Damn abortion protesters

[Muad'Dib]

Those are Constitutional rights, only. They are by no means a complete list. To be snarky, I could suggest that "the pursuit of happiness" includes an active sex life, but no kids.

Those are not constitutional rights. The phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, and they are not rights granted by the state, they are rights that we have by our nature of being conscious, rational, self-aware creatures. They are the philosophical underpinnings of our country stated in its most succinct form.

1.You are allowed to pursue happiness, you aren't guaranteed it.
2.What if my happiness depended on raping random women. Do I have a right to pursue it?



Sorry, that dog won't hunt. YOU want to limit/end MY choices--that makes you anti-choice. You are also anti-abortion (except, of course, when there is PHYSICAL risk to Mom or baby is not viable.....question--aren't those "murders", too? Or is it a reduced charge/sentence? Manslaughter instead of murder one? What happens to those women--nothing? Oh, but if the woman has a history of post-partum depression and is suicidal or just plain blue once she discovers she is pregnant--that doesn't count? Just want clarify the crimes of record.

1.Yes it does. I am not trying to take your choice away, I am saying that it never existed. To call me "anti-choice" is just as silly as saying that an abolitionist is anti-property rights.

2.No, they are no more murders then killing in self-defense is.

3.I do not understand your last two sentences, please clarify and expand on them.


You were the one who brought up detaining women while pregnant. I took that line of thought to a logical conclusion--and brought in the men, who seem to be somewhat lacking in your scheme of things. Where is their responsiblity? Where is their accountability? Why not give force vasectomies on those deadbeat dads? You have no problem limiting women's choices, why not men's, too?

1.No, you did not take it to its logical conclusion. I am advocating that people are held responsible for the unborn to the same degree that they are held for the born. If that is so draconian then why don't we have such concentration camps for parents now?
2.You are right. It is not fair and men are not held as responsible for a pregnancy as a women. Also, no, I would not necessarily be against enforcing a vasectomy on a deadbeat dad. We do close to it now through court rulings baring a person from having any more children (although quite rarely and mostly to deadbeat mothers).



I have no idea what you are talking about here--what doesn't exist? What do you mean that a legitimate choice never existed in the first place? I speculated about sterilizing men to eliminate abortion--draconian? sure! but so is outlawing abortion. Forced sterilization doesn't "exist" b/c it has not been legislated....yet (heh)--but the PREMISE can be explored--or don't you deal in theories and ideas?


I am saying that the right to have an abortion never existed. It is as during the Civil War, they did not take away the right to own slaves, the right to own slaves never existed in the first place, it was always wrong to do even if it was supported by law.

All I have been doing here is dealing in "theories and ideas".






Oddly enough--some abortions are done in self-defense. The mother decides that for whatever reason, she cannot carry this pregnancy to term. What about the multiple implants done in fertility treatments? OFTEN, the docs advocate the "removal" of 1-2 implanted eggs--to ensure viability of the remaing embryos --what is that to you?

How ironic--the woman would be jailed for murder, under your system, but all she is trying to do is have kids! :eek:

1. You cannot decide to kill in self-defense "for whatever reason". You have to be under threat of bodily harm or mortal threat to do so.

2.It is to me that it is still murder because they placed the embryos in the position of danger, it was not by accident that the embryos were in peril.

3.She would be jailed just as a woman who decided one day that "I can't afford to care for both of my children, I should kill one so that the other will have a better life" would be.



Not just for that--you also said that you are pro-abortion IF the mom's life is in danger.....whatever happens to your prescient being then? Yup-baby killer, according to YOUR construct.

I don't understand the point you are making here.


Jeebus- people in coma don't have this. People with Alzheimer's/senile dementia/severe mental retardation don't have this--what are you advocating-wholesale slaughter at nursing homes? Now, that is radical.

Have you not read the whole thread? I have already used the example of people in a coma in the opposite fashion several times already. People in a coma have a right to life because they will wake up, just a fertilized cell will eventually wake up. Just because you are temporarily unconscious your right to life does not disappear.


That is too bad-since it is happening now. Do we tell these folks that you'll get back to 'em?

Yes. Just because I am sure about some things does not mean that I am sure about others. I will be the first to say that I don't have all the answers.



No....we just let the women do all that.......

Again, I do not understand the point you are making.


how ya gonna do that? Life would be quite different under your rule, eh? I firmly believe that all rapists and perps of incest should be found and dealt with, soundly
but think of the manpower needed to trace all molesters of nieces and daughters.....my mind boggles.

Just because it is difficult does not mean that we must not try our hardest to do it. How many serious crimes do people get away with everyday? Does this mean that we should give up on trying to enforce the law?



[qutoe]If you don't see how comparing women to ROADS is misogynistic--I cannot help you. Mentall illness and post partum depression is not the same as a car crash--You cannot equate the two.[/quote]

I was comparing the women stricken with mental illness to people injured or killed in automobile accidents, not to roads. I am saying that there are aspects of the two situations that are similar. Your insinuation that there is anything misogynistic in trying to compare examples is bizarre, laughable, and insulting.
What sort of examples and comparisons would you approve of?


Plus, your analogy does not work: roads are there to be used by all people--some roads have restricted access and some are not paved or even posted. But if you have a car--you get to CHOOSE which route/road you take, AND you take your chances in that car.....just like if you are an adult--you get to CHOOSE to accept the pregnancy or have an abortion. Restricted access roads can be likened to third term abortions--or I could just continue to beat this comparison to death.
I think that I did not make the analogy clear enough and that you misunderstood me. What I meant is that by banning abortion there will be some women who are indirectly hurt through mental illness etc., by allowing driving there are also people who are indirectly hurt trough accidents. However, although there are people indirectly hurt by driving we do not outlaw it because the benefits far outweigh the costs. Similarly, outlawing abortion should not be stopped because a small percentage of people will be indirectly harmed is not a good enough reason to do otherwise when so many children will be directly saved.


Mental health is as important as physical--sometimes, more so. (ask a schizophrenic or someone battling anxiety attacks which they would rather have--their disease or something like asthma--most would pick a treatable physical disorder).
Believe me, you will get no argument from me on that point.

Baby comes before Woman, in your eyes. You keep saying no, but yes, it does--potential Baby trumps actual Woman to you. That position is inherently misogynistic.
1. No. They are equals in my eyes.
2. Again, no, I view the baby as an actual, not a potential and the baby does not trump the mothers life. If it did I would not support abortion to save the mothers life.
3. It is not misogynistic because that it is women we are discussing does not matter. If it were men who carried the child the situation would be exactly the same. This is what I meant when I said "I don't care about your uterus". That women are the ones who get pregnant and are burdened with this responsibility is entirely incidental.

FWIW-again, I doubt highly that there is anyone who is thrilled about abortions. I do think that it is a cruel fact of life that these kind of decisions must be made.

Making abs illegal will not make them "go away"--it will make them dangerous and deadly. It wil occur with or without your approval--abortion is as old as man.

I dont' understand how making it dangerous makes you morally superior to anyone (the reverse could easily be argued) or how driving abortion underground makes things better for your "self-awareness consciousness". I, myself, would be incredibly self aware that I had driven some women to use a coat hanger or caustic chemical to hurt herself, possibly damage the fetus--even maim it w/o killing it etc.....where is your conscience then?

Murder is as old as man and making it illeagal does not make it go away, but we still must fight it the best we can.

[Muad'Dib]

I'll weigh in. I've been trying to follow the thread, but if someone else has made the point, I apologize in advance.

I am willing to concede a gray area in when a fetus is to be granted rights as a human. However, being a cautious man, I am willing to concede that human life begins at conception.

Here's the thing- it doesn't matter. I am very much pro-choice, not because of any arbitrary judgment on when life begins, but because no matter what, we as a society have no right to force someone to bear, host, and support that life with their bodies. We have become really blasé about pregnancy, ignoring the complications, strain, and all around misery that results from even the most wanted, routine pregnancy. Someone else made the point that abortion is less risky than pregnancy...doesn't that make make every case of abortion one of 'life or health of the mother'? Where does the woman's right to self defense kick in?

I would not want to be forced to be a life support vehicle for anyone else, and I don't think that the courts should be able force me to. That's what you're asking, those of you on the pro-life/anti-choice side.

Sure, there are instances where abortions are really not necessary, or even advisable...but that's not my call to make. That alternatives are always worse. Too often, it all boils down to 'this woman must shoulder the burden of her sexual behavior.' that's not the sort of thinking I want to be associated with.

Get back to me when you figure out how to remove a zygote and raise it to viability with no burden to the mother. get me past those 9-10 months of being enslaved and forced to bear the child. Then we can talk about being pro-life.

I understand your point, and frankly the idea of forcing another human being with the work, weight and inconvenience of a pregnancy makes me feel ill.
However I see this as the cost of having sex. No, it is not fair that a woman has to bear this burden while a man can go free, but it is still there no different from a gambling debt.
Also, I see this as no different than the enslavement of parents of born children. Once the egg is fertilized a child is created and you must care for that unborn child just as you would for a five year old.
Do you consider parents of a five-year old "enslaved"?

[Muad'Dib]

That can be flipped around. We can (and have) just as easily said that a z/e/f does not have a right to a uterus with lining and a lack of certain chemical substances in the mother's bloodstream. In fact, this can be invoked in the exact same way that your slapping example can.

They have a right to those things by the fact that the mother consented to sex and thus consented to the possibility of a fetus demanding those things.



Ooh. If we can have abortions for self-defence, can we also have them for trespassing, vandalism, theft, and invasion of property?

Those would only have the possibility of working in the case of rape.

[Muad'Dib]

You beat me to it.

Even to save a wonderful, educated, saintly adult, we wouldn't forcibly use someone else's body. We wouldn't steal organs, or even borrow them. We wouldn't force blood transfusions, or bed rest, or time off work.

We don't do these things even if it means the death of self-aware, intelligent, adult citizens. We don't do these things even if it means the death of persons we all acknowlege have all of the same rights we do. We don't do it for a pope or a president or a child prodigy. No one has the right to use someone else's body, not even for their own survival.

But I say that the mother consented to those burdens by taking the risk of sex.

[Muad'Dib]

Where is the male in that shouldering of the burden of behavior?

You forgot to mention him.

He is not always held responsible. Ideally, and in my world legally, he would be. It is not fair that the woman is so physically burdened with the child.

[Muad'Dib]

Well, nothing, really. And people SHOULD be responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, men won't be held physically responsible for their actions. The body changes, the labor pain, the recovery; that's solely on the woman. Which is why I, for one, resent being told by any man that it's my responsibility, I didn't have to have sex, yadayadayada. It's very easy to be judgemental when you never have to go through the consequences.

I forget: Which comedian said that if men were to ever have to bear children, abortion would go up by 50%?

They probably would.

You are absolutely right. It is not fair. The woman is forced to carry the burden of pregnancy. I don’t like it. The idea of it makes my Libertarian heart feel nauseous. Women are stuck paying a price for their actions that men can never really carry and can skip out on. Maybe if we were egg laying creatures it would be different, but we are not. We are mammals and we are designed so that the female must carry the burden of pregnancy if she is going to have sex. It is not fair, but it is how things are.

[Muad'Dib]

Also, what kind of home life do you think a child will have when the mother is forced to have the baby? Do you really think she's going to see that child as a blessing? Let me clue you in, bub.
My mom got pregnant with me when she was 19. Pre Roe v Wade, and she'd seen her best friend butchered by a Mexican abortion clinic, so that was out. She and my dad got married. She resented the daylights out of the fact that she never got to go to school, never finished her degree, never got to be young. Does she love me? Most assuredly. But I was very aware that the reason she didn't become a vet was because she had me instead. I'll do whatever it takes to make sure no child ever has to feel that kind of guilt.

1. She should have then given you up for adoption.

2.So to avoid some guilt you would kill the child?

[Muad'Dib]

eleanor and Maureen nailed it. There's no equality between the genders where this is concerned, and at present, I don't see any way in which it could be enforced.

I also don't like the idea of children as 'punishment' or 'burdens'...'expressions of love,' yes...I'll even settle for 'happy accidents'..but when a woman does not want to bear the burden of carrying a child to term, no force should be allowed to compel her to do so. To allow it is invasive, and grants authority to my neighbors that I'd rather they not have.

I don't like it either, but I see it as no different than how we compel parents to care for their born children.


As jsgoddess points out, there's no other sphere in which we accept forced donations of organs. Why should the uterus be any different?

Because with the uterus a person took actions that directly led to the situation of pregnancy.


The simple answer tends to be that some people just don't like the idea of women fucking around, and will use any cudgel necessary to attempt to curtail it.

That is not true in my case or arguments. I don't give a damned what a person does in the bedroom. I don't care if you are gay or straight, if you are monogamous or a swinger, if you own every toy under the sun or are a strict missionary only person. All I care about is protecting peoples lives.

I don't buy the idea that "sex=baby, get over it"...simply because it's not so. Never has been. Even when birth control was much less reliable, people took the risks to fuck around, and when it didn't work, some of them availed themselves of perfectly natural herbs and berries to give abort their pregnancies.

And, by my view, those people were murderers.
.

[Bryan Ekers]

What if my happiness depended on raping random women. Do I have a right to pursue it?

I'd say that if the woman was completely contained within your body and drawing critical sustenance from you... go for it.

Murder is as old as man and making it illeagal does not make it go away, but we still must fight it the best we can.

I daresay slavery has a similar record.

[Syntropy]

They probably would.

You are absolutely right. It is not fair. The woman is forced to carry the burden of pregnancy. I don’t like it. The idea of it makes my Libertarian heart feel nauseous. Women are stuck paying a price for their actions that men can never really carry and can skip out on. Maybe if we were egg laying creatures it would be different, but we are not. We are mammals and we are designed so that the female must carry the burden of pregnancy if she is going to have sex. It is not fair, but it is how things are.
And yet, you didn't answer as to how you would go about punishing the man who is aware of the pregnancy and assists with the abortion, monetarily or otherwise. It has nothing to do with fairness.

1. She should have then given you up for adoption.

2.So to avoid some guilt you would kill the child?
1. Why? She loved me, and didn't want anyone else raising me. She wanted children, just not that young. And, had she given me up after I was born, she would have regretted it her entire life. You seem to think that giving a child up for adoption is somehow less traumatic and painful than having an abortion. That just isn't so. The bond that is formed after nine months of carrying a child is stronger than after, say, six weeks, and far more wrenching when that bond is broken.

2. No, not "kill a child." I'm sorry, a six week fetus is not a child. Or a person, or a baby. And yes, I would terminate a pregnancy before I would bring a child into the world and resent that child for its existence. I'm just funny that way, I think children should be planned and wanted. Forcing a woman to have a child as a punishment is torture to all parties involved. I'm not sure why you fail to understand that. But again, I see what happens to that child after it's born is of no concern to you.

It seems to me, Muad'Dib, that you simply refuse to allow yourself to see any perspective other than your own. If that's the case, I see a very lonely life for you.

[Bryan Ekers]

And, by my view, those people were murderers..

Isn't it possible they just didn't understand what they were doing, like the women in this thread, apparantly?

[beckwall]

How about showing pictures of starving children and people who die from lack of health insurance? How about the 20,000 poeple who die every single day from extreme poverty? How about showing the number of people who have slipped into poverty? The number one reason women get abortions is because THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE THE CHILD.

You know, the "love the fetus, hate the child" syndrome our culture perpetuates. Why don't we put a stop to that? Get rid of the root problem first. You should be mad at the LAWMAKERS for having people in poverty to begin with.


Agree. 100% on the mark.

I like to ask anit-abortion people how many unwanted, disabled or uninsured children they have adopted or are supporting. Usually a moment passes as confusion spreads across their face, and then inevitably they say "But this is different" or "It's murder". When you think about it, a child who lives through birth only to die from malnutrition or child abuse is a pretty bad way to die, don't you think?

[VarlosZ]

Just thought I'd pop back into the thread one more time to say this: what goddamned train wreck.

Whether or not you agree with it (and I don't), the basic anti-abortion argument is a valid one and deserves to be treated with respect. Given the utter disrespect with which his views generally been treated, as well the numerous, completely uncalled-for personal attacks directed at him, Muad'Dib has been remarkably patient and polite.

It seems to me, Muad'Dib, that you simply refuse to allow yourself to see any perspective other than your own. If that's the case, I see a very lonely life for you.
I understand that this is an easy thing to say when virtually everyone in the thread shares your perspective, but that doesn't stop it from being either wrong-headed or ironic (or both).

[Siege]

I think what's drawing so much heat isn't just his opposition to abortion, it's also his opposition to the most effective forms of birth control, the very ones which are most likely to reduce the risk of an unwanted pregnancy and his statements that he doesn't care about the mother of the child, not to mention statements about locking people up. I've read a certain callousness into his statements which you may not have.

Respectfully,
CJ

[Arwin]

Just thought I'd pop back into the thread one more time to say this: what goddamned train wreck.

Whether or not you agree with it (and I don't), the basic anti-abortion argument is a valid one and deserves to be treated with respect.

The basic anti-abortion argument is not a valid one, and it deserves to be treated with the respect of an invalid argument.

I agree that personal attacks on Maud'Dib are undesireable, but I have to point out that the consequences of Maud'Dib's arbitrary decision to want to assign human rights to a bunch of cells within a woman's body are a deep insult to many people.

This includes board members, who will very understandably consider Maud'Dib's stance a personal attack on their life choices.

What Maud'Dib has done, is work with a dataset of one (his sister), forms a relatively arbitrary theory to justify the results of that dataset (seems to have worked out ok), and then proceeds to apply this to the whole world with a dogged persistence showing a near complete disregard for the consequences of that position.

The train-wreck is of Maud'Dib's own making. But I still like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he means well, and he seems to have a general respect for science and philosophy. He will soon learn that it doesn't take a cruel law to justify the joy he experiences in seeing his 5 year old nephew and his 21 year old sister doing well and having had a part in that.

[robertliguori]

Whether or not you agree with it (and I don't), the basic anti-abortion argument is a valid one and deserves to be treated with respect. Given the utter disrespect with which his views generally been treated, as well the numerous, completely uncalled-for personal attacks directed at him, Muad'Dib has been remarkably patient and polite.

I can give you a valid argument for the Swiftian feeding of the poor to themselves, based on the principles of Sanger. I would laugh my ass off if anyone gave it any respect whatsoever. The premises are damn important.

Although, I do agree, Muad'Dib has been remarkably and pleasantly melt-down resistant.

Also, did he ever post his reasoning for assuming that a fertilized egg was a human, beyond the one-line snippets we kept refuting?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Then I really expect you to jump to my defense when people start calling me a tyranical misogynist.

I'll do so when you stop advocating tyranny directly solely against women. Sorry, but you should be able to see that if your premise is wrong, then what you advocate is tyranny--and that many of us believe that your premise is wrong.

I say that this is far more controversial than you seem to think. A person needs experience to form desire, some thing that babies, by their nature, are lacking. I still mantain that babies are tabula rasa.

Find me something in a peer-reviewed journal suggesting that neonates can form no desires. It's an extraordinary claim, that they haven't the experiences of warmth, of pain, of hunger, of satiety. If my claim is so controversial, prove it.

Do you accept that in your farmer example, the only harm done is against the farmer--that the seedlings have no rights?

Do you understand that when you say the fetus would have become aware, you're using a verb mood that indicates something contrary to fact?

Daniel

[E-Sabbath]

I'm just going to duck in here and point out that there really is no historical precedent for Maud'Dib's opinion. Until recently, the last few hundred years, exposure of children up to about two years of age was, if not common, not unheard of. The death of young children was almost expected, thanks to high infant mortality rates, as well. This created certain traditions, such as baptism after thirty days or so, and various folk sayings, such as the tradition my grandmother once explained to me, that children do not have souls until they're a year old.

Now that we _can_ save almost all children, there is a tendency, understandable, to want to do so, but historically, the concept of a child having a soul before being born doesn't appear to have much in the ways of legs.

This is possibly why the entire concept of 'quickening' comes up in the Roe vs Wade decision, as the earliest point that could be justified in law as the child being alive, as some sort of common ground.

Also, those bloody pictures of fetuses _generally_ either aren't abortions, or they are pictures of exceptionally rare ones. They are the rough approximation of denouncing slavery in the 1880s by holding up pictures of a beautiful young white girl who was drowned and eaten by fishes. While white slavery did exist at the time, it's not what the issue is generally about. Simply more photogenic.

[eleanorigby]

They are the rough approximation of denouncing slavery in the 1880s by holding up pictures of a beautiful young white girl who was drowned and eaten by fishes. While white slavery did exist at the time, it's not what the issue is generally about. Simply more photogenic.


Huh?

what does being eaten by fishes have to do with slavery?

[jsgoddess]

I don't like it either, but I see it as no different than how we compel parents to care for their born children.

We don't compel parents to care for their born children. We allow people to put their children up for adoption. There's nothing illegal about putting a child up for adoption.


Because with the uterus a person took actions that directly led to the situation of pregnancy.


So, if I shot you and you needed a new kidney, you could take mine? Or when George Bush sends troops to Iraq, he's on the hook for blood transfusions if anyone gets hurt? Funny, I don't think I've ever seen that.

[E-Sabbath]

The point is that, in fact, it had nothing to do with slavery, except possibly runaway slaves could have drowned.

The same goes for pictures of miscarried fetuses, which is what most of the grossout pictures are. Nothing to do with abortion.

[Syntropy]

I understand that this is an easy thing to say when virtually everyone in the thread shares your perspective, but that doesn't stop it from being either wrong-headed or ironic (or both).
Not at all. As I've stated repeatedly, I fully support every woman's chocie, whether it's pro-choice or right to life. It isn't my place to make up their minds for them. But when someone tells me they are going to force their opinion on me and make that the only option available, then yes, I am going to argue back. And since this is the Pit, and not Great Debates, I really can't see why I should be nice about it. We're talking about limiting the rights of individuals with no medical or legal basis to the person's argument, other than "I think it's murder, so it is." If you call disagreeing with that sort of argument "wrong headed," then so fucking be it.

[griffen2]

I've not got the stones to take a side in this fucked up train wreck but I just wanna applaud Muad'Dib for the sheer bloody minded, balls to the wall tenacity he's displayed in this thread. I respect anyone withstand such a huge clusterfucking pileon and keep his cool so well. Nice one!

[griffen2]

Spot the missing word. *D'oh!*

[VarlosZ]

We're talking about limiting the rights of individuals with no medical or legal basis to the person's argument, other than "I think it's murder, so it is." If you call disagreeing with that sort of argument "wrong headed," then so fucking be it.
Disagreeing with that argument is fine. What I was referring to as "wrong-headed or ironic" was your assertion that Maud'Dib refuses to consider anyone else's perspective, whereas you (apparently) have a rich understanding of all points of view, and have simply managed to pick the correct opinion. I find it ironic, in this case, that a member of the (overwhelming) majority is telling a person with a minority opinion that he's not considering alternate points of view. Here on the left-leaning SDMB, he'd wouldn't be able to avoid these alternate ideas.

I can give you a valid argument for the Swiftian feeding of the poor to themselves, based on the principles of Sanger. I would laugh my ass off if anyone gave it any respect whatsoever. The premises are damn important.
Agreed, but in this case I hardly think that the premises are ridiculous.

. . . but I have to point out that the consequences of Maud'Dib's arbitrary decision to want to assign human rights to a bunch of cells within a woman's body are a deep insult to many people.
Bolding mine. It's been a common refrain here that it is arbitrary to designate conception as the point at which to assign legal and human rights. That's basically true, but it's no more or less arbitrary to fully value life starting from conception than to do so starting in the 3rd trimester, or at childbirth, or at 18 months. I think that there are good practical reasons to treat embryos differently from toddlers, but it's also somewhat arbitrary to value strict pragmatism over more abstract ideals.

This includes board members, who will very understandably consider Maud'Dib's stance a personal attack on their life choices.
I imagine this is the reason that the pro-choice contingent has, on balance, reacted so harshly to Maud'Dib's position. Many have considered abortions, or had them, or are close to people who've had them, and they don't enjoy being called murderers. It's completely understandable that they would then get upset, or even nasty, but the fact remains that it does no good, and that the impulse to anger should be suppressed if possible.

[Syntropy]

Disagreeing with that argument is fine. What I was referring to as "wrong-headed or ironic" was your assertion that Maud'Dib refuses to consider anyone else's perspective, whereas you (apparently) have a rich understanding of all points of view, and have simply managed to pick the correct opinion. I find it ironic, in this case, that a member of the (overwhelming) majority is telling a person with a minority opinion that he's not considering alternate points of view. Here on the left-leaning SDMB, he'd wouldn't be able to avoid these alternate ideas.
*Looks futilely through all prior posts for assertion of all knowing enlightenment*
I don't claim to understand all points of view. But I don't try to force other people to live by mine. And that is the issue I have with Muad'Dib's statements. As I said way back on page whatever:
There's a huge difference between "I don't like it and I'm not going to do it." And "I don't like it and I'm not going to let anyone else do it."
That is, in total, what he is saying.

[VarlosZ]

*Looks futilely through all prior posts for assertion of all knowing enlightenment*
I don't claim to understand all points of view.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were claiming a kind of omniscience. It's just that you suggested earlier that Maud'Dib was simply refusing to consider alternate viewpoints. That criticism implies that you think you've put more thought and effort into your position than he has into his. Which, again, seems odd: "You're minority opinion was arrived at with more ease than my commonplace opinion."

There's a huge difference between "I don't like it and I'm not going to do it." And "I don't like it and I'm not going to let anyone else do it."
That is, in total, what he is saying.
Yes, but since he believes abortion to be murder, it makes perfect sense for him to say "I don't like it and I'm not going to let anyone else do it." To say otherwise would be inconsistent.

[Arwin]

Disagreeing with that argument is fine. What I was referring to as "wrong-headed or ironic" was your assertion that Maud'Dib refuses to consider anyone else's perspective, whereas you (apparently) have a rich understanding of all points of view, and have simply managed to pick the correct opinion. I find it ironic, in this case, that a member of the (overwhelming) majority is telling a person with a minority opinion that he's not considering alternate points of view. Here on the left-leaning SDMB, he'd wouldn't be able to avoid these alternate ideas.

But he doesn't show any evidence of actually considering them. He just restates his own position. He doesn't really come up with any arguments, other than that which follows from a simple phisolophical position that he took up after having had the issue at hand once himself and which he now considers the end-all, with little respect to truth or other people.

If he really did consider alternate points of view, he'd have collected real instances of when and why people had abortions, and considered the consequences of his position for those people, and made a checks-and-balances of what it means to have human rights, why human rights were instated, and how such things play out in real life. He might have considered how human beings are no longer living as the animals they were biologically wired to be, and how they are learning to deal with that. How they learnt to increasingly control their environment to the benefit of the species. There is tons of stuff to consider here, which he hasn't. It isn't always necessary to consider tons of stuff, but when you take a standpoint in which you decide to call people murderers, even baby-killers, you do have a moral obligation to go a few extra miles.

Agreed, but in this case I hardly think that the premises are ridiculous.

Well, I maintain that you do not understand human life if you think a fertilized cell should have its human rights protected because it one day, one or several years into the future, may become a human (and that human status is defined by characteristics I'm not so sure are even really well understood or considered by MD).

Bolding mine. It's been a common refrain here that it is arbitrary to designate conception as the point at which to assign legal and human rights. That's basically true, but it's no more or less arbitrary to fully value life starting from conception than to do so starting in the 3rd trimester, or at childbirth, or at 18 months. I think that there are good practical reasons to treat embryos differently from toddlers, but it's also somewhat arbitrary to value strict pragmatism over more abstract ideals.

On the contrary, it can be very dangerous to value abstract ideals and history has shown this. I think the decision to protect the human rights of something that might one day become human to be arbitrary, especially in the context of the human in which and at the cost of which the cell's rights are to be protected, and the horrible consequences of this position. Whereas human rights themselves are far from an abstract ideal.

I imagine this is the reason that the pro-choice contingent has, on balance, reacted so harshly to Maud'Dib's position. Many have considered abortions, or had them, or are close to people who've had them, and they don't enjoy being called murderers. It's completely understandable that they would then get upset, or even nasty, but the fact remains that it does no good, and that the impulse to anger should be suppressed if possible.

Of course the impulse to anger should be surpressed (I'm doing my best myself ...), but obviously being called a mass-murderer and what not doesn't really help. Especially since it is ... ahem ... backed up so well with 'scientific arguments' and an 'in-depth consideration of the human condition.'

[Muad'Dib]

First off, sorry that I am taking so long to respond. With work and school I have had very little extra time.

Yes, but who would pay for the hospitalizaiton of the infant? The woman? that is an undue burden on a crime victim. The rapist? Catch him first, and garnish his wages(if any)?

Sure if we catch him. Otherwise society will probably be forced to pay the check as we already do for a large percentage of births. Although the Libertarian in me is laothe to admit it.


Hey, I am not for late term abortions--but look at the alternative above. How is this conundrum solved?

IMO, the woman was most likely obese and not aware of the "symptoms" of pregnancy, but also she may have been in a deep denial.

According to my ER nurse friends, it happens at least once a year--girl comes in and delivers a baby--she and parents didn't "know" she was pregnant......

I don't see how this negates the unborn childs right to life.

[Muad'Dib]

I think we're seriously going to muddy the waters by considering rape victims in this discussion. The biggest reason- how do we know they were raped?

If we're discussing the rule of law here and not just our own moral opinions, rape should not make one bit of difference in the law. If you build the fabled 'rape, incest, life of the mother' exclusion into any restrictive laws, I will bet cash money that you'll have a sharp increase in the number of women claiming that they were raped. What would you demand then, to prove they were not lying? Would they have to name the perp? get an indictment? A conviction? I think that'd go over like a lead balloon.

Bear in mind, in the event that such a stupid piece of legislation were to pass, I would fully support someone lying about being raped to avoid being forced to bear a child. That's even given my strong feelings about those that fabricate rape allegations now.

You make a very interesting point that I had not considerd.

I still hate the situation of rape because then the woman has absolutely no responsibility for the fact of the child she is carrying. Then, although the child still has a right to life, I can really see arguments for abortion. The situation makes me sick.

[Muad'Dib]

My friend Brian loves punk music. He hates The Man. He makes a mean lasagne and can eat a prodigious amount of it. One day, he hopes to own a record shop in downtown Manhattan. He sculpts industrial metal sculptures in his free time.

And then he's hit by a car and collapses into a coma.

Quiz:
1) If Brian wakes up, what type of music will probably give him pleasure?
2) If Brian wakes up, who will he hate?
3) If Brian wakes up, what will his favorite food be?
4) If Brian wakes up, what will his dream job be?
5) If Brian wakes up, how will he express his artistic leanings?

My friend Julia discovers that she's four weeks pregnant.

Quiz:
1) If Julia gives birth, what type of music will give the child pleasure?
2) If Julia gives birth, who will the child hate?
3) If Julia gives birth, what will the child's favorite food be?
4) If Julia gives birth, what will the child's dream job be?
5) If Julia gives birth, how will the child express its artistic leanings?

Bonus question:
What's the difference between Brian and Julia's potential child?

Lemme answer the bonus question for you: Brian has a personality, complete with desires, dreams, hopes, fears, an identity, and so forth. That personality is suspended, just as mine is suspended for a split-second every time I sneeze; however, it has existed and it will exist, and we know what it looked like and we know what it will look like. If we kill Brian, then we kill an existant (albeit suspended) personality.

Julia's fetus has no personality--no desires, no dreams, no hopes, no fears, no identity, and no so forth. It's not that there's a suspended personality; the personality has never existed. Now, it may exist in the future, if Julia decides to carry the embryo to term and is lucky enough to be successful in doing so. But if Julia decides to abort the embryo, then no personality is destroyed: no desires, no dreams, no hopes, no fears, no identity is destroyed, because no has existed there.

That's why I do not equate a person in a coma, or a person sneezing, with an embryo.

Daniel


One day while walking in town Brian is mugged and shot in the head. The greivous wound leaves him in a coma. The doctors come and tell you that the brian you knew is gone. The nature of the wound has destroyed his personality. He will no longer like the samethings he did, he will have to discover new preferences. He will not even remember anything about his life. However, he will wake up and he will be restored to healthfullness and full mental faculty.

Does Brian still have a right to life while lying in the coma? Don't forget that such injuries with such aftermaths have occured.

[Muad'Dib]

Ok, what about an embryo that splits into two? Is each embryo unique? In what way?

Yes they are unique in that they are separate and individual. Two protons are utterly identical, to the point where it is impossible to mark them as separate in any way. However they are still unique. They are still separate. You still have proton one, and proton two and they will always be their own particular protons with their own particular history.

What about when the embryos merge back together again? What happened to those two "unique" lives?

If that were to happen then they are no longer two separate lives, but are one again. Life is fuzzy at that level, that does not deprecate its reality or its importance.



The person in a coma has a previously established identity of personhood. The lifetime of memories, hopes, dreams, etc is already programmed into their brain. The fact that it's not currently active doesn't stop the personality from being in there somewhere.

It's the difference between destroying an empty canvass (which also had "potential") and destryong a Picasso painting. The unborn is an empty canvass. Nothing has been painted on it yet.

You can read the above post, but also think of it this way. Say you and the artist were the last people on Earth. You have what is the last, and last possible, canvas and set of paints and brushes on Earth. The artist is about to paint what will be his last and greatest work, a testament to the former, lost glory of man. There is no doubt that this is what his work will accomplish, he has a very good track record.

However in a fit of unprovoked rage you burn the canvas, piss in the paints, and break the brushes.

Was something not lost?

[Muad'Dib]

I believe abortion is taking responsibility.


Say I have a debt to Bob. I have fallen behind in payment and in fact can't afford to pay him at all. Bob has been getting very antsy about the money. I try to avoid him because every interaction leads to uncomfortable questioning about the money. But now Bob is seeking me out. I can no longer avoid him, but I still can't pay him. So I borrow a gun and shoot Bob in the head. I no longer have a debt and can live without worry about it. Is this not taking responsibility for the debt?

[Muad'Dib]

Infants aren't tabula rasa. They have, and can, experience warmth and coldness, and hunger and satiety. There's no reason to suspect that they cannot desire warmth and satiety.

As I've later said, however, I should've included the capacity to suffer--to experience pain--as one of the traits of an entity whose rights I'll recognize. I'll also include the capacity to experience emotions.

You may justly accuse me of wanting to extend stronger protection toward chimpanzees if you'd like; but accusing me of advocating infanticide is absurd.

Daniel

An insect can experience all of those things. I can build a robot that can experience all of those things. Do those have a right to life?

Also, if I am correct, then yes, you are advocating infanticide. However I also believe that you don't believe it, and would never in your right mind advocate it. Therefore you are not a monster.

[Muad'Dib]

Yikes. This is an intimidating thread to jump into at this point, but...

First of all, I think this whole issue is a difficult and troubling one. Anyone who is 100% confident that they are exactly right about it, and happy with all the implications of that position, is either stupid or deluded.

Secondly, while I disagree strongly with Maud'Dib's position, I have to say that I feel that he is being hilariously and unfairly piled on. He's basically being polite and logical about things. He is NOT, himself, calling people murderers or waving grisly photos in their faces. But he's being accused of a number of things, from circular arguments to misogyny, which are totally unfounded, and I have to say, I'm pretty impressed by the extent to which he's sticking by his guns with basic good humor. In particular, if he says "I view that child in your belly as a full human being with a right to life, thus, I will not let you kill it", that does NOT mean that he values its life more than yours. His position follows perfectly if he values both your life and the life of the fetus equally, and would rather have it alive and you inconvenienced than it dead and you alive. Now, there are plenty of other problems I have with his position, but claiming that he has somehow demonstrated that he doesn't value the life of women, views them only as containers for men's seed, is something that is NOT supported by anything he has posted in this thread.



Anyhow, as to the situation at hand, the reason I disagree with Maud'Dib's position is that he is making everything black and white. In his view, something is either human or it isn't. There's a magic dividing line at which point things go from being meaningless collections of cells to Human Beings. And I don't think such a line can be drawn. Of course, the current laws also draw such a line, albeit at a different place. And the "human life begins at viability outside the mother" folks, of whom I'm basically one, ALSO draw such a line.

But no such line can be perfect... as has been discussed several times in this thread, there are plenty of examples that challenge any such line... brain dead people, badly deformed babies, Terri Schiavo, and Fred Phelps just to name a few.

So there's a good argument to be made that a 2-week-old-fetus is a human, and a good argument to be made that it isn't. (Let's not ignore the fact that both arguments are reasonable, by the way... Maud'Dib's belief that a 2-week-old fetus is human is hardly some random piece of idiotic BS that he just pulled out of his ass. I mean, it's not like he's saying "all bricks of swiss cheese that weight more than 3 pounds are human beings with full rights and responsibilties thereto". And in fact, the fact that so many people who are pro-choice also claim to be troubled by abortion, hope abortions are as rare as possible, etc., indicates to me that a lot of people, at some level, feel the attraction and solidity of that argument.) So, we're in a bit of a quandary. As God didn't leave us a notarized Is-It-A-Human-Being testing kit (well, at least, he didn't leave it to us non-Catholics), we, as a society, have to figure out where/how to draw the line in the overall best manner possible.

Thus, while it's obviously dangerous and troubling to be making life or death decisions based on how convenient we find the outcome to be, well, this is a dangerous and troubling topic, and I see no reason not to try to establish a policy which does as much good for people in general, both born and unborn, and families, and society as a whole, as possible.


Another thought: One of the troubling aspects of this whole topic is that thinking too much about whether fetuses are human can lead one to question whether babies are human, as has, in fact, happened several times in this thread. But is that such a horrible thing? There have been plenty of human societies in which a baby wasn't considered to be "real" in some sense until it was a year old, or learned to talk, or learned to walk, or had undergone a spiritual journey, or what have you. That seems pretty weird to us now, but there's nothing inherently inhuman or inhumane about it. And I'm sure that even if 10-month-old babies weren't considered truly human, it was generally not acceptable to randomly kill them for fun.

To look at it in a slightly grim fashion, I'm friends with a married couple who have twins who are almost a year old. If one of those twins had died during childbirth, it would have been difficult and horrible for the parents, but only a fraction of as bad as it would be if it happened now. Part of what makes us human is our interactions with other people and their knowledge of, and love of, us. And yes, there are all sorts of troubling implications of this line of thought...

Wow, I really appreciate your post MaxTheVool, it really eases a lot of the frustration to know that there are other people willing to lend the same credence and respect to another’s arguments as you are trying to do. You are a class act.

Of course it then pains me to disagree with someone who has been so polite to me. I still say that life begins, as well as the right to life, at conception. Among other reasons (that I have already stated) because it is the only non-fuzzy point in the baby’s life. Quickening is fuzzy, the formation of the brainstem is fuzzy, the point where the child can survive outside the womb is fuzzy but the moment of conception is not fuzzy. It is a definite that then the new life began and to get in the way of this developing process is to end that life.

[Muad'Dib]

Good post, Max.
I suppose what has me most bent out of shape (to the point that I am actively trying to ignore him) is his attitude that sex is for making babies and making babies only, if you have sex, you should be prepared to have a baby. Such is factually not the case.

On part one I actually agree, sex has many more purposes than simply making babies. I have in fact said as much and I am all in favor for whatever birth control you want that will prevent conception. However, what you are doing is making a baby, I mean that is what sex at its basic level is.

Think of it this way: Say that you love cooking. The experience of it enlivens you. You cherish exploring through old family recipes trying to rediscover some delightful, yet forgotten, dish. You pour over every detail in the planning stage. You eagerly anticipate the trips to market to buy and peruse new ingredients. Mixing and preparing the components with the same passion as that of a life long chemist fills you with a penultimate joy. Every step fills you with purpose and meaning. Cooking adds a flavor to your life that without would make everything dull and lifeless.
However you don't really care about the results, you just like the act of cooking. So you turn off the oven, and unplug the electric mixer, but still go through the motions of cooking.
Now you may love everything about the act, and you may make it far more than it once was, but you are still committing the act of cooking so don't be surprised if you end up with a cake.


Also the attitude that, once a woman becomes pregnant, all other plans for her life cease to matter. School, career, travel, whatever; makes no difference.
It also seems there's a tendency by most pro-life people to disregard what happens after the pregnancy, as was alluded to earlier. There's a prevalant attitude of "you should have thought of that before you had sex." Considering that child is supposedly their concern, they have astonishingly little regard for said child as soon as it takes its first breath. Do they care if that child is born to someone completely ill equipped to care for it? No. That's her problem, "She should have thought of that before she had sex." Do they care if she's so overwrought emotionally that the child ends up neglected or abused? No. "She should have thought of that before she had sex." Do they care if that child is malnourished? Three guesses on the answer. And it's a pat answer, isn't it? Truly, how do you respond to something like that? How do you defend yourself against it, even though it's a huge pile of steaming horse shit?
It's the mother's problem, but it's the child that suffers. Not that they care. At least the child was born, and that's the main thing, after all. Suffering is good for the soul, right?

I understand your feelings, but the idea is first things first. Say a policeman saves a woman from a violent rape, does he necessarily make sure that the women gets the crisis counseling that she so seriously needs? No. Say that the same policeman catches a couple of kids who committed a string of small robberies, does the policeman then follow up on the kids to make sure that they get off the bad life track they were on? No.

Now don't give me examples of when this does happen, that would be missing the point and things were not and are not always like that. The point is that you have to set your priorities and the most pressing matter is saving the life of the child. Many right-to-life groups do offer support for women in crisis, whether that is more immediate counseling, baby needs, to even community run day-care for single moms (such as the one my sister uses). There are other, more extreme, works such as the group C.R.A.C.K (C.R.A.C.K. (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) who pay drug addicted women to get sterilization, or other long term birth control done and which I have donated to.

The life of the child is undoubtedly important, but first you have to make sure that he even has a shot at one.

[Muad'Dib]

Personally, I don't care if a fetus is human, alive, a person, sentient, Republican, socialist, ill-tempered, or mechanically inclined. While it's inside a woman's body, she can decide its fate becuase I value her rights more than its.

Why?

[Muad'Dib]

As this discussion is just begging for yet another Wacky Hypothetical, suppose that a dear friend of yours was, through a freak accident, implanted into some innocent person's body, and will remain there for 9 months. So this innocent person suddenly is being parasitized by your friend. But your friend didn't ask for it. What should happen?

I was given almost this exact scenario in my intro to philosophy class. I did not have a satisfactory answer to it then either.

[Siege]

Muad Dib, I believe abortion is morally wrong and should only be considered as a last resort. I know it's an issue which doesn't lend itself to satisfactory answers. That is the precise reason I am so ardently, vehemently politically pro-choice.

You said, "I have in fact said as much and I am all in favor for whatever birth control you want that will prevent conception. " As I've told you, using a barrier method quadruples one's risk of pregnancy. Quadruples. And that's only comparing the least effective hormonal method against the most effective barrier method, not counting male sterlization. Hormonal methods usually work by preventing ovulation and thickening cervical mucous to the point where sperm can't get through to fertilize an egg. It's only been in the past couple of years, usually in the context of stories about pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control, that I've read that they can prevent implantation and that information has come from people and groups who oppose abortion. I'd love to see some hard numbers on how often the Pill or any other hormonal method prevents implantation. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that hormonal methods result in fertilized eggs failing to implant much less often than barrier methods failing to prevent pregnancy. In fact, I'd guess that happens 10 or even 100 times less often. Hormonal methods of birth control are intended to prevent ovulation and fertilization, rather than implantation. Indeed, the only form of birth control designed to prevent implantation is the IUD. By the way, thickening cervical mucous alone won't prevent implantation -- the cervix is at the opposite end of the uterus from the one a fertilized egg enters.

By the way, I have some information for you about people who are suffering from suicidal depression, having been in that position. They aren't routinely locked up. In fact, it's actually very difficult to do so. I consider this a very good thing. You see, a couple of years ago when I was laid off, I did become suicidally depressed to the point where I called a suicide hotline. When I told my therapist about this, she asked why I didn't call her. I told her the reason I didn't call her was because I was afraid she'd have me locked up, aka involuntarily committed. That fear has prevented me and others from seeking help. A person who is depressed to the point where he or she is considering suicide is already in the grip of irrational pain and fear, even though the basis for those emotions may appear perfectly rational to them. Add the prospect of being locked away against their will, and you will only reduce the likelihood of them seeking any help and increase the likelihood of them actually succeeding in committing suicide.

Please understand that many of us who support women's right to a safe, legal abortion do so because we have thought the situation through, both the pros and the cons and we don't deny the existence of the cons. We have to consider rape, because we can be raped. We have to consider what happens if birth control fails because it does. In my case, I have to consider not only my physical health, but my mental health.

I hope I'm never in the position where I do face an unwanted pregnancy. I've taken steps to make sure I never do, but those steps include using the very hormonal contraception you would have banned because of a slight, unknown possibility. I've also discussed what would happen if that happens with each gentleman I've had sex with. In point of fact, most of the them have said we'd keep the child, not that that is any of your business. Still, you come along and accuse me of supporting murder and slavery because I use a hormonal method and I do realize that sometimes abortion is the least bad choice. You've graciously made allowances for abortion if the woman's physical health is in danger; you've made no such allowance for mental health. If I were pregnant in a situation where I could not adequately support myself until the child was born and by adequate, I mean being able to pay for food, housing, utilities and clothing (my current wardrobe will not accomodate a full term pregnant, even if I do sew elastic into things), and I was unable to obtain an abortion, there is a very real chance I would attempt suicide.

Do you understand what you're telling us? Do you understand how unreasonable your position looks to us?

CJ

[calm kiwi]

Why?

Firstly I want to say how impressed I am with your ability to defend your position without becoming angry and in a way that generaly doesn't seek to offend or provoke those who disagree with you.

As to the why. When a woman is pregnant there may only be two humans involved (mother and zygote), or three (mother, father and zygote).

Consider the positions of all three.

The mother: (presuming this is an unwanted pregnancy)
She gets to carry the would-be-person in her body FOR MONTHS, she gets to feel the him/her kick. She will see scans and hear heartbeats. She gets to feel the joy that is labour (basketball through a garden hose anyone?). She then gets to decide if she should keep a child she didn't want or have it adopted. If she keeps it when she and never planned to be pregnant then I'm fairly sure it will not be an easy path for her or the baby. If she chooses to adopt it out she will make a childless family very happy. Will she ever get over it though? Has any adopted person not wanted to find their birth mother to see why they were "unwanted"?

The father: He decides how much he likes the mother. If he likes her he does doctor visits with her and makes supportive noises. If he has gone off her then he just fucks off. If she keeps it he may have to fork over some money.

The zygote: Well it just lives or dies. It isn't really aware of either cause it's far too undeveloped to vote, debate or care.


I understand you believe abortion to be moraly/religously wrong. Please just understand that your morals are not shared by all. I promise never to force anyone you know or love to have an abortion if you promise not to prevent anyone who wants an abortion from having one.

I also promise to never wonder why the loudest advocates for the death penalty are anti-abortion (I'm not saying that is you.......it just makes me wonder).

[Malacandra]

I also promise to never wonder why the loudest advocates for the death penalty are anti-abortion (I'm not saying that is you.......it just makes me wonder).

I'll take a driveby at that, calmkiwi: because they think that death should be handed out to those who deserve it, which doesn't include those who've done nothing wrong except being conceived inconveniently. Both viewpoints are independently arguable, I'm just saying they are not mutually exclusive. You can wonder also why the exact opposite is true.

:: drives off ::

[calm kiwi]

I'll take a driveby at that, calmkiwi: because they think that death should be handed out to those who deserve it, which doesn't include those who've done nothing wrong except being conceived inconveniently. Both viewpoints are independently arguable, I'm just saying they are not mutually exclusive. You can wonder also why the exact opposite is true.

:: drives off ::

Yeah I know. Both sides are equally perplexing I'm sure. I think the death penalty is inhumane and support the right to abortion.

Here is why. Anyone aborted has lived a few short weeks in water world. They have bugger all cognitive ability. They have NO sense of who they are as a person.

Someone recieving the death penalty is fully aware of who they are and what is happening to them. They also (PROBABLY) have family who know them and may even like or love them. The death of that person effects many people....maybe it is a good thing for some. My child is the grandchild of one of the last few people hung in Britain. To date it hasn't effected him at all (hell grandparents are just old people anyway) but it had a HUGE impact on his father.

It is possible and maybe even very possible that only one person knows the zygote was ever even a glimmer in the eye. The only person affected by it's "death" is the would-be-mother. The zygote was never a person.

Maybe I'm unusual for my generation and location but having felt the fallout from both the death penalty and abortion, I honestly believe the death penalty is more destructive.

Yes I understand the anger of victims of those who get the death penalty but as I said those deaths affect many. Abortion is is something that is between a woman and her own morality.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Does Brian still have a right to life while lying in the coma? Don't forget that such injuries with such aftermaths have occured.

No they have not: what you're talking about is utter fantasy. There have been situations in which PARTS of a person's personality have been destroyed by brain injury, but there's never been a situation in which a person's entire personality has been destroyed. I do not see the point in entertaining your fantasies in such a serious discussion.

You can read the above post, but also think of it this way. Say you and the artist were the last people on Earth. You have what is the last, and last possible, canvas and set of paints and brushes on Earth. The artist is about to paint what will be his last and greatest work, a testament to the former, lost glory of man. There is no doubt that this is what his work will accomplish, he has a very good track record.

However in a fit of unprovoked rage you burn the canvas, piss in the paints, and break the brushes.

Was something not lost?

Again with the fantasies. No, nothing was lost, but you sure did a shitty thing to that artist.


An insect can experience all of those things. I can build a robot that can experience all of those things. Do those have a right to life?

Also, if I am correct, then yes, you are advocating infanticide. However I also believe that you don't believe it, and would never in your right mind advocate it. Therefore you are not a monster.

Cite that an insect can experience these things in any meaningful sense? Neurological cites would be helpful--for example, that insects have a nervous system sufficiently similar to an infant's, or that your robot would.

What you believe about my advocacy of infanticide is, at this point, less than meaningless to me.

Daniel

[Malacandra]

Abortion is is something that is between a woman and her own morality.

Unfortunately, cw, thereby hangs the entire argument.

I personally don't find that "If you don't believe in abortion, don't do it; but don't prevent me from doing it" flies any better than the same sentiment would if you substituted "beating your wife" for "abortion". But we're many, many pages into this trainwreck and there is no more sign of either side listening to the other than there usually is, and I've not much heart for it in any case.

[eleanorigby]

malacandra But we're many, many pages into this trainwreck and there is no more sign of either side listening to the other than there usually is, and I've not much heart for it in any case.

Oh, please. I listened to Muad plenty. I don't agree with his position. And I think he is a sanctimonous prig to boot. But I did indeed listen, as he advocated to put women in camps etc. I gave him more time and attention than he deserves, frankly.

LeftHand I don't want to go find the post, but I would say about the personality being lost etc--that is what happened (among other things) to Terri Schiavo and other PVS sufferers. So I am confused by your "
but there's never been a situation in which a person's entire personality has been destroyed."

But I also don't want to derail the train wreck!

:)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

LeftHand I don't want to go find the post, but I would say about the personality being lost etc--that is what happened (among other things) to Terri Schiavo and other PVS sufferers. So I am confused by your "
but there's never been a situation in which a person's entire personality has been destroyed."

His fantasy was about a situation where a person's entire personality had been destroyed, but "he will wake up and he will be restored to healthfullness and full mental faculty." It's the combination of these two that makes it a fantasy.

Daniel

[eleanorigby]

His fantasy was about a situation where a person's entire personality had been destroyed, but "he will wake up and he will be restored to healthfullness and full mental faculty." It's the combination of these two that makes it a fantasy.

Daniel


Ah, now it is all clear......sorry to have wasted your time! :)

[calm kiwi]

Unfortunately, cw, thereby hangs the entire argument.

I personally don't find that "If you don't believe in abortion, don't do it; but don't prevent me from doing it" flies any better than the same sentiment would if you substituted "beating your wife" for "abortion". But we're many, many pages into this trainwreck and there is no more sign of either side listening to the other than there usually is, and I've not much heart for it in any case.

I'm sorry you don't have the heart for it beause I suddenly got "your" position. My position does sound hypocritical except for the fact that if you beat your wife she is an actual life human being with years of "being". The aborted "person" has had a few weeks swimming in water world and has no idea of what or who they are.

[Malacandra]

I'm sorry you don't have the heart for it beause I suddenly got "your" position. My position does sound hypocritical except for the fact that if you beat your wife she is an actual life human being with years of "being". The aborted "person" has had a few weeks swimming in water world and has no idea of what or who they are.

Thanks, calm kiwi, and in that case I'll venture one more reply: Another significant difference is that my wife will likely get better if I beat her and, assuming I get my just deserts, can look forward to the remainder of her natural life; whereas the aborted "person" (and thereby hangs a whole 'nother debate) is rubbed out for sure and permanently. We rightly despise wife-beating; I merely point out that privacy is no defence.

I do not believe, in the vast majority of cases, that anyone's better off for being killed before birth. I also don't believe that the vast majority of abortions are carried out on "people" who are better off for it even by such a definition.

[robertliguori]

I still say that life begins, as well as the right to life, at conception. Among other reasons (that I have already stated) because it is the only non-fuzzy point in the baby’s life. Quickening is fuzzy, the formation of the brainstem is fuzzy, the point where the child can survive outside the womb is fuzzy but the moment of conception is not fuzzy. It is a definite that then the new life began and to get in the way of this developing process is to end that life.

As has been said before:

Take a fertilized ovum, that has already started to divide. If implanted into a uterus, given a steady stream of nutrition, etc. it will eventually be born as a healthy baby. (Yes, that's a big etc. Work with me here.)

Now, tease one of those newly-divided cells off of the ovum. You now have twins. Re-insert it into the ovum. Back to an only child. You can do a little cha-cha of creation and destruction with the cell if you like. In fact, since each of these cells has the potential to become a person, one could argue that you are morally obligated to remove each dividing cell as it forms, to prevent the other cells from keeping it from reaching its true potential. Of course, this line of thinking would prevent you from having any of these cells develop into an embryo.

(Hint: when logic + premises = insanity, and the logic checks out, it's time to re-examine your premises.)

Also, is anyone else rather sadly amused that Muad'Dib is openly admitting that his standard of life is what is (to him) clear and unambiguous, rather than what is, you know, actually a good standard, or even admitting that there isn't one? If nothing else, I think I've done a good job of showing why trying to claim that applying human standards of morality to individual cells is silly.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'm sorry you don't have the heart for it beause I suddenly got "your" position. My position does sound hypocritical except for the fact that if you beat your wife she is an actual life human being with years of "being". The aborted "person" has had a few weeks swimming in water world and has no idea of what or who they are.

I agree with prolifers on one point: for me, a tremendous amount hinges on whether a fetus is a moral subject (that is, a being with intrinsic rights).

If so, then we have a very delicate balancing act we gotta engage in. An infant is wholly dependant on an adult's attention for survival: without almost constant effort from this adult (whether mother, father, or other person--I'll say"parent" from here on), the infant will die. The infant thus restricts the freedom of the parent. Yet we do not, as a society, say that the parent is free to stop paying this attention to the infant, that the parent's freedom is the only issue. If the parent wants to be rid of the responsibility, then the parent must take certain measures (differing states have differing rules) to transfer the responsibility. At no point may the parent take measures that endanger the health of the infant, and virtually nobody objects to laws preventing the parent from doing so.

So what's the difference between the infant and the fetus? For me, the difference is that the infant has more rights, based on the infant's nervous system, identity, capacity for pleasure and pain, for desire, etc. The more the infant has of these characteristics, the more interested I am in protecting the infant.

Daniel

[Malacandra]

Yes, Daniel. I find it hard to be very exercised over the rights of the fertilised ovum. I am much more interested in the creature once it's reached the point of development where, if born prematurely, it could survive with proper medical care (which puts it way back beyond the 30-week point). Future potential gets weighed in somewhere, but it's not the whole thing. Unfortunately, we are routinely aborting foeti that are, among other things, fully capable of exploring their limited environment with the limited tools at their disposal, and may even be developing a sense of curiosity.

[calm kiwi]

privacy is no defence.

I do not believe, in the vast majority of cases, that anyone's better off for being killed before birth. I also don't believe that the vast majority of abortions are carried out on "people" who are better off for it even by such a definition.

And the mystery that is life means neither of us will ever know.

I have admitted this here before and I will again. I have had 2 abortions. I am not proud or ashamed of this fact.

In the first I was young, poor and millions of miles from home. Yes I could have carried that would-be-child to term. The chances of me being able to get home EVER would have decreased lots (check the UK-NZ airfares!). I was on the pill.

The second was only a couple of years ago.

I hear you! Yes I should have known better. Yes I was using protection! Yes I was using more then one kind of protection! No, I don't know how it happened.

Abortion was the obvious, logical and sensible choice. Do I have twinges of regret? Yes. Do I know I did the right thing? Yes!

I know this sounds abhorrent to those opposed to abortion but I aborted a collection of cells. Yes it was a collection of cells that would have become a person but it wasn't a person.

[Lord Ashtar]

(Hint: when logic + premises = insanity, and the logic checks out, it's time to re-examine your premises.)
I really like this.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I am much more interested in the creature once it's reached the point of development where, if born prematurely, it could survive with proper medical care (which puts it way back beyond the 30-week point). Future potential gets weighed in somewhere, but it's not the whole thing. Unfortunately, we are routinely aborting foeti that are, among other things, fully capable of exploring their limited environment with the limited tools at their disposal, and may even be developing a sense of curiosity.

First, I'm not sure which way you mean "way back beyond the 30-week point." You mean earlier, right?

Second, I don't weigh future potential at all, as stated earlier.

Third, can you give me a cite on that adverb "routinely"? My impression was that late abortions are exceedingly rare.

Daniel

[Malacandra]

Hi Daniel, just briefly:

1) Yes, earlier.
2) I think you would, with a suitable thought-experiment not related to abortion, and then we could factor that into the reasoning.
3) I don't know how common late-term (beyond, say, 22 weeks) abortions are. I accept that they are by no means the majority, but I'm not sure about "exceedingly rare". I need data...

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Okay, makes sense on 1.
2) I weigh existing people's hopes and desires and fears about the future, but only because they exist now. I also weigh the hopes and desires and fears that I have reason to believe will exist in the future (not may exist, will): if a woman decides to carry a child to term, I can see an argument preventing her from taking thalidomide during her pregnancy, because that is likely to thwart the desires of the child that WILL probably be born. What I don't consider is desires that WILL NOT ever exist, even when we're talking about a situation where they'll not exist because of a decision that someone makes.
3) Okay, so I'll consider "routinely" retracted, at least temporarily.

Daniel

[Malacandra]

Not so much retracted as more clearly defined. I do not and did not mean to imply that late-term abortions are the most representative examples, but that though rare they are carried out on a fairly regular basis.

[Syntropy]

No, they most assuredly are not. Aside from being illegal in several states that allow abortion, physicians are reluctant to perform abortions past 18 weeks and will turn women away if they feel she has past a point where it's a danger that the fetus has developed too far into a pregnancy to be aborted.
So. Please provide a cite in which they are performed "regularly."