The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 11

How is babby unformed?

Warbler said:

The debate is jut minutes away . . .

oops!  posted this in the wrong thread.

darth_ender said:

And I am aware of your (DuracellEnergizer's) view on human life--quite existential if I remember correctly (can't remember where I read that, maybe earlier in this thread?).  I'm equally curious as to your views on euthanasia, eugenics, murder, etc., considering "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world," or something along those lines.

All threads look alike to you don't they, threadist.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

I think it's just callous to bring children into such a world.

 

We have to bring them somewhere.

TV's Frink wrote: We have to bring them somewhere.

You are such a breeder.

I tremble in my wee little boots!  Funny because conservatives are generally more open to choice.  Obamacare limits choice.  Political correctness limits choice.  Many liberal policies limit choice.  But when it comes to ending someone's life because it interferes with someone else's, oh let's not limit choice just because a human life is on the line!

You're right, we both came here with our minds made up.  But you bumped this thread with an extremely ignorant comment, and if you are going to argue, even if you don't plan on changing my mind, you will have to do better to convince me that you are at least approaching it from an intelligent angle.

Monolithium said:

darth_ender said:

Does that change after the child is born?  I've yet to see an infant survive without someone providing parenting, usually the mother if no one else.  Why does it get its rights then?  This sounds very arbitrary and convenient to me.  You'll have to do better than that.

Actually I don't.

I came into this thread with my mind already made up.  I assume you did as well.  There is nothing you can say that will convince me to remove a human's freedom to choose to murder.  That is what I believe.

Why is the freedom of choice to murder so frightening to you?  Why do you want to tell strangers what they can and cannot do?  Do you like being told what to do?  Who should decide what is right and what is wrong?  God?  If so, which God?

I am free to choose to murder what I know to be right for myself.  And if the choice is to murder , so be it.  But if the choice is Life, we're going to raise that life to the best of our abilities.

I altered the above to show how Monolithium's  post might sound to someone who is pro life. 

Monolithium said:

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion.  It means I am for Choice.

but it must be more than that,  in order to be pro choice you either must believe that the fetus does not have the same right to live as you or I do, or  you must believe that people have the right to murder.

Monolithium said:

darth_ender said:

As Warbler says, you can swing your arm all you want as long as you don't hit someone else.  Abortion, to me, hits the unborn child in the face.  Your free will should not extend so far as to reduce that of someone else's.

Until it is separated from the Mother, it doesn't get individual rights.

who decided that?  you?

Oh Buddha!

walkingdork said:

Warbler said:

 

Monolithium said:

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion.  It means I am for Choice.

but it must be more than that,  in order to be pro choice you either must believe that the fetus does not have the same right to live as you or I do, or  you must believe that people have the right to murder.

So you believe that it's murder....but murder that is suddenly okay if rape is involved? How in your mind does rape/incest trump the rights that unborn babies apparently have?

I personally don't think so.  However, I do feel that I can be more accommodating on these points, though again, I feel it should not be the default, but rather an option.  My reason for this is that when when person's health poses a risk to another, sometimes you have to make a choice.  Often, separating conjoined twins is an unfortunate and perhaps arbitrary choice of who will die so the other can live.  Considering the potential mental health dangers in rape/incest and what they can ultimately lead to, I am willing to provide the option, especially when it does become so much less clear.  But even in cases like this, I feel like abortions should be done earlier than later...much earlier than allowed at the present.

I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights. That's how I can come to the conclusion that if you are raped or incest is involved you should be allowed to have an abortion.

In response to the underlined sentence, since a zygote lasts for 4 days (not sure what an incomplete zygote is, but a complete one), is abortion not permitted afterwards?  I understand, I'm playing a bit with semantics here, and I suspect you are referring more to a "bunch of cells," not a formed creature with all the emotions and sensations of a more developed person.  But still, it's worth considering.  At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights?  I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible.  BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized).  Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours.  But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.

If I believed that abortion was, without a doubt, murder then there would be no excuse for it. After all, I would never let my children be killed so that I could live. But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.

 This is a good point.  And I admit I don't liken it exactly to murder.  However, I suppose this is more because I don't think most feel they are committing murder, so I'd see them as ignorant killers rather than murderers.  But again comparing to my conjoined twins comparison above, sometimes a choice must be made.  I'd side with the mother for various reasons: 1) if she dies, the child will die anyway in most cases, unless we're getting later down the road; 2) the needs of other family members are in consideration here as well, considering the death of the mother will probably be much harder on the family than the death of the child; 3) many who say they'd take a bullet for their kids might actually be unable to do so when the time came--and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it--they may have not had the willpower, but that doesn't mean they didn't love their child unconditionally; 4) the suffering of the mother will be far more than that of the child, and for that reason, when choosing between two lives, I'd choose the one with the more peaceful death.

I wouldn't consider it murder either.  I'd consider it the right choice in difficult circumstances.  But I don't consider killing born humans always the wrong choice either--there are appropriate times when someone must die.  If a killer entered my house with the intent to kill, when it comes down to him or me living, I choose me (sorry Bingo :P).  I hope I never have to take another life in any circumstance, but if I have to do it, I'd hope I again make the right choice under difficult circumstances.

Thank you for the very thoughtful post expressing the opposite POV. :)

DuracellEnergizer said:

darth_ender said:

And I am aware of your (DuracellEnergizer's) view on human life--quite existential if I remember correctly (can't remember where I read that, maybe earlier in this thread?).  I'm equally curious as to your views on euthanasia, eugenics, murder, etc., considering "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world," or something along those lines.

Yes, I am a supporter of euthanasia. If someone wants to die, then they should be allowed that right. I do wonder why those people want medical assistance to get the deed done, though, instead of just taking the matter into their own hands or getting a friend/family member to help them.

As for eugenics and murder ... I'll admit, I'm not comfortable with them, especially if the victim suffers physical violence/trauma while it happens. Unfortunately, I've been cursed with the burden of having to adopt moral nihilism/skepticism - the concept that morality doesn't exist, or, more optimistically, that morality may not exist. It's not a concept I'm happy or content with - it makes me sick to my stomach that I have to excuse the actions of people like Hitler or Charles Mason - but until I see some convincing evidence to show me otherwise, I'm stuck with having to say that neither eugenics nor murder are good or evil.

And, JFTR, summing up my antinatalism as simply being a belief that "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world", doesn't quite capture the depth of my opinions. Yes, I believe humans are seriously screwed up - that there is an underlying insanity which affects us all - and we have become little more than a malignant cancer on this planet. Beyond that, though, is something more; we may be victimizers, but we're also victims - victims of a horribly chaos-ridden universe, ultimately doomed to suffer and die senselessly as entropy rots the cosmos away. Overall, especially in this day and age, I think it's just callous to bring children into such a world.

I didn't respond to this.  It's a sad view to me.  I don't mean to judge you for it or anything, but it is truly depressing, and I can't believe that you truly believe it entirely, even if you have taken the philosophy of morality to its ultimate conclusions.  You clearly see that there are certain inescapable morals built into us genetically, even if you don't believe in a Supreme Being who governs right and wrong.

I say this because I don't believe you'd have access to this site from prison ;)

Mrebo said:

Monolithium's post is a good example of how some argue these issues. They take a superficially powerful assertion and they say it over and over and over. Because if someone disagrees with it they're obviously bad, so there can be no debate.

You're right, Mono, that we basically have our minds made up on this issue. But Warbler very quickly identifies the error you're making: there is the matter of what the choice is. It's not even just a matter of what is right and wrong in some personal sense, but a belief that the fetus is a human life.

walkingdork is right that calling abortion murder is not consistent with allowing exceptions for rape.

If we're going to be technical, I think many pro-life people see abortion more as manslaughter. Intent plays a big part in defining the culpability. I think many of us have a sense of the intent involved if a raped woman seeks an abortion vs a woman who had unprotected sex and doesn't want a baby right now.

I agree with walkingdork's term "potential child." Though I think the potentiality is understated by those on the pro-choice side - which I went into at length on page 2 (where I keep getting a weird offsite pw popup, btw). My position is that the embryo/fetus is undeniably a human life, though not a person. As a form of human life and a potential child that will become an actual child without some intervening event, it deserves legal protection. To me, the exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother are about balancing other valid interests (which include physical autonomy).

We won't necessarily share moral and ethical values but at the very least, I think we can recognize and tackle what the other side is saying. What I see in Mono's post is that the life of a fetus, at best, has subjective value and at worse, is simply irrelevant. To me that is a cold and foreign view. And certainly doesn't lend itself to being challenged. I think that is the frightening part of his view, to answer his question. And to the extent that a majority accepts his view, it will prevail. However, most people do see a non-subjective worth in the life of a fetus.

 I'm always grateful that mrebo is on my side.  I agree with this post completely.

I have one more post to make here, though I know it's a lot.  While I oppose paying for everything in others, and while I support the Catholic Church's right to not provide contraception for its employees, I have concluded that one of immediate ways to reduce abortions is to make contraception more widely available.  I would love for people to be more educated as to what is right (because I of course am right ;) and choose the right on their own, but I am very content with short-term solutions while longer-term things are worked out, and if free contraceptive care is that solution, then it's something I can begin to advocate.

Don't take this as standing up for Sandra Fluke.

darth_ender said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

darth_ender said:

And I am aware of your (DuracellEnergizer's) view on human life--quite existential if I remember correctly (can't remember where I read that, maybe earlier in this thread?).  I'm equally curious as to your views on euthanasia, eugenics, murder, etc., considering "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world," or something along those lines.

Yes, I am a supporter of euthanasia. If someone wants to die, then they should be allowed that right. I do wonder why those people want medical assistance to get the deed done, though, instead of just taking the matter into their own hands or getting a friend/family member to help them.

As for eugenics and murder ... I'll admit, I'm not comfortable with them, especially if the victim suffers physical violence/trauma while it happens. Unfortunately, I've been cursed with the burden of having to adopt moral nihilism/skepticism - the concept that morality doesn't exist, or, more optimistically, that morality may not exist. It's not a concept I'm happy or content with - it makes me sick to my stomach that I have to excuse the actions of people like Hitler or Charles Mason - but until I see some convincing evidence to show me otherwise, I'm stuck with having to say that neither eugenics nor murder are good or evil.

And, JFTR, summing up my antinatalism as simply being a belief that "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world", doesn't quite capture the depth of my opinions. Yes, I believe humans are seriously screwed up - that there is an underlying insanity which affects us all - and we have become little more than a malignant cancer on this planet. Beyond that, though, is something more; we may be victimizers, but we're also victims - victims of a horribly chaos-ridden universe, ultimately doomed to suffer and die senselessly as entropy rots the cosmos away. Overall, especially in this day and age, I think it's just callous to bring children into such a world.

I didn't respond to this.  It's a sad view to me.  I don't mean to judge you for it or anything, but it is truly depressing, and I can't believe that you truly believe it entirely, even if you have taken the philosophy of morality to its ultimate conclusions.

You clearly see that there are certain inescapable morals built into us genetically, even if you don't believe in a Supreme Being who governs right and wrong.

darth_ender said:

You clearly see that there are certain inescapable morals built into us genetically, even if you don't believe in a Supreme Being who governs right and wrong.

I say this because I don't believe you'd have access to this site from prison ;)

I don't believe we have morals built into us genetically. In fact, I think the very idea is rather silly. I am a firm believer that morals are developed culturally. Nor do I think they are inescapable. You can look at other cultures and at history and see that not every person, or even every culture, or society ascribed to these inescapable, innate, supposedly God imprinted morals.

walkingdork said:

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

You clearly see that there are certain inescapable morals built into us genetically, even if you don't believe in a Supreme Being who governs right and wrong.

I say this because I don't believe you'd have access to this site from prison ;)

I don't believe we have morals built into us genetically. In fact, I think the very idea is rather silly. I am a firm believer that morals are developed culturally. Nor do I think they are inescapable. You can look at other cultures and at history and see that not every person, or even every culture, or society ascribed to these inescapable, innate, supposedly God imprinted morals.

 

Word.

           I recall a sociological survey of people from many different nations and regions around the world that found there was a universal set of values that tracked closely with the 10 Commandments. 

walkingdork said:

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

You clearly see that there are certain inescapable morals built into us genetically, even if you don't believe in a Supreme Being who governs right and wrong.

I say this because I don't believe you'd have access to this site from prison ;)

I don't believe we have morals built into us genetically. In fact, I think the very idea is rather silly. I am a firm believer that morals are developed culturally. Nor do I think they are inescapable. You can look at other cultures and at history and see that not every person, or even every culture, or society ascribed to these inescapable, innate, supposedly God imprinted morals.

 

Word.

           I recall a sociological survey of people from many different nations and regions around the world that found there was a universal set of values that tracked closely with the 10 Commandments. 

I'd love to see this sociological survey and to discover who it was conducted by.

Essentially what you, and this conductors of this survey and by extension those surveyed, are saying is that universally, all over the world, people believe that:

1. That there should be no gods worshiped other than the Judeo-Christian god.

2. That idols or images of gods are bad.

3. That we ought to be really careful how we use the name of the Judeo-Christian god, and not use his name flippantly.

4. That no work should be done on Saturdays in honor of the Judeo-Christian god.

5. That mothers and father should be honor (good practice, but I am not sure how universal it is. Take one good look at your average nursing home in the US and I call bullshit on the universality of this, but maybe it is the thought that counts.)

6. That killing is bad (this one is probably true, throughout most of the civilized world killing for no reason is typically frowned on. But that hasn't stopped thousands of years of casual human sacrifices, infanticide, war, and genocides. Even the Judo-Christian god was all about ordering his chosen people to commit genocide when he saw it fitting.)

7. That committing adultery is bad. (Not sure how this plays into polygamous cultures, and there are plenty of cultures where it was pretty common. Even in America it is a pretty normal occurrence, even among the Bible thumping population. But sure, I'll hand this one over as potentially "universal")

8. That stealing is bad. (Sure, this is another one I'll hand over to potentially "universal")

9. That lying is bad. (Again, I'll give you this one as potentially universal)

10. That you should covet. (Yeah, can't really give you that one. Everyone wants things overs have, sometimes very badly. It doesn't make it wrong. I don't even think most Christians believe this one.

I think at best here, half of the Ten Commandments might be socially desirable and believed in by the majority of the world's population, but in each case, it also fits into the "golden rule". You don't want to be murdered, so you're going to consider murder bad. Nobody likes to be lied to, so generally you aren't going to appreciate dishonestly. Nobody likes it when other people sleep with their spouses behind their backs, so generally, you're going to think it is a bad thing. The idea of you're kids being disrespectful little assholes isn't very appealing, so you are going to think it is a bad thing.

Perhaps, the valid half of the ten commandments are part of the ten commandments because they were universally valid long before the ten commandments were thought up, rather than universally valid because they were part of the ten commandments. All the parts regarding respect and worship of god are far from universal, and the very suggestion of this is more than a little humorous/pathetic.

walkingdork said:

Warbler said:

 

Monolithium said:

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion.  It means I am for Choice.

but it must be more than that,  in order to be pro choice you either must believe that the fetus does not have the same right to live as you or I do, or  you must believe that people have the right to murder.

So you believe that it's murder....but murder that is suddenly okay if rape is involved? How in your mind does rape/incest trump the rights that unborn babies apparently have?

it doesn't.  I don't what to say about rape/incest.   I've never been able to decide that.   Kill an innocent unborn child(that I believe has the same rights as you or I),  or force a raped women against her will to carry the child of the rapist in for 9 months and go through labor.    and then who knows what regarding custody.     a horrible situation.   I really don't have an answer here. 

walkingdork said:

I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights.

please read the underlined of the my post that you quoted.   So again, it is more than about being for choice,  you being the fetus does not have the same rights as you or I. 

walkingdork said:

But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.

of course the life of the mother has to be considered.   Even if I believe that the fetus is human life with the same rights as you or I,  the mother has just as much right to live.