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.

Women have no greater or lesser ability to answer the question posed by biccat than men.

biccat wrote:

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.

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.

PATER FAMILIAS RETURNS!

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.

Dude, you need to stop posting on Dakka while you are high.

rockerbikie wrote:

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.

Dude, you need to stop posting on Dakka while you are high.

Don't do that stuff. I i'm just terrible at spelling.

Manchu wrote:Women have no greater or lesser ability to answer the question posed by biccat than men.

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.

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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?

I wouldn't assume that, dogma. Biccat was just responding to examples KK gave.

Manchu wrote:

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.

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.

or if its a fair fight, or if you think they are going to start a fair fight.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the woman's opinion is more relevant as she is in the position of making the decision.

Not if the decision in question is whether abortions procured some period of time after conception can be legally obtained.

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.

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.

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'?

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.

dogma wrote:Shall I therefore assume that you place a greater value on the life of Pol Pot than that of the family pet?

That seems like a logical conclusion, assuming you ignore secondary considerations.

For example, my cat has murdered far fewer people than Pol Pot.

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.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Shall I therefore assume that you place a greater value on the life of Pol Pot than that of the family pet?

That seems like a logical conclusion, assuming you ignore secondary considerations.

For example, my cat has murdered far fewer people than Pol Pot.

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.

Phototoxin wrote:

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.

Phototoxin wrote:

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, abortion auto theft is questionable. Economically, it is almost a necessity - we can't tell poor people they can't get abortions Ferrari'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?

@Vulcan,

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.