Another Abortion thread.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-01-2012, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2012 04:53 PM by kim.)
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(09-01-2012 09:30 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  U miss my point, no man should force a woman to have or not have an abortion,
strictly an ethics discussion.

Strictly an ethics question: should anyone force a woman to have or not have a baby?

Obviously, no one would force a woman to not have a baby, right? Oops... forgot what planet I'm on. Abuse happens ... why isn't that a bumper sticker? My personal answer would be decided at the word force.

No, I'll just get all crazy for the sake of argument and ask:
Should anyone force a woman to have a baby?

And I'm not talking about a woman who has been raped, or even a woman who may have a crack baby, a seriously deformed baby, or a baby with no brain stem.... all of which have happened by the way... women forced to carry to term has been around a while.
I'm talking about just a regular healthy woman who finds out she is pregnant but knows she is not ready to have a baby. She has a decision to make.

An argument would be to adopt it out. Frankly, if she contacted a lawyer, she could have her next nine months paid for - with extra. Shouldn't this convince her to go ahead and have it?
What has this woman considered ..or not considered?

She's probably considered everything a woman who is desperate to become pregnant has considered: the things it will do to her body and her mind, what she will have to watch out for while carrying to term, what happens after, the continual second guessing, etc.,.
Deciding to not go through with something can be as much a struggle as deciding to go through with it.

If it is acceptable to answer the question, "Is there a God?" by saying "I don't know."... why is answering this question any different?
Should anyone force a woman to have a baby? Force? No.
After that, I really don't know; anymore than I know if anyone should have an abortion.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
11-01-2012, 10:33 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(11-01-2012 12:17 PM)Ghost Wrote:  A cell is not a potential human, it's a cell. If it was extracted and the DNA was extracted and placed in another cell and put in an environment where it could develop, THAT would have potential. A zygote has potential, a cell just hangin around in your body does not.

Just saying it loudly and with certainty doesn't make it true. It's true from a certain point of view, even if you don't share that point of view.

Is a lump of rock a potential sculpture? Obviously not without help. In the same way, a zygote is also not a human without help... it dies outside the body. I know you only want to see it in the narrow view of "natural circumstance", but you don't dictate what "potential" means or its limits.

The sperm that I carry around is all "potentially human". There is no doubt that the DNA that I carry could be used to create a child through natural processes. You could consider it a mass abortion every time I let my sperm die or get wasted. Just because a lot of people see the start of human life as "conception" doesn't make it so - it's arbitrary, because there are several points that could be considered the start of human life, and there is no objective way to decide what is the best one.

And who cares if Sam Harris is a "fucking moron"? That's not an argument, it's ad hominem. Even "fucking morons" can be right. Life isn't divided into people who are always right or always wrong... you're going to have to accept that it's more complicated than that.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
12-01-2012, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2012 04:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Another Abortion thread.
What the hell ?

There are drugs that prevent the implantation of the zygote into the endometrial wall. THAT does not happen for MANY hours after the sperm cell enters the egg cell. Is the discussion here that post implantation "removal" of the zygote is "immoral", or "not a good thing"..(if so please explain what that means) ?

In general, because of drugs, (such as "Plan B") this discussion is WAY outdated. The AB discussion is usually based on a very imprecise, (and ignorant), assumption that "personhood", (a legal concept), is to be "granted" to a "clump of cells", (likely due to the old religionist paradigm of god "infusing" a soul into a human "at the moment conception", even though they usually mean "the momen of fertilization", which is not the same). Anyone who has taken a Biology course, or some Biochemistry knows, there is NO "moment" of conception. It is a PROCESS, of sperm entry, and many chemical changes, and later, the PROCESS of the first DNA replication, (which also "takes a while"..and needs much further definition, if the religionists expect modern humans to accept their ancient "soul paradigm"). The religionists never define their terms. They never describe, in detail, when exactly during the PROCESS of fertilization, (or even post fertilization...pre implantation), the zygote becomes a "person". (And I guarantee they never will, because on close inspection the whole thing falls apart).
Time for, first, some science education , and then some definitions. After that, the whole thing will be moot. If not, please tell me exactly when a zygote actually becomes a "person". To the nano-second. (And BTW, hint..I can likely find a better clock). Huh

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-01-2012, 07:49 AM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
strangely ... I agree with starcrash on this point.

Nobody should be able to dictate to a woman what she can and cant do with her body, yet the process of abortion isnt and shouldnt be used as a method of contraception. It may be a wiser move to give better education on contraception, drinking and the after effects aka parenthood.

however ....

To say that it is solely a woman's choice I feel is wrong, because it in deed takes two to create life, therefore it should take both to decide on the termination. I guess responsibility is the key to this, in the event that there is dispute then the woman's choice should take precedent, however unless any here believe in the immaculate conception a woman cant get pregnant with her self and does require that " additional ingredient" why should that be completely discounted should a pregnancy occur, are we saying that babies are the sole responsibility of the woman and that a father has no rights at all. If you agree in pro-life, then you agree that the father has rights as it IS a baby from the moment of conception. If you are pro-choice ... then you cant say that it is pro-choice for woman but men have no choice. Those are dismissive arguments.
I am sure, although have no evidence to back it up, quite a lot of abortions are required by young woman, who may or may not have enjoyed a one night stand with some young fella after a night of drinking, hence why i say about curing the cause rather than the result. where do i stand regards to the whole thing ... well I dont know, is it the pure right of the woman .. debatable, should it be allowed ... yes, but not as birth control. We should educate better on contraception and try to encourage our sisters and daughters not to get so shit faced on a Friday night that they get beer glasses , and to educate our sons and brothers that sex without a condom is inviting pregnancy that IS their responsibility FOR LIFE!!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like bathrug's post
12-01-2012, 08:13 AM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2012 08:18 AM by scientician.)
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(09-01-2012 09:13 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  What do you guys think?

First thing, get rid of Religion's reign over family planning, for good.

Second:

Empower women around the world and educate people on sex, sexuality, birth control and family planning.

Then tell me if the abortion debate still rages.

I'm pro-choice by the way. No one has power over a woman's body and it is her choice. The fact is women get abortions because rape happens; because accidents happen, because religious doctrine hinders proper education. Women do not get abortions because it's easier than prevention or because they don't believe life is sacred. This would not happen even if abortion were 100% accepted by everyone.

And I'm a man and I do not think it is at all my choice, that's just ridiculous. Women have so much more invested in this, it's just how it is.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like scientician's post
12-01-2012, 08:55 AM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
Hey, Starcrash.

Since when are volume and certainty bad things Cool

I'm all about Obi-Wan and things being true... from a certain point of view. But Assy McFacington speaks in absolutes. When he speaks, he tells people what is true. Objectively. I think his entire premise is insupportable and biased to the Nth degree. I also think he's a doo doo head.

Here's the thing about abortion. The question is not, do we or do we not have a baby. The question is, this is happening. Do we allow it to happen? To make a decision about abortion, something has to be happening. Someone needs to be pregnant. So yeah, every sperm in my nut sack is a potential great grandchild, but that's such a useless argument and a really weak-ass way to counter the argument that an embryo/foetus that will come to term, all things being equal, is a potential human. It IS a potential human, way more so than my knuckle children. Shithead's entire argument is nonsense.

Of course a zygote dies outside of the body, but there is no natural process outside of miscarriage that will put it there. As long as the mother stays healthy and it's not one of the 30-50% of pregnancies that miscarry before the second trimester, then it will be born. That is, unless it's aborted.

I have no idea where the point is that it becomes something that has too much value to lose by terminating it, but I know that his argument is crap.

I do accept complications and I know what an ad hom is. No one bats an eye when someone around here calls Phelps a fucking idiot, so you need to understand that when famous people get lambasted, it's only offensive if you support the person. I've heard a lot of things come out of this joker’s mouth and the thing I find shocking is that I've found every single thing he's ever said offensive. Not in the "Oh my stars and garters, he swore" kind of way, but in the "you're insulting my intelligence and people are listening to you" kind of way. I'm just shocked at the consistency of it. I find him more consistently offensive than George Bush and that's pretty shocking.

Anyhoo, I'll be the first to admit that the mention of his name sends me into a blood rage and that I have a habit of tearing him apart. That being said, this notion of his is just loony.

So to address your suggestion directly, you absolutely could not call jerking off a mass abortion. To abort is to stop. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy, all things equal, leads inexorably to the birth of a human being. An abortion stops that process. A pregnancy, whether caused by intercourse, artificial insemination, cloning or any other process, has the potential of producing a human. Gametes do not because gametes are not involved in a process.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2012, 11:09 AM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
I definitely think abortions are morally acceptable. Certainly, there is no blanket prescription against them as a class of action. Here are my basic reasons why:

1) The potential persons argument is silly. Even a brief glance at the contemporary philosophical literature will show this. I understand that this is a bit of a courtier's reply, but I after a certain number of times having this discussion, one gets tired of the lower quality arguments.

2) In the overwhelming majority fetuses are not moral patients, and thus we can a priori exclude them from moral consideration. They lack the relevant characteristics of a moral patient, namely but not exclusively the ability to have substantive interests.

3) Even in the limited circumstances where a fetus might qualify as a moral patient (I can't think of any, but am not confident enough about there not being any), I fail to see how its limited "interests" could possibly outweigh those of the mother.

Thus, in the overwhelming majority of situations, abortion is an ethical choice. And the state certainly has no legitimate interest in banning abortions, except as a prudential measure in some extreme cases (such as if there's a serious threat of imminent human extinction).

Now, a little bit of background for my position. It assumes a consequentialist moral theory, though I think the conclusion would be similar under most forms of deontology (with the "fetus not a moral patient" premise much more important here) and most live forms of virtue ethics. Second, on the note of a mother's "inviolable right" to control her body, I believe in no such right, because I don't think there are any rights that are absolutely inviolable, even in extreme circumstances.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Valdyr's post
12-01-2012, 03:28 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(11-01-2012 12:17 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I think where my worldview really cuts through the ideology is that I support infanticide. There are many reasons for it in many places and it's enshrined in many culutres. I don't know that I could do it myself or that I'd want to, but I think there are cases when it should be allowed.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Im sorry, infanticide??
how the hell do you justify that?

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2012, 03:44 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(11-01-2012 12:17 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I think where my worldview really cuts through the ideology is that I support infanticide. There are many reasons for it in many places and it's enshrined in many culutres. I don't know that I could do it myself or that I'd want to, but I think there are cases when it should be allowed.

[Image: not-sure-if-serious-or-just-trolling.jpg]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
12-01-2012, 03:48 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(12-01-2012 03:28 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  
(11-01-2012 12:17 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I think where my worldview really cuts through the ideology is that I support infanticide. There are many reasons for it in many places and it's enshrined in many culutres. I don't know that I could do it myself or that I'd want to, but I think there are cases when it should be allowed.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Im sorry, infanticide??
how the hell do you justify that?

Confused Yes - that kind of freaked my shit, too, but I didn't want to press it with a guy who even utters the controversial word and doesn't explain it.

***
Ghost - If you are referring to native peoples in isolated jungles, where parents can only safely care for two children at a time, I understand. But I am curious about your mention of infanticide -please elaborate if you are able. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: