Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Abortion: Legal or Illegal
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAbortion: Legal or Illegal
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3738394041>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
colorofmoney91 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2012 at 20:34
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by colorofmoney91 colorofmoney91 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


How sure are you that the mother isn't just an extension of the baby's body?

Not sure at all because I'm not a doctor, but it seems kind of obvious that the baby stems from the mother's body considering that the mother had been living prior to the child's conception and gives birth to the child. Also it seems kind of insane to say that the child grows the mother to form a fleshy walking shell that goes backwards in time.


A lot of terrible things have been prompted by "seems kind of obvious."  Wink

I would respond further, but I'm getting ready for bed.  Very nice chat though.  Smile

I enjoyed it Big smile Good night, Rob.
Hanashukketsu
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2012 at 22:31
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Next step: what is worse? abortion or sacrifice to Baal?

I'd seriously choose Beliaal instead.
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20390 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 27 2012 at 01:41
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by colorofmoney91 colorofmoney91 wrote:


My point is that I think the decision on the baby's right to live should be decided by each individual pair of parents *on whatever grounds they decide are relevant*. The mother and father should negotiate the options and ultimate fate of the developing life, but I also think it should ultimately come down to what the mother decides considering that the extreme physical changes and potentially profound emotional reactions of having a child are primarily experienced by the mother.


My objection to your idea is that it rests on its inherent and unsatisfying relativism.

Can a mother and father decide to abort their child hours after birth?  If not, why not?  And since you specifically mentioned religious freedom: Suppose it's the religion of the parents to sacrifice their first-born to their god.  Is that acceptable?  If not, why not?
 
you know... religious sacrifices of children still exist nowadays, even if it is in regression in the last decades...
 
OK, this is a side issue to abortion, but you started itWink
I'm not talking of killing kids of course, but give them away to the religious authorities to be future servants of the cause.
 
Not that long ago , in Christian circles, often a kid was "given" to the order to become a "servant" of the deity's cause (beit a priest or a nun), the kid being often brainwashed-endogmatized before joining up (please, don't speak to me about "vocations", or else use the word "induced" or "forced-fed" before it), as to give the impression this is what the victim wants.... It was often regarded as the father's dues to the cause to let this happen, and he (the father) would often be cited publically as an example to follow...
 
This is still happening in all three monotheist religions to various degrees, but it's even more so the case in Buddhist circles...
 
There are "seminary schools" where kids are being kept isolated from parent's possible pollution to varying degrees in the different systems
 
just my 2p (toupée) ...TongueLOL
 
 
 
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 27 2012 at 10:15
Wacko
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 01:17
It's kind of like prostitution. You can make it illegal but people will do it anyway. If it's legal it can at least be regulated and made as safe as possible.
 
Most of us do believe in killing in some circumstances, chiefly if we believe the killing will make the world better or more stable. For example, I don't think to say "I would have shot Pol Pot between his eyes had I had the chance" is controversial. But how does that apply to abortion? Because people are never going to be fully responsible about sex, you're dreaming if you think they will. This means we'll always have unwanted pregnancies and over time, thousands and then millions of them. Collectively, this could have a devestating impact on the world. Do you really think what places like India, Mexico, Brazil and Africa need are for every child ever conceived to be born?
 
You might say that the unborn babies don't "deserve" death whereas Pol Pot earned it. However, "deserve" doesn't come into it. It's like if you have to choose between killing one innocent person or killing ten, you kill the one even though they don't deserve it. A complete halt to abortion could lead to excess populations, and excess populations break ecosystems, which takes down everyone.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 06:24
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

It's kind of like prostitution. You can make it illegal but people will do it anyway. If it's legal it can at least be regulated and made as safe as possible.
 
Most of us do believe in killing in some circumstances, chiefly if we believe the killing will make the world better or more stable. For example, I don't think to say "I would have shot Pol Pot between his eyes had I had the chance" is controversial. But how does that apply to abortion? Because people are never going to be fully responsible about sex, you're dreaming if you think they will. This means we'll always have unwanted pregnancies and over time, thousands and then millions of them. Collectively, this could have a devestating impact on the world. Do you really think what places like India, Mexico, Brazil and Africa need are for every child ever conceived to be born?
 
You might say that the unborn babies don't "deserve" death whereas Pol Pot earned it. However, "deserve" doesn't come into it. It's like if you have to choose between killing one innocent person or killing ten, you kill the one even though they don't deserve it. A complete halt to abortion could lead to excess populations, and excess populations break ecosystems, which takes down everyone.


You'll find that on this subject, I am immune to utilitarianism.  Wink
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 14:04

As you are religious, you should be.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 16:21
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

As you are religious, you should be.



You will notice that I have never once invoked religion in this discussion.  Were I an atheist, I would still be unmoved by utilitarian arguments on this subject.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 16:26
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

As you are religious, you should be.



You will notice that I have never once invoked religion in this discussion.  Were I an atheist, I would still be unmoved by utilitarian arguments on this subject.

How can you be certain as you are not one?

You are still pondering or have the utilitarian ideas.  But religion does matter otherwise tell me what that guy holding a big cross while standing in a group on the sidewalk across from the Chamblee women's health clinic in a small group holding bibles and praying was doing the last time I drove by?

The thing I ponder is that I didn't know the clinic provided abortions along other women's health services until I saw the protesters out front many years ago.  So arguably by being out there making a display they were actually letting women know of a place where they could go to get an abortion that they might not have known about otherwise and were unintentionally causing more abortions.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 28 2012 at 16:36
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 16:32
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

As you are religious, you should be.



You will notice that I have never once invoked religion in this discussion.  Were I an atheist, I would still be unmoved by utilitarian arguments on this subject.

How can you be certain as you are not one?

You are still pondering or have the utilitarian ideas.  But religion does matter otherwise tell me what that guy holding a big cross while standing in a group on the sidewalk across from the Chamblee women's health clinic in a small group holding bibles and praying was doing the last time I drove by?


I cannot speak for someone holding a cross at a women's health clinic.  I can only speak for myself, which is what I did.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 16:38
Indeed.

By the way it was a cross bigger than him and I think he was also dressed up and I think you may know what I mean.  It was really weird because usually in the past they'd park over at Contigo Peru in the mornings when they'd show up and hang out at the driveway to the clinic and it would just be little old ladies with graphic posters. 


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 28 2012 at 16:43
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 17:01

Epig: I'm confused. I understand that utilitarianism doesn't work on religious people because utilitarianism is based on tangible value and religious people believe in higher intangible values.

 
But your claim that if you were an atheist it still wouldn't appeal to you is, I think, sheer bluster. Firstly you're not an atheist so how would you know, as Slarti says, and secondly an atheist that doesn't believe in greater good sounds like a strange animal to me. Moral absolutes such as NEVER EVER KILL are silly from a non-religious viewpoint in scenarios like a terrorist about to detonate a nuclear bomb. Would you kill him? Nope, you'd let him blow up the bomb.
 
Now if you're religious you *might* think that's OK because you believe in another world that you go to after death and that in this world, people who have killed are in big trouble. But if you're not religious I can't see the possible defence for choosing the terrorists life over the bomb.
 
You might say, "We're not talking about nuclear terrorists, we're talking about unborn children. Even as an atheist I would not sanction the murder of unborn children because the idea of killing babies is awful, you don't need god for that." I would totally agree with this.
 
But we come back to what I said before-  unless humanity becomes widely responsible regarding sexual intercourse, which isn't going to happen, a total halt to abortion would result in a bajillion unwanted babies. This will have terrible consequences. I can't see why the atheist would say "Well that's fine by me, better to cause massive, possibly irreparable damage to social structures and ecosystems than allow for birth control."
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 18:01
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Epig: I'm confused. I understand that utilitarianism doesn't work on religious people because utilitarianism is based on tangible value and religious people believe in higher intangible values.

 
But your claim that if you were an atheist it still wouldn't appeal to you is, I think, sheer bluster. Firstly you're not an atheist so how would you know, as Slarti says, and secondly an atheist that doesn't believe in greater good sounds like a strange animal to me. Moral absolutes such as NEVER EVER KILL are silly from a non-religious viewpoint in scenarios like a terrorist about to detonate a nuclear bomb. Would you kill him? Nope, you'd let him blow up the bomb.
 
Now if you're religious you *might* think that's OK because you believe in another world that you go to after death and that in this world, people who have killed are in big trouble. But if you're not religious I can't see the possible defence for choosing the terrorists life over the bomb.
 
You might say, "We're not talking about nuclear terrorists, we're talking about unborn children. Even as an atheist I would not sanction the murder of unborn children because the idea of killing babies is awful, you don't need god for that." I would totally agree with this.
 
But we come back to what I said before-  unless humanity becomes widely responsible regarding sexual intercourse, which isn't going to happen, a total halt to abortion would result in a bajillion unwanted babies. This will have terrible consequences. I can't see why the atheist would say "Well that's fine by me, better to cause massive, possibly irreparable damage to social structures and ecosystems than allow for birth control."


"Greater good" is where it gets hazy, and you are muddying the waters much further with your analogy (which I'm happy you recognized that it is inappropriate, but if it were inappropriate, then you should not have mentioned it).

The point I was trying to make is that my stance on abortion isn't a product of my Christianity.  I have made numerous cogent arguments in this thread against abortion, and not a single one of them rests on Christianity or the Bible or religion in general; hence my assertion that even if I were an atheist, my position on abortion wouldn't change.

"A bajillion unwanted babies?"  Do you have a source for this, or is this your wild speculation?

My argument is that just because you are unwanted, that doesn't give someone the right to snuff you out.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 18:19
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

I'm confused. I understand that utilitarianism doesn't work on religious people because utilitarianism is based on tangible value and religious people believe in higher intangible values.

 

It is not based on tangible values. That's the issue with it. If it had any tangible values, then I would be one.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 28 2012 at 21:34
Apparently two "ethicists" (what is that word?) agree that the abortion argument extends to newborns.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Norbert View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 29 2012 at 12:46
^ You beat me on this.

Well, these Nazis and Pocket-Mengeles actually point out that theres is no significant difference between murdering the unborn and the newborn children.

And this Orc is whining about "hate speech" and liberal "values":

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/%E2%80%9Cliberals-are-disgusting%E2%80%9D-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-%E2%80%9Cafter-birth-abortion%E2%80%9D/
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 29 2012 at 12:49
To me they significantly err and go down a rather evil road when they claim that being human does not grant a per se right to life. The right to life of a human may certainly be superseded, but to deny that this threshold of proof needs to be met before this occurs strikes me as terribly wrong. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 29 2012 at 12:51
Two ethicists walk into a bar...

It still boils down for me that life does begin when the two sets of genetic material join to make a unique individual.  Even without the intervention of man or god that zygote does not automatically implant or develop into a baby.  There comes a point in development where you could argue that the state has a vested interest in forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.  There are no easy answers as to when the state should intervene and force the woman to do that.  In the womb wanton baby murdering women are a right wing fallacy.  Women who would carry to near birth and then decide to terminate on a whim might occur but they are the exception.  Termination for birth defects is a real problem that ought to be left up to the parents and their doctor.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 29 2012 at 13:05
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Norbert View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 29 2012 at 13:04
This might be interesting for some people here:

http://secularprolife.org/
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 29 2012 at 13:04
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Apparently two "ethicists" (what is that word?) agree that the abortion argument extends to newborns.
 
Dude, that article is clearly pro-life rhetoric by every agent mentioned.
 
I've used the exact same arguments.
 
Because the fact is that the vast majority recoil at infanticide and then this line means you can't abort. (Contrapositive).
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3738394041>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.458 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.