Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/03/07 17:31:12
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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"?
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/03/07 17:38:38
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done.
2012/03/07 17:40:49
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/03/07 17:42:27
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/07 17:43:46
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/03/07 17:42:46
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/07 17:44:25
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/07 18:07:09
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/03/07 18:38:56
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
Wait... who's side am I arguing?
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2012/03/07 19:56:20
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2012/03/07 22:45:26
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/03/07 22:45:15
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/03/07 22:46:02
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
My point was that his statement that there are no consequences for abstinence is false.
You know.
Exactly what I've been saying my point is all along.
And this doesn't even cover the social effects, which I avoid because they vary so widely in the US.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/07 22:47:02
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/03/07 22:53:51
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/07 23:34:03
2012/03/07 23:23:30
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Grakmar wrote:Not an electron sitting at absolute zero.
Such a thing has not yet been proven to exist, you know
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/07 23:27:25
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/03/07 23:40:05
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/03/08 02:01:22
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/03/08 02:30:38
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
2012/03/08 07:23:49
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/03/08 07:26:22
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/08 07:26:53
Fun and Fluff for the Win!
2012/03/08 07:28:59
Subject: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
