Hey, me too! (Mt. Vernon area)
Er . . . I hate to have to point out the obvious, but if people are moving into the area, they’re moving out of someplace else, decreasing the density there.
I’m actually interested in debating Pyrrhonist’s viewpoint. But, since most of us seem to agree that this thread is about pro-choice, despite the OP’s viewpoint, I felt guilty hijacking this thread any further.
So come here
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=84048
and let’s continue.
I’ll put another baby on the BBQ for you! 
Pero no hablo el espanol.
The greatest population influx where I live is among Hispanics.
I feel abortion is the womans right since it is her body and a piece of her inside. I don’t think it is right just to kill the baby because it is a girl and you wanted a boy or vise versa.
Based on your last sentence in the paragrah, I wasn’t sure how “serious” you were in “making your point”. If you were not serious, ignore the rest of this post. If you were serious…well hmmmm.
God apparently causes children to be born with horrible genetic defects that sometimes kill those same children. Killing children appears to be “God’s will” as well under your scenario.
I think examing a pro active decision of a person to end a life is different than asking the question about why a just God “allows” or “causes” bad things to happen.
Those 2 sentences seem to be a bit at odds. (If you believe the first sentence, who cares about the second?)
The first sentence, at the very least contains a rather significant biological error.
pennylane wrote:
This may already be happening.
A few years ago, I talked with a woman who had grown up in mainland China. She said that, while rural Chinese families tended to want sons, Chinese families in the cities tended to want daughters. Apparently, in the Chinese cities, when a young couple get married they usually end up moving in with the bride’s parents, which is where their wealth eventually ends up getting concentrated. Hence, in the cities, daughters were more sought-after than sons.
I don’t know how much this would ameliorate the male-to-female ratio in China, though. Perhaps the city-dwelling brides will have to start importing country-bumpkin grooms.
beagledave, basically, puddleglum was arguing semantics. You can’t be Pro-choice because you don’t know what you’re chosing. So I was arguing semantics right back at him. You can’t be anti-abortion because there are some abortions that you may agree with. That’s where God’s Will comes into play.
The logic is pretty crappy. I’ll admit it. But so was puddleglum’s in that scenario. I just wanted to match him.
What is the meaning of this? Is anyone who believes that X is right and Y is wrong and that society should enforce this a bigot? What about someone who imposes his views about slavery on someone who disagrees with him? His views about murder? All bigots? I wonder if you could clarify your position with regards to the applicability of your statements.
(It would seem to me that you have personally decided that this particular issue is one in which no one may impose their views on anyone else - and have decided to impose this view itself on others. Feel free to correct).
Perhaps I misuderstood your earlier post. It seemed to be saying while you personally think abortions are irresponsible you think every one should make their own decision and live by it. On the abortion question there are two views, one of them is that the fetus is a living human and as such is entitled to legal protection. The other is that the fetus is a part of the woman’s body and that abortion is therefore no different than any other form of birth control. One of these positions is right and the other wrong. So I do think that the world is divided up into those who are right and those who are wrong.
In the second post it seems you are against imposing your idea of right and wrong on others. Is this your position and other matters besides abortion? For example if a person feels that private property is immoral and therefore that stealing is permissable should that person be allowed to steal? If a person is a rascist and feels that murder is okay as long as it in defense of their race should it be permissable? These situations are obviously not as complex as abortion but just because an issue is complex does not mean that it is impossible to have a correct answer.
The problem, puddles, is that we know how the victims of robbery, assault and murder feel, and how their families feel. There is no way to know if an unborn child has a “soul”, and there is no agreement on the point at which an unborn child begins to feel pain. I believe that the majority of doctors are of the view that first trimester foetuses do not feel pain, because their nervous systems are not sufficiently developed. In the second trimester, I suppose the question is more open to argument, and even more so the third. In fact, until recently many doctors believed that even new-borns and children under the age of three months felt no pain; as a result, surgery was performed without the use of painkillers. If pro-life (or anti-women) people could prove to me that unborn children have a soul, or that they feel pain from the moment of conception, then I would agree that abortion is wrong and should be permissible only in the case where the mother’s health is jeopardised.
Although if we are going to talk about souls, perhaps the foetus’ soul, being pure, is more precious than the mother’s, which is presumably tarnished with all the sins of an average human. So in cases where the mother’s health is jeopardised, one would justifiably choose to save the baby at the expense of the mother.
puddleglum, how’s this for an oversimplistic explanation?
The world is divided up into two groups. Those that like vanilla ice cream and those that don’t. One of them is clearly right and one of them is clearly wrong.
Do you agree with the above paragraph? If so, are you in the right or are you in the wrong?
You’re right about others having different sets of morals. Some people may believe murder is good in all instances. But that’s what laws are for. And the law states that abortion is legal. Laws don’t dictate what is right and what is wrong, they just dictate what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of the law. If abortion were illegal tomorrow, that would make it legally the wrong thing to do and I might urge people not to get an abortion. Morally, it doesn’t change a thing.
Well, I don’t agree with either one of those views - I have a third. And I’m betting that there are people out there who don’t agree with either of those views, and don’t agree with me, and possibly don’t agree with each other. So, there are probably many, many views.
While you may choose to label all of these other views as “wrong,” there can be no discussion until you at least acknowledge that the views exist.
IzzyR, I think you misunderstood the context of Polycarp’s post.
No. Polycarp (if I may speak on P’s behalf here) was pointing out that puddleglum was willfully ignoring any nuance in a person’s stance on the abortion debate. puddle was claiming that people are either pro- or anti-abortion, despite numerous arguments illustrating that such a claim is wrong. So, while no one is arguing that puddle is wrong to be anti-abortion, we are arguing that he is wrong to so mischaracterize all stances but his own.
** Pennylane** I don’t know of any way of determing whether anyone has a soul. As for the pain standard, what about people who are sleeping or in comas, if done right they could be killed without pain. I think minimizing suffering is a great goal but it can not be the end all of morality.
Enderw24 Morality is not a matter of taste. An action is either moral or immoral. Peoplecan disagree over whether something is moral or not, but disagreement over what is moral or not does not stop us from passing laws in any other situation.
PUDDLE –
Again, this is so over-simplified as to be flat out wrong. First, people who are pro-choice do not necessarily feel that a fetus is “a part of a woman’s body,” like her hand or her liver. But it is unquestionably something that is in her body from conception to birth. Second, people who are pro-choice disagree on to what point abortion should be an option; for many, it should only be an option until such point that the baby can survive outside the mother’s womb without extraordinary intervention. Different people draw that line at different points, but no one that I know of believes that on-demand abortion services should be available for a full-term unborn baby. So it is incorrect to assume we are even talking about a “fetus” when we could just as easily be talking about an embryo. Third, and as I clearly stated before, many people who strongly believe that women should have the right to choose do not consider abortion to be “no different than any other form of birth control.”
I realize that your argument is much easier to make if you ignore the realities of the complexity of the opposing position. You should realize, however, that it also makes your argument much less persuasive. If you grossly mischaracterize your opponent’s views, then you’re not really addressing them at all when you respond, are you?
This is precisely the point. We as a society may reach a consensus about what is moral or not, and pass laws imposing upon the individual that societal consensus. (You can’t murder people; you can’t steal from people.) But in the absence of a clear societal consensus on the morality of a given issue – and there is no such consensus on the issue of abortion – YOU have NO RIGHT to impose your OWN moral beliefs upon ME. I am a moral, highly-principled person. I just don’t agree with you. And since I do not try to impose my beliefs upon you, I expect you to refrain from attempting to impose your beliefs upon me. This is why for many people who are pro-choice, myself included, the issue is one of autonomy, not one of morality.
Stop the presses! I no longer have to think for myself, since puddleglum knows the definitive answers regarding what is moral and what is not. Boy, my life sure is going to be a lot easier from here on out.
Actually, disagreement over wha is moral or not DID result in the process of creating and repealing abortion laws. The general consensus is that it’s not ammoral.
Hmmm…maybe that means someone besides puddlegum has written the Big Book of Morality.
-L
Jodi
If you support murder laws you are imposing your morality on those who beleive they have a justification for murder. If you support stealing laws you are imposing your morality on those who don’t support privte property. Abortion laws are no different. Autonomy has nothing to do with it.
I can’t say for sure if Polycarp might have meant what you say. Seems to me that puddleglum is not saying that people are either pro- or anti- abortion - rather he has simply described the “I can’t impose my morality on others” position as “agnostic”. Polycarp disputed this, by attacking the “I can impose my morality on others” position as being bigoted. That’s how I see it, but if he meant what you say - fine, but his position is back to being agnostic.
(FTR, this is not to support the other suggestion that holders of such positions prefer not to grapple with the issue - although some undoubtedly adopt this position with such motivations, there are undoubtedly many who do not).
PUDDLE –
Abortion is clearly different, in that (a) it is not illegal and (b) it currently lacks the clear public consensus necessary to make it illegal. This is different question than whether it is immoral; lots of people think prostitution and drug possession are not immoral, but they remain illegal. Lots of people think corporal punishment for kids is immoral, but it is not generally illegal. Illegal and immoral are not the same thing.
Autonomy has everything to do with it, because you do not have the right to tell ME what to do based upon YOUR moral beliefs and in the absence of law. Society can tell me what to do by passing a law making certain behavior illegal. But unless or until it does, I will feel free to make my own decisions regarding the legal ways in which I live my life, and I will continue to resent any attempt to limit that freedom based upon moral beliefs I do not share.
So you can argue this either way: (1) Abortion is “wrong” because it is illegal – clearly a non-starter, because it ain’t. (2) Abortion is “wrong” because it is immoral – also a nonstarter because, as I have said, YOU do not have the right to tell ME what is or is not immoral.
Is that clearer?