Then why do you repeat false statistics? What does it matter to you how many women decide to not continue a pregnancy?
I’m assuming you’d find photos of someone taking a dump disgusting and disturbing. Are you planning on starting a campaign to get us all to just hold it in?
Disgusting and disturbing does not make something evil or immoral.
No, not really. I’ll try explain why I started this thread, and afterwards, if you still believe what you believe, then so be it.
When I saw people coming to the defense of the mother, it morally upset me because the story reported was that she thought that having a scar on her stomach was worse than letting one of her babies die. To me, choosing looking good over saving someone’s life is morally repugnant. It is inexcusable behavior, even if you have the legal right to do it.
So, I started thinking, what would make some people come to her defense? Well, since the story said that the twins weren’t born yet, people who are pro choice came to mind. The reason I reached this conclusion is because people who are pro choice either don’t see the unborn as a person, or, even if they do, they argue that since it’s in the mother’s body, then she has the right to end its life if she chooses.
Now because, of this, I thought that people were supporting her decision because to them, the loss of one of the twins didn’t matter because it’s life wasn’t valuable, or it wasn’t as valuable as that of a born baby. And besides, she was simply exorcising her right to choose, so that made her actions OK.
But after a few replies, I saw that pretty much all of her supporters weren’t even taking the twins into consideration, and instead seem to be defending her actions strictly from a legal standpoint.
So, yes, this thread had a flawed premise with regard to the motives of this woman’s defenders, but no, I didn’t start this thread as an attack on pro choicers.
Joel, nothing in life is absolute, but sometimes one has to draw a line.
You draw one line at ‘viable outside the womb’; ignoring all the medical problems with children who can be saved with suprisingly short gestations, that’s not a bad line.
I draw a different line. On my skin. My body, my choice. I will defend that line for both myself and those who come after me.
As for ‘pro-choice’, that means every child born is chosen. No child need be born to a mother who views it with dread because she will not be able to give the child the care it deserves. I think that is a good thing.
And don’t expect a prosecutor to give an unbiased account, anymore than you would expect a defense attorney to.
I know you are right in this, but it makes me sad. Prosecutors have a duty to try to seek truth and justice, but it seems that they are now only the mirror of the defense attorney seeking convictions any way they can get them.
Women don’t have abortions because they don’t know what is taking place in the procedure.
i propose that we consider a newborn baby as a legitimate individual only after the umbilical cord is cut.
Er, I’ve been discussing the stats civilly with you; I never pretended any expertise in the matter.
To restate, abortion is evil; the less, the better.
This is the sh*t logic (pun intended) that most pro-choicers enjoy. Willful thickheadedness.
It’s true that there are many forms of disgusting photos, but only a subset of these is morally outrageous. Pictures of turds may gross me out, but there is still nothing morally disturbing about turds. Nor movies of heart surgeries, etc.
You don’t seem to know where notions about ethics or morality come from. They, at least in the beginning, don’t come from philosophical debate. Aristotle did not just one day think, “Murder is wrong; here’s why”–and suddenly people were outraged at the notion of people killing each other.
The very act of murder was morally outrageous to people–right from the beginning. Why this was so, and whether this should have been so, are different questions. But it was so.
Are you saying that a woman’s mind will not be changed if she learns in detail what takes place during the procedure?
If you, you are clearly wrong: it depends on the person.
I think you are wrong. There is plenty of evidence of early cannibalism. It is likely that some deliberate killing was involved. Killing that if it occurred today would be deemed murder. It probably was not murder as such back then. Murder is unlawful killing. You can’t have murder if you don’t have laws. It is killing which we have laws against. That implies that there are other types of killing. Do you think that as soon as we were human, before the first guy could kill and eat another even, we made laws that said, don’t kill someone for no good reason?
Also, if it were so naturally repugnant, why did we have to make laws against it? Wouldn’t people just not do it? How can you say it was always so? Couldn’t it be the case that we observed that killing others in certain ways lead to undesirable outcomes, like our loved ones becoming our neighbors’ lunch, and so made rules against it?
Excellent and sincere reasoning, the kind I like to debate against.
Your point about the definition of murder is taken. Obviously, some kind of fuzzy logic is required: I mean the killing of a person who is deemed “innocent.” This, of course, involves another definition: a person who has done nothing “wrong” (a further definition, I suppose), who is not deemed a threat (who is not attacking), etc. etc.
I would say that some form of killing (of another human being) has, since the beginning, caused negative emotional reactions, moral outrage, etc.
Personally, I believe that homo sapiens has evolved ethically and will continue to do so. Further, I believe that we have a spiritual side, and that our actions cannot be extricated from the laws of karma. I see abortion as cruel, selfish, and, ultimately, evil in the truest sense.
Others, who take a materialistic view of ethics, will note, correctly, that abortion is quite compatible with social order and the creation of wealth. Heck, it probably even aids the latter (in the short term, since children cost money).
What I don’t understand are the fence sitters: persons who seem genuinely outraged on a moral level that women’s “rights” could be compromised–while at the same time failing to see, or refusing to see, the moral implications of willfully destroying the life of homo sapiens in a particular state of development.
Hey, if it’s just a power thing, then so be it. A certain set of people (feminist women, abortion providers, men who want an easy way out) want it legal and have fought for it to be so. A certain set of people don’t want it and have fought for it not to be so. The former side has won.
But I don’t see ethics in this way. I don’t believe that an evil such as abortion can stand forever, just as slavery could not, cannibalism could not, and many other evils and degraded situations could not.
CANNOT stand, that is. But maybe it can…
Sorry, I didn’t address this part. The fact of the matter is that we have laws against every bad thing we can think of, and it has always been this way. So the hidden premise (naturally repugnant things do not require laws against them) is absurd.
Your supposition regarding the origin of prohibitions against killing might be true on one level. But it certainly doesn’t preclude the basis of moral outrage. We can’t preclude that inasmuch as we know, for a fact, that people DO experience moral outrage for a variety of reasons and formulate rules and laws based on that outrage.
I think is is a bit precious to argue moral outrage over murder when gnawing on a shinbone. Also observation of children leads me to think that they would happily kill innocents if not taught better. Many people seem to be able to kill easily enough if they can define who they are killing as a non-person. I don’t think a moral code is built in and universal. If it were, why do people operate on so many different levels of morality. I know people who don’t do unethical things because they might get caught, and that seens to be their primary motivator. I know others that don’t engage in certain behaviors because it they are agaisnst the law, and so they feel they shouldn’t. They seem to think that right and wrong are defined by an authority and rely completely on that authority for their morality. Others operate on a different level, choosing to not behave in certain actions because they feel they are inherently wrong regardless of the law, reasoning out what is ethical and unethical based on their own personal ethical philosophy. If if is all universal, how do you explain that?
Most pro choicers I know are vehemently anti-abortion. They don’t think that it is a good thing, especially later in the term. They just think that the decision belongs with the person whose body is affected. They think that interfering in another person’s control of their own body is more morally repugnant than allowing them to chose to abort, and the state interfering even more repugnant. They also believe that banning abortion has worse consequences for individuals and our society than allowing it.
As for abortion to be naturally obviously and inherently morally repugnant, I think you are wrong. I have know too many women who on finding out they may be pregnant want desparately to evict the parasite inside them. They find being pregnant akin to having a botfly infestation.
I think that they think that the moral and practical implications to giving the power over someone’s body to others including the state is worse than allowing abortion. They are not fence sitters. They have taken a stand.
Yes, there is reasonable room for debate in there. I am not a frothing, fundamentalist pro-lifer by any means. Still, these same people should acknowledge that society is owed something by its members in the area of reproduction. At least something. To wit, people shouldn’t be allowed to sex-select. Would you agree with that? We are already witnessing the very dangerous effects of this in East Asia.
Hmm, well, I would say such people have “issues.”
You’re the one who found it important that the photos were disgusting and disturbing, not I.
If abortion is wrong, it’s wrong no matter how pleasant the procedure might be. If abortion is fine, then it’s fine no matter how disgusting the procedure might be. Disgusting and disturbing are not effective moral compasses.
Shit logic, indeed.
Oh, and if you wish to call me thickheaded, haul your ass to the Pit to do so.
Yep. Women who say “I’m not sure what an abortion is, but I hear they’re fuzzy and cuddly…let’s get one!” will be swayed by the details of the procedure. Unless of course they also happen to be one of those rare cases who don’t want to go through a pregnancy.
I think sex selection is wrong. I do not want to outlaw it, for the same reasons I do not think we should outlaw abortions.
So, would you say anyone who doesn’t sense the same natural morals as you do has issues? I have talked to several mothers who hated the feeling of the baby moving inside them, especially early on. They thought it gross but endured it.