Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My views on abortion
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 138 (515907)
07-22-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Theodoric
07-22-2009 9:00 AM


Clarifying
If you are trying to make some great point by putting together a nonsense sentence, it doesn't work. All it does is show you are capable of writing nonsense. Instead of writing a nonsense sentence, maybe you should write something that explains your point. Instead of making people guess what you are trying to say.
What is there to guess about? It was clear, but for your sake I'll break it down stp by step.
This is a question about fairness:
All things being equal, if a female (who was incidentally born female) has the right not to have a child, does the male (who was incidentally born male) have the same right?
Is his opinion valid on wanting to keep it or is his opinion valid in not wanting to keep it? Because the way it seems is that the male has no say in either direction. He doesn't get to choose whether or not he wants his own child and he doesn't get a choice to deny that child the same way a woman does.
So I am asking, if we live in a society that looks upon equality as being the right thing to do, is there a sense that it is not entirely equal?

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2009 9:00 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2009 10:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 32 of 138 (515910)
07-22-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by themasterdebator
07-21-2009 1:05 AM


Evolution
Society tends to hold small children and babies as the most precious class of humans. Consider, all else equal, if a person was forced to choose between saving the life of a baby and a fully grown adult, the most common choice would be to save the life of the baby.
Now, why is this?
...
The common prairie dog has roughly the intelligence of a two year old. It "experiences" life more than any six month old. So why would we possibly want to save the six month old? Is it simply humans being selfish and saving their own kind? Or is there something that makes the baby worth more?
We are evolutionarily hard wired to save the lives of babies that are in our vicinity. This is likely to be positively selected for because in the pre-historical environment our species (and its predecessors) existed in - it was likely that a baby in our vicinity is related to us.
That's why we tend towards saving babies over rodents.
All things being equal, an adult is more likely to survive a dangerous situation - by getting out of its way themselves, wheras a baby cannot. Therefore, it makes sense to rescue babies over adults. That is to say that we are evolutionarily hardwired to protect babies over adults because if we didn't, our babies - and the babies of our relatives would find themselves in mortal peril a heck of a lot. So protecting babies over adults can certainly be a successful reproductive strategy. This is especially true in species like ourselves when there is a high amount investment of time and resources to rearing a child, from risk of death during birth through gathering enough food and spending time teaching etc.
That's a quick back of the envelope answer.
As for the morality of it all?
Morality is a philosophers way of justifying what we feel is right or wrong. It isn't always a case that we can reason to an answer, and that in reality it is just because it is the best strategy and even if we can't rationalise it, we'll still do it.
You might rationalise this as being 'potential' but I think the answer is far more likely to be 'because your brain is wired to do it that way'. This handily gets you away from some of the problems and paradoxes inherent in drawing lines with potential (eggs? sperm? a fertilised but unattached egg, does an 18 year old have more potential than an 18 month old if there is high infant mortality but once adulthood is reached an average lifespan of 65 yrs etc etc) but it means you have to abandon the idea that morality can be universally reasoned to when it comes to denying/removing life to another being.
It would be nice if there were lines and easily applied consistent non contradictory rulesets we could follow with a clear conscience - but that simply isn't the case.
Are their circumstances when it might be regarded as moral to terminate a three year old? Sure there are. Are there more circumstances when it might be regarded as moral to terminate the growth of a fertilized egg? I think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by themasterdebator, posted 07-21-2009 1:05 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 138 (515913)
07-22-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Theodoric
07-22-2009 8:40 AM


But my mother isn't one of the choices and my child is not relevant to this discussion.
I forgot to respond to this point. I was being sarcastic (imagine that, me sarcastic!)
It was a small jab at people that look at mothers lives being more important than a child's.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2009 8:40 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 34 of 138 (515915)
07-22-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rahvin
07-21-2009 8:16 PM


Personally, my arbitrary point of decision is the point at which the fetus develops significant brain function.
Yes, I agree. The mother should have the right to terminate before significant brain function - this will usually occur somewhere around 21 years old.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 07-21-2009 8:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 35 of 138 (515917)
07-22-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2009 8:50 AM


Re: Abortion is not about the fetus
So then I assume you believe he therefore has no obligation before or after.
Deadbeat dad's/absent fathers everywhere will thank you.
Your apples remain not oranges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 8:50 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 10:57 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 36 of 138 (515919)
07-22-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2009 9:11 AM


Re: Clarifying
So I am asking, if we live in a society that looks upon equality as being the right thing to do, is there a sense that it is not entirely equal?
Of course male and female roles in reproduction are not equal; there are basic biological differences that force this to be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 9:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 10:51 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 138 (515922)
07-22-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Jack
07-22-2009 10:46 AM


Re: Clarifying
Of course male and female roles in reproduction are not equal; there are basic biological differences that force this to be the case.
We aren't talking about mere biological differences, we are speaking about societal differences and fairness.
Wouldn't this go a lot more smoothly, not to mention a whole lot more interesting, with a direct answer?

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2009 10:46 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2009 11:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 138 (515926)
07-22-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Jack
07-22-2009 10:45 AM


Re: Abortion is not about the fetus
Your apples remain not oranges.
Well, then, they're both fruit. Is that enough similarity to answer the question directly?

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2009 10:45 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2009 11:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 39 of 138 (515927)
07-22-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by themasterdebator
07-22-2009 1:04 AM


Re: Abortion is not about the fetus
Your argument was that the mother has the rights to her own body. If the fetus is not part of the mothers body, then it would not be solely her property to deal with. It would not be at her sole discretion to deal with.
You obviously didn't understand my argument enough to be able to proclaim what it is nevermind counter it.
You keep bringing up the fetus when I explicitly said that the fetus is irrelevant to the notion of individual body sovereignty. No person, not the father, not the fetus, not the government should have the right to overrule a women's choice to be or not be pregnant. Period.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by themasterdebator, posted 07-22-2009 1:04 AM themasterdebator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 07-22-2009 11:22 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 11:30 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 40 of 138 (515930)
07-22-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jazzns
07-22-2009 11:01 AM


Abortion is not always about the fetus
Jazzns writes:
You keep bringing up the fetus when I explicitly said that the fetus is irrelevant to the notion of individual body sovereignty. No person, not the father, not the fetus, not the government should have the right to overrule a women's choice to be or not be pregnant. Period.
I'm not sure, but I don't think this is what he's trying to talk about.
I can agree that "no person should have the right to overrule a women's choice to be or not be pregnant." And yet I can still think that the fetus should have some rights at some point before it's actually born.
Or, perhaps I'm not using the right term? Is an unborn baby that's 1-day away from birth still called a fetus until it actually comes out of the woman?
What's your stance on the situation where a woman wants to abort her unborn baby 1-day before birth? Do you still feel adamantly compelled to state that she should be able to do whatever she wants with "her" body? I would say that at this point, you'd be very wrong to say that she can kill this unborn baby because it's "her body."
So, what is the point between where "no person has the right to overrule a women's choice to be or not be pregnant" and where the unborn baby gains some basic rights before it's actually outside of the woman?
I'm saying it's this point:
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF (human) LIFE (rev 1):
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who experiences both:
(1) the continued operation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) the continued operation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jazzns, posted 07-22-2009 11:01 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 11:34 AM Stile has replied
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 07-22-2009 11:35 AM Stile has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 41 of 138 (515931)
07-22-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peepul
07-22-2009 8:27 AM


No it can't. Cloning of humans is outlawed. If it were to be allowed (and feasible) then I agree it would raise a number of moral questions.
Just because it's outlawed does not mean it's not possible. Since it is definitely possible, and perhaps quite nearly an actual ability technologically, shouldn't we preserve our skin cells somewhere so that once we can clone them, we can do so?
Anyway, if we outlawed getting pregnant on Thursdays, would that make any fetus conceived on Thursday less deserving of rights?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peepul, posted 07-22-2009 8:27 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Peepul, posted 07-22-2009 12:03 PM Perdition has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 138 (515932)
07-22-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jazzns
07-22-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Abortion is not about the fetus
No person, not the father, not the fetus, not the government should have the right to overrule a women's choice to be or not be pregnant. Period.
Everyone except for nature, aye? Nature likes to have her way.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jazzns, posted 07-22-2009 11:01 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jazzns, posted 07-22-2009 11:39 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 43 of 138 (515933)
07-22-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2009 8:36 AM


You are reducing all life to be a clump of cells.
No I'm not. I'm saying that at conception and for a very long time thereafter, a balstocyst and early fetus are just a clump of cells. Why is that clump of cells different from a different clump of cells?
Once you have differentiation, at the least, and an actual functioning organism, for sure, the argument fails, and I admit that, but for early pregnancy, the argument works very well for me.
But I'm guessing that if push came to shove and somebody threatened to shoot a dismembered arm versus your child's head, that somehow your sensible nature would choose your mother.
I don't understand this sentence, was there a clause or something missing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 8:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 11:37 AM Perdition has not replied
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 11:39 AM Perdition has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 138 (515934)
07-22-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Stile
07-22-2009 11:22 AM


Re: Abortion is not always about the fetus
I'm saying it's this point
I think then your criteria places "life" at about the 2nd trimester.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 07-22-2009 11:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 07-22-2009 12:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 138 (515935)
07-22-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Stile
07-22-2009 11:22 AM


Re: Abortion is not always about the fetus
What's your stance on the situation where a woman wants to abort her unborn baby 1-day before birth?
This is brought up often but really it is a red herring. Its one of those things that is more of a thought experiment about ethics and morality than it has anything to do with reality. Sort of like, "if you had to save one of your wife or your children what would you pick" kind of things. The absolutly VAST majority of late term abortions happen because of something seriously wrong with either the mother or the child.
Certainly if the risk of simply delivering a viable yet early fetus is equal to the risk of having the abortion, an argument could be made that there really is no logical or ethical reason to have an abortion at that point. Just deliver the baby plain and simple.
But again, this notion that we as a society have an epidemic of women lining up to having abortions in the 3rd trimester is traditionally a scare tactic used by the pro-authoritarian, anti-choice crowd. It just simply does not happen that way.
We need to, as a society, be comfortable living in a universe where moral or ethical decisions lie upon a gradient instead of a Right(tm) or Wrong(tm).

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 07-22-2009 11:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Stile, posted 07-22-2009 12:29 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024