Economic Left/Right: 8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62
Pleasingly close to Milton Friedman.
Your first sentance is debatable, but even if I were to grant it, emotions and feelings do not grant “human” rights, self-awarnes and consciousness do.
The point at which a child could live outside the body is an arbitrary and indeffinite point, I see no difference in the child needing support inside the womb and the child needing suopport to live once outside of it. I say that a child is human at the point where its life begins, at conception.
I don’t see how anyone is saying that it is the womans “fault”.
Of course not, humans primarily have sex for pleasure and intimacy. But don’t forget that the ultimate purpose of sex is to make a baby. That is what you are doing in sex, working towards making a baby, even if that is the furthest thought from your mind. It is something that you must be prepared to take responsibility for.
What? I am sorry, but I don’t understand your point here.
It is not the woman’s fault, but, yeah, it largely is the woman’s burden. Yeah it is not fair. Maybe if we were egg-laying creatures the burden could be shared equally, but part of being a mammal means that the female is stuck with the baby living of her through out gestation.
Strawman.
Depends on how you phrase the question. I support legal access to abortion. Albeit only when the mothers life is in danger or extreme birth defects.
Again, I am not anti-choice, I am anti-abortion. Just as you are not pro-abortion, but are pro-choice.
Yes I do see both sides. I simply think that the other side is wrong. It is completely possible to understand both sides of an argument and then side with one or the other.
Here I go hopping back on the bus again:
LeftHandOfDorkness lived up perfectly to the fourth syllable of his nick when he spouted forth about wanted to protect hopes, dreams, desires, etc, etc, and then argued that it was therefore OK to terminate a foetus because it lacks any of these, and then got snitty with me when I observed that he was endorsing infanticide. Arguing that a neonate has “desires” because it responds to stimuli is inane. It comes with some hard-wired reflexes - to cry when it is in need of food or in physical discomfort, to suck when a nipple is put in its mouth, to grasp a finger put into its hand - because infants that lack these reflexes would die. But it is known that late-term foetuses, at least, also respond to stimuli.
Dreams, hopes - it is highly improbable that a newborn can be shown to have these and that a foetus does not. As far as a sense of identity goes, I well remember the first time my son saw himself in a mirror and realized he was seeing himself. He had seen “another baby” in the mirror many times; he was, IIRC, well over a year before he turned to me and gave me a look that plainly said “That’s me!”.
You cannot draw a line at birth and say “Before this time, the foetus was unconscious and therefore inhuman.” I’m not sure how far back or how far forwards (depending on your metric) you need to go to establish humanity, but the only difference birth makes is that the 40-week foetus becomes independent of the placenta and must breathe, feed and eliminate for itself.
To maureen and others:
I can’t speak as to conditions in your country, but in mine the Government graciously permits me to take home about 70% of what my employer pays me. Out of that 70%, the Government further helps itself to £0.15 of every £1 I spend on anything but the barest essentials. Gas here costs 'prox six times what it costs in the States and the difference is entirely made up of tax. The local authorities collect about another 5% of my pos-tax income for emergency services and sanitation. There are probably other instances of Government graspology that I can’t think of at the moment. Out of this a proportion of what I cough up is spent on healthcare and health education. Besides that, the newsstands are full of magazines aimed at teenage girls. Most of them are far more up-front about sex than adult women’s magazines were a generation ago. It takes a display of wilful ignorance to be unaware of the causes of pregnancy and prevention for same. AFAIK contraception is free for the asking on the National Health Service.
[aside]Now I know that no contraceptive is 100% effective - I have known that since puberty, since even in the comparatively repressed early Seventies the information was not that hard to come by, and the discreet leaflet under the college door told me nothing I did not already know. But I should like to know whether the majority of abortions, in your country or mine, are attributable to failure of correctly-use contraception.[/aside]
[aside]The taxation above does not make me a philanthropist, I agree. Still, I have yet to vote for a candidate who campaigned on a platform of reducing taxes by cutting health education and services. Besides the above, I’m afraid I only have a monthly subscription to UNESCO, to Dr Barnardo’s and to Help The Aged to my credit. But “Do not your alms before men” ought to discourage me from making much noise about those.[/aside]
I have been challenged to do more, to contribute more, to educate more, to reduce the need for abortion before I dare express an opinion against it. I therefore reasonably ask: What are your views on child slavery, on the controlling of prostitutes by organised crime, on the stoning of women, on bride-burning, on female “circumcision”, on exploitation of illegal immigrant labour by criminal gangmasters? For it appears that you are not allowed to be disgusted by any such detestable practice unless you are donating both time and money to combat them.
First post of the day, excuse me if my connectivity with the argument is poor but it has moved on while I have been offline!
Best wishes,
Mal
We define death as the point that brain activity cannot be detected. Why do we not also define the point at which it can as life.
-
I do not view it as a clump of tissue. I view it as a human being with the same rights as you or I.
-
I do not view women as less important than the babies they carry. If that was so I would not support abortion when the womans life is in danger.
So to avoid the inconvenience you killed the child. You could have given him up for adoption. Or you could have used birth-control and not gotten pregnant in the first place…
So we should kill them because their lives are going to suck? Maybe I should euthanize much of the homeless to prevent them from suffering any further.
But you did bring one into the world, then you plucked it away.
Or she could have done exactly what she did, namely minimize the needless hassle caused by a simple mistake.
[godwin]Yes, minimise the needless hassle caused by the simple mistake of granting Jews human rights in Europe.[/godwin] Someone had to say it.
Which brings us back to my hypothetical 93-year-old great-aunt… and the recognition that the question turns on the irreconcilable issue of whether (and when) the foetus has the human right to life. Since many thousands of words on these boards have yet to answer that one, or AFAIK sway one single person’s opinion, why do we keep arguing?
Hey, I have nothing better to do on a Thursday morning.
The level of your personal thought and debate is far below that of Al Quaeda’s leader, who’s arguments to harbor hostile sentiments to American influence I find a lot more compelling than your arbitrary decision to draw a line at a fertilised egg and treat two cells as a human with human rights from there.
Not really. An egg is fertilised en route from the ovary to the uterus, but the fertilised egg does not necessarily stop there. There are so many of such phases, that the point at which potential becomes actual is as valid taken from one second to the next as from one year to the next. I believe that self-awareness doesn’t arrive until somewhere around the 3rd-4th year. For you it doesn’t matter when, because since you take a black and white stance with no regard for the subtleties of life and with no real basis in reality.
Your concept of potential and actual simply doesn’t do justice to the meaning of life. On the one hand you consider the actual a human life, because it has the capability of consciousness, but at the same time it needs this consciousness to be able to be human - so as long as this doesn’t happen, maybe until the 2nd or 3rd year, there’s not really a human being, but a potential human being in the making. But this potential you still wish to grant the same human rights as all other humans, whether they have developed a consciousness or not - as long as they have the possibility of achieving a consciousness. And yet at the same time you do say that the mother’s life is more valuable than the actual of the child, so human rights here do not equally apply. And all this from the premise that two cells merged change their status from potential to actual all of a sudden, though it’s only one in many uncertain but equally important steps that eventually may or may not lead to a human being that then may or may not develop a consciousness.
Some people’s admiration for your consistency is highly overrated.
Well, as above, your position is weird. If you could treat your ‘actuals’ as slaves, they wouldn’t know it, wouldn’t remember it, wouldn’t complain, wouldn’t be hurt, and so on, because they don’t have those capabilities. Say that we’d extract a few stem-cells from a zygote or whatever without damaging it (it can afford to miss a few cells) that we sell to hospitals who in turn use it to save the lives of a few other people. It would never know unless we told him or her, and it wouldn’t be affected.
The material damage discussed in court were the hoodlums brought to justice would certainly be influenced by how much it would cost to repair the damages. If it is not to late in the season to replace the seedlings, then the costs would be the seedlings and the labor needed to replant them. However, when they destroy the harvest, the costs would be the purchase of the seedlings, all the labor needed to plant, maintain, water and so on … material damage is going to be considerable larger, we’re talking tenfolds at the very, very least.
But that’s not even the point. You already indicated that you know what strawman means. The situation we’re discussing here is whether or not the farmer can decide that it’s a bad idea to invest the rest of the year in this field of seedlings. Say that he heard that the going rate for wholegrain was expected to be at an all time low next year so that all the investments he’d have to make would not nearly be compensated by the value of the crop come harvesting day, does he have the right to plow his land and grow something that was expected to be in demand. Or say that a terrible drought is predicted, or a plague of certain insects, or … etc.
Instead, you’re coming with an example that translates back as a pregnant woman being gangraped and miscarrying as a result. Now here’s a woman who has decided she is willing to invest in this potential and already has invested some in it emotionally and financially, and she is robbed of her potential by force. The value of this potential is primarily psychological, with relatively little material value, and that psychological value is determined by whether or not the mother wants or does not want to invest. If not, then the potential is little more than a very disturbing and potentially dangerous parasite.
Your definition of human is whatever has the ability to develop a consciousness. That definition by itself is flawed, but even in that context, the point you take at which you decide to go from potential to actual is still completely arbitrary.
It usually does. And so your arbitrary and thoughtless position on actuals and potentials messes up yet another technological advancement that brings more healthy children into the world than it kills.
Then it is an insult.
Since arguing still beats fighting. And for the benefit of those who are still forming an opinion (which some do with more care than others, granted).
And believe it or not, sometimes people do change their minds as they take in more information. And, what may come as a shock to some, this is not, in fact, a character flaw, but** a good thing.**
Heh. I have. And I still don’t seem able to stop myself. :smack:
If abortions are murder are miscarriages manslaughter? Are eptopic pregnancies attempted murder by the fetus?
We have reached an age where medical knowledge saves many people from what would have been certain deaths. Thankfully it is also an age where women are not enslaved to unwanted pregnancy.
NO woman EVER sees abortion as the easy option (society makes sure that it is not easy) but it IS a perfectly valid option if it fits with a womans own morals.
Your morals are not the barometer…HERS are.
So then you wouldn’t be opposed to me taking out a life insurance policy on the embryo when I found out I was 6 weeks pregnant? That way, if I miscarry (and any subsequent miscarriages), I get lots of money. You are in favor of your policy payments going up at least three-fold?
Better check out the actuarial rates. You might find that the premiums were punitive - and in that case, nobody’s policy payments would be going up.
*finally finds a use for having been vaguely in the insurance business for years.
So paying possibly hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of women a year a nice lump sum of money won’t make the rates go up? I’m no expert, but simple math tells me otherwise. I don’t know any of the bits and pieces that goes along with insurance, but I don’t see how a company can survive if they are paying several policies per week for miscarriages on top of the other policies they will be paying out. Maybe you can fight my ignorance here.
Why yes, I can. Basically when you buy an insurance policy - let’s say, covering you for five years - the company finds out all it can to determine the probability of you dying during that time, then multiplies that by the sum insured to work out what the premium ought to be, after adding a slice to cover costs, payouts to shareholders (if it ain’t a mutual), and so on. IOW, if you’re 50% likely to die during the next five years, then the company, if it’ll touch you at all, will charge you as a premium a tad over 50% of what it expects to pay out. OTOH if you’re 99.5% likely to live for five years then the premium’s only 0.5% of the sum insured. So if a 6-week foetus has a lousy life expectancy, the premiums will be scandalously high.
Similar considerations apply to accident insurance and so on. E.g. mo’bike insurance is hideously expensive for highly desirable bikes in London because the theft figures are terrifying.
Knowing what I do of insurance companies, I’d think they’d be all up for insuring foetal lives! Sure, they’d pay out more, but they’d make good and sure they’re raking in the premiums first, and they’d do all the sums they can to make sure they’re not losing money on the deal.
[QUOTE=MalacandraLeftHandOfDorkness lived up perfectly to the fourth syllable of his nick when he spouted forth about wanted to protect hopes, dreams, desires, etc, etc, and then argued that it was therefore OK to terminate a foetus because it lacks any of these, and then got snitty with me when I observed that he was endorsing infanticide. Arguing that a neonate has “desires” because it responds to stimuli is inane. It comes with some hard-wired reflexes - to cry when it is in need of food or in physical discomfort, to suck when a nipple is put in its mouth, to grasp a finger put into its hand - because infants that lack these reflexes would die. But it is known that late-term foetuses, at least, also respond to stimuli.
Dreams, hopes - it is highly improbable that a newborn can be shown to have these and that a foetus does not. As far as a sense of identity goes, I well remember the first time my son saw himself in a mirror and realized he was seeing himself. He had seen “another baby” in the mirror many times; he was, IIRC, well over a year before he turned to me and gave me a look that plainly said “That’s me!”.
You cannot draw a line at birth and say “Before this time, the foetus was unconscious and therefore inhuman.” I’m not sure how far back or how far forwards (depending on your metric) you need to go to establish humanity, but the only difference birth makes is that the 40-week foetus becomes independent of the placenta and must breathe, feed and eliminate for itself.
[/QUOTE]
And you live up to the first two syllables of your name when you tell me I endorse infanticide, despite the fact that, oh, I don’t endorse infanticide. You may really want your political opponents to be evil, in order to hide your own desire to sexually torture puppies, but that’s your problem, not mine.
Desires are a neurological phenomenon. Neonates have brains that are functionally similar to adult brains in this area: while their experiences are such that their desires are far more limited than adult desires, there is no reason to suspect that they lack desires.
I have never argued that abortion of 40-week fetuses is acceptable. Don’t try to lump all your political opponents together. I’ve limited myself to arguing in this thread against Muad’dib’s ridiculous idea that a blastocyte should be protected by human rights.
I have not argued that neonates have dreams or hopes. Perhaps you, in your zeal to prove your enemies are villainous, missed my conversation with Shodan on this point? Or perhaps you’re hoping other people have as short an attention span as you have, and have forgotten it?
Daniel
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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
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.
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.
That is too bad-since it is happening now. Do we tell these folks that you’ll get back to 'em?
No…we just let the women do all that…
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?