Abortion

POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 03:33
VIEWED: 22628
PAGE 6 of 28

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:47 PM

The site I linked said that it's possible to have reflex responses to stimuli without awarness - like Terry Schiavo.

CARTOON

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This has also been debunked many times over. PLEASE STOP USING BOGUS ARGUMENTS !!! (ie lies)

Oops. I didn't have my source pre-approved by Rue. I forgot. Everything with which Rue disagrees is "bogus" -- including the Nobel-Prize winner I quoted in another thread, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for clarifying, Rue. The only authority worth quoting is you. I keep forgeting that you know everything, and all of the others (those who disaggree with you) are braindead. By your definition, then, they aren't "life" either.

Hmm.

AMITON

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The site I linked said that it's possible to have reflex responses to stimuli without awarness - like Terry Schiavo.

I suppose that's possible, although I will state for my own position that 1) I'm not personally comfortable with the idea that a baby that I can see and hold and interact with isn't aware, and 2) I have trouble psychologically associating what is happening with that baby with a case equivalent to Terry Schiavo. Again, I'm not saying that it isn't true - I am not an expert on babies nor reflex actions of humans, right along with so many of my other limitations. I just have trouble believing that the actions and what I perceive as reactions in the infant are reflexive and not based in some state of awareness. Of course it wouldn't be the first time my own personal limitations kept me from a "true" understanding if it is indeed a fact.

Amiton.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Easy, now. It's possible to have compassion and not judge and still be against abortion. It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion. There are good, rational arguments against abortion, just like there are for it. Let's not take the easy way out of this conversation by simply painting the other side as ignorant morons.

Are you going to say that to shineyd and Cartoon?

You don't need to be pro abortion to think it shouldn't be illegal, in fact I'd say painting someone as pro abortion, as if we're saying "Abortions great, kill all babies" would be an easy way out of the conversation too no?

Maybe you'd care to question the trolls assertion that anyone who disagrees with it is lying and hiding the truth, not to mention insinuations that they have less right to an opinion because of age? Though preferably everyone should stop encouraging it to post by playing its game of fire starting.

So anyway really the two positions are abortion, legal or illegal, not anti/pro. Well there's also the “Sinners! Evil dirty Sinners should all die! God hates you!” But like I said we should ignore Cartoon.

And yes, if you really must know I do think wishing abortion to be illegal is indicative of either a lack of compassion, life experience or both. The same as I think the man who kicks his daughter out because she's pregnant lacks compassion. And frankly it's my experience that those who have personal experience with abortion tend to recognise it as a necessary evil, and those that think it should defiantly be illegal don't have any life experience of it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:08 PM

Amiton

I share your discomfort. People (normal ones) are programmed to respond to a baby's cry. And when they first open their eyes and look at you, you feel a complete bond. And I think that's what was going on with Mrs Schiavo. People would look into her eyes and have a hard time thinking that the light was on, but ...

But when setting policy, I think you need to go with the facts.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This has also been debunked many times over. PLEASE STOP USING BOGUS ARGUMENTS !!! (ie lies)

Oops. I didn't have my source pre-approved by Rue. I forgot. Everything with which Rue disagrees is "bogus" -- including the Nobel-Prize winner I quoted in another thread, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for clarifying, Rue. The only authority worth quoting is you. I keep forgeting that you know everything, and all of the others (those who disaggree with you) are braindead. By your definition, then, they aren't "life" either.

Hmm.

Now you're just being childish. Rue pretty clearly cited the study which contradicts your point. Saying Rue never listens doesn't change the fact that your point has clearly been called into question. If you've got something to contradict Rue, post it. But whining doesn't support your point.

And give it up on that Nobel Prize winner. You fall back on that waaay too much. I remember that thread, and your Nobel Prize winner won that prize in a different field.

As smart as he is, I wouldn't go asking Steven Hawking about marine biology - not his field.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CAUSAL

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Easy, now. It's possible to have compassion and not judge and still be against abortion. It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion. There are good, rational arguments against abortion, just like there are for it. Let's not take the easy way out of this conversation by simply painting the other side as ignorant morons.
Are you going to say that to shineyd and Cartoon? ... Maybe you'd care to question the trolls assertion that anyone who disagrees with it is lying and hiding the truth, not to mention insinuations that they have less right to an opinion because of age?

You've got me there. I suppose that if you commit an ad hominem fallacy, regardless of your position on an issue, you ought to be called out. Thanks for the nudge.

That said, calling someone insensitive, uncompassionate and ingnorant is still an ad hominem fallacy, and doesn't establish your case.

Quote:
So anyway really the two positions are abortion, legal or illegal, not anti/pro.

Not sure I can agree with you here. Casting it in this light certainly makes it easier to call someon uncompassionate, but this isn't the whole story. If--notice the "if" there for argument's sake--if a fetus is a human being, and if all killing of human beings is murder and if all murder is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong. This is the crux of the argument as far as I'm concerned. For me it's isn't as simplistic as "legal or illegal." I think we need to clear up the thorny issue of the ontological status of the fetus before we can really make any progress on this issue.

Quote:
And yes, if you really must know I do think wishing abortion to be illegal is indicative of either a lack of compassion, life experience or both.

Well, given that my position on the issue is that the aborting of the fetus is a moral wrong, I fail to see how opposing the commission of a moral wrong is an indicator of a lack of compassion and life experience. Pregnant and don't want to be a mother? What a difficult spot to be in. But I think that there are ways to avoid having to be a mother other than aborting the baby. It's also the case that unwanted pregnancies are higher amongst poorer demographics. So maybe doing something about the vast economic disparities would go some length to solving these problems.

I guess my basic point is that you're assuming that it's been established that abortion is a morally neutral issue, and I'm not ready to concede that point yet.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:36 PM

Quote:
this position assumes that abortion is a morally neutral proposition, which I'm not prepared to grant. If it's the case that abortion is in fact morally neutral, then golly, we better not make it illegal. But if it's the case that it's not, then we need to be talking about other stuff.

The problem with the abortion debate seems to be that one side casts it as a moral issue and argues it that way, and the other side casts it as a legal rights issue and argues it that way. And so no progress is ever made, because the two sides aren't even talking about the same thing!

Except it's not one or the other. It's both. In fact it's more since, as you mentioned, it's a feminist issue as well. And those are only some of the sides to the debate.

To my mind, the legal and feminist issues have to take precedence, since the moral issues involved are relative. They change vastly depending on who you talk to. I recognise that feminism and the law do too, but it's not to the same degree, and it's certainly not nearly so individual and personal as something like a person's belief system.

Think about it. You object to abortion for philosophical reasons. If I don't, what right do you have to force that philosophy on me? What if my philosophy is different? Who says your philosophy is right and mine is wrong? Who decides which belief system is the right one? Or even if *any* belief system is valid? And what happens to everyone else forced to go along with a belief system they don't agree with and may have very strong objections to? It's an endless argument. We *know* this because it's been going on since we first learned to hit each other over the head with rocks.

Philosophy and religion cannot 100% prove that an unborn baby is a conscious individual with a soul. Medical science can give us some answers, and what it proves every time without difficulty (barring brain death or other physical or mental issues) is that the mother *is* a conscious individual capable of making a choice. That choice *has* to come before anything else, because it's that woman's body that's put at risk, that woman's life that is changed forever and that woman who has to live with the consequences one way or another. No one else is that closely involved in the process of carrying a child and giving birth to it - not even the father, and they can be pretty damn involved.

But crucially, fathers are *automatically* given a choice. They can be involved or they can run a million miles away. Sure, they can be chased for money afterwards, but that's if they can be tracked down and it can be proved in a court of law that they fathered the child and have any money to support it. if abortion is denied to women then they don't get that choice for at least nine months, if at all. That's assuming the mother carries a healthy child to term and gives birth without any complications that result in persistant medical issues or death. Is this helping in any way to understand why the mother has to have the right to choose? Because seriously, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I could type all night (if I didn't have stuff to do here.)

And I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, because I really can't stress this enough. If a woman is desperate not to have a child, then she won't have it. Either she'll go to a clinic and receive counselling and advice to help her make a mature decision, or she'll shove a broom handle somewhere private and do the job herself. Yes, I know that's graphic and disgusting but it's the bloody truth. Anyone in a desperate situation is capable of desperate things, and they won't give a damn if it's legal or no.

You don't want women to have abortions? Fine. Try making social changes to remove the stigma on 'welfare moms'. Try providing actual support by making sure families can work and raise their kids or at least have decent, affordable childcare so they can have their dignity and not live on handouts. And FOR THE LOVE OF HEAVEN introduce mandetory maternity leave! I can't BELIEVE ANY first world co

RUE

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:39 PM

"if all murder is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong" and should therefore be illegal.

This is the central fallacy. Immoral and illegal are not one and the same. The US legal code was based on humanist thinking, not theocracy.

The moral of the story is, the morality of abortion should be left between the woman and her religion.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think I made my position clear already - the same criterion for death should be used for life - brain activity.

What is the qualitative difference in brain activity in a baby five minutes before its birth and five minutes after?

What, exactly, constitutes "brain activity?"

If a baby born five weeks prematurely has brain activity such that we can't be morally justified in killing it, why doesn't a fetus enjoy the same protection five weeks before its birth? Is there some qualitative difference there?

Did Terry Schiavo have "brain activity?"

If an adult human is involved in a car accident such that the only brain function that remained was only that regulating basic body functions, but who given intravenous feedings, would live for years, are we justified in pulling the plug? And if so, is it because of a lack of brain activity?

At what point, scientifically speaking, does brain activity (of the sort: person making) begin? What studies are there to demonstrate this?

Quote:
As for feminism, it's clear that this is considered a 'woman's' issue/ problem/ sin and men are conveniently left out of the picture. The WOMAN had SEX !!!??? OMG why wasn't SHE more careful/ a stronger fighter/ pure ? The man is just incidental to the whole debate.

Easy--I wasn't saying abortion isn't a woman's issue or a feminist issue. What I am saying is that it isn't only that. It is, in addition, a moral issue. And when we treat it solely as a feminist issue or solely as a political issue then a crucial piece of the discussion (the moral dimension) is being left out.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE