The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 32

Babies are hard? I thought they were soft.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Babies are hard? I thought they were soft.

 They're soft until you teach them about life and harden them up.

HotRod said:

This is a load of bollox.  If you're out and find someone attractive. Have sex. It's fun. 

Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it. But everybody should. 

 If this is in response to me(you didn't make it clear who you were responding to),

I wasn't telling you not to have sex.  I was saying that it comes with risk, that risk is an unwanted pregnancy and/or stds.  That is especially true if the sex is unprotected sex.  I said and still say that I do not understand why someone who doesn't want a child would take the risk of unprotected sex, and even if protection is used there is a still risk(but less of one that without the protection).   Yes sex is fun, but there are risks.

Leonardo said:

darth_ender said:

HotRod said:

This is a load of bollox.  If you're out and find someone attractive. Have sex. It's fun. 

Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it. But everybody should. 

 Babies are a natural byproduct of sex.  Babies are good.  They're hard, but can also be fun.  Not everyone has them, but everybody should.

 errr.... really? everybody?

 Yes, I agree there some people who shouldn't have children.

Leonardo said:

darth_ender said:

HotRod said:

This is a load of bollox.  If you're out and find someone attractive. Have sex. It's fun. 

Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it. But everybody should. 

 Babies are a natural byproduct of sex.  Babies are good.  They're hard, but can also be fun.  Not everyone has them, but everybody should.

 errr.... really? everybody?

 I was mocking his phrasing.  I've worked for a behavioral health agency focusing on children ages 0-5, most of whom were involved in Child Protective Services and removed from their rotten parents.  So yes, I agree, not everyone should have children.  However, were those rotten parents to get pregnant again, I'd rather they carry the baby to term and have them placed up for adoption than simply snuffed out of existence.

And come on, Kim Jong-Un needs to have an heir.  One day he will pass, and when he does, he needs to have someone to continue condemning South Korean and American actions and threatening devastating war every time one of our presidents sneezes. ;)

EDIT: I guess I should clarify my original point, and that is that I certainly don't think sex is bad.  I just don't think the natural and intended consequences of sex (sometimes referred to as children, or less commonly, prawns) are bad either.

Bingowings said:

I have a pet fungus...you know this.

I hope you provide it with lots of shade and nutrients ;)  I had hoped you would answer my question though.  My guess is that you consider your life more valuable than even a beloved Labrador's.  My point is that to most people, the value of humans is superior to that of animals.  That value is not derived from our ability to comprehend.

Why is killing another human wrong?  It's not simply because you are ending the life of a self-aware creature.  That creature is going to die no matter what.  It's not because you are cutting off their history.  That has already taken place.  It is not even because they won't like it.  You can kill someone without causing them any pain.  No.  It is wrong because you are snuffing out that creature's potential.  Well, the funny thing about human potential is that such potential exists at the moment of conception.  Even if you do not believe in spirits, even if you define personhood to your liking, you still must see that the same moral law is broken.  A human being with the potential to become something more, to do something great, to change something, to find happiness, has that opportunity snatched away by someone else.  What does their self-awareness or past matter?  It's their future that is being stolen.  If you truly believe humans to be more valuable than animals, and I'm quite certain you do, then it follows that you should believe in preserving their future.

I can't help it if Americans keep changing English words, I'm Scottish but the word means in English English a definable personality. Not a human.

Changing words?  In any form of English, person came first and meant any human, and words such as personality were derived from it much later.  Even the good ol' Oxford Dictionary, researched and published in English England English ;) tells us that the definition of a person is any human being, and only "in later use" is a human with "human rights, dignity, or worth," and mentions nothing about personality.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/141476?rskey=J39se2&result=1#eid

What is unfortunate about a description as given above, where a person is a human entitled to human rights, is that such a definition has been used to justify slavery and genocide.  If I were a fascist or slave-owner, I could simply say, "That creature over there is less than a person, does not deserve human rights, and therefore can be my slave or may be executed for failing to be a person."  It always seems to be the people with the power who define what a person is, to the eternal detriment of the powerless.

You Mormonites believe in God and Angels and Jesus are these not people too or are they something else?

Wrong person to ask, as "Mormonites" believe, God, Jesus, and angels to be of the same "species" so to speak.  We would call all of us people.  Perhaps Warbler or Ric would disagree, but I sure wouldn't.

When aliens and AI arrive in a few years time you will find them not impressed with your narrow definition of 'person'.

So (leaving religion out momentarily) the fact that I include more under the umbrella of 'person' than you do, extending it to include pre-birth humans makes my definition narrow?  Strange.  Ah, but you mean, since my definition means any human being, and yours means creatures with definable personality, which would then include self-aware aliens, then my definition is narrow.  I got it.  Well, were self-aware aliens to visit us, I would certainly be opposed to them getting abortions, whether or not I chose to use the term person or something else (Romulan?) to refer to them.  I'd find the same morals at stake, and they as self-aware creatures to be equally responsible for their unborn offspring.

I know you are capable of believing weird things (not an insult) from weird sources (also not an insult I use weird in a descriptive not a qualitative sense).

But if you are saying that a zygote has unexpressed desires that you wish to defend please extend that defense to the helpless plankton of the world at the mercy of those evil whales.

Not relevant.  See above.  Fitire potential of the human is at stake, not their present self-awareness.  Those plankton, prawns, and other marine life you continue to refer to will never be anything more.  But going with your example, why do you always turn back to zygotes?  A child at 20 weeks gestation is no longer a zygote and has far more advanced capacities, though it is still not self-aware.  I've made several points justifying life past a certain point (including post-birth people), yet you insistently and persistently say they are not people (and logically equally without human rights), yet fail to rebut any of my statements pointing that out.  So the self-awareness of plankton isn't worth saving, but what about the self-awareness of a trout?  If I could successfully push abortions back to no later than 10 weeks, I'd consider it an incomplete victory!

Yes I defend the rights of mice because they have a clear desire to not die or feel pain and express happiness when their goals are achieved. You are happy to eat more sophisticated creatures which makes you inconsistent or at least speciesist. If someone were to offer human meat for sale would you eat it if it came from someone with the mental capacity of a cow?

See above.  Besides, it's not good for you.  And I do believe it to be inherently immoral.  Even if the person died of natural causes, even if we were stuck on an icy mountain and he knew he was dying and told me to use his body for food, I couldn't do it.

Warbler warbed :

 That is completely asinine.

I don't take that as an insult. Donkey's, mules and other equines are far more sophisticated than dogs and you wouldn't eat a dog...would you?

 If I didn't have any other source of food, I'd eat the White House poodle!

Bingowings said:

 As long as they don't feed the self-aware toddlers and up, it's all good.

darth_ender said:

Yes I defend the rights of mice because they have a clear desire to not die or feel pain and express happiness when their goals are achieved. You are happy to eat more sophisticated creatures which makes you inconsistent or at least speciesist. If someone were to offer human meat for sale would you eat it if it came from someone with the mental capacity of a cow?

 

Warbler warbed :

 That is completely asinine.

I don't take that as an insult. Donkey's, mules and other equines are far more sophisticated than dogs and you wouldn't eat a dog...would you?

 would you eat a fetus?  You seem to put less value on the life of a fetus than that of a mouse. 

twister111 said:

darth_ender said: I can see the argument to be made for an embryo not being a child (though I don't agree), but I don't see the sperm comparison as valid. Left to its own devices, a sperm will never develop, never survive independently, never make it past a single cell, is not even genetically human as it is lacking half its chromosomes. Once fused with an ovum, suddenly it multiplies, has the potential to grow into a 100 year-old man or woman, as long as health or the influence of others don't hinder it. It requires life-saving reliance on another human for a time, but it is still genetically a unique human, growing, ultimately with the likelihood of survival on its own.

See this is why it's so hard to have this conversation and why I didn't want to go here in the first place. Not three exchanges in and it's so bent over backwards to mean whatever you want it to mean. You use emotional terms to define "person" when talking about a fetus. Drunk driving, slavery, braindead individuals you bring up in analogies. Then when it's a sperm you get all technical. You forego emotional bonds and focus on chromosomes, cell count, and viability of further life independent of another human. Suddenly the potential life it could lead, if preserved, means nothing and it's all about whether or not it could survive and grow on it's own.

Course in the next comparison you mention a fetus would need "life-saving reliance on another human for a time" as though you didn't just dismiss that as a qualification of "personhood" for a sperm. The argument's already turned so upside down to mean whatever you want.

 I don't get this sperm argument you are trying to make. 

1.  why are you always trying to argruing about the value of a sperm cell and not that of an egg cell?  Logically, whatever value is of a sperm cell, the egg cell should be valued the same

2. why is it so difficult for you to understand that sperm is just a cell?  Yes it has the potential to create a human life if joined with an egg cell, but until then it is just a cell.   There is a big difference between something that has the potential to create a human life, and something that actually is a human life.  It is when the egg and sperm combine that a new separate and unque human life is created.  Again, you don't have cake batter until the ingredients are combined.

Eggs are much more valuable.  Us guys make sperm all the time.

twister111 said:

darth_ender said:

Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival. My children take a toll on my health and billfold. But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives. As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.

First let me say it's fantastic that you want to take care of your children. Unfortunately you unwittingly help my side of the argument by mentioning this. Many guys just walk out on their children or never know they exist and it was just a one night stand to them. In many ways guys get choice by default. Even if a woman gives the kid up for adoption she'd still be forced to go through the 9 months of pregnancy if the choice of abortion was denied to her. For guys the "consequence" of kids could potentially be absolutely nothing. Well nothing but feeling good for a time of course. Only good decent honorable Men try to be good fathers to their children, try to be good husbands, and do right by them. It's a respectable and wonderful choice but it remains a choice.

 Unfortunately,  nothing can change the fact that nature gave the ability to carry the child to term to the mother and not the father.   However unfair it is, it can not be helped.  Please also remember that men who are not decent and honorable, can be forced to pay child support.  Which does lead to an interesting question.  If the father wanted the child aborted and the mother decided not to abort the child, should a father have to pay child support in that case?  Can a father  absolve  himself of all legal responsiblity for the child because he wanted it aborted and the mother said no?  Kinda seems unfair to me that with abortion, a woman has the ability to eliminate all responsiblity for the child, yet the father has no option of avoiding legal responsibility.  

twister111 said:

darth_ender said: I can see the argument to be made for an embryo not being a child (though I don't agree), but I don't see the sperm comparison as valid. Left to its own devices, a sperm will never develop, never survive independently, never make it past a single cell, is not even genetically human as it is lacking half its chromosomes. Once fused with an ovum, suddenly it multiplies, has the potential to grow into a 100 year-old man or woman, as long as health or the influence of others don't hinder it. It requires life-saving reliance on another human for a time, but it is still genetically a unique human, growing, ultimately with the likelihood of survival on its own.

See this is why it's so hard to have this conversation and why I didn't want to go here in the first place. Not three exchanges in and it's so bent over backwards to mean whatever you want it to mean. You use emotional terms to define "person" when talking about a fetus. Drunk driving, slavery, braindead individuals you bring up in analogies. Then when it's a sperm you get all technical. You forego emotional bonds and focus on chromosomes, cell count, and viability of further life independent of another human. Suddenly the potential life it could lead, if preserved, means nothing and it's all about whether or not it could survive and grow on it's own.

Course in the next comparison you mention a fetus would need "life-saving reliance on another human for a time" as though you didn't just dismiss that as a qualification of "personhood" for a sperm. The argument's already turned so upside down to mean whatever you want.

Emotional and logical appeal are valid and time-honored methods of debate.  Using both in itself does not invalidate my argument.  However, if used improperly, then you would be correct to point out flaws in my argument.  However, my use is not incorrect, as you clearly do not understand my point.  Sperm cannot live long on its own.  It will die in a very short time regardless of effort put into saving it.  Provide it with the most ideal environment and it will still only last a few days.  An ovum cannot live on its own.  After ovulating, it will last less than a month in spite of the most favorable circumstances.  But a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, if given the appropriate environment, will continue to grow and thrive in most circumstances.  If you argue that it is utterly reliant on the mother and therefore does not qualify any better than a sperm or egg, then the same could be said of the newborn infant, who simply cannot live without someone providing for his or her every need.

darth_ender said:Thanks for the summaries and for catching my poor phrasing. I'd meant originally to say, If I am not only the only....but I am also the reason," but clearly forgot how I was originally writing my sentence by the time I got to that point. I edited it, but as "If I am the only...and I am the reason," as it's probably less likely to get confused that way by future readers. Thanks for pointing that out :)

No problem.

darth_ender said:I see. It seems still over the top. Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue).

So, what about if the woman in question was born with some genetic illness or born premature? Like it was only through massive medical intervention that she even survived to the point in which she could decide to get an abortion. Would you then be okay with her gaining infinite abortion rights because her initial design was to die when she was a little girl?

How are the two at all connected?  I don't understand how you can claim my analogies are so flawed, then come up with your bizarre and irrelevant analogies and find them better.

darth_ender said:Perhaps a kidney would be best. A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk. And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.

I know, it seems like splitting hairs, but while we're on the topic of refining analogies, let's get them right ;)

RicOlie_2 said:

Yes, the kidney analogy is far more appropriate.

Twister, you exaggerate the risk involved in pregnancy by a hundredfold, and you are forgetting that both ender and I share the belief that abortion is justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Your concerns about C-Section are exaggerated as well, as the procedure carries less risk than you seem to imply. That's how I was born, and my mother had six kids after me, and I know other women who have had C-Sections.

You also ignore the risk of abortion, and in your analogies, don't portray that option as having side-effects. Some women, who have had abortions are not incapable of having children, because their uterus was damaged in the operation. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects it can have, and the loss of a life and a person (not that you consider it a person, but it at least has the potential to become a happy, intelligent, and productive human being.

Comparing the act of sex to uncaring just want fun drunken car rides is already a huge exaggeration in and of itself. I mean unless that's only meant to apply to a person knowingly cheating on a spouse with someone who knows that person's cheating and they intend to bring a life threatening STD back to their faithful spouse and the person in the know has that and knows it.

I think you take things far too literally.  The point was that something was both fun and irresponsible.  Having sex without the expectation of possible children is irresponsible.  I'm sorry, but it is.  Pregnancy is as natural a consequence of sex as smoking leading to cancer.  It might not happen, but you sure are foolish to think that you are immune to it.

Anyways the choice of organ hardly matters at this point. I just didn't want the risks of pregnancy to be entirely ignored.

I'm not ignoring the risks involved with abortion but that would be her choice to deal with. The analogies were already getting hard to follow anyways.

Why isn't it her choice to deal with the risks of sex?

darth_ender said:

Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival. My children take a toll on my health and billfold. But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives. As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.

First let me say it's fantastic that you want to take care of your children. Unfortunately you unwittingly help my side of the argument by mentioning this. Many guys just walk out on their children or never know they exist and it was just a one night stand to them. In many ways guys get choice by default. Even if a woman gives the kid up for adoption she'd still be forced to go through the 9 months of pregnancy if the choice of abortion was denied to her. For guys the "consequence" of kids could potentially be absolutely nothing. Well nothing but feeling good for a time of course. Only good decent honorable Men try to be good fathers to their children, try to be good husbands, and do right by them. It's a respectable and wonderful choice but it remains a choice.

Again, you miss the point, but I'll accept your congratulations and agree that it is completely unfair that men don't share in the responsibility.  I think that men should be held far, far more accountable.  Even if they physically do not provide their bodies for 9 months, they should be financially responsible and give of their time.  It irritates me when men don't take responsibility, and I think they legally should be required to do so.

But my point is not that.  My point is that children are demanding, before and after birth.  But if I am responsible for them now that they are born, why should I not be responsible before their birth?

Though that "less healthy" thing is debatable as it's just as likely that you're more healthy with kids than without. There's not some certain definable physical toll that being a father takes. Can't exactly measure it with c-section scars, stitches, or blood loss the way just giving birth can be.

 No, I guarantee I am less healthy.  I get less sleep, have less time for exercise, prepare faster foods, eat out more often, am more frequently stressed out...it's true it's not measurable in the same manner, but it is very difficult.  At this point, due to my children, you don't even know what I am going through at the very present.  But I can't abort them now.  I must be responsible, now as before their birth.  So must my wife.  Why shouldn't we be?

Oh, I forgot to point out that we lose cells all the time, not just sperm.  But we as organisms remain in spite of constant loss.  But if you kill an unborn child, even when it is merely a few cells, you have destroyed the entire organism.  Sperm and ova are just part of the parent organism.  The zygote is the beginning of the new unique organism.

In such a scenario, the girl was arguably meant to live long enough to reproduce. If God is real, he would have allowed her to live and it wouldn't have gone against his plan for that girl. If God is not real, she was not "meant" to die young, so she would be just as culpable as if she had been born entirely healthy and had been expected to live a long life.

RicOlie_2 said:

If God is real

...

If God is not real

 Stop stealing my lines :p

The answer is an emphatic NO. The uterus is still designed to contain and protect an embryo/fetus regardless of whether the uterus works or not, or whether other failing body functions will soon render it useless. You don't say a person's heart isn't designed to pump blood because the heart didn't develop properly, or that it wasn't designed for that purpose because their lungs are failing. The same goes for any other organ/muscle/limb regardless of whether or not a person would have survived long enough to use it without medical aid.

twister111 said:

darth_ender said: I can see the argument to be made for an embryo not being a child (though I don't agree), but I don't see the sperm comparison as valid. Left to its own devices, a sperm will never develop, never survive independently, never make it past a single cell, is not even genetically human as it is lacking half its chromosomes. Once fused with an ovum, suddenly it multiplies, has the potential to grow into a 100 year-old man or woman, as long as health or the influence of others don't hinder it. It requires life-saving reliance on another human for a time, but it is still genetically a unique human, growing, ultimately with the likelihood of survival on its own.

See this is why it's so hard to have this conversation and why I didn't want to go here in the first place. Not three exchanges in and it's so bent over backwards to mean whatever you want it to mean. You use emotional terms to define "person" when talking about a fetus. Drunk driving, slavery, braindead individuals you bring up in analogies. Then when it's a sperm you get all technical. You forego emotional bonds and focus on chromosomes, cell count, and viability of further life independent of another human. Suddenly the potential life it could lead, if preserved, means nothing and it's all about whether or not it could survive and grow on it's own.

Course in the next comparison you mention a fetus would need "life-saving reliance on another human for a time" as though you didn't just dismiss that as a qualification of "personhood" for a sperm. The argument's already turned so upside down to mean whatever you want.

darth_ender said:Thanks for the summaries and for catching my poor phrasing. I'd meant originally to say, If I am not only the only....but I am also the reason," but clearly forgot how I was originally writing my sentence by the time I got to that point. I edited it, but as "If I am the only...and I am the reason," as it's probably less likely to get confused that way by future readers. Thanks for pointing that out :)

No problem.

darth_ender said:I see. It seems still over the top. Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue).

So, what about if the woman in question was born with some genetic illness or born premature? Like it was only through massive medical intervention that she even survived to the point in which she could decide to get an abortion. Would you then be okay with her gaining infinite abortion rights because her initial design was to die when she was a little girl?

darth_ender said:Perhaps a kidney would be best. A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk. And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.

I know, it seems like splitting hairs, but while we're on the topic of refining analogies, let's get them right ;)

RicOlie_2 said:

Yes, the kidney analogy is far more appropriate.

Twister, you exaggerate the risk involved in pregnancy by a hundredfold, and you are forgetting that both ender and I share the belief that abortion is justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Your concerns about C-Section are exaggerated as well, as the procedure carries less risk than you seem to imply. That's how I was born, and my mother had six kids after me, and I know other women who have had C-Sections.

You also ignore the risk of abortion, and in your analogies, don't portray that option as having side-effects. Some women, who have had abortions are not incapable of having children, because their uterus was damaged in the operation. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects it can have, and the loss of a life and a person (not that you consider it a person, but it at least has the potential to become a happy, intelligent, and productive human being.

Comparing the act of sex to uncaring just want fun drunken car rides is already a huge exaggeration in and of itself. I mean unless that's only meant to apply to a person knowingly cheating on a spouse with someone who knows that person's cheating and they intend to bring a life threatening STD back to their faithful spouse and the person in the know has that and knows it.

Anyways the choice of organ hardly matters at this point. I just didn't want the risks of pregnancy to be entirely ignored.

I'm not ignoring the risks involved with abortion but that would be her choice to deal with. The analogies were already getting hard to follow anyways.

darth_ender said:

Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival. My children take a toll on my health and billfold. But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives. As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.

First let me say it's fantastic that you want to take care of your children. Unfortunately you unwittingly help my side of the argument by mentioning this. Many guys just walk out on their children or never know they exist and it was just a one night stand to them. In many ways guys get choice by default. Even if a woman gives the kid up for adoption she'd still be forced to go through the 9 months of pregnancy if the choice of abortion was denied to her. For guys the "consequence" of kids could potentially be absolutely nothing. Well nothing but feeling good for a time of course. Only good decent honorable Men try to be good fathers to their children, try to be good husbands, and do right by them. It's a respectable and wonderful choice but it remains a choice.

Though that "less healthy" thing is debatable as it's just as likely that you're more healthy with kids than without. There's not some certain definable physical toll that being a father takes. Can't exactly measure it with c-section scars, stitches, or blood loss the way just giving birth can be.

      I'll have a try for an analogy that can be followed.

      Suppose that a teenage girl, out of sheer criminal irresponsiblity, decides to jack a car for a joy-ride. Unbeknownst to the little ditz, someone's little one year-old baby is in the back seat. To escape the cops, she decides to drive deep into a national park and runs out of gas.

      It's freezing cold, no water or food, no telling how many hours or days until help comes by. She discovers the sleeping baby.

      If she doesn't carry the baby next to her warm body several miles to where they can be found, the baby will freeze and die. But this is extremely inconvenient. There is even a slightly increased risk of great harm or death for the car-jackette.

     Fortunately, the rad-femmes and their enlightened backers know exactly what to do.

     Just chuck that little wad of meaningless proto-plasm into a ravine and forget about it.

twister111 said:

There's a lot to respond to here and I've got to do something soon. So I'll just respond to one point now and the rest later.

darth_ender said:

How are the two at all connected?  I don't understand how you can claim my analogies are so flawed, then come up with your bizarre and irrelevant analogies and find them better.

You mentioned the "fulfilling its design" thing in regards to a uterus dealing with a pregnancy. Well I mentioned a scenario where a girl wasn't exactly "meant" to live long enough to reproduce. Whether by genetics or the way she was born she wouldn't "naturally" have lived long enough to even worry about pregnancy. In such a scenario is it okay to grant her unbound abortion rights if she wants it?

 In the very poignant words of my friend Warbler, "That is asinine."  I never said a uterus should fulfill it's purpose.  I'm saying it is designed for pregnancy.  As much as you might want, it will never pump blood for you.  It's designed for a specific function, and therefore the heart analogy was poor.  This example is only exacerbating the flaws of such thinking.

The heart can easily be replaced with a more suitable body part. I figured my point would get across anyway, but yes, the analogy was poor.

The Rad-Femmes were a great band.