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.
Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.
This just highlights the unresolved issue for when exactly does a person "die".
If "life" continues after complete shutdown of the brain, then "life" surely continues well after other parts of the body cease to function.
There's no good, logical distinction between a person being "alive" if they have a few organs surviving being hooked up to machines, and a person being "alive" if you've got 1 or 2 cells surviving in a petri dish.
Brain death seems to be the only reasonable line to draw.
Jubear wrote:Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.
But she can force you to support that child for the rest of its life.
A nice double standard.
While I agree that the law regarding child support is not ideal, how is it a double standard to grant one gender a particular power in a particular situation, and not grant another gender a separate power in a separate situation?
loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.
Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.
This just highlights the unresolved issue for when exactly does a person "die".
If "life" continues after complete shutdown of the brain, then "life" surely continues well after other parts of the body cease to function.
There's no good, logical distinction between a person being "alive" if they have a few organs surviving being hooked up to machines, and a person being "alive" if you've got 1 or 2 cells surviving in a petri dish.
Brain death seems to be the only reasonable line to draw.
And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...
The connection of brain death as an acceptable legal standard for the end of human life to determining an acceptable legal standard for the beginning of human life begs the question. Any definition of death must be proper to the subject, which in the context of brain death is indisputably a person. Whether a fetus, much less a blastosphere, is a person is the question to hand. Put it another way, having a brain does not make an animal a person.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...
loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.
Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.
This just highlights the unresolved issue for when exactly does a person "die".
If "life" continues after complete shutdown of the brain, then "life" surely continues well after other parts of the body cease to function.
There's no good, logical distinction between a person being "alive" if they have a few organs surviving being hooked up to machines, and a person being "alive" if you've got 1 or 2 cells surviving in a petri dish.
Brain death seems to be the only reasonable line to draw.
Indeed, and yet scientists have been challenging this since the 90's, as they claim that braindead patients should still be classed as alive on the basis that their body is able to fight infection, heal wounds and otherwise perform it's standard functions. The debate really rests, in that case, on whether consciousness defines life, and if a precedent was set in the case of braindead inviduals it may well be applied to the case of foetuses (is that the plural?) in abortion.
Manchu wrote:This has troubled me over the last few days so I decided to look into it a bit. As of 2005, the number of abortions procured in the United States peaked at 1.6 million in 1990.* In that same year, 1.8 million murders were committed in the United States.* If 1.3 million instances of abortion in a year, the year in which there were more abortions than in any other (I doubt the figure would be higher if abortion were illegal in 1990), constitutes a sufficient argument that illegalization of abortion is unenforceable then one must wonder whether our laws against murder are similarly unenforceable.
Well, according to your source, the peak rate of abortions was 29.3 (per 1000 pregnancies) in 1980-81 in comparison to 27.4 in 1990. The source also notes that in 1974, a year after abortion became illegal, the rate 19.3 per 1000 pregnancies, which is comparable to the 19.4% seen in 2005.
There are a couple ways to interpret this, but I'm inclined to suppose that the actual abortion rate was significantly higher than reported prior to its legalization, and that the reduction in abortion rate is primarily tied to better sex education, and more easily available contraceptives. An easy way to test this would to compare the abortion rate to the rate of unplanned pregnancies. If unplanned pregnancy drops in kind with the abortion rate, then there is a degree of confirming evidence.
To run with your comparison to homicide, in 1991 the homicide rate in the US was .098 per 1000 people, potentially implying a much greater rate of preventive success than as regards abortion, which seems to have hit a rate of 19.1 prior to legalization (at least in the targeted group).
One would think that conservatives would push for more contraceptives so that there's less abortion? Dunno, they seem to be doing everything else to prevent abortion.
Melissia wrote:One would think that conservatives would push for more contraceptives so that there's less abortion? Dunno, they seem to be doing everything else to prevent abortion.
Really, they are doing everything else?You lack imagination young one.
streamdragon wrote:And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...
She was not brain dead.
Well, that was pretty debatable. Some of her family claimed that she would actually look at them and react to things. However, the EEG showed no measurable brain activity. And, neurologists looking at her CAT scans agreed she didn't have any higher brain function.
So, her family may have just been experiencing denial or wishful thinking (completely understandable, given the circumstances). Or, it could be that she was occasionally reacting on a purely instinctive level, and there was no recognition or reasoning going on at all.
Of course, this case is an example of how even defining "death" with brain death is a grey area, as just how extensive does the brain have to die before it's considered "dead" isn't agreed upon.
Grakmar wrote:So, her family may have just been experiencing denial or wishful thinking (completely understandable, given the circumstances). Or, it could be that she was occasionally reacting on a purely instinctive level, and there was no recognition or reasoning going on at all.
Probably the former; a braindead person can't even react on an instinctual level, as the brain itself will not function under any circumstance.
Hell, even reflexes completely disappear in a braindead patient.
But yeah, I agree with you. Defining what constitutes the moment of death is about as tricky as defining the moment of life; we can tell what is alive and what isn't, but not where one of the two ceases and the other begins.
streamdragon wrote:And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...
She was not brain dead.
Well, that was pretty debatable.
I'm not speaking from an ideological position. As far as I know, the doctors involved agreed that she was in a persistent vegetative state or, at most (and I find this hard to believe) a minimally conscious state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:To run with your comparison to homicide, in 1991 the homicide rate in the US was .098 per 1000 people, potentially implying a much greater rate of preventive success than as regards abortion, which seems to have hit a rate of 19.1 prior to legalization (at least in the targeted group).
Jubear wrote:Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.
But she can force you to support that child for the rest of its life.
A nice double standard.
Well, you did choose to have sex with her, and if she's pregnant there's a pretty good chance you failed to take even the most basic precaution of wearing a condom (1 in 10ish for unprotected sex vs. 1 in 1000 or so for wearing a condom). It takes two to tango and all...
Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.
Bull gak. None of your business maybe, in which case, here, take this test. Oops looks like you're not sustainable. Please go stand in that line. Our attendants will help you shortly.
How is a decision that effects the health of woman have anything to do with you? What makes you think you have the right to impose your own misguided set of morals and values on someone else? I accept that if I knock a woman up and she wants to keep it/abort it I dont really get a say in things because its not my body being ravaged by pregnancy. Yes it would suck watching a large chunk of my wages going towards a child I do not want, But atleast it makes me be careful about my own sexual health because frankly having a kid is wayyy scarier then catching hepatitis.
Vulcan wrote:Well, you did choose to have sex with her, and if she's pregnant there's a pretty good chance you failed to take even the most basic precaution of wearing a condom (1 in 10ish for unprotected sex vs. 1 in 1000 or so for wearing a condom). It takes two to tango and all...
And she chose to have sex with me. Why does she get a second bite at the apple?
Perhaps, in the interest of sexual equality, we should allow men to surrender their parental rights for $5,000, thereby ensuring that they'll never have to pay child support.
Jubear wrote:its not my body being ravaged by pregnancy.
Ravaged?
Jubear wrote:Yes it would suck watching a large chunk of my wages going towards a child I do not want, But atleast it makes me be careful about my own sexual health because frankly having a kid is wayyy scarier then catching hepatitis.
Yes it would suck to have to drop out of school or whatever else if you are a pregnant woman but at least that makes women be careful about their own ... wait what were we talking about?
Melissia wrote:One would think that conservatives would push for more contraceptives so that there's less abortion? Dunno, they seem to be doing everything else to prevent abortion.
That's because one of the core values of diehard conservatives is a return to the Victorian ideals - a couple would go to their marriage bed virgins, and then the woman would remain at home to care for the kids. Sex before marriage is forbidden, and once you're married the woman has plenty of time and support to stay home with the kids.
That this idea never actually existed seems to have escaped them...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Vulcan wrote:Well, you did choose to have sex with her, and if she's pregnant there's a pretty good chance you failed to take even the most basic precaution of wearing a condom (1 in 10ish for unprotected sex vs. 1 in 1000 or so for wearing a condom). It takes two to tango and all...
And she chose to have sex with me. Why does she get a second bite at the apple?
Perhaps, in the interest of sexual equality, we should allow men to surrender their parental rights for $5,000, thereby ensuring that they'll never have to pay child support.
I think something like that is actually an option around here in STL.
There may be some "diehards" who advocate "Victorian" extremism but I don't think advocating a policy of abstinence is an example of it. Pre-marital abstinence itself poses no social harm whatsoever, either hypothetically or actually. The distribution of contraceptives and availability of abortion, conservatives argue, promote sexual activity (pre-marital or otherwise) that does pose social harm -- such as the spread of venereal disease and increased unwanted pregnancies.
Please keep in mind that although abstinence is often "packaged" with a loathing for sex ed and certain attitudes towards women's supposed duties those notions are actually independent. Also, you might consider abstinence as more of an ideal rather than a practice. Whether everyone actually lives up to an ideal has nothing to do with its value.
Manchu wrote:Yes it would suck to have to drop out of school or whatever else if you are a pregnant woman but at least that makes women be careful about their own ... wait what were we talking about?
Girls don't drop out of high school when they are pregnant anymore... at least, not all of them.
Manchu wrote:There may be some "diehards" who advocate "Victorian" extremism but I don't think advocating a policy of abstinence is an example of it. Pre-marital abstinence itself poses no social harm whatsoever, either hypothetically or actually. The distribution of contraceptives and availability of abortion, conservatives argue, promote sexual activity (pre-marital or otherwise) that does pose social harm -- such as the spread of venereal disease and increased unwanted pregnancies.
Please keep in mind that although abstinence is often "packaged" with a loathing for sex ed and certain attitudes towards women's supposed duties those notions are actually independent. Also, you might consider abstinence as more of an ideal rather than a practice. Whether everyone actually lives up to an ideal has nothing to do with its value.
And now we're back to trying to legislate someone's ideal morality, which may or may not be my morality.
And while I have no doubt that the majority of women who have abortions are unmarried... I KNOW that some married women have had abortions since the wedding, because the time was all wrong, and the resources to support the child were not present. I also know several older married women who have had their kids, and take precautions to prevent future pregnancies... and if they fail, they WILL get an abortion because they don't want to be raising kids into thier 60's or later.
I'm not saying that abstinence should be required by law of unmarried people. Nor am I saying that it is what's morally right.
I am saying that if you want to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies then abstinence is the only practice that is 100% effective.
If you are willing to risk venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy then by all means do so. I would never say that someone with syphilis should not be treated simply because they contracted it as a result of choosing to have sex before (or after) being married. Meanwhile, pregnancy is not a disease to be cured.
The biological situation seems "unfair" because men cannot become pregnant but can catch venereal diseases where being treated for venereal diseases is something of an embarrassment but certainly not the grave moral transgression that abortion is. Thus men are generally able to escape the consequences of sex. Oh wait, no they are not: paternity tests and child support orders make this impossible. Why were these imposed? To be fair to mothers with the objective of fostering the care of children.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Vulcan, what would you make of a law that required women to have abortions if directed to do so by the fathers of their unborn children? Or how about a law where a father-to-be would not be liable to the mother at any time for child support payments if she elected not to have an abortion?
If you practice safe sex, is it really any more dangerous than driving to the FLGS to play Warhammer? What is the number of deaths each year from automobile accidents compared to STD related deaths? If 100% absolute safety is the metric there are more things that a person would need to cut out of their life than sex.
@Albatross: You mean, contracted in utero from the mother?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:If 100% absolute safety is the metric there are more things that a person would need to cut out of their life than sex.
I think the goal is avoiding venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy. Your LGS must be very friendly indeed if driving there is applicable to this discussion.
Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.
Bull gak. None of your business maybe, in which case, here, take this test. Oops looks like you're not sustainable. Please go stand in that line. Our attendants will help you shortly.
How is a decision that effects the health of woman have anything to do with you? What makes you think you have the right to impose your own misguided set of morals and values on someone else? I accept that if I knock a woman up and she wants to keep it/abort it I dont really get a say in things because its not my body being ravaged by pregnancy. Yes it would suck watching a large chunk of my wages going towards a child I do not want, But atleast it makes me be careful about my own sexual health because frankly having a kid is wayyy scarier then catching hepatitis.
You're talking about abortion. I could care less, keep your hands off me and I will keep my hollowpoints out of you. I'm talking about the original point of the topic.
Manchu wrote:@Albatross: You mean, contracted in utero from the mother?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:If 100% absolute safety is the metric there are more things that a person would need to cut out of their life than sex.
I think the goal is avoiding venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy. Your LGS must be very friendly indeed if driving there is applicable to this discussion.
I would think avoiding being maimed, paralyzed, or killed would also be a good idea as well. When I drive I try to drive safely but there is still no guarantee that something terrible won't happen. If you want to avoid being in a collision, no matter how minor, never get on the road.
Manchu wrote:But what do potential car accidents have to do with avoiding venereal disease or unwanted pregnancy?
They have to do with the argument that sex should be avoided becuase it gives you a 100% chance of avoiding a situation. The problem is that using that argument, that the only way to approach something is to seek 100% safety, would make a lot of what we do in our daily lives very silly, as almost none of it is 100% safe. Just by meeting other people I am taking a chance of getting a non-venereal disease. The British Olympic Committee just told all their athletes not to shake hands with anyone for fear of getting sick. I just don't like the argument that in this one realm we will only accept 100% as the number, but let it slide in almost everything else.
I think venereal diseases are getting us a bit side-tracked.
Again, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who wants to avoid unwanted pregnancy absolutely as opposed to from a retrospective position asking what to do about an already-conceived unwanted child. It would be silly to say to someone injured in a car accident that it was their choice to drive, after all. Fine, yes, I chose to drive. Now what?
But if someone asks you "what is my best chance of never being in an auto accident?" then you are bound to say "by avoiding automobiles and places where automobiles exist." If that seems snarky, it's only because of the assumption that automobiles are necessary to carry on with our daily lives. By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary. No one except prostitutes will be out of a job by absolutely avoiding sexual intercourse, for example. (Bracing for inevitable joke.)
Also, while someone could still be in an automobile accident even if they drive safely, no one (female rape victims aside) has ever gotten pregnant while actually practicing abstinence. Whether one accepts the chance of getting in a car accident in order to speed up transportation really has no bearing whatsoever on the efficacy of practicing abstinence in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Manchu wrote: By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary.
It is more necessary than automobiles, and has been around a lot longer.
To put it another way, if someone were to say that I could either never drive a car again or never have sex again, I would become one hell of a bike rider.
Manchu wrote:The question of sexual abstinence before marriage is not one of never having sex.
The notion that use of automobiles and sexual intercourse are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion is simply absurd.
I find the idea that humans should avoid safe sex becuase it isn't 100% safe to be absurd, as it is cherry picking statistics, since almost everything we do is not 100% safe; it is perfectly reasonable to engage in safe sex and not want a pregnancy just as it is perfectly reasonable for me to drive a car and not want to get hit by another one.
I don't find the argument particularly compelling or practical, just as advocating not driving to avoid car accidents isn't really compelling or practical.
Manchu wrote:The question of sexual abstinence before marriage is not one of never having sex.
The notion that use of automobiles and sexual intercourse are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion is simply absurd.
I find the idea that humans should avoid safe sex becuase it isn't 100% safe to be absurd, as it is cherry picking statistics, since almost everything we do is not 100% safe; it is perfectly reasonable to engage in safe sex and not want a pregnancy just as it is perfectly reasonable for me to drive a car and not want to get hit by another one.
To use this car metaphor....
Wouldn't we be able to draw from this comparison that you should be able to walk into a clinic with a broken foot, three cracked ribs, and missing an eye, and come out perfectly fine afterward by paying...... Oh hell, I don't know how much an abortion costs....
I'm not saying I'm for, or against, but that is what I am concluding from this....
Manchu wrote:If that seems snarky, it's only because of the assumption that automobiles are necessary to carry on with our daily lives. By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary. No one except prostitutes will be out of a job by absolutely avoiding sexual intercourse, for example. (Bracing for inevitable joke.)
I would argue that, outside a very narrow set of beliefs, a healthy sex life is roughly consistent with owning a car. That is, it is necessary given a broad set of contemporary circumstances. And, more importantly, that sexual frustration can effectively force someone out of a job in much the same way that the absence of a car can.
Manchu wrote: By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary.
It is more necessary than automobiles, and has been around a lot longer.
To put it another way, if someone were to say that I could either never drive a car again or never have sex again, I would become one hell of a bike rider.
Manchu wrote:But what do potential car accidents have to do with avoiding venereal disease or unwanted pregnancy?
No matter how careful you are accidents happen, both with cars and with condoms, both with unpleasant consequences.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:The question of sexual abstinence before marriage is not one of never having sex.
The notion that use of automobiles and sexual intercourse are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion is simply absurd.
Well, so is the premise of the article in the OP, that killing an infant no different from abortion. I think we can all agree that killing an infant is bad, regardless of our stance on abortion.
Since we are starting the whole thread with that ridiculous equivalence, what's a couple dozen others?
Manchu wrote:There may be some "diehards" who advocate "Victorian" extremism but I don't think advocating a policy of abstinence is an example of it. Pre-marital abstinence itself poses no social harm whatsoever, either hypothetically or actually.
Actually this is not necessarily the case. The longer a woman waits to have a child the more likely the child will have genetic defects; this is because the woman has all the eggs she'll ever have at puberty, and never produces any more (instead releasing one every few/several weeks in the ovarian cycle). Because of this, the longer that the woman waits the more likely that hte eggs are going to be damaged through radiation, carcinogens, and other toxins or harmful effects. Thus there is a cost to society of not having children early on. It's a cost society ha so far been willing to pay, but it's still a cost.
A bit nitpicky I suppose, but it IS an established biological fact.
@Vulcan: Regarding abstinence as a means to avoid pregnancy, there is no need whatsoever to "be careful." A pregnancy has 0% chance of resulting.
@Melissia: Unless you're talking about a chain-smoking 50 year-old woman who removes asbestos from contaminated nuclear power plants, I don't think that's really relevant.
Manchu wrote:
Vulcan, what would you make of a law that required women to have abortions if directed to do so by the fathers of their unborn children? Or how about a law where a father-to-be would not be liable to the mother at any time for child support payments if she elected not to have an abortion?
I'd support a law that allowed either biological parent to sign away their claim to the child. Men would be obligated to share all costs involved with the child up to and including birth/abortion regardless of relinquishing their claims. If abortion is legal, you can't force the woman to carry the child to term if she wants to abort.
Manchu wrote:@Melissia: Unless you're talking about a chain-smoking 50 year-old woman who removes asbestos from contaminated nuclear power plants, I don't think that's really relevant.
No, I'm talking about the average person.
The longer a woman waits, ANY woman, the more likely her child is to be born with a birth defect. That you suggest it requires such ridiculous circumstances as in the quoted text is hardly an uncommon belief..
@KK: I should have been more clear: should a father be forced by law to pay directly for the killing of his own unborn child?
@Melissia: So you are saying that the downside to abstinence as a means of preventing aborting unwanted pregnancy is that the longer women wait to have children the better the chances those children, who for purposes of this particular discussion are going to be aborted, will have birth defects? Your point is true generally but completely irrelevant to this conversation. Your point would not even matter in the high-risk case I presented above: yes, the child would have a high probability of birth defects but that would hardly matter to the mother who, as per the conversation, has no plans to carry the child to term any way. Be careful that your own stance is not utterly ignorant before throwing that kind of invective around.
Kilkrazy wrote:Men don't get pregnant, so they can't be compelled not to have abortions.
Men don't get pregnant, but they do experience a harm due to the woman's decision to carry the child to term or not. In fact, I think a pretty good argument can be made that requiring a man to labor for 18 years to support a child he didn't want or couldn't afford is more onorous than carrying a child to term.
Kilkrazy wrote:Women cannot father children, therefore are not liable to paternity suits.
Women, however, are liable for child support if they carry the child to term and then dump the kid off on the father. Women and men are roughly equivalent in the eyes of the law, except women get a second chance to avoid the consequence of their actions.
Men only get one.
I'd understand if you support sexism in the law. But don't try to pretend that there's no discrimination.
Manchu wrote:So you are saying that the downside to abstinence as a means of preventing aborting unwanted pregnancy is that the longer women wait to have children the better the chances those children, who for purposes of this particular discussion are going to be aborted, will have birth defects?
That is one of the downsides, yes. I'm glad you've come to accept that.
Manchu wrote:Your point is true generally but completely irrelevant to this conversation. Your point would not even matter in the high-risk case I presented above
I defy you to say that to the numerous older mothers, prospective and actual, who have children with birth defects; or the ones who suffer from miscarriage after miscarriage while trying to have a child because of the genetic defects in their eggs. These weren't women in high risk situations, but normal women who simply chose to wait before having a child.
Actually, don't say that to them, it'd just be cruel. This is a real issue that should be taken in to consideration. Our human biologies have distinct limits that medicine has not yet countered and it is unlikely that they will counter any time soon. If one actually cares about the potential life of the potential child (which, presumably, the pro-life side does), then this is very much relevant.
Of course, they don't really care.
Manchu wrote:Be careful that your own stance is not utterly ignorant
The point I was making was that the longer you wait to have a child, the more likely the child is to have birth defects. This is a price of all forms of contraception in truth, yes, but you said there was no price for abstinence and that is false without even going in to the social cost of it (a lack of sexual satisfaction can be quite disruptive and cause harm in other areas such as in stress levels). Thus there is definitely a distinct price for it; claiming otherwise is the real ignorance here.
The discussion should be on which price is the better one to pay, not about claiming that one choice doesn't have any form of cost at all. All choices have cost, even if the cost is sometimes limited to the opportunity cost of having made a different choice.
The increased chance of birth defects you mention is relative to a woman's age/health and NOT whether she is abstinent or not. Practicing abstinence has no bearing on the chances of any child she bears having birth defects.
Abstinence therefore does not entail the consequence you claim.
Kilkrazy wrote:Men don't get pregnant, so they can't be compelled not to have abortions.
Men don't get pregnant, but they do experience a harm due to the woman's decision to carry the child to term or not. In fact, I think a pretty good argument can be made that requiring a man to labor for 18 years to support a child he didn't want or couldn't afford is more onorous than carrying a child to term.
Kilkrazy wrote:Women cannot father children, therefore are not liable to paternity suits.
Women, however, are liable for child support if they carry the child to term and then dump the kid off on the father. Women and men are roughly equivalent in the eyes of the law, except women get a second chance to avoid the consequence of their actions.
Men only get one.
I'd understand if you support sexism in the law. But don't try to pretend that there's no discrimination.
There's discrimination and there's unfair discrimination.
The biological differences between men and women make it inevitable that some circumstances will arise in which both sexes cannot be treated identically. That's a fact of life.
Manchu wrote:KK, I think that's what men have traditionally said in response to the "keep your laws off of my body" arguments.
Ah yes, the "I can't control myself because I am a man and men are pathetic weak-willed mentally slowed dweebs" argument.
Isn't that the argument being made for abortion on-demand? Women can't be expected to use birth control or plan when to have children, so they need to have abortions available.
Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:Abstinence does not lead to a greater chance of birth defects.
Yes it does, as I posted above. All methods of delaying having a child lead to a greater chance of birth defects.
Doesn't that also include abortion, contraceptives, and not being raped?
Assuming a moral choice between abstention and abortion, are you making the case that it's morally preferable to conceive and abort a child than it is to encourage women* to abstain from sex?
* Women here, because (as discussed above) men have no ability to put off becoming a father if they don't feel that they're emotionally or financially in a position to have a child.
Kilkrazy wrote:The biological differences between men and women make it inevitable that some circumstances will arise in which both sexes cannot be treated identically. That's a fact of life.
You're not addressing the issue. Is it more "fair" to require a man to labor for 18 years to support a child that he is not emotionally, financially, or physically ready for than it is to require a woman to carry the child to term for 9 months?
Manchu wrote:KK, I think that's what men have traditionally said in response to the "keep your laws off of my body" arguments.
There are different ways the principle can be applied.
It's embodied in European employment law and while it does not work perfectly, has not led to European women being subjected to Mediaeval style social restrictions.
@KK: I'm not sure what you mean. I'm referring to the argument that legalized abortion helps level the playing field between the genders. Perhaps mistakenly, I understood you to mean that obliterating biological differences is not a proper basis for determining whether a person is treated fairly under the law. Rather, some differences should not be ignored and the result although technically inequivalent is not necessarily inequitable.
Manchu wrote:Aging and exposure to detriment over time causes the birth defects you're talking about.
Abstinence does not cause aging or exposure to detriment.
Abstinence, like all forms of birth control, causes women to age more before conceiving a child simply by delaying a conception.
This is not a complex leap of logic. As I said, this seems to be a side effect of contraception that society seems to gladly accept, but it's still a side effect.
biccat wrote:
Men don't get pregnant, but they do experience a harm due to the woman's decision to carry the child to term or not. In fact, I think a pretty good argument can be made that requiring a man to labor for 18 years to support a child he didn't want or couldn't afford is more onorous than carrying a child to term.
The harm incurred by the decision of the woman to carry a child to term is the result of legislation (assuming that the harm does not emanate from an independent desire to abort), and therefore subject to change. That is, assuming the man does not seek the death of the fetus for its own sake, the harm is the result of the legal need to support the child; this can be considered and rectified should it prove desirable to do so.
The possible harm incurred by the decision of the woman to not carry the child to term is psychological, and can be considered secondary to the possible harm of the pregnant woman; which carries both physical and psychological dimensions.
I think the argument you're making regarding the requirement to support a child makes sense in the absence of marriage, but that marriage significantly complicates matters; perhaps to the degree that arbitration becomes more important than any commanding law.
@Melissia: As mentioned above, your non-complex (shall we say superficial?) leap of logic also concludes that women who are not raped are more likely to conceive a child with birth defects. If you can't figure out the problem in your thinking from there, you're on your own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Thus, the law would probably be framed around genital self mutilation, rather than gender specific cases.
Manchu wrote:Aging and exposure to detriment over time causes the birth defects you're talking about.
Abstinence does not cause aging or exposure to detriment.
Abstinence, like all forms of birth control, causes women to age more before conceiving a child simply by delaying a conception.
This is not a complex leap of logic. As I said, this seems to be a side effect of contraception that society seems to gladly accept, but it's still a side effect.
To moderate:
The argument Mel is making, as I understand it, is that while abstinence is not the cause of a higher incidence of birth defects due to aging, it necessarily leads to (assuming abstinence precedes sexual activity) giving birth at a more advanced age. In this way it is comparable to birth control, both being employed in the prevention of pregnancy.
The flaw in the argument, again as I understand it, is that abstinence precedes sexual activity.
That being said, I do agree that concerns over the optimal conditions for reproduction are not the core of the issue.
dogma, I've stated several times over that I only bring up abstinence in the context of preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than deciding what to do with them once they happen.
Kilkrazy wrote:Thus, the law would probably be framed around genital self mutilation, rather than gender specific cases.
Exactly.
Rather than permitting abortion, the law should be gender neutral and provide for means to "opt out of parenthood". For women it would be the cost of the abortion, while for men it would be the cost of the abortion plus whatever value we attach to the medical and physical consequences of having an abortion. Say $5000 for women, $10,000 for men.
Instead, we have a law that says "Women can opt out of parenthood. Men cannot."
Manchu wrote:dogma, I've stated several times over that I only bring up abstinence in the context of preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than deciding what to do with them once they happen.
I know, but it seems to me that the two of you are taking separate tacks on the same argument.
You both seem to agree that abstinence is a form of birth control. You both seem to agree that aging causes an increased incidence of birth defects, and therefore that birth control contributes to birth defects.
The difference seems to be that Melissia considers abstinence to be the less desirable option. For what its worth, I agree with that notion, but it doesn't really escape the original concern regarding who pays.
This is, of course, a comment aimed at both of you.
biccat wrote:
Rather than permitting abortion, the law should be gender neutral and provide for means to "opt out of parenthood". For women it would be the cost of the abortion, while for men it would be the cost of the abortion plus whatever value we attach to the medical and physical consequences of having an abortion. Say $5000 for women, $10,000 for men.
Instead, we have a law that says "Women can opt out of parenthood. Men cannot."
Men can opt out of parenthood, they simply have to pay child support.
I think this is, in principle (if not in practice regarding cost) fair.
Perhaps an addendum which placed a ceiling on the total lifetime provision of child support could be applied in certain circumstances.
dogma wrote:You both seem to agree that aging causes an increased incidence of birth defects, and therefore that birth control contributes to birth defects.
No, I disagree that birth control contributes to birth defects. I get that you chose "contributes" over "causes" in that sentence but the implication is still too strong in terms of whether abstinence entails social harm. The presence or absence of contraceptive practices, including abstinence, has no necessary effect on the likelihood of birth defects. The relationship is entirely incidental.
You can say that there are more birth defects among older mothers and you can say that some of these mothers are older upon conceiving because they have practiced contraception but you cannot say that contraception has led to the birth defects.
Manchu wrote:Again, the only "price" one pays for practicing abstinence is not having sex.
Along with sexual frustration, which can lead to high stress levels in people with high testosterone levels. High stress levels can lead to hypertension. Hypertension can lead to a heart attack. Not terribly likely in and of itself I'll grant you. But combined with other factors it can contribute significantly.
There's also the little detail of practicing abstinance denies one the opportunity to develop the skills and endurance to have a truly statifying sexual experience for both partners. Sticking two virgins together in a room on their wedding night is almost certain to result in one partner or the other (and sometimes both) being very disappointed.
You also don't learn much about your individual sexual tastes with abstinance, and the wedding night is the wrong time to learn that one of you thinks once a month is more than plenty, while the other wants to have sex daily. Divorces happen over that quite regularly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:You do not understand causation.
You don't understand biology.
What you're arguing isn't a matter of biology. It's a matter of absurdity.
Again, I reference back to the article in the OP. If you're not ready to smile at absurd arguments, this is the wrong thread for you.
Manchu wrote:No, I disagree that birth control contributes to birth defects. I get that you chose "contributes" over "causes" in that sentence but the implication is still too strong in terms of whether abstinence entails social harm. The presence or absence of contraceptive practices, including abstinence, has no necessary effect on the likelihood of birth defects. The relationship is entirely incidental.
You can say that there are more birth defects among older mothers and you can say that some of these mothers are older upon conceiving because they have practiced contraception but you cannot say that contraception has led to the birth defects.
Not led to, but a correlation could easily be established. It wouldn't be especially meaningful, particularly if we assume all attempts to not get pregnant are birth control, but it would exist. However, in the same vein, its not entirely clear that advanced age "causes" birth defects so much as it creates more time in which a birth defect causing condition can manifest.
I am, however, inclined to believe that pregnancy at an advanced age is enabled by birth control, even if we're speaking strictly of contraceptives; ie. excluding abstinence and NFP.
Typing that out, it seems we're really on the same page.
@dogma: Yeah, I think that we are. The idea that people would criticize contraception as leading to birth defects is a bit too much for me.
@Vulcan: Premarital sex is not the key to driving down divorce rates. It's also not the solution to heart disease.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:Sticking two virgins together in a room on their wedding night is almost certain to result in one partner or the other (and sometimes both) being very disappointed.
I was once one of two virgins in a similar situation, although it wasn't my wedding night. And both of us left that room pretty happy as I recall.
Manchu wrote:@dogma: Yeah, I think that we are. The idea that people would criticize contraception as leading to birth defects is a bit too much for me.
@Vulcan: Premarital sex is not the key to driving down divorce rates. It's also not the solution to heart disease.
But the equivalencey of 'killing babies=abortion' is no less absurd than my claim, correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:Sticking two virgins together in a room on their wedding night is almost certain to result in one partner or the other (and sometimes both) being very disappointed.
I was once one of two virgins in a similar situation, although it wasn't my wedding night. And both of us left that room pretty happy as I recall.
AHAH! So the great advocator of abstinance outside of marriage has himself indulged in sex outide of marriage!
So what would you have done, had the girl wound up pregnant in spite of any precautions you took?
Vulcan wrote:But the equivalencey of 'killing babies=abortion' is no less absurd than my claim, correct?
I agree that equating abortion to murder is absurd. It's hard to judge whether that's more absurd than saying premarital sex prevents heart disease or that abstinence leads to birth defects.
Vulcan wrote:AHAH! So the great advocator of abstinance outside of marriage has himself indulged in sex outide of marriage!
So what would you have done, had the girl wound up pregnant in spite of any precautions you took?
To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I can say that having unprotected sex at sixteen was a dumb thing to do. In the absence of contracting a venereal disease or conceiving an unwanted child, however, I can't say it's a dumb thing that I regret. I also can't say that I regret any of the premarital sex that I engaged in afterward ... at least not because it was premarital.
Vulcan wrote:
You also don't learn much about your individual sexual tastes with abstinance, and the wedding night is the wrong time to learn that one of you thinks once a month is more than plenty, while the other wants to have sex daily.
Kilkrazy wrote:Thus, the law would probably be framed around genital self mutilation, rather than gender specific cases.
Exactly.
Rather than permitting abortion, the law should be gender neutral and provide for means to "opt out of parenthood". For women it would be the cost of the abortion, while for men it would be the cost of the abortion plus whatever value we attach to the medical and physical consequences of having an abortion. Say $5000 for women, $10,000 for men.
Instead, we have a law that says "Women can opt out of parenthood. Men cannot."
I disagree.
The law is organised around pregnancy, as it necessarily precedes parenthood.
The law is organised around pregnancy, as it necessarily precedes parenthood.
I see.
What about if the law allowed men to terminate "potential parenthood"? Is there a meaningful distinction between "pregnancy" and "potential parenthood"?
The law is organised around pregnancy, as it necessarily precedes parenthood.
I see.
What about if the law allowed men to terminate "potential parenthood"? Is there a meaningful distinction between "pregnancy" and "potential parenthood"?
Men terminate 'potential parenthood' all the time with condoms, and women with pills and other methods. Terminating pregnancy, on the other hand, it a bit more complicated.
Manchu wrote:I agree that equating abortion to murder is absurd. It's hard to judge whether that's more absurd than saying premarital sex prevents heart disease or that abstinence leads to birth defects.
Definitely less than the assertion that abstinance, and all other forms of birth control, leads to a higher risk of birth defects because it delays the pregnancy to a later age.
Becausek you know, it's true. Of course, true things can seem absurd to some...
Manchu wrote:To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I can say that having unprotected sex at sixteen was a dumb thing to do.
Teenagers do a lot of stupid things, I think we can all agree on that.
It's why we still don't consider them full adults legally...
Vulcan wrote:
Men terminate 'potential parenthood' all the time with condoms, and women with pills and other methods. Terminating pregnancy, on the other hand, it a bit more complicated.
They also simply abandon the mother and child.
Parenthood as a genetic concept is not equivalent to parenthood as a relational concept.
Vulcan wrote:Men terminate 'potential parenthood' all the time with condoms.
Use of birth control is not a termination of parenthood because no parenthood exists to be terminated. I imagine the answer to biccat's question hinges on whether one can be considered the parent of a blastosphere, fetus, etc. But that's just a semantic hoop. The question is how the person who provided the sperm in this egg + sperm equation can get out of any liability whatsoever regarding that equation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Of course, true things can seem absurd to some...
What is more bizzare is how some consider what is obviously absurd to be true.
The law is organised around pregnancy, as it necessarily precedes parenthood.
I see.
What about if the law allowed men to terminate "potential parenthood"? Is there a meaningful distinction between "pregnancy" and "potential parenthood"?
The law is organised around pregnancy, as it necessarily precedes parenthood.
I see.
What about if the law allowed men to terminate "potential parenthood"? Is there a meaningful distinction between "pregnancy" and "potential parenthood"?
I don't understand your meaning.
He's saying that if a couple winds up unintentionally pregnant, the woman can still chose whether or not she will become a parent and all the burdens and responsibilities (and joys) associated with it. But, a man in that situation is at the mercy of the woman's decision. He cannot opt-out of becoming a parent, nor can he force her to become a parent in the same way she can force him.
Obviously (IMO), men shouldn't be able to force women to have or not to have an abortion. But, I think fundamentally what biccat is saying makes sense. There should be a way for either sex to say "I'm fully removing my parental rights and all responsibilities for this child." Effectively, giving the kid up for adoption, but working even if only one of the two parties wants to go that route.
Absolving oneself from parental responsibilities so easily opens a nasty can of worms...
Manchu wrote:What is more bizzare is how some consider what is obviously absurd to be true.
What is obviously absurd to one person is not to another.
It is a known and repeatedly shown statistic that mothers who conceive their child at a later age are more likely to have children with genetic defects such as Down Syndrome.
It is also a known and repeatedly shown statistic that easy access to birth control (or strongly adhering to abstinence) pushes back the age of conception (indeed, so much so that it becomes shocking to many communities when girls give birth at the tender ages of 13-14 these days).
Given these two, one can easily say that contraceptives/contraceptive methods leads to more birth defects.
You not liking this won't really change it, you know. Yes, you can say there's no direct causation, but a statement of increased probability doesn't equate to a statement of direct causation anyway, so it's not like I was arguing for it to begin with.
The production of muskets has decreased over the last two hundred years. The amount of democratically elected governments has increased in that same period. There's no direct causation, of course. But I guess according to you it's safe to assume that making less muskets leads (whatever that means) to there being more democracies.
Ahtman wrote:Since abortion became legal we have gained the internet, smart phones, and the Chris Nolan Batman movies, of this there can be no dispute.
My gawd.
The Internet is powered by abortions!
We must harness this technology, for with it we could become the masters of the universe!
Ahtman wrote:Since abortion became legal we have gained the internet, smart phones, and the Chris Nolan Batman movies, of this there can be no dispute.
The Holocaust and the Black Plague were before it though.
Manchu wrote:Don't worry -- no one is making and claims about what causes what here. We're just saying that legalizing abortion led to the internet.
What??? Are you actually claiming that Al Gore is sustained by abortions?
That's just crazy talk.
Although... Al Gore invented the internet to spread rumors about global warming. And, we all know that global warming and legalized abortions have a collaboration.
Yup, I agree. Roe v Wade is the immediate cause for the internet.
Manchu wrote:There's no direct causation, of course. But I guess according to you it's safe to assume that making less muskets leads (whatever that means) to there being more democracies.
Your analogy is pathetic and desperate really.
As you age, the effects of radiation (EVERYTHING gives off radiation, I should note, of some sort, but a lot of this is sunlight), toxins, carcinogens, etc adds up. The chance of it effecting one of the eggs in the woman's body increases. Abstinence pushes back the age at which women conceives just like all other forms of contraception.
You can live in denial all you want, this does not change the facts no matter how strongly you cling to beliefs to the contrary.
Mucking about like you are currently doing still isn't doing anything change this.
And really, all this came about because you claimed, falsely, that there were no consequences of abstinence, which was a silly assertion to begin with. There are consequences for everything you do, both action and inaction.
Manchu wrote:There's no direct causation, of course. But I guess according to you it's safe to assume that making less muskets leads (whatever that means) to there being more democracies.
Your analogy is pathetic and desperate really.
As you age, the effects of radiation (EVERYTHING gives off radiation, I should note, of some sort, but a lot of this is sunlight), toxins, carcinogens, etc adds up. The chance of it effecting one of the eggs in the woman's body increases. Abstinence pushes back the age at which women conceives just like all other forms of contraception.
You can live in denial all you want, this does not change the facts no matter how strongly you cling to beliefs to the contrary.
Mucking about like you are currently doing still isn't doing anything change this.
And really, all this came about because you claimed, falsely, that there were no consequences of abstinence, which was a silly assertion to begin with.
Just the same consequences as birth control as you just noticed, so effectively no difference. Not getting what your point is.
Manchu wrote:Does this strike anyone else as an elaborate case of devil's advocacy?
It's an ethics article in a dedicated journal. They are arguing this way to stimulate debate (and they have done judging by the length of this thread) and string out a line of logic to challenge people. Discussions about ethics often work this way and seem quite ludicrous in their extremes, or exercises in sophistry. It's not really my thing, but the knee-jerk reactions of some people are predictably "evil academics/scientists/experts are nazi-like killers" is inevitable and ignorant of the point of this published article. Though it would have been a bit naive to write such a thing and not expect someone in a newspaper to pick it up if they couldn't find something else to write about. Seriously, most speculative articles in academic journals are read by a tiny number of people. If the logic doesn't stack up then it should be easily undermined, you shouldn't need to simply react with outrage and hate. It's factually wrong to say "experts say that killing babies is the same as abortion" because they aren't literally arguing for this as far as I can see. Just because someone presents an argument in a piece of academic pondering doesn't necessarily mean they are advocating it in practice or even believe it.
Flicking through the first few pages wants to make me heave with the judgemental bs. Every abortion thread is the same. As far as I'm concerned people can make their own decisions about abortion because ultimately it affects their lives. Circumstances can vary a lot, and the things that can affect people are different. Adoption, and giving up children for adoption isn't easy, carrying pregnancies to full term is not easy, it can be traumatic and difficult. There's always a line of people lining up to wag their finger at women for 'not taking responsibility' for using contraception, or not accepting the consequences of contraception going wrong etc etc, telling people how they should remain abstinent forever, how abortion is the 'easy way' or a matter of 'convenience' when in fact having an abortion is traumatic in itself. The 'convenience' aspect is regularly over played by the pro-life crowd, I find it particularly distasteful and misogynistic.
It's such a massively difficult issue the only right way is to let people make the decisions for themselves, some say they could abort, other say they would never, and then if actually put in the position of making that difficult decision they may change their minds anyway. Freedom of choice in this matter is the only right way. There isn't a single right decision... I'll leave it to the individual which is what being pro-choice is about. It's not a choice I want to make in life so I certainly wouldn't presume to make the decision for others. It's a messy subject but allowing choice is probably the fairest solution. There won't be a perfect solution.
Manchu wrote:Does this strike anyone else as an elaborate case of devil's advocacy?
It's an ethics article in a dedicated journal. They are arguing this way to stimulate debate (and they have done judging by the length of this thread) and string out a line of logic to challenge people. Discussions about ethics often work this way and seem quite ludicrous in their extremes, or exercises in sophistry. It's not really my thing, but the knee-jerk reactions of some people are predictably "evil academics/scientists/experts are nazi-like killers" is inevitable and ignorant of the point of this published article. Though it would have been a bit naive to write such a thing and not expect someone in a newspaper to pick it up if they couldn't find something else to write about. Seriously, most speculative articles in academic journals are read by a tiny number of people. If the logic doesn't stack up then it should be easily undermined, you shouldn't need to simply react with outrage and hate. It's factually wrong to say "experts say that killing babies is the same as abortion" because they aren't literally arguing for this as far as I can see. Just because someone presents an argument in a piece of academic pondering doesn't necessarily mean they are advocating it in practice or even believe it.
Flicking through the first few pages wants to make me heave with the judgemental bs. Every abortion thread is the same. As far as I'm concerned people can make their own decisions about abortion because ultimately it affects their lives. Circumstances can vary a lot, and the things that can affect people are different. Adoption, and giving up children for adoption isn't easy, carrying pregnancies to full term is not easy, it can be traumatic and difficult. There's always a line of people lining up to wag their finger at women for 'not taking responsibility' for using contraception, or not accepting the consequences of contraception going wrong etc etc, telling people how they should remain abstinent forever, how abortion is the 'easy way' or a matter of 'convenience' when in fact having an abortion is traumatic in itself. The 'convenience' aspect is regularly over played by the pro-life crowd, I find it particularly distasteful and misogynistic.
It's such a massively difficult issue the only right way is to let people make the decisions for themselves, some say they could abort, other say they would never, and then if actually put in the position of making that difficult decision they may change their minds anyway. Freedom of choice in this matter is the only right way. There isn't a single right decision... I'll leave it to the individual which is what being pro-choice is about. It's not a choice I want to make in life so I certainly wouldn't presume to make the decision for others. It's a messy subject but allowing choice is probably the fairest solution. There won't be a perfect solution.
Except of course, the authors are surprised by the hostility and replies, and of course their own interest in euthanasia which belies that this is just for arguments sake. Further, why the hell are they getting paid in the first place?
Ahtman wrote:Since abortion became legal we have gained the internet, smart phones, and the Chris Nolan Batman movies, of this there can be no dispute.
The book "Freakonomics" contains a less insane version of that sentence that's cited by articles. It has a whole extremely controversial Chapter about how abortion reduces crime and that sorta stuff.
Now I'm going to quietly back away from this thread and never go to the OT forum again.
Ahtman wrote:Since abortion became legal we have gained the internet, smart phones, and the Chris Nolan Batman movies, of this there can be no dispute.
The book "Freakonomics" contains a less insane version of that sentence that's cited by articles. It has a whole extremely controversial Chapter about how abortion reduces crime and that sorta stuff.
Well, I wasn't really making a causal link, but a temporal one. The one in Freakonamics stated that the main impetus in the drop in crime after a decade of increasing crime was that post Roe v. Wade you had more wanted children growing up in happier homes than forced children in unwanted ones, thus leading to fewer criminals. In essence that family planning leads to happier people overall. Not that they all had abortions, but just being able to choose made the situation more bearable. Obliviously that was, and still is, pretty controversial.
I've got a 5-week infant at home right now, and she sure is a little person. Has been all along. In fact, I believe she was one from conception. So, fundamentally, I think killing either fetus (unless the mother is in danger) or infant is wrong. I guess that agrees with the subject line, if not the subject. I guess I'm pro-life.
As long as women are so afraid or desperate that they would seek underground abortions, I think we need to keep it legal. I guess I'm pro-choice.
We should be striving for a world where women have access to enough resources so that they are not scared to carry children to birth; where carrying a child or giving birth to a child is not a financial catastrophe in any situation; and where unwanted children are cared for automatically.
@ dogma: I'm not sure about your 'i want to get the coffee-girl pregnant therefore I've made a person' approach. I think your trying your RAA argument again, to refute the 'fetus is a person' view, but that's some far-out reductio and too much absurdum. There is no fetus to be killed, if you never get around to it because you're to busy posting on Dakka's OT forum.
war i just started.
