Abortion

[cantata]

Yes.
As frightening as it is now in America with their current abortion laws. Only slightly less hypocritical.

Well, okay.

My point was and is that if it were allowed for people to kill born babies, everyone would be afraid for their babies.

 

[cantata]

Think about this for a moment.
This is an incredibly dangerous statement if followed through to its logical conclusion.

I have, actually. It isn't dangerous if you live in the real world.

There are many, many people people living in this world who (as far as we can tell) do not have the mental capacity to value their own life. This includes every single person on the planet for probaly the first year of their life.
If they are not valued by others then according to your argument their life is not valuable. Is this correct?

Yes.

As we are obviously talking about abortion here, it is also implicit in the argument that not valuable = expendable. Or, less euphemistically, those who it is OK to murder if they prove to be an inconvenience.

Well, not quite.

As I said before, can you imagine how frightening it would be if the murder of non-self-valuing persons were permissible? Everyone would fear for their own lives and those of their loved ones, wouldn't they? It's not that hard to understand.

I would also add that I object to suffering, so a painful murder would definitely be unacceptable.

Let's try another argument. A foetus cannot value its own life and its mother does not value its life either. Prospective adoptive parents, however, do value the foetus' life. The foetus life therefore has value.
Therefore by your rationale it is murder if it is killed.
Discuss...

If the value that the mother places on her bodily freedom is greater than the value placed on the foetus by other people, then it is not murder. I would guess that if a woman is willing to have an abortion, this is pretty much always the case. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is likely to cause much greater suffering to her than will be the suffering of any third party if she does have an abortion.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I have, actually. It isn't dangerous if you live in the real world.
Is the real world somewhere where we do not follow arguments through to their logical conclusions? If there is some other real world that I am not aware of can you expand on the idea?

As I said before, can you imagine how frightening it would be if the murder of non-self-valuing persons were permissible?
Yes, I can. It would be as frightening as it is now. You are the one who is suggesting that lack of value is what makes life expendable. Can you see how frightening that is??
Everyone would fear for their own lives and those of their loved ones, wouldn't they? Why would they if they valued their own life and the lives of their loved ones? After all no-one is trying to kill foetuses that are valued are they?
It's not that hard to understand.
True; you are argument is easy to follow. It is, however, hypocritical, which is my reason for pulling you on it.

I would also add that I object to suffering, so a painful murder would definitely be unacceptable.
OK, that's a given. We agree. How "painful" is a term abortion. Or in fact any abortion performed after the foetus has an intact neural tube?



Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is likely to cause much greater suffering to her than will be the suffering of any third party if she does have an abortion.

How could you possibly objectively quantify the suffering in each case??
Do you know many women who desperately want a child and cannot conceive?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Sh*t.
Just read the above carefully if you want to follow my argument. It's in there somewhere. It's just written in the sam format as the original quote.

 

[cantata]

Is the real world somewhere where we do not follow arguments through to their logical conclusions? If there is some other real world that I am not aware of can you expand on the idea?

The real world is one where you don't just grab a single aspect of reality - for example, that things are valuable only insofar as someone confers value on them - and ignore all the other facts about the world in drawing your conclusions.

Yes, I can. It would be as frightening as it is now. You are the one who is suggesting that lack of value is what makes life expendable. Can you see how frightening that is??

No, I can't.

If something doesn't desire to live, and no one else wants it to either, whence comes its value, and why is it important to preserve its life?

Why would they if they valued their own life and the lives of their loved ones? After all no-one is trying to kill foetuses that are valued are they?

No, indeed - no one is trying to kill valued foetuses, which is why it's perfectly acceptable to kill non-valued ones. Abortion is an elective procedure. The legality of abortion does not make it legal to tie someone up and force them to have an abortion.

With born people, it's different. Suppose it was acceptable to kill people who were mentally damaged to the point where they could no longer value their own life, and who had no relatives or friends who were bothered about them remaining alive. I would imagine that there would be at least some people in the world who would be rather afraid that if they were to end up in such a state, someone would kill them. There are some people in the world who don't like the idea of being euthanized if they are in a permanent vegetative state. I dare say that those people would be unhappy with permitting people to kill unvalued, unvaluing persons.

Further, how can you tell if a born person values their own life or not?

Besides, why would you kill such people? I think it would be a rather unhealthy person who decided they wanted to.

True; you are argument is easy to follow. It is, however, hypocritical, which is my reason for pulling you on it.

How is it in the slightest bit hypocritical? None of your responses have levelled a charge of hypocrisy at me.

OK, that's a given. We agree. How "painful" is a term abortion. Or in fact any abortion performed after the foetus has an intact neural tube?

I don't know.

I am very much in favour of making abortions as painless as possible for mother and foetus.

How could you possibly objectively quantify the suffering in each case??
Do you know many women who desperately want a child and cannot conceive?

Yes. I also know that being forced to give birth to an unwanted baby amounts to deliberate physical and emotional torture.

 

[TeddyKGB]

To TeddyKGB,
Well that doesn’t really address my point, a zygote is still the product of conception and I fail to see how the start of human life can be called fickle, unless one sees nothing wrong with terminating it.

Conception is just not a fantastically special event as far as nature is concerned. Possibly twice as many zygotes manifest as implantations occur.
This is what I mean when I say conception is fickle (although that might be the wrong word in retrospect); conceptions occur even where catastrophic genetic mutations are utterly dooming to development.

An odd concern for those who terminate pregnancies, but not odd for those who see those pregnancies are really lives.

There is simply more at stake here than single-issue politics. The matter cannot be forced into a box labeled "zygote = life" and sealed up, and any attempts to approach it from that angle will fail.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

The real world is one where you don't just grab a single aspect of reality - for example, that things are valuable only insofar as someone confers value on them - and ignore all the other facts about the world in drawing your conclusions.
Either the statement that things (including life) is only valuable insofar as someone confers value on them is true or it is not. If you are using this argument to defend abortion then why is it wrong extend the argument to include the killing of any unvalued life?



No, I can't.
I can.

If something doesn't desire to live, and no one else wants it to either, whence comes its value, and why is it important to preserve its life?
According to you argument it isn't. I wish to know whence the the double-standard, or hypocrisy, for people other than foeti who can not be known to value their own life and no-one else values it either? Why is this any more frightening??



No, indeed - no one is trying to kill valued foetuses, which is why it's perfectly acceptable to kill non-valued ones. Abortion is an elective procedure. The legality of abortion does not make it legal to tie someone up and force them to have an abortion.
Agreed.

With born people, it's different. Suppose it was acceptable to kill people who were mentally damaged to the point where they could no longer value their own life, and who had no relatives or friends who were bothered about them remaining alive. I would imagine that there would be at least some people in the world who would be rather afraid that if they were to end up in such a state, someone would kill them. There are some people in the world who don't like the idea of being euthanized if they are in a permanent vegetative state. I dare say that those people would be unhappy with permitting people to kill unvalued, unvaluing persons.
Except of course if said persons are foeti. In that case even if someone other than their mother values them very much, they can still be killed. Hence, hypocrisy.

Further, how can you tell if a born person values their own life or not?
It about as difficult as it is to differentiate between a foetus's desire to live at 28 weeks gestation as when it is 3 months post natal.
Answer you can't tell.
Is this supposed to help your argument in some way?

Besides, why would you kill such people? I think it would be a rather unhealthy person who decided they wanted to.
I don't know why. Possibly because they present an inconvenience that a lifetime of care would involve?



How is it in the slightest bit hypocritical? None of your responses have levelled a charge of hypocrisy at me.
Vide supra.



I don't know.
Neither does anyone else. Is that frightening?

I am very much in favour of making abortions as painless as possible for mother and foetus.
Good. Impossible to tell re the foeutus unfortuantely; and guess what? There isn't a whole heap money going into researching this either. Who'd have thought it?



Yes. I also know that being forced to give birth to an unwanted baby amounts to deliberate physical and emotional torture.

So can you tell me how we can objectively quantify suffering in both the cases discussed?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Well, okay.

My point was and is that if it were allowed for people to kill born babies, everyone would be afraid for their babies.

Why?
According to your argument only those babies who were not able to value there own life yet and who no-one else valued either would be in any danger.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Why?
According to your argument only those babies who were not able to value there own life yet and who no-one else valued either would be in any danger.

As we are obviously talking about abortion here, it is also implicit in the argument that not valuable = expendable. Or, less euphemistically, those who it is OK to murder if they prove to be an inconvenience.

You seem to be missing a key difference between abortion (which kills an unborn human) and the killing of a born human - the unborn human is living inside and off of a born woman. Her life, rights, and opinions must also be taken into consideration.

Making abortion illegal is unethical, in my opinion, because it takes away the right to control their own bodies from pregnant women. No born human has the right to use another human's body against that human's will. But making abortion illegal would give unborn humans this special right.

From my point of view, a person's right to control their own body trumps the right of any other person to use their body (without their permission).

 

[angellica]

You seem to be missing a key difference between abortion (which kills an unborn human) and the killing of a born human - the unborn human is living inside and off of a born woman. Her life, rights, and opinions must also be taken into consideration.

Making abortion illegal is unethical, in my opinion, because it takes away the right to control their own bodies from pregnant women. No born human has the right to use another human's body against that human's will. But making abortion illegal would give unborn humans this special right.

From my point of view, a person's right to control their own body trumps the right of any other person to use their body (without their permission).

I agree that a person has a right to control their own body. A woman can control herself when it comes to having sex. She doesn't have to have sex at all (rape excluded). If she does choose to have sex, she can choose to take birth control. She can also choose to use condoms, a diaphragm (?), or that ring thing. They have several facilities that provide free condoms to people. Now, if she chooses to bypass all that, then that is her choice and she should deal with the consequences. It really is about consequences. People want to do whatever they want because it feels good, but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I say be responsible and "man up" and deal with the mess you make. But the choice comes at the time you have sex, not afterwords when you realize you don't want a kid.

 

[Skaloop]

I agree that a person has a right to control their own body. A woman can control herself when it comes to having sex. She doesn't have to have sex at all (rape excluded). If she does choose to have sex, she can choose to take birth control. She can also choose to use condoms, a diaphragm (?), or that ring thing. They have several facilities that provide free condoms to people. Now, if she chooses to bypass all that, then that is her choice and she should deal with the consequences. It really is about consequences. People want to do whatever they want because it feels good, but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I say be responsible and "man up" and deal with the mess you make. But the choice comes at the time you have sex, not afterwords when you realize you don't want a kid.

What if she chose to use all available precautions and still got pregnant?

Even if she insisted on no birth control while having sex, that still doesn't negate her rights to control her own body.

Just as with my home; I can choose to have the best locks and security system available. Or I can choose to leave my door wide open while I am away. But neither option permits somebody to steal my belongings.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I agree that a person has a right to control their own body. A woman can control herself when it comes to having sex. She doesn't have to have sex at all (rape excluded). If she does choose to have sex, she can choose to take birth control. She can also choose to use condoms, a diaphragm (?), or that ring thing. They have several facilities that provide free condoms to people. Now, if she chooses to bypass all that, then that is her choice and she should deal with the consequences. It really is about consequences. People want to do whatever they want because it feels good, but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I say be responsible and "man up" and deal with the mess you make. But the choice comes at the time you have sex, not afterwords when you realize you don't want a kid.

So you want people to view children as a punishment for having sex? Do you view children as a punishment? I don't.

You do not get to define what is or isn't responsible. From my viewpoint, abortion can be a responsible choice. But what really matter is what the couple involved with the unintentional pregnancy think is the best choice for them. We don't have to think that they made the best choice - but I think that they are the best people to choose, rather than the government.

And, frankly, I don't see how having vaginal sex (even unprotected vaginal sex - which I view as a very stupid move if a couple is not actively trying to get pregnant) can be used to remove human rights from the pregnant woman. Her rights over her own body trumps the right of any other human to use her body, as I see it.

 

[angellica]

For those who are okay with abortion, I have a question. If we could somehow prove that the unborn baby is a baby and not a fetus, would you still be okay with abortion? I mean, is your feeling on the matter based on your supposition that the unborn baby is a fetus (or whatever word you want to describe it as)?

 

[angellica]

You seem to be missing a key difference between abortion (which kills an unborn human) and the killing of a born human - the unborn human is living inside and off of a born woman. Her life, rights, and opinions must also be taken into consideration.

Regarding the bolded portion - yes, the baby is living inside of her and off of her, but it was not the baby's choice to do so, it was the woman's when she had sex. The baby didn't ask to live off of her. The baby didn't weasel his/her way into her body without her permission. She allowed it when she had sex, so she must deal with the consequences.

 

[angellica]

What if she chose to use all available precautions and still got pregnant?

Even if she insisted on no birth control while having sex, that still doesn't negate her rights to control her own body.

Just as with my home; I can choose to have the best locks and security system available. Or I can choose to leave my door wide open while I am away. But neither option permits somebody to steal my belongings.

Everyone knows that birth control and/or condoms are not 100% foolproof. That is the risk you take when you have sex.

As for your home, that is your property. A child is not your property like your home is. You can tear down your house or burn it down if you want, but not your kid.

 

[Skaloop]

Everyone knows that birth control and/or condoms are not 100% foolproof. That is the risk you take when you have sex.

As for your home, that is your property. A child is not your property like your home is. You can tear down your house or burn it down if you want, but not your kid.

You misunderstood my analogy. I am not saying a child is property. I am saying a woman's body is her "property", and she has rights over that property that nobody is legally allowed to infringe upon.

Answer me this; if a woman leaves her front door open while she's at work, and comes home to finds a homeless person living in her house and eating her food, is she allowed to kick him out?

 

[angellica]

You misunderstood my analogy. I am not saying a child is property. I am saying a woman's body is her "property", and she has rights over that property that nobody is legally allowed to infringe upon.

Answer me this; if a woman leaves her front door open while she's at work, and comes home to finds a homeless person living in her house and eating her food, is she allowed to kick him out?

Yes. The difference is that he is not there as a direct result of her decisions. In the case of a pregnant woman, the child did not end up there uninvited - the child ended up there because she decided to have sex. It's her decision and her consequences that she should be prepared to deal with.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Yes. The difference is that he is not there as a direct result of her decisions. In the case of a pregnant woman, the child did not end up there uninvited - the child ended up there because she decided to have sex. It's her decision and her consequences that she should be prepared to deal with.

And she has, by deciding to have an abortion.

*

 

[Skaloop]

Yes. The difference is that he is not there as a direct result of her decisions. In the case of a pregnant woman, the child did not end up there uninvited - the child ended up there because she decided to have sex. It's her decision and her consequences that she should be prepared to deal with.

It was uninvited if she doesn't want it there, regardless of the precautions she may or may not have taken. Even if it was invited, that also does not negate one's rights over their person and property. If I invite someone into my home, I can kick them out for any reason because it is my home, not the intruder's. Just as it is the woman's body, not the fetus'.

Also, making the decision to have an abortion is dealing with the consequences.

 

[PsychMJC]

Yes. The difference is that he is not there as a direct result of her decisions. In the case of a pregnant woman, the child did not end up there uninvited - the child ended up there because she decided to have sex. It's her decision and her consequences that she should be prepared to deal with.

Yes he is.. she left the door open. She decided (or forgot) to lock the door. It was open. He came in. It was her mistake, her decision, she should be prepared to deal with it.

The fetus is uninvited, unless the couple was actively trying to get pregnant. The fetus might be a CONSEQUENCE of sex, but that in no way means it was invited.