News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Abortion Opinions

Started by Wrath, July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wrath

Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 05:14:27 PM
Wrath have you ever collected flowers, squashed a bug, or eaten meat? Each of those is the equivalent to the act of an abortion depending on the cycle of pregnancy, maybe you have never done any of the above and if so this question doesn't stand, but if you have then why is the destruction of those lives alright and abortion isn't? There is a reason why there is a cut of point for an abortion.
I would agree that the destruction of those lives is alright, but they are not equivalent to abortion. A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either -- and while I think that squashing bugs should be avoided where unnecessary, in some cases it entirely cannot be avoided. Eating meat has been seen as necessary to our survival for a long time -- but that may be less and less true today. I believe that some day we will all be either vegans or eating synthetic meat.

Wrath

Quote from: Budhorse4 on July 10, 2012, 05:33:32 PM
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?

    Yes. Why should the person who has to carry the fetus be forced to keep it term. It is like being given a heavy box and them saying that it is illegal to put the box down.
I disagree. People are aware of the inherent risk that they will get pregnant from having sex, and yet I'm sure that most aborted fetuses are the result of unprotected sex, despite this awareness. I would equate it more to somebody signing a contract accepting the risks of something and then suing when those risks happened to occur.

DeterminedJuliet

#32
Your conjoined twin examples doesn't really apply since conjoined twins are both sentient. Or, at least, in your example I assume that they are. If a person had a twin attached to them and it had no consciousness whatsoever, I would see no problem in removing it. If a "person" can't think, feel, or act, why should they be allowed to drain resources from another human?

You also talk about a baby growing as though it's happening in a test-tube. It's not. It's happening in a person. The mother's personhood is not an abstraction about "potentiality", it's real and completely inarguable. She does feel. She does think. She does interact with the world around her. Does that carry no weight to you? Why? because based on an abstract idea you've given a cluster of cells the "life" trump card? She should have to undergo any amount of suffering or damage because of a tiny cluster of cells' potential?

Having a baby isn't "no big deal" just because women do it frequently. Having a baby changes a woman's body forever. When was the last time you have your body permanently altered against your will? When I gave birth to my son, I broke my tail bone and sustained second degree tearing. Breaking bones is unusual, but tearing is very, very common. When's the last time you've had your genitals torn apart to the degree that they need sowing back together against your will?

This is to say nothing about the fact that some women experience postpartum depression, psychosis, incontinence, mastitis, and a host of other impermanent and permanent changes.  

The only time a woman should ever go through pregnancy and delivery is when she wants to. If it's a choice, it can be a beautiful, powerful experience. If it's NOT a choice, it's barbaric to impose on someone. The "when does life begin" philosophical gray area is simply not concrete enough to justify a very real repercussion on an unwilling participant.

"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Genericguy

#33
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 05:14:27 PM
Wrath have you ever collected flowers, squashed a bug, or eaten meat? Each of those is the equivalent to the act of an abortion depending on the cycle of pregnancy, maybe you have never done any of the above and if so this question doesn't stand, but if you have then why is the destruction of those lives alright and abortion isn't? There is a reason why there is a cut of point for an abortion.
I would agree that the destruction of those lives is alright,but they are not equivalent to abortion.  A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either -- and while I think that squashing bugs should be avoided where unnecessary, in some cases it entirely cannot be avoided. Eating meat has been seen as necessary to our survival for a long time -- but that may be less and less true today. I believe that some day we will all be either vegans or eating synthetic meat.

They are indeed equivalent to abortion if we remove our opinions of potential life significance. In its current state, a cluster of cells is nothing more than a cluster of cells. Unless you can explain why a persons opinion of potential life significance should be considered significant in the first place, then the default position will remain in the hands of the host.

Wrath

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMI don't believe anyones life has value beyond how it affects me or those close to me, or those I rely on to enjoy my life and exist in society. And I dont expect anything less from anyone else in valuing mine. If someones actions are an impedement to me I will try to eliminate it or them from my sphere of experience. I'd stop at anything illegal (for which I'm likely to be caught) because I'm at the mercy of social and legal law. I don't value a foetus' life because it doesn't affect me. I've had an abortion (so to speak). I didn't mourn its death because I didnt love it, like it or want it. I was totally indifferent to it. In fact I saw a scan of it in my partners tummy before the abortion. It really didn't mean anything to me.
I'm not forcing value judgements on anyones life. I am asking that I be left alone with reciprocal respect to live mine.

If you claim that you will do whatever you please short of "anything illegal (for which I'm likely to be caught)", then I will merely take this to mean that you are too lazy to consider the ethics of anything and ignore your valuation of the fetus's life, given that you've left it up to everybody else to determine the law and force you to adhere to it.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMMy assumption was that you were telling the truth when you said:
"Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie refused to get married until gay marriage is legal, even though neither is gay -- something that I've always admired".
Does that not qualify as emotional investment?
You do feel the same emotional investment toward abortion don't you?

I was telling the truth, but that is not what you are assuming. You are assuming that somebody has to be emotionally invested in something to support it or oppose it. I would argue instead that plenty of us are instead emotionally invested in trying to do what is right in all aspects of life.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PM
Quote from: Wrath
Your 'legal system has decided that the "inherent value" assertion has its limits when weighed against' WHAT?
The mothers ability to look after her baby, the health of the baby, the prognosis for disease, the percieved quality of life of the baby, the desire of the mother not to have a baby...

I did not say that there were no exceptions to my assessment of abortion -- I do believe that the health of the baby and the mother both can determine that an abortion is either necessary or acceptable. However, unless the baby's quality of life is actually inherently bad, like a life of pain, then the solution is not to abort it, it is for society to help improve its quality of life. The desire of the mother not to have a baby is not an acceptable excuse for termination.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PM
Quote from: Wrath
I continue to hold that simply viewing something in its current state is a one-dimensional way of thinking and the fetus has a future that you can deny it.
One-dimentional? I say pragmatic.

If you consider ignoring the passage of time to be pragmatic, then that's your handicap. Just take a look at the financial system -- everything is traded based on future expectations.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMJust for the record, I'm only debating my position with you - there's no malice here... ;D

Oh, don't worry... I sound pretty serious sometimes but I'm secretly enjoying myself.   :D

Wrath

Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?

I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?

Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?

I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?

Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".

WTF how is a pregnant woman NOT a first party in a pregnancy? Define pregnancy without a uterus, please.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Wrath

#37
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 10, 2012, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?

I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?

Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".

WTF how is a pregnant woman NOT a first party in a pregnancy? Define pregnancy without a uterus, please.

Of course she is first party to her pregnancy, but she is not first party to the fetus's life. It deserves to be given the opportunity to determine the value of its own life.

Also, I really don't appreciate it when everybody starts responding to my responses to other people. It's hard enough to debate five people at once, much less debate five people five times at once. I'm not going to respond to these often.

Edit: For that matter, I'm taking a break. See you all later. Try not to grace me with more than five lengthy posts.

Crow

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:28:29 PM
A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either -- and while I think that squashing bugs should be avoided where unnecessary, in some cases it entirely cannot be avoided. Eating meat has been seen as necessary to our survival for a long time -- but that may be less and less true today. I believe that some day we will all be either vegans or eating synthetic meat.

Flora is more important to life on this earth than anything a human has ever been able to produced, same for bugs as they help in the reproductive process of said flora. We don't actually need to eat meat to survive as there isn't anything that is unique to it, we eat it because it tastes good and in terms of production is easier than fruit and veg.

What's your view on spilling the seed or periods, it all has the potential for life. And what about women that need to have abortions due to medical reasons, i.e, fallopian tube pregnancies. Or if a woman has aids or hiv and know it will be passed onto the child.
Retired member.

Wrath

#39
Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 08:01:22 PM
Flora is more important to life on this earth than anything a human has ever been able to produced, same for bugs as they help in the reproductive process of said flora. We don't actually need to eat meat to survive as there isn't anything that is unique to it, we eat it because it tastes good and in terms of production is easier than fruit and veg.

I don't particularly disagree with anything said here, except that "it tastes good" is not an acceptable excuse for slaughtering animals of questionable sentience. I don't believe any of this contradicts my point of view.

Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 08:01:22 PMWhat's your view on spilling the seed or periods, it all has the potential for life. And what about women that need to have abortions due to medical reasons, i.e, fallopian tube pregnancies. Or if a woman has aids or hiv and know it will be passed onto the child.

Sperm and eggs are a different story. As it is, they do not have the potential for life, you have to give it to them -- and we do. I am merely opposed to giving it then taking it away.

I am not opposed to abortions in the case of health risks.

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 10, 2012, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?

I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?

Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".

WTF how is a pregnant woman NOT a first party in a pregnancy? Define pregnancy without a uterus, please.

Of course she is first party to her pregnancy, but she is not first party to the fetus's life. It deserves to be given the opportunity to determine the value of its own life.

Also, I really don't appreciate it when everybody starts responding to my responses to other people. It's hard enough to debate five people at once, much less debate five people five times at once. I'm not going to respond to these often.

Sorry, but it's not a private conversation and, to be frank, I find a lot of what you say to be pretty inflammatory. ThinkAnarchy started a pretty controversial thread on anarcho-libertarianism and he was able to keep up with the sea of dissenting opinions. You can do it too, I have faith in you. Besides, you didn't respond to my post.

My point is that a zygote (since you insist that we use the "proper" term. Fetus is only medically appropriate after a certain amount of time) does NOT have a life and only exists as related to a pregnancy. You insist on conflating potentiality with life itself, but the woman who owns the uterus that the zygote is dependent on is absolutely an agent in this. If she wasn't an agent, you could remove the woman, and the uterus and the zygote's "potential" would remain. The "potential" (and, by your argument, "life") is completely dependent on the pregnancy.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Crow

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:08:45 PM
I don't believe any of this contradicts my point of view.

That's not what I was trying to do, I was trying to gauge your perception of abortion from a wider perspective outside of the human experience.

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:08:45 PM
I am not opposed to abortions in the case of health risks.

Is it just direct health risks? What about mental health risks? If so where do you then cross the line at what is a mental health risk?

(Disagree with the statement about sperm and eggs not having the potential for life as by there very definition they do, but that's neither hear nor there really.)
Retired member.

Tom62

I think all of us are more in favour of birth control and a healthy and good sex education than abortion. That some religious folks think that all three are bad is not our problem, because we are atheists. OK, that still doesn't stop all abortions. But, hopefully some unwanted pregnancies are avoided, because people should know what the risks are of having unprotected sex.

I hate abortions. Not because I'm pro-life, but because it is a horrible decision to make. it could hunt the women/girls minds for years to come. I know a woman who did it when she was a student. Her boyfriend died in car accident and she could not cope with her unborn twins. 30 years later she is still not sure whether she made the right decision or not.  She made a very rational decision at that time and I respect her for that.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Stevil

#43
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
Hehehehehehehehe :D  *Pokes Stevil in the ribs*  Look over there, Stevil!  What is that?  Better go investigate.....
I'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)


....but, this is the point of contention here.
Wrath assumes it is the purpose of government to define and enforce a moral society, thus he is against all forms of "murder" and for government enforcement.

He has stated "Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong" which I think is a false perception of the law.

I would never support a government whom want to enforce a moral belief system onto us, as most of us here think morality is either subjective or non existent then the question is, whose morality is it that the government is going to enforce on us?

I simply want society to be safe and stable. A mother aborting her fetus does not make society dangerous for me. Therefore I think the decision is out of the government's hands as it does not meet the purpose of a government. The responsibility falls onto the mother alone.
I am happy for people to try and convince her not to abort, but they must be respectful and not forceful, ultimately it is her choice.

Dobermonster

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:08:45 PM

I am not opposed to abortions in the case of health risks.

Here are my thoughts around this point. Pregnancy and birth have inherent health risks. Women can develop diabetes, high blood pressure, are at increased risk for blood clots, and their bodies are very much changed by enduring a pregnancy. The risk of death during delivery is very low now, but it still happens. Even with a normal pregnancy and delivery, uterine and bladder prolapse risk jumps, and having children is a common cause of urinary incontinence. Does all the above not count as "abortion in case of health risks"? Is it right to make a women take those risks whether she wants to or not, based on the potential life (which is not guaranteed) of the embryo or fetus?

Of course, there is an over-arcing issue of morality here. We're arguing what is wrong and what is right, but what is the argument that morality is objective and should be applied universally? That's too much for this thread, but there have been some threads on the subject that you might find interesting. However, until a case can be made for using morality as a foundation for arguing abortion, I think the more objective ground of arguing whether or not it is harmful to humanity or society would be more accepted.