Shade: Very good point. Now I am able to be open minded because someone is allowing me to.
You are right. Your point about influencing a couples mind is no different than what I am saying, unless…
… you want to think about it morally. Morally speaking, you didn’t mean to interrupt an imminent life, it was just interrupted through natural conversation. Now, if you were schemeing and machinating how you could end an imminent life (for some sick reason), and went to a couple who are just getting married and talking about children (and whom you knew you could persuade from a solid pro-baby choice to a solid no-baby choice), then that could reasonably be contrued as coerceing life, and I believe one should be held responsible for that (because it’s just kind of awkwardly demented and perverted!). I guess it could all boil down to motivation/knowledge.
Perhaps this is the difference between the pro-choice and pro-life camps. The pro-life people see a fetus as a “little baby”. The pro-choice people see it as a mass of tissues that is not yet human. To me, a fetus is no more a baby than a sperm or egg are.
Therefore, pulling a trigger with a 35% chance of killing an actual baby is a lot worse than pulling a trigger with a 35% chance of killing a fetus.
However, your argument against abortion applies equally well to condoms, and you simply cannot avoid the comparison.
Here’s another take on things. You’re arguing that abortions prevents a life from coming to be that otherwise has an X% chance of being born. But if you’re just arguing against potential people, then you run into a huge flaw. You see, there must exist a certain number of times that one can have sex that would, as a whole, result in the same probability of giving birth as one verified conception. Thus, by your logic, turning down sex Z times is exactly equivalent, probabilistically speaking, to having an abortion.
Does that mean that anyone who fails to have sex at every opportunity is a baby killer? Or does it simply mean that your argument is flawed?
hauss: I’m afraid I do disagree: I think that if someone is financially, emotionally or legally unready for children it is right to persuade them not to have them.
You are in fact arguing that it is immoral to choose at any time to not have children?
You are confusing “Pro-Choice” with “Pro-Abortion.”
Being East-Coast liberal scum, most of my friends are pro-choice, as am I. In discussions on this topic, I have yet to hear one of them say, “I can’t wait to get pregnant so I can go get an abortion!” You don’t see pro-lifers in front of clinics, urging pregnant women to have abortions, do you?
An abortion is a horrible, degrading and incredibly sad procedure. I speak from experience and would probably- no make that definitely, never choose it again as an option.
That said, I would not want to deny someone the ability to have one; that is a choice that they will have to make-and live with.
You still seem to be arguing from the position that people have an obligation to create life, or not to disturb any process that might create life in the future, and the only limit is how likely it is that the process will create life. I think you’ll find that most people disagree. There is no obligation to create life, only an obligation not to destroy life that already exists - and even that has exceptions.
If you want to talk about interrupting imminent life, how can you possibly ignore contraception and abstinence?
No, I specifically gave a scenario in which one preyed on a vulnerable couple. I didn’t address the personal issues they were going through, because I wanted to leave their personal lives neutral for arguments sake.
If you are giving sound advice, there is no reason to think your motives were to interrupt. Remember, I said motivation and knowledge were the relevant points.
To address your second paragraph: I was saying “baby” in reference to the future baby, given that the 35% chance went through. Read back and you’ll understand why I worded it that way.
Also, again, motives is the key word here. When you turn down sex, that is your personal right. Telling your wife that you want to wait ten years to have a kid is your right because it’s a calculated decision on behalf of you, your spouse and your would-be future kid and you feel that later would be better than now… hence good motives.
Don’t feel like you have to answer, but why would you never choose it again? So, you would not abort again under any circumstances? Do you think it was the right thing to do though at that time?
Don’t feel like you have to answer, but why would you never choose it again? So, you would not abort again under any circumstances? Do you think it was the right thing to do though at that time?
Yeah, I think you are right. I feel like that “little guy” in there whose just trying to exist should be left alone and not many other circumstances should interrupt that process. But, not many people feel that way, unfortunately. I’d rather err on the safe side, then be a voter pro-abortion and have the blood of many souls on my hands…
When I see or think about a fetus, I see the baby that it’s gonna be in a couple months. I don’t stop to think about whether it’s a life or not, because I know it will be a life soon. It’s ironic because I am a very logically-oriented guy. And, at the same time, I’d like to think of myself as a very objective, empathetic guy too, but I can’t for the life of me see this other side. Ah, well, on to other things… thanks for the discussion.
And what about the future baby that would have a 35% chance of being born if you have sex Z times?
Abortion can also be based on good motives. It’s generally a calculated decision on behalf of you, your spouse and your would-be future kid (I’m talking about the future kid who would never be born if the woman hadn’t had an abortion).
No, you see the baby it might be in a couple of months. As opposed to, say, the serial-killing pedophile rapist it might be in a couple of decades. Basically, you’re seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the possibilities that you don’t want to see.
You already mentioned earlier in the thread that we “can’t see into the future to ascertain the better action”. It it quite possible that abortion is the better action, and quite possible that it’s not. It’s not a decision that is entered into lightly, and no one can know if it was the “right” decision. They can only know that, for their current circumstances, it’s the best choice they have.
Not if the fetus is aborted. And that’s the whole point. You should stop to think about whether it’s a life or not, because it won’t necessarily be a life soon.
You mean that its ok because I didn’t intent to specifically stop the baby being born, but that that was a necessary and obvious side-effect of not having a baby they couldn’t look after?? (I can’t believe this is what you mean - wouldn’t the same argument apply to abortion? - but I can’t see anything else your post could mean.)
This is why I’m pro-choice. This mindset enables him to totally erase the mother. He doesn’t care about the woman who already exists; he’s blissfully imaging a baby that** doesn’t. **
**Then what species is this living entity, if not human? I believe you are discussing a concept like “personhood” or “human deserving of rights” or whatever. Because there is no question that an unborn human is still a human. If you wish to assert otherwise, again, please let me know the species you believe the fetus of a human belongs to. It may be convenient to rationalize abortions by thinking of the unborn as not being human, but that convenience does not make the notion true.
What species does the mother belong to? I mean, she’s already here, she’s living, voting, doing things, but it’s interesting how the pro-lifers are utterly ignoring her existance in favor of the fetus. In Bob Cos’ post, there’s not mention of her at all.
Amazing straw man, margin. Keep up the good work. I respond to a specific point that another poster made about a fetus not being human, and naturally you can infer from this that I believe the mother’s rights–no, her very existence–should be ignored. I also didn’t mention the father, so of course that means I believe his rights and being are of little consequence as well. Same goes for the mother’s gynecologist, the cab driver that takes her to her doctor, her cousin Milly. Where do I get off showing contempt for their humanity by not mentioning them? :rolleyes:
There are many different circumstances that interrupt that process regularly. Some of them are due to the actions of the pregnant woman and some of them are not.
Whereas I would rather the decision to proceed with a pregnancy be left to the woman, her doctor and her God(s). “blood of many souls. . .,” indeed.
As has been pointed out to you, the fetus is not necessarily going to become a child, nor is it a given that it will eventually be a life. And even if it does become a child, there is a very good chance that it will become a pedophile and destroy the childhood of others. And in that vein, if I were told that I had a 35% chance of shooting blind and hitting a pedophile, I’m not sure I wouldn’t be all over that.
Of course a foetus is a “life”, in the same way an amoeba or the chicken I ate for dinner is a “life”. What is in question is whether killing a foetus is murder, since killing an amoeba or a chicken plainly are not.