| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
manofmystery 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
 Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:30 |
 The Doctor wrote:
Erm, you don't know me well enough to know this Rob, but I was also adopted. I was one of the lucky ones though, who had grandparents who wanted to adopt me and give me a loving home. How many children are that lucky? Really? How many children are going hungry? How many are ill without adequate healthcare? How many are homeless? How many are abused by foster parents (note, I am in no way saying anything about your fostering, but many are not so lucky to get decent people caring for them)? And you want to increase their numbers by limiting abortion? My heart breaks for children too, Rob, but not the ones who were aborted, but the ones who are alive and suffering.
|
You're basically saying that in your perfect world that if you, yourself, didn't have grandparents that you wouldn't exist. Well, guess we can't say you aren't commited to beliefs.
Epignosis wrote:
You're right. Children are suffering. Let's kill them.
|
You're forgetting the hungry, homeless, and anyone who has been abused. We could probably round them all up.
|
 Time always wins.
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:36 |
manofmystery wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Of course abortion should be legal, it's unfortunate the question even has to be raised. BTW, I love it when those who hold personal freedoms to be most dear actively oppose it. |
Being allowed to live is kind of essential to personal freedom. The government allowing someone the right to terminate someone else is an afront to liberty. You have a right to life and a right to liberty. Preserving these basic rights are the only two legitimate functions of government. |
Yeah that argument is becoming increasingly stale and ineffective particularly since, presumably, adult women have the "right to life and a right to liberty". Or do her rights end where a fetus's begin? See that's where you have a real problem here; it's not just that it's inconsistent, it's illogical. Let me put it another way-- it'll be a cold day in Hell before I allow anyone to disallow the women in my family from doing what they feel is best with their bodies. I'm sorry, that's the reality, that's what it comes down to. If you wanna come to my town and try to change that, be my guest.
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:43 |
|
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:44 |
|
Too many people just shield themselves with "the law" and can't give one damn personal opinion. I guess that's why politicians can do whatever the hell they want.
This issue has always given me problems. For the sake of consistency and humanity, I oppose the government deciding who lives and who dies in the death penalty. Why would the government allow someone to kill somebody else then?
I'm not sure what I would do in a given situation. I'm not ready to throw down judgement like some high mighty wiseman when I'm not sure what I would do myself. I'm just a little worried that some people are so eager to allow indiscriminate abortions. I also don't love forgetting that there are special situations when abortions could be justified.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:53 |
|
Keep it legal, safe and rare.
Ideally we'd live in a world where it was only needed in those rare cases when it could be harmful to the mother's health. But we don't live in fantasy land, and while in my heart I want to say "make it illegal in most cases" in my brain I know it will keep happening....you can't legislate morality, and knowing that it might as well be kept safe and done by doctors in their facilities.
Of course keeping the people educated is important, so hopefully it won't be needed.
One thing I've always pondered myself, should it be left up to the doctor ultimately?
I used to think so, but I started to think about: should they be neutral? Should they not be allowed to make such decisions and solely tend to what is presented to them, or as medical experts should they have the final say?
It's funny because the debate itself always boils down to the same argument per side, always, but there are so many questions it raises as you think about it more. Complex and simple.
Edited by JJLehto - November 01 2011 at 23:55
|
|
TheGazzardian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8777
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 00:14 |
Legal.
I do not assign human life as intrinsically more valuable than other life (despite my bias that I like more humans than I do individuals of other species and find them easier to interact with). If we are going purely by # of lives in the world, then abortion actually saves lives - all the animals, plants, etc. that that human would have consumed during their lifetime are now saved.
If we are not going by # of lives in the world matters, I don't see why the loss of one matters. Human population is skyrocketing at an insane rate and I sincerely doubt the world will be able to support us through continuous growth.
One thing I hear a lot is, "Would you want your parents to abort you?". I find this to be a bit of a flawed argument. Consider this obvious example: Hitlers parents had an abortion. He was never born. Millions more jews have been born than their would otherwise have been, because the holocaust never happened. Less obvious scenario: mommy doesn't have an abortion. At age 40, child drunk-drives and kills a pregnant mother. Given enough time, her children would have given birth to thousands more human beings. The point is it's not a zero-sum game. We can't know the future and we don't know how many "potential lives" are lost by a child being born, nor are lost by a child being aborted. And we never will and trying to measure that is impossible. So the death of one, unborn child doesn't bother me.
Personally, I think a lot of people forget that life is a game of death. Especially in first world cultures, where the fact that our food was once a living thing, and that many lives have ended each day simply to provide us with chemical energy to keep our bodies moving. It's easy to fix that when it comes in nice, shrink wrapped packages at the store and you never see the cow that beef used to be. But this is reality: everything alive is killing other things constantly in order to survive, because the earth is not infinite but is finite, and cannot support infinite life. I don't see why a dead fetus is a big deal in that scheme.
EDIT: Sorry if this is now very well written, I am very brain tired. May edit in morning, if I remember.
Edited by TheGazzardian - November 02 2011 at 00:16
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 00:36 |
Oh, I forgot, rights are handed out on a first-come-first-serve basis. By this logic murder is fine so long as the person who commited it was older than the victim. Your right to life and liberty does not include denying someone elses right to life and liberty. I support your right to do whatever you want with your own body, by the way. You are the one wanting to apply an arbitrary start date to self-ownership. Let me put it another way - it'll be a cold day in Hell before I don't call out the "I'm an enlightened male who believes in woman's rights" argument as the bullsh*t grandstanding that it is.
Edited by manofmystery - November 02 2011 at 00:37
|
Time always wins.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 00:59 |
|
Brilliant-- I point again to your own words: "Your right to life and liberty does not include denying someone elses right to life and liberty". What part of that don't you subscribe to?
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 01:19 |
|
What? The ability to end someone elses life is not a right, to be included with life and liberty, because it denies those to someone else. That any clearer?
|
Time always wins.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 01:35 |
|
Oh that's clear as a bell, and not entirely accurate if you allow killing as part of defending your country and its freedoms, nor if you allow a home or business owner to shoot a trespasser. Even if a woman getting an abortion agreed with you philosophically regarding the rights of the unborn, it doesn't make it right to deny her by law an act she deems correct or necessary. I suspect deeply that none of us know, even some women, why abortion rights are important. Many of these women no doubt deeply regret their decision even before they have a procedure, and still refuse to deny the right to others. That aside, don't make this personal, it's a
mistake. It's off point whether you think I'm an enlightened male
bullsh*t grandstander or not, and irrelevant.
|
|
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 03:02 |
I am in principle and in a perfect world against abortion. But we don't live in a perfect world and some of those who have kept their children has caused their children massive damages. The example of Ireland from the 1930s to the mid 1990s is also terrifying. Abortion was illegal and unwanted children became the object of pedofiles and serious neglect. All of it state approved through the local churches. We don't live in a perfect world and that is why I am pro legal abortions.
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 03:35 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
These threads never end well. |
Possibly, but at the moment people are expressing opinions without becoming self-opinionated & there's some good debate happening here on a very emotive subject.
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
someone_else
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 02 2008
Location: Going Bananas
Status: Offline
Points: 24559
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 03:51 |
I am against abortion. Even without putting my faith forward, it is a fact that when an abortion occurs, the unborn child is aware that it is being killed (I have seen a documentary about this back in '86 or '87), even though it is just a foetus of 4 weeks.
|
|
|
|
progkidjoel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 04:19 |
Legal. It wouldn't be needed in a perfect world, but we'll never have one.
someone_else wrote:
I am against abortion. Even without putting my faith forward, it is a fact that when an abortion occurs, the unborn child is aware that it is being killed (I have seen a documentary about this back in '86 or '87), even though it is just a foetus of 4 weeks. |
1 - It's not a foetus at that age. 2 - It probably has the same awareness of it's death as any lump of cells do - not much. The cells probably do know that they're being destroyed, but not in any extraordinarily deep or meaningful fashion. They're probably at the same level of awareness as cells you kill millions of every day by breathing, washing your hands, eating, having an immune system, etc.
Epignosis wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I'm sure there is scientific research on the subject, but I'd guess quite near the end of the pregnancy. But as I said, I'm not a doctor. Just The Doctor. One thing I can say for certain is that there is no sentience at conception. And in the early stages, it's pretty much just a formed blob of cells.
|
What country are you from, Chester? Our country (the USA) defends human beings' right to life. Not a right to sentience.
|
Then why do plenty of states in America still allow the death penalty?
Edited by progkidjoel - November 02 2011 at 04:23
|
|
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67442
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 04:50 |
progkidjoel wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I'm sure there is scientific research on the subject, but I'd guess quite near the end of the pregnancy. But as I said, I'm not a doctor. Just The Doctor. One thing I can say for certain is that there is no sentience at conception. And in the early stages, it's pretty much just a formed blob of cells.
|
What country are you from, Chester? Our country (the USA) defends human beings' white Americans' right to life. Not a right to sentience.
|
Then why do plenty of states in America still allow the death penalty?
|
Fixed.
|
|
someone_else
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 02 2008
Location: Going Bananas
Status: Offline
Points: 24559
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 04:55 |
progkidjoel wrote:
Legal. It wouldn't be needed in a perfect world, but we'll never have one.
someone_else wrote:
I am against abortion. Even without putting my faith forward, it is a fact that when an abortion occurs, the unborn child is aware that it is being killed (I have seen a documentary about this back in '86 or '87), even though it is just a foetus of 4 weeks.
|
1 - It's not a foetus at that age.
2 - It probably has the same awareness of it's death as any lump of cells do - not much. The cells probably do know that they're being destroyed, but not in any extraordinarily deep or meaningful fashion. They're probably at the same level of awareness as cells you kill millions of every day by breathing, washing your hands, eating, having an immune system, etc.
Epignosis wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I'm sure there is scientific research on the subject, but I'd guess quite near the end of the pregnancy. But as I said, I'm not a doctor. Just The Doctor. One thing I can say for certain is that there is no sentience at conception. And in the early stages, it's pretty much just a formed blob of cells. |
What country are you from, Chester? Our country (the USA) defends human beings' right to life. Not a right to sentience.
|
Then why do plenty of states in America still allow the death penalty? |
You are probably right in this, but I don't think that it really matters whether you call in "embryo" or "foetus". Thanks for the correction anyway.
I found the vid on YouTube. It is age protected. I don't have a YouTube or Googe account and I have no plans to register, so I am not sure, but I think that the minimum age required to watch it is 18. I saw that it won't be long before you reach that age (congratz in advance), so I give you the link:
|
|
|
|
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 12206
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 05:28 |
Epignosis wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Erm, you don't know me well enough to know this Rob, but I was also adopted. I was one of the lucky ones though, who had grandparents who wanted to adopt me and give me a loving home. How many children are that lucky? Really? How many children are going hungry? How many are ill without adequate healthcare? How many are homeless? How many are abused by foster parents (note, I am in no way saying anything about your fostering, but many are not so lucky to get decent people caring for them)? And you want to increase their numbers by limiting abortion? My heart breaks for children too, Rob, but not the ones who were aborted, but the ones who are alive and suffering.
|
You're right. Children are suffering. Let's kill them.
|
That's not what he wrote at all. He told you something personal, and that's how you react?
Edited by Saperlipopette! - November 02 2011 at 05:35
|
|
TheMasterMofo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2009
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 220
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 05:55 |
The Doctor wrote:
It is exactly the issue. If you only fight
to limit abortion, but do not also want to help children that have
already been born, then in my view your position becomes one not of
protecting children, but simply one of control over women. You can't
preach against abortion and welfare, government funded healthcare for
children, school lunches, and so on without being a hypocrite. And
possibly a misogynist.
|
The first half of that makes sense, but the whole notion that you can't
speak against welfare and be pro-life is absurd. And it's not an issue
of what kind of people are pro-life anyway, the issue is: Are unborn
babies humans? If they are, they can't be killed.
Atavachron wrote:
Yeah that argument is becoming increasingly stale
and ineffective particularly since, presumably, adult women have the
"right to life and a right to liberty". Or do her rights end where a
fetus's begin? See that's where you have a real problem here; it's not
just that it's inconsistent, it's illogical. Let me put it another
way-- it'll be a cold day in Hell before I allow anyone to disallow the
women in my family from doing what they feel is best with their
bodies. I'm sorry, that's the reality, that's what it comes down to.
If you wanna come to my town and try to change that, be my guest.
|
So if a conjoined twin kills their twin, is it not murder? After all,
they're sharing bodies; one ought to have the right to do what he wants
with it. I have a great idea for people who are unfit to be parents: Keep it in your pants and you won't have to worry about having kids! Maybe we should teach responsibility instead of teaching bailouts. Abortion is basically a bailout from a sexual mistake just like the government bails out companies with money for financial mistakes. Edit: Quote fail
Edited by TheMasterMofo - November 02 2011 at 05:55
|
|
progkidjoel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 06:06 |
TheMasterMofo wrote:
So if a conjoined twin kills their twin, is it not murder? After all,
they're sharing bodies; one ought to have the right to do what he wants
with it.
I have a great idea for people who are unfit to be parents: Keep it in your pants and you won't have to worry about having kids! Maybe we should teach responsibility instead of teaching bailouts. Abortion is basically a bailout from a sexual mistake just like the government bails out companies with money for financial mistakes.
Edit: Quote fail
|
Yes, because there is no difference in the biological relationships between an unborn child and a mother or conjoined twins, har har har. And telling people not to do things doesn't work - plenty of people stll murder, rape and steal every day, hour, every minute. The suggestion that an abortion is a bailout is disgusting and completely taken out of context. What about someone who is raped, who uses defective contraception? There are plenty of pregnancies caused by those two every year, are they at fault and simply trying to avoid responsibility that they either had forced onto them or tried to avoid?
*edited for derpy grammar
Edited by progkidjoel - November 02 2011 at 06:07
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: November 02 2011 at 06:29 |
I thought the Doctor's post about bacteria entering your body and being forcibly ejected by antibiotics a very insightful one (I've never seen anyone approach this topic from that angle before) I notice that this issue is a particularly polarizing one for the Libertarians in our midst. This is probably a very simplistic and glib overview on how their property centred arguments might go: We might agree that everyone owns their body (as it's our property alone) Assuming the foetus is permitted by the mother, she would have the right to revoke this permission by ejection Her reasons for doing so would be considered irrelevant by Libertarians*, as opposing her right to evict trespassers would be considered a violation of her individual liberty by unacceptable use of force (in this case by the government) *Herein lies the crux of the debate: it is these very reasons to abort that cause such moral outrage depending on what side of the argument you belong. I have a problem with a perceived right that affords the mother the option to eject a latent human that does not even have the requisite volition to deliberately trespass/squat/invade the womb. An embryo has no rights...a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born (Ayn Raynd) no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body (Murray Rothbard) I find both quotations which reduce human life to that of the small print in a lease agreement, highly repugnant 
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Abortion: Legal or Illegal
