Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32071 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #100 on:** March 02, 2006, 07:34:12 PM »

Yeah it is refreshing to have actual debate on the internet.

Something that is interesting though, from a paper that I am writing (due tomorrow):

A very common argument is that where we define the start of human life is arbitratrary, that “to draw a line, to choose a point in this [continuous] development and say 'before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person' is to make an arbitrary choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is, or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception.”(Pg. 28 Judith Jarvis Thomson)

One possible response to this argument is that “similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called 'slippery slope arguments'...”(Pg. 28 Judith Jarvis Thomson)

Phife · « **Reply #101 on:** March 03, 2006, 01:06:34 AM »

The truth is that if we made the alternatives to abortion (effective contraception, adoption, keeping the baby) more doable and effecient, then there would be fewer abortions.

Statistics show that between 2 and 8 percent of abortions are performed for good reasons (incest, rape, health). The rest of the abortions were performed as birth control. That is ridiculous.

So basically aborition is normally used as a mulligan. Meh...

pbsaurus · « **Reply #102 on:** March 03, 2006, 01:27:01 AM »

So economic necessity amounts to birth control? The mental health and maturity level of the woman amounts to birth control?

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #103 on:** March 03, 2006, 05:04:28 AM »

Quote from: Phife

Statistics show that between 2 and 8 percent of abortions are performed for good reasons...

I'd love to hear you justify those "good reasons" as well as who put you in the position to enforce that opinion onto others.

reimero · « **Reply #104 on:** March 03, 2006, 08:26:20 AM »

Actually, Crystalmonkey, he specifically said "rape, incest, health", which are not arbitrary value statements so much as quantifiable fact-based statements. Had he not mentioned those specifically, your objection would carry more weight.

I have to say, though, that I've done something of an about-face where contraception is concerned. I used to buy 100% into the Catholic party line about how artificial contraception is immoral, abstinence is the only way to go, etc. I think the reality of human nature dictates that if you want to minimize the number of abortions performed, the answer is not to have kajillions of babies, it's to educate and to prevent pregnancies from occurring in the first place. The moral issues regarding how those pregnancies should be prevented is outside the context of where the government has any right to be involved.

I realize this is really tangential, but I feel that primary sex education should be handled by parents (meaning it's going to happen in schools because far too many parents shirk that responsibility.) And when it's discussed in schools, it needs to be discussed in terms of biology and as free from "spin" as possible.

Not having sex is obviously the most reliable means for preventing pregnancy, and it's a route that should be considered and encouraged. We also know that teenagers are bundles of hormones and that abstinence isn't realistic for everyone. A discussion of the other methods out there, and their relative strengths and drawbacks and long-term health considerations and rates of reliability need to be made, again, without "spin." I thought the way it was handled in my human anatomy class in college was quite appropriate: very clinical, very frank and presented scientifically rather than as a moral issue.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #105 on:** March 03, 2006, 02:03:57 PM »

I agree with you there.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #106 on:** March 03, 2006, 03:19:49 PM »

Quote from: reimero

Actually, Crystalmonkey, he specifically said "rape, incest, health", which are not arbitrary value statements so much as quantifiable fact-based statements. Had he not mentioned those specifically, your objection would carry more weight.

If you say that those are the only good reasons, I ask you to justify why. Nothing complicated about it.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #107 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:38:09 PM »

Are you asking for a justification of why those are good reasons or why those are the only good reasons?

One of those two doesn't make any sense.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #108 on:** March 04, 2006, 05:13:39 PM »

Why they are the only good reasons.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #109 on:** March 05, 2006, 11:58:18 AM »

Right, carry on!

Phife · « **Reply #110 on:** March 08, 2006, 03:01:47 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

Why they are the only good reasons.

Well, in the research that I did all of the other reasons should have been considered before intercourse began. Stuff like "I don't have enough money," "My parents will kill me," "I don't want to be a single mom," "I don't like the father," "I'm not ready yet," and "I'm too young." Those are preventables...meaning that the woman can and should think of those things before becoming sexually active and take the proper actions before getting pregnant.

Incest, rape, and health concerns are a different matter. Incest and rape are clearly out of the hands of the woman in the vast majority of the cases. Concerns over the health of the mother or unborn child are generally out of the control of the mother as well. I think that health concerns are not quite as "good" as incest and rape however. For instance, some women have been told by their ObGyn's that having a child would put them at risk...they should take precautions. And when the health of the unborn is at risk...many times it is a genetic disorder or something similar. If you think that is as "good" of a reason to abort as incest or rape, just tell that the the parents who have kids with genetic disorder who love their child and feel fulfilled through the life of their child.

What other reasons do you think are "good"?

pbsaurus · « **Reply #111 on:** March 08, 2006, 03:37:06 PM »

Opening a can of worms, it's what's for dinner!

Vespertine · « **Reply #112 on:** March 08, 2006, 04:13:51 PM »

Quote from: Phife

Quote from: Crystalmonkey
Why they are the only good reasons.

Well, in the research that I did all of the other reasons should have been considered before intercourse began. Stuff like "I don't have enough money," "My parents will kill me," "I don't want to be a single mom," "I don't like the father," "I'm not ready yet," and "I'm too young." Those are preventables...meaning that the woman can and should think of those things before becoming sexually active and take the proper actions before getting pregnant.

Incest, rape, and health concerns are a different matter. Incest and rape are clearly out of the hands of the woman in the vast majority of the cases. Concerns over the health of the mother or unborn child are generally out of the control of the mother as well. I think that health concerns are not quite as "good" as incest and rape however. For instance, some women have been told by their ObGyn's that having a child would put them at risk...they should take precautions. And when the health of the unborn is at risk...many times it is a genetic disorder or something similar. If you think that is as "good" of a reason to abort as incest or rape, just tell that the the parents who have kids with genetic disorder who love their child and feel fulfilled through the life of their child.

What other reasons do you think are "good"?

Personally, I think that a "good" reason is that I am a full grown adult, who is fully capable of making decisions that concern my body and life. If I am pregnant, and I wish to not be pregnant, that is my choice. That choice does not affect you in any way, shape or form, so why should you be able to decide what I (the fully capable adult) do with my undifferentiated mass of cells?

reimero · « **Reply #113 on:** March 08, 2006, 04:29:37 PM »

Ouch. Not a good argument. By the time you realize you're pregnant, those cells are differentiated.

Yeah, it's a nit. Yeah, I'm picking it.

The big thing is that rape, incest and life of mother are objective. Everything else is subjective. Your point of view is that it's a woman's body to do that with which she chooses, end of story. My point of view is that the new genetic code and the possibility of asexual cellular reproduction is the point at which a new, unique person is created, and that person should have rights.

The two views are fundamentally incompatible, and there's really not much that can be done about it. Your point of view is as valid as mine, I just happen to disagree. And I happen to know you and I will always disagree on this point

Vespertine · « **Reply #114 on:** March 08, 2006, 04:39:16 PM »

Quote from: reimero

Ouch. Not a good argument. By the time you realize you're pregnant, those cells are differentiated.

Yeah, it's a nit. Yeah, I'm picking it.

The big thing is that rape, incest and life of mother are objective. Everything else is subjective. Your point of view is that it's a woman's body to do that with which she chooses, end of story. My point of view is that the new genetic code and the possibility of asexual cellular reproduction is the point at which a new, unique person is created, and that person should have rights.

The two views are fundamentally incompatible, and there's really not much that can be done about it. Your point of view is as valid as mine, I just happen to disagree. And I happen to know you and I will always disagree on this point

The crux of my argument is that my point of view affects me, and only me; it has no effect whatsoever on you. On the other hand, your point of view has a very direct effect on me, while still having very little effect on you. So, my ultimate point is, why should you, or any other pro-lifer, be able to make life altering decisions for me?

Also, you can detect pregnancy as early as five days...cells are still undifferentiated at that point.

hackess · « **Reply #115 on:** March 08, 2006, 05:36:28 PM »

Quote from: reimero

My point of view is that the new genetic code and the possibility of asexual cellular reproduction is the point at which a new, unique person is created, and that person should have rights.

Ahhhh...possibilities...

Phife · « **Reply #116 on:** March 09, 2006, 02:07:04 AM »

Let me reiterate my point since it has been missed all along:

I hate abortion. It is a bad option. The better options are abstinence (yeah right!) and contraception. But there are some cases where abortion should be allowed...i.e., for "good" reasons.

Allowing anyone to terminate a pregancy for flippant reasons is enabling irresponsible and destructive behavior. And that's not even mentioning the unborn's "rights" as reimero pointed out (though I find his line of reasoning pointless...unfortunately the other side simply won't see what you are saying for what it is worth).

In short: abortion sucks and should be a last resort.

TheJudge · « **Reply #117 on:** March 09, 2006, 07:26:59 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine

The crux of my argument is that my point of view affects me, and only me; it has no effect whatsoever on you.

I think what Remeiro is saying is that if affects you, but not only you. It also affects the unborn child which, in his opinion, is considered a person at that stage and therefore has rights. Rights which in principle should prevent you from making that decision. But you are correct, it doesn't affect him.

To people who think like remeiro, there's essentially no difference between the unborn child and the 1 month old baby. Would it be acceptable as a parent to decide one day they don't feel like having the 1 month old baby anymore so they dispose of it? Absolutly not. In fact, when you learn on the news that a baby was found dead in a dumpster, it just enrages you like nothing else can. To people who think like remeiro, the decision to have an abortion is equivalent to the decision of disposing of your 1 month old baby. It's unacceptable.

Like he pointed out, it all has to do with the fact that you both recognise the existence of this new unique person at different points during its development, which is why you'll never agree. You're comparing apples and oranges. It has absolutely nothing to do with how your decisions affect him, or others who think like he does.

reimero · « **Reply #118 on:** March 09, 2006, 07:51:22 AM »

Judge = nail + head

dur-ril · « **Reply #119 on:** March 09, 2006, 09:52:54 AM »

This subject is being discussed in my country right now. Although some politicians (our president among them) are against abortion others want to legalize it. There was this thing about something the president might've said but i'm not going to get into boring details.
The reason i said that is because due to this i've been thinking about this a lot lately.
However, i'm not sure what my views on this subject are. I do know i agree with Phife, in case of rape, incest, etc i do believe it should be allowed. But i'm not sure about the other cases. I don't think it should turn into some kind of contraceptive. It worries me that, if legalized, people might start thinking why should i use protection when i can just and have an abortion if i get pregnant?

reimero · « **Reply #120 on:** March 09, 2006, 10:37:47 AM »

Having an abortion is an invasive surgical procedure. Even pro-choice advocacy groups acknowledge that it's not a substitute for birth control and that dangerous side effects, while rare, are a possibility. It's universally agreed that prevention is better than abortion.

Among my pro-choice friends, I get the distinct impression that abortion is considered more of a necessary option to have available than it is a happy, desirable thing to be taken advantage of liberally.

Vespertine · « **Reply #121 on:** March 09, 2006, 10:54:26 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Quote from: Vespertine
The crux of my argument is that my point of view affects me, and only me; it has no effect whatsoever on you.

I think what Remeiro is saying is that if affects you, but not only you. It also affects the unborn child which, in his opinion, is considered a person at that stage and therefore has rights. Rights which in principle should prevent you from making that decision. But you are correct, it doesn't affect him.

To people who think like remeiro, there's essentially no difference between the unborn child and the 1 month old baby. Would it be acceptable as a parent to decide one day they don't feel like having the 1 month old baby anymore so they dispose of it? Absolutly not. In fact, when you learn on the news that a baby was found dead in a dumpster, it just enrages you like nothing else can. To people who think like remeiro, the decision to have an abortion is equivalent to the decision of disposing of your 1 month old baby. It's unacceptable.

Like he pointed out, it all has to do with the fact that you both recognise the existence of this new unique person at different points during its development, which is why you'll never agree. You're comparing apples and oranges. It has absolutely nothing to do with how your decisions affect him, or others who think like he does.

I understood remeiro's point in the first place. Whether an abortion affects only me, or me and the "baby" inside, the bottom line is that it does not affect remeiro, or you, or anyone else. At the same time, the point of view that dictates what i can and can't do with my own body has a wide-reaching effect. Specifically, it has an effect on me and my womb and my ability to choose the direction of my life, while at the same time having no effect on remeiro, or you, or anyone else.

TheJudge · « **Reply #122 on:** March 09, 2006, 11:04:26 AM »

You've been using the argument that it's your body, therefore your choice and you're supporting your argument by stating there is no impact on anyone else. We all agree that it does not affect Remeiro or myself or anyone else (with the exception of the baby). There is however the element of compassion for other human beings that cannot be so easily dismissed. This is why people like remeiro fight the issue. Compassion. They are not challenging the issue for themselves since, as you clearly point out, it has no direct impact to them.

reimero · « **Reply #123 on:** March 09, 2006, 11:45:12 AM »

I should also mention that while it's not on me to be able to carry a child to term and give birth, and thus doesn't affect me directly in that sense, there is the fact that as a male, if I were to get a woman pregnant, I have zero rights with regards to whether the child should be born, yet 100% responsibility for child support if she decides to keep the baby. And child support doesn't magically end at age 18. If something happens to the child and it is born with special needs, that child support could be a lifetime commitment.

As a male, I cannot coerce a woman to have an abortion, nor can I coerce her not to. She can, however, stick me with significant problems for a very long time. A woman may choose to abort because she can't afford the child or doesn't want to have a child out of wedlock or doesn't want the responsibility. The man who contributed to the pregnancy has no such say, even though he is almost always financially and often emotionally vested in the decision.

I'm not saying there are any easy answers, but I am saying that it is most certainly not a woman-only issue.

TheJudge · « **Reply #124 on:** March 09, 2006, 11:57:48 AM »

You should have though of that before tappin' that ass. If you are involved in intercourse, then you are accepting all the risks at that very moment.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32071 times)