News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Abortion Opinions

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Ali

Haha Wrath, I thought this thread was not for debate! 

Anyway:

QuoteAt what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
To my mind, conception is the only "demarcation" that doesn't seem completely arbitrary.

QuoteIf the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
No.  Sperm has the potential to be life, but I don't think that we should outlaw the spilling of sperm outside of a vagina a la the Church.

QuoteDoes the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Yes.  I get all of the examples that you gave, such as the elderly being a burden on society, but I think that all of your examples are imperfect, as each of them represents a burden of time and money, but not on the person's actual body and organs.  A better example would be, if you need a kidney to survive, should I be obligated by law to give you one to save your life?

QuoteIs abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
Between the mother and her doctor.

For all that I have written, I am actually not particularly "pro-abortion."  I do think that abortion ends a human life.  I don't think that's a good thing.  But I also see it as a nuanced and complicated issue; and not one that I want to see decided by politicians to satisfy a political agenda.  I believe that if we want to lower the amount of abortions performed in our country, we have to be prepared to put our money where our mouths are and support programs that support women and children; such as universal health care and affordable child care.  Hopefully if we can reduce some of the financial burdens that cause women to opt for abortion, more women will feel that they are able to continue their pregnancies.  But even then, there will still be some women that opt for abortion because they simply don't want to carry a pregnancy to term, and I accept that.  Each woman should have the ultimate agency over what happens to her body.


DeterminedJuliet

I agree with Ali, I don't think anyone thinks that abortion is a desirable outcome or a good form of birth control. I doubt even the staunchest supporter is like "yay! I get to have an abortion today!" 
"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.

Siz

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 12:34:29 PM
I honestly can't say that I understand what you're trying to say in that first block.

However, my beliefs here have nothing to do with prejudice, I don't see how the word applies at all. Are we making a murderer's life worse when we send him to jail? If so, I would be proud to do so. I've already pointed out that we do not let people do just whatever they want, and I won't discuss this further.

Also, there is nothing wrong with advocating for against something even though it doesn't affect you, as long as you have valid reasoning. 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.

I'm trying to illustrate that I consider the value of a life to be subjective. And that I respect your own judgement on the value of a life to the extent that it does not impinge on my own wants and needs.

Prejudice is EXACTLY the right word. Because you presuppose that life has inherent value, your desire to affect my life based on an erroneous assumption is prejudiced. The difference between my prejudice and yours is that mine affects no self-aware person.

With regard to 'Brangelina', the gay-marriage issue evidently DOES affect them; they obviously have an emotional investment in the concept which is why they're making a stand - and good for them.

Quote from: Wrath
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.

Luckily for me, the law in the UK agrees with me on the issue of abortion. Our legal system has decided that the 'inherent value' assertion has its limits when weighed against other more tangible needs and wants. And quite right too. We choose to support the elderly and infirm, and nurse the sick, and prolong life-support because there is an emotional investment in these people. We care for the individuals - be they granny, mum, brother, son, friend, neighbour, swarn enemy - their existence affects us. It is not the life we are saving per-se, it's the sentient that the life sustains. Why do we eventually make a decision to unplug the life-support? Because the empty life is meaningless. When we have lost hope of recovering the person, the body is just a burden.

Quote from: Wrath
We deny plenty of people their various choices. We deny sociopaths the right to murder, pedophiles the right to molest, rapists the right to rape, etc. This is the very definition of a society, and I think that it is a total cop-out to always return to "it's the mother's choice".

These people have earned the ire of society by their insistance on impeding our own journeys through life - we must protect ourselves.  The zygote isn't self-aware and didn't assert a desire to be become alive. The baby isn't self-aware and cannot conceptualise life or death and will not feel sadness at its own destruction. If you feel sad about abortion then don't have an abortion. Me? I can live with it.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

DeterminedJuliet

Yep, pretty much agreeing with everything Siz has said 100%

... so,

has this turned into a debate yet? Can I continue making points, or should we wait for other people to respond with their initial stances?
"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.

Ali

I think we should be allowed to debate since Wrath already started debating.   ;D  (I don't blame you Wrath, I find it hard to hold my tongue when someone says something I disagree with too.  I just think it's funny that you made the "no debating" rule and then promptly broke it.  :P ;D)

Wrath

#20
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
I'm trying to illustrate that I consider the value of a life to be subjective. And that I respect your own judgement on the value of a life to the extent that it does not impinge on my own wants and needs.

Prejudice is EXACTLY the right word. Because you presuppose that life has inherent value, your desire to affect my life based on an erroneous assumption is prejudiced. The difference between my prejudice and yours is that mine affects no self-aware person.

With regard to 'Brangelina', the gay-marriage issue evidently DOES affect them; they obviously have an emotional investment in the concept which is why they're making a stand - and good for them.
If you view the value of life to be subjective, than you cannot pretend that the value of anybody else's life is less than the value that you place on your own. They should be given their own chance to decide the value of their life, not be forced to accept yours.

And I do not presuppose that life has an inherent value, I believe that it does for various reasons, and I see examples of how society believes it does. That is not prejudice.

Even if I did accept that 'Brangelina' refused to marry for nothing other than that they were emotionally invested in the concept, which I don't -- THAT is an erroneous assumption on your part -- I could feel the same emotional investment towards abortion.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
Luckily for me, the law in the UK agrees with me on the issue of abortion. Our legal system has decided that the 'inherent value' assertion has its limits when weighed against other more tangible needs and wants. And quite right too. We choose to support the elderly and infirm, and nurse the sick, and prolong life-support because there is an emotional investment in these people. We care for the individuals - be they granny, mum, brother, son, friend, neighbour, swarn enemy - their existence affects us. It is not the life we are saving per-se, it's the sentient that the life sustains. Why do we eventually make a decision to unplug the life-support? Because the empty life is meaningless. When we have lost hope of recovering the person, the body is just a burden.
Your 'legal system has decided that the "inherent value" assertion has its limits when weighed against' WHAT? You didn't name anything that weighs against the inherent value of life. I don't see how examples of where we sustain life are good examples of how a fetus is not life. The elderly with dementia and the mentally ill are not necessarily self-aware, you are not sustaining "sentience" by your own definition. And you certainly "have hope" of seeing the fetus develop into a person.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
These people have earned the ire of society by their insistance on impeding our own journeys through life - we must protect ourselves.  The zygote isn't self-aware and didn't assert a desire to be become alive. The baby isn't self-aware and cannot conceptualise life or death and will not feel sadness at its own destruction. If you feel sad about abortion then don't have an abortion. Me? I can live with it.
You cannot conceptualize your own death just when you are asleep. Does that mean that it would be acceptable for me to murder you in your sleep? 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.

Wrath

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 10, 2012, 04:38:05 PM
... so,

has this turned into a debate yet? Can I continue making points, or should we wait for other people to respond with their initial stances?
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 04:43:12 PM
I think we should be allowed to debate since Wrath already started debating.   ;D  (I don't blame you Wrath, I find it hard to hold my tongue when someone says something I disagree with too.  I just think it's funny that you made the "no debating" rule and then promptly broke it.  :P ;D)
Yes, go ahead ladies... Haha. I do deserve a little preemptive strike, do I not? I am going to be overwhelmed with more posts than I can handle now. Besides, consider it an advantage -- you get to start with all my beliefs on the table.

:D

I'll be out for a while. See yas!

Ali

Okay, since we're allowed to start the debate now....

Wrath - some questions to lead you into my way of thinking:

1.  Do you feel that not doing what it takes to keep someone alive is the same as murder?  For example: if someone is unable to breathe on their own without a ventilator, is taking them off a ventilator "murder"?
2.  Do you agree that each person has a right to their own body?  To return to the example that I gave before, if you need a kidney to survive, should I be legally obligated to give you the use of mine?

Crow

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.
Retired member.

Buddy

At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?

    I consider a fetus life the moment it can live on its own.

If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?

    Not really. I mean, a woman goes through her menstral cycle, which unless the egg is fertilized is discarded.

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.

Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?

    While I feel like it is ultimately the mother's choice, the father has a right to have a say in what happens to the fetus.
Strange but not a stranger<br /><br />I love my car more than I love most people.

Siz

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
If you view the value of life to be subjective, than you cannot pretend that the value of anybody else's life is less than the value that you place on your own. They should be given their own chance to decide the value of their life, not be forced to accept yours.
I 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.

Quote from: WrathAnd I do not presuppose that life has an inherent value, I believe that it does for various reasons, and I see examples of how society believes it does. That is not prejudice.
Believe, presuppose... what's the practical difference? You are acting on the assumption. That is prejudice. Read a dictionary.

QuoteEven if I did accept that 'Brangelina' refused to marry for nothing other than that they were emotionally invested in the concept, which I don't -- THAT is an erroneous assumption on your part -- I could feel the same emotional investment towards abortion.
My 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?

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...


Quote from: WrathI don't see how examples of where we sustain life are good examples of how a fetus is not life. The elderly with dementia and the mentally ill are not necessarily self-aware, you are not sustaining "sentience" by your own definition. And you certainly "have hope" of seeing the fetus develop into a person.
I said a foetus IS life. Just not self-aware or of any inherent value. And certainly of no use to me.
I only hope it develops into a baby if I want a baby. If someone else wants a baby and that doesn't affect me negatively I'm genuinely happy for them. If they lose the baby and they're sad, that's rotten for them, but I really couldn't care less either way. Why should I - I have no emotional investment - or any other kind of investment.

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.


Just for the record, I'm only debating my position with you - there's no malice here... ;D

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Siz

Quote from: Wrath

I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain. Vegans believe that slaughtering animals is wrong and most advocate strongly against it. Slavery was ended by people who were not slaves. There are many, many examples of this. This may be a different case because the fetus is a physical burden on the mother's body, but as of yet I have not seen how this outweighs the right to life.

Oh, no, he mentioned morals. Someone tie Stevil up and delete the thread before he notices.  :D

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Ali

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:28:50 PM
Quote from: Wrath

I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain. Vegans believe that slaughtering animals is wrong and most advocate strongly against it. Slavery was ended by people who were not slaves. There are many, many examples of this. This may be a different case because the fetus is a physical burden on the mother's body, but as of yet I have not seen how this outweighs the right to life.

Oh, no, he mentioned morals. Someone tie Stevil up and delete the thread before he notices.  :D

Hehehehehehehehe :D  *Pokes Stevil in the ribs*  Look over there, Stevil!  What is that?  Better go investigate.....

Genericguy

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?


Wrath

Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 05:03:49 PM
Wrath - some questions to lead you into my way of thinking:

1.  Do you feel that not doing what it takes to keep someone alive is the same as murder?  For example: if someone is unable to breathe on their own without a ventilator, is taking them off a ventilator "murder"?
2.  Do you agree that each person has a right to their own body?  To return to the example that I gave before, if you need a kidney to survive, should I be legally obligated to give you the use of mine?

1. Taking somebody off of a ventilator isn't an example of not doing what it takes to keep somebody alive, it's an example of doing what it takes to kill somebody. The difference here is inaction versus action -- however, in the case of the fetus it requires inaction to live and action to die. I believe your second example is a better question, so I'll just move on to that.

2. I do not believe that you should be legally obligated to save me with one of your kidneys -- because you are not in any way responsible for me. A fetus comes into existence because of the actions of a man and a woman -- and they are therefore responsible for it. Let me give an example of my own -- Let's say that you and I were born together, attached as Siamese twins, and we were perfectly capable of surviving that way. Then a doctor comes along and says to you "I can remove your twin from you, but it will kill him." Does your right to your body allow you to merely discard mine?