|
|
#111
03-31-2007, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Personally, I think neurulation is a reasonable cutoff. At least you know there is no suffering involved before that point. [/ QUOTE ] Causing suffering shouldnt be too much of a factor when considering abortion. Obviously, causing suffering to innocent creatures should be avoided. But if the aborted fetus is the equivalent of an insignifigant animal, than the suffering it endures during an abortion is negligible against protecting the woman holding it. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. If the woman choses not to have an abortion then she is taking some responsibilty for what happens next. Suffering caused by a later abortion can't then be dismissed as suffering of an insignificant animal any more than causing suffering to a pet dog can. Freedom to chose doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that choice. chez [/ QUOTE ] This is absolutely true and something I think a lot of pro-choice advocates are dead wrong about, or at least do not give proper consideration to. I personally think abortion is morally acceptable until birth, but it is CLEARLY better earlier. [/ QUOTE ] Its a weak analogy but: If the women makes an informed decision not to have an early abortion then we can consider that a contract has been entered into with the feotus (like with a pet) and having a late abortion is a breach of contract which is therefore wrong. As a general rule we don't allow people to freely enter a contract and then harm the other parties by choosing to break the contract. On the bit we agree on - it follows that the right thing to do is ensure people are able to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place, quickly determine they are pregnant, provide information on the options (abortion, parenthood, adoptions etc), and provide easy access to early abortions. chez [/ QUOTE ] Yes, this is exactly right, and usually a point it takes forever to get to. It is shaky ground, but I think that if a woman makes a decision early on in the pregnancy not to abort, you can make a strong case that she is now no longer allowed to break that contract, because of the excess suffering. This leads to the obvious next point: isn't having unprotected sex (or any sex at all, really) the same as entering into this implicit contract? And my answer is a typically poker-like one: It depends. Certainly, an educated couple who willfully choose to have unprotected sex know full well the potential consequences of their actions, so you could say that the reasonable expectation of their acts are pregnancy. In that case, abortion is breaking the contract, causing suffering, and wrong. But I think the case of two people who use oral contraceptives and condoms and choose to have sex is vastly different. There is really just NO reasonable expectation of pregnancy in that case. Sure, its possible, but so is being struck by a meteor. Even having sex hundreds of times doesn't make the likelihood high enough to justify a reasonable expectation. But thats a more technical question and a further point of debate. I am generally only interested in securing abortions for the victims of rape, and then letting the legal system try to figure out how they are going to make the law discern who was raped and who wasn't. [/ QUOTE ] Quick Google search on "pregnancy risk condom" to find the stats I had heard before: Best case scenario with condoms, risk of preg = 3%, but that is with perfect use; standard use risk is actually 12-15% . Risk with perfect use of birth control pills is also around 3%. Do you think you have a 12% risk of being struck with a meteor? Even a 3% risk? Or is it possible your presumption is wrong there? [/ QUOTE ] I remember these types of stats in my high school sex ed classes.. am I crazy or are these absolutely absurd?..I can't imagine that condoms fail even 3% [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, you wanna do a quick stats problem? Find out how likely it is that you could have sex 500 times, with a failure rate of 12% and a fertilization/implantation rate of...well, thats tricky, lets say 10% and never have a pregnancy. 
|
|
#112
03-31-2007, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd say right up until birth. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this - This causes far too much suffering for all parties involved to be considered moral IMO - the suffering of those witnessing the abortion / the mother / the child. Pulling a living child out of you and watching it be killed systematically can't possibly be justified. Oh - and this has nothing to do with religion. My own opinion is that the cutoff should be very soon after conception. Perhaps give a week for the parents to decide what they truly want. There is no reason for carrying child for weeks or months and letting it grow inside you if you don't want it. Pro-choice is a very cheery name in opposition to 'pro-life' - pro-death ? [/ QUOTE ] If you pull a living child out of a woman, she can certainly no longer abort it. She can refuse to nurse it, feed it, or care for it, but she cannot kill it. [/ QUOTE ] No, she cannot legally kill it, but refusing to do those things would be against the law also, unless she arranged for them through a specific process, in which case, she is providing for it, just not by her self. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. I mean, she can't really leave it on a doorstep at the local church, I guess, but more or less she can just refuse to care for it and give it up. Due to red tape, you have a point that this is not entirely a painless procedure, but I think you are being a bit of a nit there. [/ QUOTE ] I see what you meant there. I thought you werre implying she could "allow" it to die by not feeding,caring for it, but couldn't "actively" kill it. Wasn't trying to be a nit, just didn't read your post correctly. By the way, at least in Texas, you can leave a newborn infant at any random hospital without fear of prosecution, no questions asked. Not sure what the age cutoff for that is? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, there probably IS no cutoff. I think those laws are to encourage these mothers to do something that wont ENSURE the babies death, like putting it in a dumpster. My point is really just that you cannot force anyone to sacrifice their body to help someone else, even if that other person will die as a result. You cannot force me to give my kidney, you cannot force me even to give a unit of blood, no matter how helpless the child is who will die otherwise. Am I being selfish? Of course, but as many threads on this forum have demonstrated, so are you, assuming you drive a car, eat good food, go to movies, or have furniture. So, if it was possible to remove the fetus without harming it, abortion becomes instantly immoral in my opinion. That death is the (currently) inevitable result of removing the fetus is unfortunate, and no one's fault but evolution or God. [/ QUOTE ] I personally feel that having sex indicates a willingness to accept responsibilty for the consequences, since they are known and can be reasonably expected. So that is where mom and dad signed the "contract." In the case of rape/incest these are sufficiently rare that they should not legislate the majority. My morals and religious beliefs tell me personally that aborting even such a fetus would be wrong, but I am sane enough to see why this would be a tough sell in today's world. So then, exceptions would be made for these cases. Also, exceptions made for the health of the mom are OK with me.
|
|
#113
03-31-2007, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd say right up until birth. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this - This causes far too much suffering for all parties involved to be considered moral IMO - the suffering of those witnessing the abortion / the mother / the child. Pulling a living child out of you and watching it be killed systematically can't possibly be justified. Oh - and this has nothing to do with religion. My own opinion is that the cutoff should be very soon after conception. Perhaps give a week for the parents to decide what they truly want. There is no reason for carrying child for weeks or months and letting it grow inside you if you don't want it. Pro-choice is a very cheery name in opposition to 'pro-life' - pro-death ? [/ QUOTE ] If you pull a living child out of a woman, she can certainly no longer abort it. She can refuse to nurse it, feed it, or care for it, but she cannot kill it. [/ QUOTE ] No, she cannot legally kill it, but refusing to do those things would be against the law also, unless she arranged for them through a specific process, in which case, she is providing for it, just not by her self. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. I mean, she can't really leave it on a doorstep at the local church, I guess, but more or less she can just refuse to care for it and give it up. Due to red tape, you have a point that this is not entirely a painless procedure, but I think you are being a bit of a nit there. [/ QUOTE ] I see what you meant there. I thought you werre implying she could "allow" it to die by not feeding,caring for it, but couldn't "actively" kill it. Wasn't trying to be a nit, just didn't read your post correctly. By the way, at least in Texas, you can leave a newborn infant at any random hospital without fear of prosecution, no questions asked. Not sure what the age cutoff for that is? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, there probably IS no cutoff. I think those laws are to encourage these mothers to do something that wont ENSURE the babies death, like putting it in a dumpster. My point is really just that you cannot force anyone to sacrifice their body to help someone else, even if that other person will die as a result. You cannot force me to give my kidney, you cannot force me even to give a unit of blood, no matter how helpless the child is who will die otherwise. Am I being selfish? Of course, but as many threads on this forum have demonstrated, so are you, assuming you drive a car, eat good food, go to movies, or have furniture. So, if it was possible to remove the fetus without harming it, abortion becomes instantly immoral in my opinion. That death is the (currently) inevitable result of removing the fetus is unfortunate, and no one's fault but evolution or God. [/ QUOTE ] I personally feel that having sex indicates a willingness to accept responsibilty for the consequences, since they are known and can be reasonably expected. So that is where mom and dad signed the "contract." In the case of rape/incest these are sufficiently rare that they should not legislate the majority. My morals and religious beliefs tell me personally that aborting even such a fetus would be wrong, but I am sane enough to see why this would be a tough sell in today's world. So then, exceptions would be made for these cases. Also, exceptions made for the health of the mom are OK with me. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, so they are ignorant 16 year old kids who literally do not know better. Now what? They 'should have known?'
|
|
#114
03-31-2007, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
Yet another reason why none of us consider you much of a rational thinker. The ability to follow analogies is something you can develop over time, however. [/ QUOTE ] Let's talk about rationality: 1. Insulting me does nothing to promote your argument. 2. The phrase "potential to end a human life form" is not an appeal to emotion. It is a statement of fact. Statements of fact are neither logical nor illogical. 3. The statement "Every single cell in my body has the potential to be a human life." is equivocation. Your analogy involves two separate contexts which you assume to be the same. Your skin cells will not develop into a human life naturally.
|
|
#115
03-31-2007, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so they are ignorant 16 year old kids who literally do not know better. Now what? They 'should have known?' [/ QUOTE ] I know, punishment does not seem to fit the crime. IMO, adoption should be the norm, rather than abortion. So it does not have to be a lifeplan/college/high school-altering event after all.
|
|
#117
03-31-2007, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
Still a ridiculous comparison.
The possibility that a skin cell may be able to create a clone in the future is irrelevant. A zygote is going somewhere (unlike a skin cell - that will just sit there..) - A zygote is forming a baby - it's what it is.
|
|
#118
03-31-2007, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so they are ignorant 16 year old kids who literally do not know better. Now what? They 'should have known?' [/ QUOTE ] Yes. It's called accepting responsibility for your actions.
|
|
#119
03-31-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yet another reason why none of us consider you much of a rational thinker. The ability to follow analogies is something you can develop over time, however. [/ QUOTE ] Let's talk about rationality: 1. Insulting me does nothing to promote your argument. 2. The phrase "potential to end a human life form" is not an appeal to emotion. It is a statement of fact. Statements of fact are neither logical nor illogical. 3. The statement "Every single cell in my body has the potential to be a human life." is equivocation. Your analogy involves two separate contexts which you assume to be the same. Your skin cells will not develop into a human life naturally. [/ QUOTE ] Feel free to defend your use of the term 'naturally.' After you do that I will consider your charge of equivocation. I'm curious as to how you think I was insulting you. I mean, I was, but I really didn't say anything different from what you said. You said my statements didn't strike you as rational, I said you didn't strike me as rational. Thats the key difference? Mine was an insult, yours was an observation? Oh well, it doesn't matter since I WAS insulting you. His statement was not an appeal to emotion. It was an absolutely meaningless, hollow, obvious statement of fact. My analogy showed that perfectly. There are not two separate contexts. There is one. A zygote can become a human. A hair cell can become a human. Honestly, probably almost anything made out of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen can become a human. The fact that we would need to go to greater lengths to accomplish one than the other is entirely meaningless. This is not equivocation.
|
|
#120
03-31-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
Still a ridiculous comparison. The possibility that a skin cell may be able to create a clone in the future is irrelevant. A zygote is going somewhere (unlike a skin cell - that will just sit there..) - A zygote is forming a baby - it's what it is. [/ QUOTE ] NO. That is NOT what it is. It IS a zygote. It may or may not (but probably WILL NOT) become a human. Same for the hair cells. The zygote has about a 10% chance, the hair cells considerably less. Are you quibbling over likelihoods?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
