Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 279 of 441 (837707)
08-07-2018 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Tangle
08-07-2018 2:45 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
And I'm not claiming all abortions are simply inconveniences, just a large number of them are.
I don't think that's true either.
I would even go so far as to say possibly even none are.
Can you dig up one example even? - Where a woman had an abortion and her reason was that the baby was "simply an inconvenience?"
I don't think the scenario you seem to be describing exists.
I can't have this baby, I need to go to college/pursue my career/find the right guy/I've already got enough kids etc
I don't see how any of those can intellectually-honestly be reduced to a simple inconvenience when weighing them in the context of an abortion vs. an unplanned pregnancy. You do understand how having a child is life-changing, right? If so, the decision is between changing your entire life vs. discarding a "simple inconvenience?" It doesn't even make sense. It can't even logically be the two choices.
An example of a simple inconvenience is forgetting your phone and having to turn back to go home and pick it up again.
The basic idea is that you can correct the mistake and go back to your "normal life" in a short period of time and quickly forget the whole affair.
I really do suggest you attempt to find any woman who's ever had an abortion who:
-barely remembers she's had an abortion in the past
-hardly ever thinks about 'what would have been' if she chose otherwise
-only spent a small amount of time going over the decision before it was made
-the process of problem-happened/identified-solution/corrected-problem took less than an hour
Because if any of those aren't true, it's pretty much 'more than an inconvenience' by definition.
Again, if you want to get to the truth of the matter - what's wrong with acknowledging that having an abortion is not an easy decision to make one way or the other?
Why can't we admit that even women who choose to have an abortion will be living a life they didn't intend on anyway?
If someone had an abortion, and they then have to even just deal with people who think someone-who-had-an-abortion-without-medical-cause did it because they thought a baby was "an inconvenience..." that in and of itself means it's more than just an inconvenience.
Nobody judges the lives of those who forget their phone one day and had to go back home to pick it up.
The existence of the ongoing back-and-forth in this very thread even implies it's always going to be more than an inconvenience.
Who has a 270+ post thread about the morality behind forgetting a phone at home?
To deny these factors is to deny the reality of an abortion:
-that more than just "the baby surviving the pregnancy" is involved
-that the situation is very complicated and a lot of different factors need to be taken into account
-that every pregnancy-and-possible-abortion is different and needs to be judged/monitored on it's own taking into account the specific context for that situation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 2:45 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 3:48 PM Stile has replied
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 08-07-2018 4:15 PM Stile has replied
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 8:04 AM Stile has replied

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


(2)
Message 294 of 441 (837737)
08-08-2018 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Tangle
08-07-2018 3:48 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Thanks for proving my point.
Tangle's NCBI quote writes:
Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four.
(bolding added by me)
The reasons for having any abortion are complicated.
Many/most of reason above are the reasons I've described are inconveniences.
No, they are not. You are simply choosing to see them that way.
That choice shows your agenda against the reality that woman in such a position is facing.
You are mistaking the ease of fact-display for an ease of real-life-situation.
Can you imagine the size of the article if it went and asked each woman and described their situations individually?
Again - do you deny that having a child is a life-changing event that goes on for 20+ years?
How can you honestly imply that choosing against a 20+ year life-changing event is equivalent to avoiding "an inconvenience?"
If you're going to label the reasons any woman has for getting an abortion as not wanting to deal with an inconvenience - you are heavily implying that you think having a baby is barely life-altering at all.
If you don't want to search for the truth of this matter - feel free to keep a vice-grip on your opinions against the facts.
You can't have it both ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 3:48 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 11:35 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 295 of 441 (837738)
08-08-2018 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
08-07-2018 4:15 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Faith writes:
Someone I know personally, married to one man for forty years, told me she'd had four abortions because children would interfere with their lifestyle. I had the impression it was more her husband's desire than her own but that wasn't stated. No idea how representative they may be.
How does any of this show that this person considered the children an inconvenience?
It seems to me she's dealing with reality.
She seems to understand that having a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment.
She can have more time to spend with her husband, her friends, her social life, her hobbies.
Or she can have much less time and money for those things and spend most of her time taking care of a child or the next 20+ years.
Yeah, you can say the baby is "inconvenient" in the sense that being jailed for a crime you didn't commit is also "inconvenient."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 08-07-2018 4:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Faith, posted 08-09-2018 12:36 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 296 of 441 (837739)
08-08-2018 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Percy
08-08-2018 8:04 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:
If you look at Table 2, the top four items seem to fall into the category of inconvenience:
How so?
Notice how the numbers don't add up to 100%.
Obviously this is a tally where each woman entered multiple answers.
Over three-quarters agree that their lives would be "dramatically changed" (well, duh...) and you think they consider it "an inconvenience?"
Again, it's a simply question:
Do you agree that taking care of a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment?
If yes - then obviously the child is more than an "inconvenience."
Is it wrong that a 20+year, life-changing commitment will "interfere with education" or a job or other children you're already committed to?
The people who took the survey did not choose to write the survey.
They did not choose the words to report in the final tally, either.
But the only way an abortion can be decided on because the baby is an "inconvenience" is if the woman is unaware that a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment.
Otherwise, it's a very important decision and some people simply value their time and resources more in what they have planned rather than an un-planned 20+ year, life-changing commitment.
That's really not very difficult to understand.
Find one woman who thinks raising a child "takes up no time at all" or "hardly any additional effort required" or "barely noticeable" and I'll agree with you.
Without that - you're merely taking a tally which has been condensed in order to provide the factual information, and mistaking that "simple form" for women thinking children are "simple things." That jump is very unrealistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 8:04 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 1:59 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 298 of 441 (837741)
08-08-2018 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Tangle
08-08-2018 11:35 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Actually it goes on for life. It's a massive inconvenience.
"Massive" inconvenience now? That's what I'm saying.
I thought you were saying it was a "simple" inconvenience.
Thank-you for agreeing with the point I was trying to make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 11:35 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 12:23 PM Stile has replied

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


(1)
Message 303 of 441 (837747)
08-08-2018 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Tangle
08-08-2018 12:23 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
If you chose to abort a pregnancy because, say, you want to go to college or get on with your career you are choosing not to be inconvenienced by by a baby.
The word "inconvenience" generally implies a limited or small interference.
The use of a phrase such as "massive inconvenience" would therefore be an oxymoron.
Your insistence on using a term that adds confusion to the scale on which the decision is being made says more about the motives for your argument then it does about any honest search for reality or truth attached to the situation.
I've said my piece on this side-issue, your call on how you'd like to proceed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 12:23 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 1:06 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 392 of 441 (838131)
08-14-2018 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
08-14-2018 10:45 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Faith writes:
It is never at any point something OTHER than a human being, it is always the same biological stuff at different stages of development, having from the start the whole genetic program of a human being.
How many human beings do you know that do not have a brain?
Because a 1-week-after-conception baby does not have a brain.
Therefore, a 1-week-after-conception baby is not a human being.
Yes, it's developing.
Yes, if given the right resources and care and time, it will grow a brain.
But - at this point - it still does not have a brain.
To call such a thing a "human being" is to mangle the definition of "human being" so much as to make it useless. And we then require other words to describe a human being vs a baby-in-development-that-will-likely-one-day-become-a-human-being-but-is-not-a-human-being-yet.
It's a sliding scale. And we don't know exactly where along the lines it goes from "become human" to "being human."
To argue that killing a combined sperm-and-egg is worse than kill separate sperms and separate eggs is to become as absurd as Tangle's other-end-absurdity: to say that killing a baby moments-before-it's-born is better than killing a baby moments-after-it's-born.
Combining sperm and egg is not a useful point in the process for determining when the baby is human - it's obviously way too early.
Just as "when it's born" is not a useful point in the process for determining when the baby is human - it's usually way too late.
Even if we ever do find a point, it only helps the decision. It doesn't make the decision.
The decision involves lives:
Baby
Mother
Care Givers
Care Giver's other children
No life is greater than any other.
All must be considered.
Sometimes killing a live baby will be a mercy for them and save all the lives of the others anyway.
For example: The baby has an issue that causes immense pain all the time. It will die within a few years of life. If the baby lives, the care-givers will go bankrupt providing what care-they-can to sustain the pain of this baby for as long as possible (or, as some would put it - to "prolong the life of the baby as long as possible.") It's not always moral to prolong the life of anything as long as possible. For many various reasons.
Sometimes keeping a non-living-baby so that it becomes human will enhance the lives of all involved.
There are a plethora of in-betweens on that spectrum. Each and every one should always be taken on a case-by-case basis.
To presume that such issues can all be swiftly answered by "knowing when the baby becomes human" displays a vast ignorance of the moral decision and complicated situation in question.
When the baby becomes human is a part of the moral situation - and an interesting, and important one to understand if at all possible.
But don't make it all-important, or else you're just as inhumane as anyone who wants to kill all babies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 08-14-2018 10:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2018 1:24 PM Stile has replied
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 08-14-2018 2:18 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 396 of 441 (838145)
08-14-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Tangle
08-14-2018 1:24 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
For the record, Tangle says that there is no difference between killing a baby just before birth and killing it just after. It's Percy that seems to think that there is.
I know, that's how I intended it to be taken. Well, I'm not sure if Percy really thinks there is either... but only Percy can say that (and it doesn't really matter for this minor clarification anyway.)
Any lack of clarity of that intention is my fault, however.
I meant to say that the idea that the baby is any different moments before and after birth is absurd - and that you were the one pushing the discussion of this idea earlier in the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2018 1:24 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 403 of 441 (838153)
08-14-2018 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Faith
08-14-2018 2:24 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Faith writes:
I've been asking for people to designate a stage at which they consider the fetus human in the sense that they would not abort it.
I agree with jar.
Any line drawn based on something so simple for such a complicated problem is going to be right a few times, and wrong a lot of times.
You'll have to add some more information around your example in order to get a straight answer.
I would suggest asking something like this:
Given a near-perfect situation where:
-The baby (if born) will go to loving care-givers and given average-levels of resources to prosper (any average family).
-The pregnant woman has no abnormal health considerations
-The baby has no abnormal health considerations
That is to say: the only moral consideration is the care-giver's choice to lead their lives the way they want vs the care-giver's having a baby.
Is there some point where:
Before this point, the baby's life is inconsequential because (basically) it doesn't really have a life. Killing the baby here isn't really a moral problem.
After this point, the baby's life is highly consequential because (basically) it's another human being. Killing the baby here is a much larger moral problem.
Is that similar to the question you're attempting to get at?
If so - I don't have an answer for this, either.
First of all - I don't think this sort of "near perfect" situation exists in reality. It's too clean.
Second - I think any "point" on this highly-specific though-experiment would be wrong in the same sense that any "line for all abortions" would be wrong. It's a scale - so any point or line will be right a few times, and wrong a lot.
Maybe no point exists.
Maybe a point for one baby is different from another.
Maybe one baby does have a point such as this, but other babies do not.
The best I can offer right now, with the science and my moral position on "the brain's functionality/existence represents our being human" I can only give you a range. With along the range having the baby being "more than just alive but hardly human at all" and at the end of the range being "should likely be considered human."
But the problem is that even with a range - each baby will develop at their own pace. Most will be about the same. Some will be slow. Others fast. That forces the range to have a low value in the 4-9 weeks range. And a high value in the 7-30ish range.
Which is, basically, useless to the point of being silly to try and use it anywhere. The error margins are just so unknown at the moment that we cannot produce any viable numbers. Maybe that's because our science isn't good enough yet. Or maybe it's because "viable numbers" don't exist for such a process.
Genetically it is a human life from conception...
This usage of the term "human life" makes the term "human life" useless in determining when it becomes a difficult-moral-question in ending the life of the baby.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Faith, posted 08-14-2018 2:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Faith, posted 08-14-2018 8:38 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 08-15-2018 5:15 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024