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

[quadraphonics]

We can deter without force.

No, we can't. For something to have "deterrent value," it necessarily involves the use of force. Perhaps you should refresh on the definitions of "deterrence" and "force."

 

[WillNever]

totally insignficant argument because after it's born, it needs to be taken care of. who is going to take care of these children? or is that not as important to you?

Actually, what I've said is the most important argument at hand. Tending to a child's needs is secondary to its actual existence.

How old are you and what do you do for a living, by the way?

 

[WillNever]

No, we can't. For something to have "deterrent value," it necessarily involves the use of force. Perhaps you should refresh on the definitions of "deterrence" and "force."

Detering doesn't require force. To be deterred just means to be discouraged because of an undesirable situation. The crowds at the supermarket on Saturday morning deters me from driving there at that time, but no one is forcing me to avoid the place.

You are using too strict of definitions and interpreting them in an unnatural way.

 

[quadraphonics]

Actually, what I've said is the most important argument at hand. Tending to a child's needs is secondary to its actual existence.

Misses the point entirely, by avoiding the question of viability.

I.e., I expect that you'd find essentially every woman with an unwanted pregnancy would be all for the continued existance of the fetus in question, provided she could be rid of the requirement to fulfill its various needs.

 

[WillNever]

Misses the point entirely, by avoiding the question of viability.

I aimed to miss the point because it's a question for later. It's one that doesn't need to be considered until after we've decided whether or not we as a society should view abortion positively or negatively.

As well, I don't think the number of aborted babies would put such a burden on American society that we couldn't manage it, given we make significant adjustments.

 

[quadraphonics]

Detering doesn't require force. To be deterred just means to be discouraged because of an undesirable situation.

You think you're going to fool me with a simple rephrase? That "undesirable situation" is one in which you will be subject to unpleasant forces. The prospect of force is what discourages you.

The crowds at the supermarket on Saturday morning deters me from driving there at that time, but no one is forcing me to avoid the place.

You are deterrent by the prospect of being subjected to a force that you find unpleasant - the crowd and its prerogatives, which overpower any attempt of yours to control. That's exactly deterrence by force, even if relatively innocuous in the greater scheme of things.

To the latter, though: if you're going to try to sneak past an example of weak force, you'll need one where the discouragment isn't comparably weak.

You are using too strict of definitions and interpreting them in an unnatural way.

I am using regular, textbook definitions, in order to prevent you from warping the definitions of things like "force" and "deterrence" into unrecognizable categories - specifically, the disgusting attempt to pretend that deterrence can be achieved without the application of force. That's just ridiculous - we'd have no need of coersive governance at all, if that were the case.

 

[quadraphonics]

I aimed to miss the point because it's a question for later. It's one that doesn't need to be considered until after we've decided whether or not we as a society should view abortion positively or negatively.

Again, cart before the horse. The question of how we should see it depends strongly and directly on the issue of viability. And more than that, you're already invoking the sorts of distinctions that viability raises in your attempt to settle the issue.

As well, I don't think the number of aborted babies would put such a burden on American society that we couldn't manage it, given we make significant adjustments.

What you think about that doesn't matter - we already have ample evidence from the real world.

Put another way, "what we could handle given signiciant adjustments" is irrelevant. What matters is what we would handle. The former stuff is just magical thinking, and so no basis for policy analysis.

 

[WillNever]

You think you're going to fool me with a simple rephrase? That "undesirable situation" is one in which you will be subject to unpleasant forces. The prospect of force is what discourages you.

You are deterrent by the prospect of being subjected to a force that you find unpleasant - the crowd and its prerogatives, which overpower any attempt of yours to control. That's exactly deterrence by force, even if relatively innocuous in the greater scheme of things.

To the latter, though: if you're going to try to sneak past an example of weak force, you'll need one where the discouragment isn't comparably weak.

I am using regular, textbook definitions, in order to prevent you from warping the definitions of things like "force" and "deterrence" into unrecognizable categories - specifically, the disgusting attempt to pretend that deterrence can be achieved without the application of force. That's just ridiculous - we'd have no need of coersive governance at all, if that were the case.

Which definition of force are you using? You may be using "hard" definitions while I am using a "soft" definition.

 

[WillNever]

Again, cart before the horse. The question of how we should see it depends strongly and directly on the issue of viability.

I don't agree. I think it depends on whether or not the killing is wrong, not on whether or not we have enough money to afford to stop killing. The cost is something we can manage. If we can afford to to wage wars, we can afford to support babies.

To put it another way, I already know its viable.

 

[birch]

to be humane, one has to consider the entire situation and it's ramifications.

it is inhumane to award a rapist by forcing a victim to have that rapist's child. it is also not good for that child as it will be a product of rape and will most likely be rejected by it's mother. if she chooses to have the child, that's a different story. also, it's not right that she would have to be forced to mix her dna with someone she doesn't want. it is utterly inhumane, perverted and barbaric.

also, just because a person chooses to have an abortion at a certain time doesn't mean they will never love or care for a child in the future. it is irresponsible to bring a child into a situation that is very poor for a child if one has a choice otherwise but that doesn't mean one should be forced to have an abortion because of it nor be forced to have the child. it's true there are no guarantees in life but we also should try as best as possible to ensure a better situation in bringing a child in. their life is not some game to put up to risk when there is enough risk in life as it is, that's extremely irresponsible. some people may not be ready to have the child. trying to punish the parent by forcing them to have the child will result in punishing the child more than the parent. yes, the argument is she should have not got pregnant and was irresponsible but forcing someone to have a child that she doesn't want or is unable to care for is also irresponsible. it's bad enough where adopted children wonder about their birthparents and why they were given up. it causes much sadness and conflict with them as most people have a natural desire to be with those who are most like them and to know where they came from and who they are. if a precedent was set where people who don't want their children are born and adopted as a norm, it would be even more inhumane of a society. it would cause even more harm as a society and very impersonal values regarding relationships. those who are so adamant about their so-called concern for aborted fetuses don't care that that child may suffer from feelings of rejection. that would have much deeper psychological scars or issues even with supportive adoptive families. it is not natural!

with all these considerations, i think abortion is a responsible solution as long as it is carried out early or in the first trimester.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think it depends on whether or not the killing is wrong,

And that depends on viability - whether it even is "killing" depends on the question of viability.

The cost is something we can manage. If we can afford to to wage wars, we can afford to support babies.

Non sequitur. We aren't faced with that choice.

Meanwhile, we know perfectly well what resources society would actually come up with, for the extra mouths. The answer is "not much."

If we lived in the type of society that would actually bear said costs, there'd be no abortion issue to begin with. Only deviants who actually wanted to murder fetuses would abort, in such a fantasy world.

To put it another way, I already know its viable.

"Viability," in the context of abortion, refers to the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb. Not to how much money we want to spend keeping unwanted children in prison once they grow up.

 

[WillNever]

to be humane, one has to consider the entire situation and it's ramifications.

it is inhumane to award a rapist by forcing a victim to have that rapist's child. i

How is that an award? You think a rapist wants his victims to bear children for him? Not so much.

The stoppage of abortion isn't designed to either award or hurt rapists. Rapists aren't in the equation. It's purely about not depriving a baby of its future. And I'd argue it's even more inhumane to kill a fetus because you don't want the rapist to be "awarded." Nice collateral damage.

By the way, how old are you and what do you do for a living?

 

[WillNever]

Non sequitur. We aren't faced with that choice.

We aren't? If we have the ability to shunt resources from one avenue to another (which we do), then that is a choice we have, especially if money is part of the "viability" issue as you seem to think it is.

 

[quadraphonics]

We aren't? If we have the ability to shunt resources from one avenue to another (which we do), then that is a choice we have,

And if there were any realistic chance of our society making such a choice, we'd have done so back when abortion was already illegal. Instead we made abortion legal. The choice, such as it is, has already been made. There is no reason to think that the effect of outlawing abortion today would be any different than it was a few decades ago. To premise a policy on an assumption to the contrary is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, a cheap attempt to evade dealing with the actual realities of abortion bans. Either way, it's something you should desist in immediately, before you squander any more credibility.

especially if money is part of the "viability" issue as you seem to think it is.

I explained exactly what "viability" means in this context, in the very post that you quoted from there. I suggest you read that.

Money (or rather, medical technology and access to such) does impact "viability," but that's not what you're talking about here.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Think so? Because minimizing the process (not to mention the importance) of fetal development for the reason that it begins with a small number of cells is insulting to humanity on an incomprehensible scale, because all of us started out that way. Yes, even you, when you were just an insignificant mass.

Insulting how? No cluster of cells is equal to a fullgrown, feeling, thinking human. And to expect that a woman give up her body for that cluster of cells is disproportionate and wrong.

I don't find it insulting to my humanity that I was once one of those. It doesn't take anything away from the fact that I am now a sentient, intelligent human being.

 

[WillNever]

And if there were any realistic chance of our society making such a choice, we'd have done so back when abortion was already illegal. Instead we made abortion legal. The choice, such as it is, has already been made.

Are you arguing for or against making the choice again? Or making it differently? Right now, you seem to be expressing fatalism: "if this is the way it's already happened, then this is the way it's supposed to be and should remain."

Either that, or you are trying to antagonize posters in this thread. Neither thing is a positive quality to have.

Money (or rather, medical technology and access to such) does impact "viability," but that's not what you're talking about here.

Correct, viability in terms of money is not a foremost concern for me -- not yet.

 

[WillNever]

Insulting how? No cluster of cells is equal to a fullgrown, feeling, thinking human. And to expect that a woman give up her body for that cluster of cells is disproportionate and wrong.

I don't find it insulting to my humanity that I was once one of those. It doesn't take anything away from the fact that I am now a sentient, intelligent human being.

You came from a cluster of cells that could have been flushed out. You're not any better than a fetus, visceral. You're just older than one.

If you think that's an accomplishment, then I have news for ya: it ain't.

Some humans are more intelligent than others. I think you would oppose it if humans more intelligent than you decided to usurp your right to have a future.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Are there any women at all participating in this discussion? Who gives a flying fuck what MEN think about abortion! It's really easy to pontificate about something--completely in the abstract--when you don't have to consider the possibility that it will EVER happen to you so you'll never have to live up to the words you just wrote.

 

[quadraphonics]

Are you arguing for or against making the choice again? Or making it differently? Right now, you seem to be expressing fatalism: "if this is the way it's already happened, then this is the way it's supposed to be and should remain."

I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that our society is going to pursue the changes you suggest, and that since you premise the argument for banning abortion on such changes being made, your argument is bad.

Unless, that is, you care to bring some kind of countervailing facts, or analysis, or something other than hollow platitudes, to bear on these questions. So far you seem to be trying to just avoid the entire issue and deal in fantasy. Now you seem to be trying to dress me up as a straw man.

Correct, viability in terms of money is not a foremost concern for me -- not yet.

You still do not seem to understand what "viability" means, in the context of abortion. Which is troubling - it's a key term, widely used any time the subject comes up.

 

[quadraphonics]

Are there any women at all participating in this discussion?

S.A.M. was in earlier, for several pages.

But it is noteworthy that we seem to lack actual female feminists almost entirely at SciForums.

Who gives a flying fuck what MEN think about abortion! It's really easy to pontificate about something--completely in the abstract--when you don't have to consider the possibility that it will EVER happen to you so you'll never have to live up to the words you just wrote.

Right, cause it's not like any of those aborted embryos were fathered by males, or that their fates might in some way affect said males, or anything like that. Men have nothing to do with sex or gender politics at all, obviously. How could they? Sex, reproduction and gender are all inherently female-only considerations.

Or, to be fair to the other ("wrong") side: it's not like a man could possibly care about the fate of a human child.

More seriously, I think that the adoption of the "my body, my choice" 60's-feminist rhetoric, and the corresponding derrogation of men from the conversation, was a tactical mistake that has had the long-run effect of energizing conservative opposition (specifically because such patriarchal outlets are the only ones willing to give men a voice). This shit matters to men, and the implication that it doesn't because, hey, they can always just bail out on the family or anyway won't have to breast feed anybody is as stilted-to-the-point-of-obtusity as it is overtly patronizing to and dismissive of males.