'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

[lightgigantic]

this is blatant intellectual dishonesty, this is why religionists are not respected. i said that one should have a choice because it is just as inhumane or moreso to bring a child into a world where the situation is even more grave for them. from a humane perspective, if one could alleviate the potential of a child's prolonged suffering, it would be more humane. why would someone consciously choose to bring a child into a situation if they could not even feed or take care of them? they have that choice because it's their child but that doesn't mean it's a humane option either.

i still don't understand the perpetual obtuseness. you also completely missed the point that's it's not just a matter of 'potential' that the child may be unloved or unwanted or not taken care of. the person may be choosing abortion because they really don't want the child so therefore will not do right by them or cannot do right by them. it's not just a matter of chance, they really may not care at all. what is so hard to understand that some people may not want to take care of a child and that child will be the one to suffer because you cannot make one do so? so your great idea of humanity is coaxing the female that really wants to have an abortion to have the child in the hopes and chance that it will be loved or taken care of? this is your idea of a humane option? that does not make any sense to me. there are people who drink, do drugs and all manner of things with no regard to the fetus because they don't want the pregnancy. this is not enough evidence that they don't want the child? maybe they will change once it is born? how much more evidence does one need to ascertain that a person does not want to be a parent or isn't fit to be a parent? is it never obvious? is the feelings and mentality or wishes of the mother not important to ascertain that? these arguments are crazily nonsensical.

everyone should have a choice because it is THEIR child and it will be up to THEM to take care of it. some women may not want to bring their child into the world if they can't take care of it as well as they may not want it. emphasize, CHOICE! CHOICE! how many times does it have to be stated. at least i give people the CHOICE.

you may wish they did want to take care of it or love it but they may not.

get clear-headed and see the whole picture.

its strange that you opened with an insult about my summation of your argument, and then conclude on the same point in this post.

Once again, so in short, you are saying that if a child grows up in an environment where they could potentially be unloved or unsupported, the best option is to kill them?

You have some gripes with the use of "potentially", but its hard to understand under what clear cut circumstances you are suggesting it becomes a "definite" .. and its even less clear how this definite scenario is applicable to the wider application of abortion in society ..... and if all this is cleared up, it still remains unclear why growing up in an environment without love or facility is sufficient grounds for advocating the death penalty.

Is poverty a crime?

 

[lightgigantic]

the position of pro-lifers, which is really just anti-abortion is that they don't care what happens to the child after it is born. their 'right to life' is much more important to them.

they see life as more the merrier as at least they have the 'chance' because even though some or a lot may die anyways from any number of afflictions that may be awaiting them whether it be starvation, disease, abuse, child trafficking and slavery, or fall through the cracks. at least they had a chance at life. a life is a game, more or less, but they don't want to say this.

the argument stands for what it is but it really is not more of a humane or ethical argument as they believe. it's just an issue of the conscious killing of an lifeform or animal. to them, killing is the worst but anything done to life while alive is not, so drawn out torture and misery is a better option than death certainly in their demented reasoning. interesting since only by being alive, can a lifeform suffer the most. that is just not as important. they just fixate on the few moments of death as the worst possible fate imaginable.

it's really no different than the hypocrisy of those who stand against the technicality of killing animals in some manner but are not as opposed to the mass and prolonged misery or immorality they suffer at factory farms.

a good example is how many people were in an uproar about pigs that were buried alive because of the foot and mouth disease but it's fine that pigs are confined in small metal spaces without sunshine for the rest of their lives while they go insane. their reasoning is at least they have some type of life when realistically in that situation, death is what would be the angel of mercy. the few moments suffered at death is irrationally overblown in proportion to the suffering they endure their entire lives regardless. this is deceptive and inaccurate reasoning.

this is the stupidity and eventual diseffectiveness of ethics when it's based on technicality rather than considering the bigger picture.

If all what you say is true, pro-life would have to be the most monolithic ideological viewpoint in the history of humanity, with identical views on a range of issues from factory farming to human trafficking

 

[glaucon]

It seems to me that the whole problem here stems from the apparent difficulty some people have (see the OP) with describing the act of abortion as murder.

What's the problem with that?

Of course, while technically this is inaccurate (contingent upon your regional legal definition of murder..) what is clear is that one is electing to terminate a life.

But... so what?
It's not as if there's no such thing as a legally sanctioned murder.


I am by no means an anti-abortionist (sorry, the term 'pro-lifer' is disingenuous in the extreme...), but it seems to me that this fear of recognizing the act for what it is does a great disservice to the pro-abortion camp.

 

[chimpkin]

what is clear is that one is electing to terminate a life.

I'm actually inclined to look at an early-stage gestational fetus as not a life yet. It's a potential life. Maybe. Barring miscarriages due to fetal abnormalities, which are estimated to happen up to 50% of the time.

A zygote or early-stage fetus has more potential than a sperm or an egg separately, but it's not a baby either.

I do not agree with or concede your above statement.

I will say it's a far better thing to not get knocked up in the first place.

 

[glaucon]

I'm actually inclined to look at an early-stage gestational fetus as not a life yet. It's a potential life. Maybe. Barring miscarriages due to fetal abnormalities, which are estimated to happen up to 50% of the time.

Well, I was hoping to avoid getting into a discussion on defining "life". Technically, any standard biological definition of life would indeed include a fetus, or, for that matter, a zygote (to say nothing of a yeast colony, or phytoplankton, etc., etc.).

Regardless, you missed my point entirely. The rift in this discussion is due to the reluctance of 'pro-choicers' to accept the appellation "murder". If they simply said, "yes it is", instead of attempting evasion, the poor anti-abortionist would be left agape.

A zygote or early-stage fetus has more potential than a sperm or an egg separately, but it's not a baby either.

And how does one measure 'potential'??

Regardless, I never made use of the word "baby"....

I do not agree with or concede your above statement.

Which one???

I will say it's a far better thing to not get knocked up in the first place.

I concur.

 

[wynn]

It seems to me that the whole problem here stems from the apparent difficulty some people have (see the OP) with describing the act of abortion as murder.


I am by no means an anti-abortionist (sorry, the term 'pro-lifer' is disingenuous in the extreme...), but it seems to me that this fear of recognizing the act for what it is does a great disservice to the pro-abortion camp.

I agree.

It seems that what so many people want is a sense of innocence, at all costs, regardless of how they act.

Interestingly, this goes both for the pro-abortion as well as the anti-abortion camp; what both seem to want the most is to be innocent of murder, and they are willing to present their arguments or act in such a manner that their sense of innocence is preserved.

But in this world, one cannot be innocent.
Ego-maintenance be damned.

 

[wynn]

So in short, you are saying that if a child grows up in an environment where they could potentially be unloved or unsupported, the best option is to kill them?

Well, yes ...

This is from a book/film -
http://www.notarealthing.com/2010/04/quietus-you-decide-when/


But seriously - what options does someone have whom their parents or society does not want?
Aren't they better off dead?

 

[wynn]

Is poverty a crime?

It is. People are being thrown in jail because they cannot pay their bills.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is. People are being thrown in jail because they cannot pay their bills.

They don't get thrown in jail fro not having a tv and hot water system though ... although even jail seems preferable to the death penalty

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, yes ...

This is from a book/film -
http://www.notarealthing.com/2010/04/quietus-you-decide-when/


But seriously - what options does someone have whom their parents or society does not want?
Aren't they better off dead?

Not at all

A friend just had their second child. He grew up in what many posters here would deem an unsuitable environment (drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc) and hence a prime candidate for being aborted in the womb.

Needless to say, he is not making the same errors as his parents. It seems that the absence of tenderness in his early life has engineered in him a strong sense of its utmost importance.

Of course I am not saying that this is the same in every case.

I am saying that the human capacity to be pro-active in the direst circumstances should not be underestimated

 

[lightgigantic]

It seems to me that the whole problem here stems from the apparent difficulty some people have (see the OP) with describing the act of abortion as murder.

What's the problem with that?

In The Language of Unconsciousness George Orwell suggested such euphemisms are "largely the defense of the indefensible".

IOW since the notion of murder for the sake of convenience is not acceptable by current moral standards, it has be given a different name in order to slip behind the radars (although ironically, even abortion is sometimes adamantly referred to as "tissue removal")

Other examples include "pacification", "transfer of population" and "rectification of borders" in terrorizing local populations in a war zone

Of course, while technically this is inaccurate (contingent upon your regional legal definition of murder..) what is clear is that one is electing to terminate a life.

But... so what?
It's not as if there's no such thing as a legally sanctioned murder.

sure
But accepting the candidate as suitable for sanctioned murder on the basis of their perceived potential inconvenience (financial and social) certainly seems to take the moral barometer down a peg or two

I am by no means an anti-abortionist (sorry, the term 'pro-lifer' is disingenuous in the extreme...), but it seems to me that this fear of recognizing the act for what it is does a great disservice to the pro-abortion camp.

how so?

 

[wynn]

But accepting the candidate as suitable for sanctioned murder on the basis of their perceived potential inconvenience (financial and social) certainly seems to take the moral barometer down a peg or two

With no eternity in sight, this hardly matters ...

how so?

For one, because the pro-abortionists are basing their defense on a current scientific explanation that an embryo/foetus is not yet a living being, or that it doesn't feel pain, and therefore, removing it from the womb is not killing/murder.

But scientific explanations change with new research; in this sense, they are a weak basis for moral arguments.
Should science publish new findings that suggest that an embryo/foetus is a living being, or that it can feel pain, the pro-abortionists lose their ground.

How many pro-abortionists would change their views if science would publish new findings on this topic?

Conversely, how many pro-abortionists are in one way or another stifling scientifc research into this topic, thus acting in an unscientific manner?



I'd like to see Glaucon's answer to LG's question too.

 

[wynn]

A friend just had their second child. He grew up in what many posters here would deem an unsuitable environment (drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc) and hence a prime candidate for being aborted in the womb.

Needless to say, he is not making the same errors as his parents. It seems that the absence of tenderness in his early life has engineered in him a strong sense of its utmost importance.

But he is a devotee, right?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

With no eternity in sight, this hardly matters ...

LOL! I don't know why but that struck me as incredibly funny

Signal: Should science publish new findings that suggest that an embryo/foetus is a living being, or that it can feel pain, the pro-abortionists lose their ground.

Actually no. The move to legalize abortion began waaay before specific scientific evidence hit the scene. The move to legalize abortion was based on the fact that women were DYING from procedures that were not medically sound and that it would continue to happen because there was a NEED for medicalized safe abortions because unwanted pregnancies made women so desperate that they would do almost anything to get rid of the fetus including ingesting harmful substances, throwing themselves down the stairs and sticking metal hangers into their own vagina. It is the religious anti-choice folk who brought up the issue of life in the womb. The activism surrounding abortion was based on social issues and women's issues, not the 'when does life begin debate'. The reality has always been that women would seek out abortions whether it was legal or not, the move to legalize abortions was to make the procedure safe and also give women more control over their lives, reproductive control meant control of ones future. It was as simple as that.

Your assumptions of what drives pro-choice advocates shows how little you understand the history behind this discussion and why I don't really believe men should have a say on this issue (I know that last line is a little offensive but its really how I feel)

By the way, you have been saying that sex should only be done fro reproductive reasons. So if a couple only wants to have one child are you suggesting that they should only have sex until pregnancy is reached and then never have sex again for the rest of their lives? I mean you never say they should use contraceptives you simply say they shouldn't be having sex if they don't want to have a baby.


"It is only rebel woman, when she gets out of the habits imposed on her by bourgeois convention, who can do some deed of terrible virtue." –
"I would strike out -- I would scream from the housetops. I would tell the world what was going on in the lives of these poor women. I would be heard. No matter what it should cost. I would be heard." Margaret Sanger, the first recognized advocate for planned parenthood and safe abortions wrote that in 1913 after one of her patients died of a self-induced abortion.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

In today's news:

You should watch this three minute speech by Rep. Jackie Speier. She kicks ass in this speech!

House debate over Republican proposals to cut millions of dollars in funding for family planning programs became emotional on Thursday night, when one Democratic congresswoman spoke about her own experience with abortion.

The proposal in question, proposed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), would cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. It would also entirely eliminate of a program known as Title X, which provides more than $300 million in aid for family planning and reproductive health, much of which is directed toward low-income families. During the course of the three-hour debate, which lasted late into the night, more than 30 House members voiced their thoughts on the issue - but the chamber floor fell silent when Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) spoke about her own experience with abortion.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20033351-503544.html

 

[lightgigantic]

LOL! I don't know why but that struck me as incredibly funny

Signal: Should science publish new findings that suggest that an embryo/foetus is a living being, or that it can feel pain, the pro-abortionists lose their ground.

Actually no. The move to legalize abortion began waaay before specific scientific evidence hit the scene. The move to legalize abortion was based on the fact that women were DYING from procedures that were not medically sound and that it would continue to happen because there was a NEED for medicalized safe abortions because unwanted pregnancies made women so desperate that they would do almost anything to get rid of the fetus including ingesting harmful substances, throwing themselves down the stairs and sticking metal hangers into their own vagina. It is the religious anti-choice folk who brought up the issue of life in the womb. The activism surrounding abortion was based on social issues and women's issues, not the 'when does life begin debate'. The reality has always been that women would seek out abortions whether it was legal or not, the move to legalize abortions was to make the procedure safe and also give women more control over their lives, reproductive control meant control of ones future. It was as simple as that.

Your assumptions of what drives pro-choice advocates shows how little you understand the history behind this discussion and why I don't really believe men should have a say on this issue (I know that last line is a little offensive but its really how I feel)

By the way, you have been saying that sex should only be done fro reproductive reasons. So if a couple only wants to have one child are you suggesting that they should only have sex until pregnancy is reached and then never have sex again for the rest of their lives? I mean you never say they should use contraceptives you simply say they shouldn't be having sex if they don't want to have a baby.


"It is only rebel woman, when she gets out of the habits imposed on her by bourgeois convention, who can do some deed of terrible virtue." –
"I would strike out -- I would scream from the housetops. I would tell the world what was going on in the lives of these poor women. I would be heard. No matter what it should cost. I would be heard." Margaret Sanger, the first recognized advocate for planned parenthood and safe abortions wrote that in 1913 after one of her patients died of a self-induced abortion.

as mentioned a zillion times in your several pro-abortion threads, the key issue at the moment is ethics. There is always a tension in societies when determining whether something should be illegal or whether it should be deemed unattractive by social convention. If a society doesn't have the social convention to support a legal convention, obviously its going to be a failed piece of legislation.

As for suggesting that only women have a say on abortion, that's as buoyant as saying only cotton plantation owners should have had a a say on black rights.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

as mentioned a zillion times in your several pro-abortion threads, the key issue at the moment is ethics. There is always a tension in societies when determining whether something should be illegal or whether it should be deemed unattractive by social convention. If a society doesn't have the social convention to support a legal convention, obviously its going to be a failed piece of legislation.

As for suggesting that only women have a say on abortion, that's as buoyant as saying only cotton plantation owners should have had a a say on black rights.

Well then mind your own ethics. You're analogy failed. A better one would be that only blacks should have a say on issues concerning their own person. The tensions in society occurred during the civil rights movement, are you suggesting that they should have kept slavery legalized because interracial marriage and having a black person living next door upset social convention? No. Would you say removing Jim Crow laws failed because whites were disruptive and tried to maintain the old status quo? No.

The debate occurs at this level because there are people who want to decide what other people should be able to do with their own bodies, this is why you still have those who would restrict laws concerning homosexuality and their status in society. Now if someone disagrees with gay marriage I say then they are free to not marry a homosexual and if someone says that abortion is unethical I say that they are free not to have an abortion. When a man says its unethical I say he should mind his own bloody business because the only thing he is trying to do is control women. If people were only concerned about ethics then they wouldn't be trying to ban abortion for every woman. If you live in a fee society you do not get to force your own ethical disposition on others you only get to act on those ethics in your own life.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think both the woman and the fetus have equal rights

So the pregnant woman - she can choose not to provide for all of the fetus's material needs, then? Just as any two equal members of society have no particular obligation to shelter and nourish one another?

Or is there some unequal set of rights here, wherein the woman is compelled to shelter and nourish the fetus, but the fetus is nto similarly obligated to the woman?

 

[quadraphonics]

And pretending that getting rid of a zygote is not disposing of an unwanted child is just denial. How many women would undergo abortions if the end result was not a child?

Cart before the horse - that the "end result" is one thing, does not mean that said thing currently exists. Indeed, the very phrasing suggests otherwise.

The end result of each and every life is a decomposing corpse. Does that mean that all people are decomposing corpses?

Preventing a zygote from developing into a child, is not the same thing as "disposing of a child," unless you're stilting that phrase to mean "preventing a child from ever existing to begin with." In which case, things like abstinence, the use of birth control, etc. are all also "disposing of children."

 

[quadraphonics]

I think choosing to accord the right to life to the unborn child is as pro-choice as choosing to dispose it like a piece of unwanted meat.

Only in a preposterously stilted way. One might as well say that dictators are "pro-freedom," in that they support their own freedom to dictate all political decisions.

The issue is allowing people to make choices for themselves. Anything that abridges that - such as according rights to entities incapable of making "choices" of their own - is not "pro-choice."

I'm pro-choice. I think women should make their own choices. However, I do not necessarily consider all their choices as equally ethical.

Of course. This is, again, beside the point - do you or do you not wish to legally restrict the set of choices that women are empowered to make, for the purpose of curtailing unethical ones? For example, by according equal rights to embryos?

Because you can't be both in favor of women making choices for themselves, and in favor of having the state prevent them from making certain choices concerning embryos.

Since when is stripping a child of its rights by dehumanising it a right anymore than it was when it was done to women or slaves?

? Something screwy in that phrasing - in the first place there are no extant rights to be "stripped,"

Its hardly a novel argument to declare ownership of the piece of meat that is disposable at the owners convenience. Dehumanisation is the oldest human strategy for denying equal civil rights.

All of which simply begs the question of whether the objects under consideration are, in fact, pieces of meat and not humans, in the first place. That sort of argument is only objectionable when it's being applied to actual humans - its applications to livestock, plants, etc. remain non-controversial.

But moreover, what would it even mean to grant equal civil rights to an embryo? How's it going to vote, or assemble, or otherwise express its conscience? How is the pregnant woman's equal civil right to be free of the demand to nourish and feed this other, civilly equal entity to be upheld? This framework doesn't make any sense here. Unless and until a fetus reaches the point of viability, it just plain does not make sense to speak of it as a distinct person from the pregnant woman. It fails to meet the requirements of such a category for obvious reasons of plain biology.

And note that we don't accord equal civil rights to actual children, in the first place. How about you work through the philosophical and legal reasoning for that distinction, and maybe then take a hack at figuring out how to extend such to the unborn? As it is, your framework is so stilted as to produce inanity.