Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32070 times)

Vespertine · « **Reply #75 on:** February 24, 2006, 11:02:08 PM »

Quote from: catwritr

Quote from: Vespertine
Well, we're now on our way to seeing if we can turn women into second class citizens who are, by nature of being women, totally unqualified to make decisions for themselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/

One of my news stations is in Sioux City, IA, and covers SD news. I seethed when I had to edit that story.

*gets out Red Pen of Editorial Wrath*

*reads story*

*inserts <hurr> tag and fixes punctuation, spelling and grammar*

*closes <hurr> tag*

*posts story*

Feh.

I'll bet. I think having to edit that story just might have sent me over the edge.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #76 on:** February 25, 2006, 12:59:34 AM »

I'm going to throw in my two cents, very late, and not really bother about how well it goes over, but I'll say it as nice as possible.

Please keep in mind that my catholic childhood and athiest present don't go into this opinion, but my wonderful experiences with raising several bastards and stepchildren do :

I am of the belief that as soon as conceived, a human embryo is de facto a peice of human life. This is biologically sound and has nought to do with my nonexistant religion.

Therefore, I think it is feasable to classify ANY abortion as murder or manslaughter. However, I do think that in cases of danger to the mother, an abortion is allowable.

I do not personally see the need for any other form of abortion. Children of rape and incest whose birth will not harm the mother are still children. In a world-society where thousands of families are sterile or elsewise unable to raise children, adoption is a very viable and wonderful option.

hackess · « **Reply #77 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:11:17 AM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

I do not personally see the need for any other form of abortion. Children of rape and incest whose birth will not harm the mother are still children. In a world-society where thousands of families are sterile or elsewise unable to raise children, adoption is a very viable and wonderful option.

Mental anguish at the thought of having to carry to term a child you were forced to conceive isn't "harm" to you?

LuciferSam · « **Reply #78 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:29:04 AM »

I've had it from some psychiatrist friends that the mental strain of the abortion is more harmful, and in fact abortions can lead to such serious psychological harm as borderline personality, extension of antisocial behavioral disorders, and tendancies that might be percieved as sociopathy.

Either way, it's certaintly a terrible decision, but I take the view that the way of compassiontly sparing a child from nonexistance is a larger proof of character and mental fitness than abortion.

hackess · « **Reply #79 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:33:22 AM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

Either way, it's certaintly a terrible decision, but I take the view that the way of compassiontly sparing a child from nonexistance is a larger proof of character and mental fitness than abortion.

So I'm an uncompassionate person because I use birth control, rendering any possible children nonexistant?

What about drug addicts/heavy users? The child, if carried to term, will undoubtedly be affected by the drugs. You think a mentally or physically incapacitated child, due to the toxins they were exposed to for up to 36 weeks is better than "sparing it from nonexistance"?

I agree that it should never be an easy decision and that the woman will probably suffer some distress if she goes through with the procedure, by the way. I believe your psychiatrist friends are intentionally ignoring the thousands of women who have had an abortion and still function under "normal" standards by the DSM-IV.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #80 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:40:11 AM »

Quote from: catwritr

Quote from: LuciferSam
Either way, it's certaintly a terrible decision, but I take the view that the way of compassiontly sparing a child from nonexistance is a larger proof of character and mental fitness than abortion.

So I'm an uncompassionate person because I use birth control, rendering any possible children nonexistant?

What about drug addicts/heavy users? The child, if carried to term, will undoubtedly be affected by the drugs. You think a mentally or physically incapacitated child, due to the toxins they were exposed to for up to 36 weeks is better than "sparing it from nonexistance"?

I said no such thing

As a philosopher, I think the entire question belongs more to metaphysicians than lawyers, and as an old liberal I think that it is always best to live and let live. It's as simple a view as that.

hackess · « **Reply #81 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:46:30 AM »

Just checking.

That's exactly it, though. Legal issues aside, this is entirely a values debate. If you believe that life begins at conception, you're entirely free to raise as many children as you can support financially and emotionally -- but in the meantime, don't tell me what I *can't* do with my own body.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #82 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:51:44 AM »

/ifitoldyouyouhadagreatbodywouldyouCHOOSEtoholditagainstme?

I agree, I don't think it is even a state's rights issue. It's up to personal value, but I think there should be a more efficiant support system set up for those who choose either way.

Regarding contraception, as an ex-catholic, I think it's the greatest thing invented.

hackess · « **Reply #83 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:57:12 AM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

It's up to personal value, but I think there should be a more efficiant support system set up for those who choose either way.

YES.

Quote

/ifitoldyouihadagreatbodywouldyouCHOOSEtoholditagainstme?

NO.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #84 on:** February 25, 2006, 02:09:57 AM »

EDIT:

Quote

/if i told you i had a great body

I just noticed that. It's either a typo on my part or the greatest lie ever told second to Paul's gospels!

[referstoselfportraitsatHN]

Vespertine · « **Reply #85 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:57:20 PM »

Quote from: catwritr

Quote from: LuciferSam
Either way, it's certaintly a terrible decision, but I take the view that the way of compassiontly sparing a child from nonexistance is a larger proof of character and mental fitness than abortion.

[snip]
I agree that it should never be an easy decision and that the woman will probably suffer some distress if she goes through with the procedure, by the way. I believe your psychiatrist friends are intentionally ignoring the thousands of women who have had an abortion and still function under "normal" standards by the DSM-IV.

I agree wholeheartedly with Cat's statement about your psychiatrist friend. I'd be willing to bet that your friend was describing possible side-effects as opposed to what happens with the majority of women.

reimero · « **Reply #86 on:** February 27, 2006, 08:54:18 AM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

It's up to personal value, but I think there should be a more efficiant support system set up for those who choose either way.

Winnar!

I'm pro-life in the strictest sense of the term (= anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty, etc.)

One of the things that pisses me off about the anti-abortion movement is that for all the talk you hear about demonstrations in front of abortuaries and campaigning to have Roe v. Wade overturned, as well as educating people as to why we feel the way we feel, there is simply inadequate discussion about dealing with crisis pregnancies. Pro-lifers do get a healthy dose of OMGTHINKOFTEHCHILDREN but ignore the woman, or at least offer little more than a sympathetic smile, weak encouragement and the offer that adoption is always a viable option. There's just not a good, solid mechanism in place for dealing with crisis pregnancies, for navigating the emotional turmoil and dealing with friends and family and life.

It's a hard question, and not one I have all the answers for, but I also believe that it's one the pro-life really needs to grab by the horns.

Abortion sucks. It's not an easy or pleasant thing. It's traumatic for everyone involved (regardless what you're told.) And it's a very tough position to be put in.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #87 on:** February 27, 2006, 09:47:56 AM »

Not as bad as being behind GenStyx in the theatre.

Dunno where that smoke comes from, that.

Our entire adoption system needs revamped drasticly, as far as I am concerned. Maybe I'll even post some suggestions later on when I've had tea! OMFGLOL!1ONETEA!

pbsaurus · « **Reply #88 on:** February 27, 2006, 04:03:01 PM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

...adoption is a very viable and wonderful option.

Having experience in this realm I wouldn't say it's a very viable option for either party. The bureaucracy and the laws make adoption extremely difficult and expensive for all parties. Whereas abortion is a much more economically viable option.

I'm curious about your views though. So if termination of a zygote through fetus is murder, a woman who doesn't get proper nutrition is a murderer? What about wars? Are soldiers murderers? Is the president a murderer? Are the judges who sentence someone to death murderers? Are the state employed people who carry out state sponsored executions murderers? Are the member nations of the UN murderers for their economic sanctions which have led to starvation deaths in multiple countries?

I find it curious that many in the anti-abortion camp reply no to all of my above questions. I see it as highly illogical.

Death is part of life, we will all die whether it's at a gamete stage, or somewhere later along the continuum. Do we really want to define termination of a pregnancy as murder?

reimero · « **Reply #89 on:** February 27, 2006, 04:29:25 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Quote from: LuciferSam
...adoption is a very viable and wonderful option.

Having experience in this realm I wouldn't say it's a very viable option for either party. The bureaucracy and the laws make adoption extremely difficult and expensive for all parties. Whereas abortion is a much more economically viable option.

I'm curious about your views though. So if termination of a zygote through fetus is murder, a woman who doesn't get proper nutrition is a murderer? What about wars? Are soldiers murderers? Is the president a murderer? Are the judges who sentence someone to death murderers? Are the state employed people who carry out state sponsored executions murderers? Are the member nations of the UN murderers for their economic sanctions which have led to starvation deaths in multiple countries?

I find it curious that many in the anti-abortion camp reply no to all of my above questions. I see it as highly illogical.

Death is part of life, we will all die whether it's at a gamete stage, or somewhere later along the continuum. Do we really want to define termination of a pregnancy as murder?

Attempting to answer very quickly:

Murder is the willful and unlawful taking of a human life, so anything that is natural causes doesn't constitute murder, nor does negligence (although it may constitute personslaughter.)

I don't have time to go into detail, but murder does require active involvement. I also don't believe in coercive involvement, that is, "if you don't do X, I will kill $person and it will be your fault." That's a crock, IMNSHO, because the coercer holds all the cards. Allowing for sanctions falls into this category.

I'm out of time, so I'll continue this later.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #90 on:** February 27, 2006, 05:13:14 PM »

Quote from: reimero

Murder is the willful and unlawful taking of a human life

Not to create a straw man, but this sounds as if you're basing the morality of "murder" on law.

I suppose you could also be just trying to define it in a context, but I thought you said earlier that you were against murder, so I took it to mean that:

Murder is Wrong

Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life

The lawful taking of a human life != wrong

What are the situtations in which you would support the cessasion of life. (By life I mean the broad term, not just "human life".)

Edit: Never is an option of course, but please explain.

reimero · « **Reply #91 on:** February 28, 2006, 08:40:00 AM »

Quote

What are the situtations in which you would support the cessasion of life. (By life I mean the broad term, not just "human life".)

I support the taking of plant life for the purposes of food, domestic improvement and getting rid of #^%!@#ing weeds growing in my yard.
I support the taking of bacterial life when it affects my health.
I support the taking of animal life for purposes of providing food and certain other animal-based products (such as leather. Not a big fan of the fur, though.) I think if you're going to kill an animal, though, you need to use as much of the animal as possible and waste as little as possible.

As for human life, my "stock" answer is that the taking of a human life is permissible in self-defense, defense of others, and in legitimate defense of one's home and property ("nation" qualifies here, "national interests" do not.) War is a somewhat special case: just wars fought in a just way are acceptable. I regard WWII as largely justified because:
1. U.S. territorial soil was attacked;
2. Human atrocities were being committed that could only have been halted by war.
Having said that, I think that the "just way" is equally important. Military targets and military support targets are fair game. Obvious civilian targets are not. Now, I know it's not uncommon for unethical leaders to place high-value military targets among civilian targets (putting the tank factory between the all-girls' school and the hospital), and those HVTs are fair game. Collateral damage is regrettable, but the deaths of civilians are on the heads of those who put the factory there, not the combatants. What I do have a problem with is the attack of a civilian population in order to apply political pressure to end the war.

If a police officer kills a suspect in the line of duty, and there was strong reason to believe the suspect posed an immediate and lethal threat to either the cop or to others nearby, I have no problem with that, as long as it's understood that lethal force is a last resort, only to be used when necessary. Once a suspect has been subdued, then the state's ability to kill should be strongly curtailed (by which I mean negated, unless that suspect again becomes a clear, present, imminent and lethal danger.)

Finally, I'm a firm believer in letting nature run its course. Medically, I don't believe in accelerating death by witholding food or water, but I also don't believe in prolonging death unnecessarily by keeping expensive machines hooked up longer than medically necessary. I really need to set up a living will, but it will read that hydration and nutrition are not to be removed, medication and life support machinery may be if the prognosis is there is little or no hope of recovery and after my family has arrived to say good bye. In other words, I want nature to run its course. And I don't want extreme measures. When my GF's mom died last year, my GF was put in a situation in which she had to make a call between use of extreme measures or letting it go. In this case, "extreme measures" would have prolonged her mom's life by a few hours at most, and would have caused a great deal of pain. Her mom knew it was time. It was not an easy decision, but it was the right one: her mom left on her own terms.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #92 on:** February 28, 2006, 01:01:32 PM »

Bravo. Your answers are well thought out. Nothing but respect here, even though I disagree with your position on abortion.

ivan · « **Reply #93 on:** March 01, 2006, 05:17:26 PM »

Mississippi follows South Dakota.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13984932.htm

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #94 on:** March 01, 2006, 07:56:44 PM »

"Seperation of Church and State my ass!"

reimero · « **Reply #95 on:** March 02, 2006, 08:39:27 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Bravo. Your answers are well thought out. Nothing but respect here, even though I disagree with your position on abortion.

Thanks. Normally I don't like to proselytize, but since I was asked, I figured I'd lay it all out there. Obviously, other people feel differently about a great many of these viewpoints. And that's fine. I think that when you get into questions like this, you're getting away from objective, fact-based discussion and into the realms of ethics and morality, which are far less black and white (objectively speaking.)

Yeah, that's an ironic statement, but let me clarify what I mean by "far less black and white." I'm Catholic, which (by definition) puts me in the supergroup of Christians. Christians are defined by their faith in Jesus as God and use of both Old and New Testaments of the Bible as core religious texts. Upon closer investigation, however, one will notice vast differences in interpretation of these texts, as well as differences in what is emphasized, religiously. All tend to practice "selective application" of these texts, however, ignoring certain passages: how does one reconcile the "eye for an eye" of the Old Testament with the "turn the other cheek" of the new?

My favourite example of moral ambiguity is with the attitude toward the consumption of alcohol. Among certain denominations of Protestants especially, the consumption of alcohol is considered sinful and a sign of moral weakness, whereas abstinence from drinking is a sign of virtue. Among certain other religions, alcohol is regarded as something to be enjoyed in moderation and its consumption only becomes a moral issue when it leads one to engage in dangerous or otherwise immoral behavior (such as hitting on another guy's wife.) A fundamentalist will see alcohol consumption in terms of black and white, and will claim his view is the "Christian" view, but that's simply not the case. It's not black and white because most definitions of morality are not consistent across the board.

I will readily concede that my views toward life, and human life in particular, are guided as much by morality as by logic, although logic and reason do play a substantial role for me (which I'll explain in my next post.) And I'll readily concede that while there are some things which I would call "moral absolutes" but which are also borne out by means of rational, logical reasoning (for instance, that murder without just cause is fundamentally wrong: at its core, it's the deprivation of a very basic, fundamental human right), there are some things which a person simply has to work out for him or herself. I can state my views. I can defend my views. But I cannot impose my views. Nor should I.

reimero · « **Reply #96 on:** March 02, 2006, 09:29:01 AM »

In a nutshell, here is why I oppose abortion:

It is a solid scientific theory that life must come from life (the origins of the universe notwithstanding. Science has thus far failed to animate a 100% synthetic cell, much less a synthetic system of cells. In other words, that aspect is theoretically possible but unconfirmed.) I'm not sure whether the reanimation of "dead" cells has succeeded, but even there, those cells were alive at one point. To the best of my scientific knowledge, though, life must come from life. This means that living genetic material is a prerequisite for a new life to be formed.

We know that both sperm and egg cells are alive, by biological definition, but are incomplete (i.e. incapable of asexual reproduction.) And we know that when fertilization occurs, they merge into a new cell capable of asexual reproduction. This cell multiplies into many, and they differentiate into organs, tissues and a placenta. Over the course of time, they mature and develop further until (and even after) birth. This is all well-documented.

I've heard a great many arguments on both sides of the debate: life begins at conception, it's only a potential life until it's born, every sperm is sacred, woman's live > potential child's life, etc.

The following is my view. Take it how you will, and feel free to disagree, but please don't say my opinion is wrong (scientific fact is, of course, on the table.) In other words, this whole section is IN MY OPINION:

Given that life comes from life, and given that the sperm and egg were both alive at the point of conception, the statement that life begins at conception is something of a misnomer. That life was always there, in the form of the parents, and the parents' parents, etc. At the point of genetic merger, though, a unique and individual person has been "programmed" into that cell's DNA: aside from environmental factors, that person has been hard-coded, even if it is only a single cell. It's not so much the creation of life as it is the spawning of a new life from existing life. But everything is there. Genetically, there is essentially no difference between that single fertilized cell and the grown adult it may one day become (I say "essentially" because some mutations do occur during growth and development.)
Thus, biologically speaking, there is nothing "potential" about this life. It is life, and it is human.

As mentioned previously, I'm a firm believer in letting nature take its course. Science is beginning to understand why some babies can be carried to term, others spontaneously abort and others never even make it to implantation in the uterus, but a great deal of it involves what can best be described as "natural selection." Not every fertilized egg will be born. It's a scientific fact and I accept that, just as I accept that some 5-year-olds will have leukemia and George Burns will smoke and drink his way to a long, full life. I'm not about to make a federal case out of miscarriages. They're a fact of life.

Then there's the political question of when a person becomes a person with rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that birth is the deciding factor, a decision I find highly questionable, particularly in light of the fact that they've upheld state laws making the harming of an unborn fetus a crime. There is no biological difference between a baby in-utero at 8 months and a baby born a month early.

I understand the arguments about rape/incest, and I do sympathize with those cases. I also think that they're overstated. Politically, they're very popular and very powerful: the victim of rape or incest has already experienced extreme trauma with which she will have to live for the rest of her life. A good friend of mine was raped and impregnated, so to me, it's a little bit more than an academic exercise. She kept the baby, FWIW. Anyway, for all the talk about rape/incest, the number of abortions performed based on these factors is actually statistically insignificant: I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 3% of abortions are performed for these reasons. The other 97% are for other reasons. Politically, R/I is powerful, but practically speaking, it's not a good reason for general legalization, particularly since politicians do seem to be sympathetic toward keeping it as an option in those cases.

Then there's the question of life/health of the mother, and here I have to make a distinction. As I see it, the termination of pregnancy falls into one of two categories: termination as primary effect and termination as secondary effect. Primary effect means that the desired outcome is the termination of pregnancy. Secondary effect means that the desired outcome is something else, with the termination of pregnancy as a side effect. A good example is an ectopic pregnancy (i.e. the fertilized cells embed in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus.) It's extremely dangerous to the mother (almost always fatal if carried to term) and extremely dangerous to the baby (also almost always fatal if carried to term.) In such a case, the primary effect here is removing the affected area of the fallopian tube in order to save the life of the mother. The secondary effect is that the baby dies.
Similarly, if a woman with cancer becomes pregnant and has to undergo chemo or radiation therapy which would put the life of the unborn baby in danger, I find cancer treatment to be defensible because that's the primary, rather than secondary, effect.

Vespertine · « **Reply #97 on:** March 02, 2006, 02:02:04 PM »

reimero, as pb stated previously, I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion and the fact that you appear to have given it a lot of thought. In reading your post, I came up with a couple questions. You specifically address the life/health of the mother (and the baby).
1. With the advent of amniocentesis, it is possible to know whether a baby will be born with some form of retardation. Many potential parents choose abortion when that test comes back positive. What is your opinion about that?
2. When you talk about the health of the mother, how can you not include mental health in that? I'd be willing to bet that, if abortion were to be outlawed, suicide rates you go up. When you're already down and out, or feeling like there's no way out, an unplanned pregnancy could easily push you over the edge. Wouldn't an abortion be preferable?

reimero · « **Reply #98 on:** March 02, 2006, 02:15:21 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

reimero, as pb stated previously, I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion and the fact that you appear to have given it a lot of thought. In reading your post, I came up with a couple questions. You specifically address the life/health of the mother (and the baby).
1. With the advent of amniocentesis, it is possible to know whether a baby will be born with some form of retardation. Many potential parents choose abortion when that test comes back positive. What is your opinion about that?
2. When you talk about the health of the mother, how can you not include mental health in that? I'd be willing to bet that, if abortion were to be outlawed, suicide rates you go up. When you're already down and out, or feeling like there's no way out, an unplanned pregnancy could easily push you over the edge. Wouldn't an abortion be preferable?

1. I am adamantly against the use of amniocentesis to determine whether a child should be born. For starters, the procedure itself is risky and has been known (on rare occasions) to harm or even kill the unborn baby. The procedure should only be used when there is a solid medical reason to do so. And I think having an abortion performed because a child is mentally or physically handicapped is generally something which shouldn't happen. (note: normally I'd use stronger rhetoric here, but it would be rhetoric, and that's something I'm trying to avoid in this forum.) The gist of my feeling is that the implication is that the handicapped don't deserve to live, the arguments that it's more merciful to all involved notwithstanding. I believe in a fundamental right to live, and one's mental or physical capacity should play no role in affecting that.

2. Mental health is a tough one. I haven't seen any numbers on the number of women who committed suicide when abortion was not available, so I can't comment on that in any sort of real-world sense. I can wax about it at great length, but I much prefer to know how much of a real issue it is in terms of suicide rates, and such.

reimero · « **Reply #99 on:** March 02, 2006, 02:18:50 PM »

As a complete aside, I'm enjoying this little exercise, less because I get to rant and rave, and more because it forces me to evaluate my stance on real grounds other than OMGHURRRRRRRR!!!

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32070 times)

ivan