RE: Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it
April 10, 2019 at 3:19 pm
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2019 at 4:04 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
If we were looking to make a full and measured assessment, alot of things would have to be considered. People spend time doing just that when they consider an abortion.
Take a moment to apply an outsider test, here, Tack.
You've proposed a time limit, as though a legal or moral reason to abort could only present itself on a schedule convenient to..who the hell knows.
Self defense? Like what, it keeps kicking her in the stomach or it's trying to steal her tv? Perhaps it's attempted (or succeeded) to take her hostage? We -do- allow people to kill other people for those reasons.
Are these actually solid restricting factors or factors that you think might serve as decent proxies for your underlying motivations and biases? Would you accept parity in this and other things..a womb based castle doctrine, for example?
No, ofc not. They're proxies, just as personhood is a proxy.
Warzones aren't the only place where the wellbeing of an unwanted child or the wellbeing of an uncooperative mother, or the general wellbeing of every motherfucker apply.
Take a look around the world, though, and you'll see the warzone example being carried out daily. Alot of our favorite "Thanks Jesus!" posters are a product of this sort of unhinged moralizing. It may be easier to see in those examples, but the operative bits of the example aren't limited to the most apparent manifestations of the same. The circumstance that make abortion a potential moral good in a warzone or concentration camp don't need a warzone or a concentration camp to be present.
I think I've shared this one before, but it seems as good a time as any. When europeans first began to really interact with inuit tribes in an effort to study their culture...it was found that they practiced infanticide. Not abortion..(which our society was a-okay with at the time)..infanticide. This horrified the observers, proof, if one needed more..that the inuit were cruel savages. They didn;t even give a shit about babies!
Except this wasn't even close to the case. With much consideration and care for children and others, and the child involved, and with as much trepidation and sorrow as any other mother, lacking reliable abortifacients and giving chance as much time to operate and change circumstances as possible....inuits would leave children in the snow to freeze rather than starve that child, other children, members of the group, and the mother. It was understood that regardless of the imperative of the act..a mother may not want to do it, may be physically unable....in which case, others would do it for her. The profound harm that the birth of a child could cause was their practical and moral justification.
Take a moment to apply an outsider test, here, Tack.
You've proposed a time limit, as though a legal or moral reason to abort could only present itself on a schedule convenient to..who the hell knows.
Self defense? Like what, it keeps kicking her in the stomach or it's trying to steal her tv? Perhaps it's attempted (or succeeded) to take her hostage? We -do- allow people to kill other people for those reasons.
Are these actually solid restricting factors or factors that you think might serve as decent proxies for your underlying motivations and biases? Would you accept parity in this and other things..a womb based castle doctrine, for example?
No, ofc not. They're proxies, just as personhood is a proxy.
(April 10, 2019 at 12:30 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Worse for whom? Society, the mother, or the fetus? Or some kind of "average" of all three?Any and all of the above, sure.
Quote:An abortion is obviously the worst case scenario for the fetus so that would skew the average quite a bit. And if we aren't considering the well being of the fetus then that's just avoiding the conversation because I think the pro-lifers very much want to discuss the well being of the fetus.You say obviously, but that isn't true, obviously or otherwise. A huge number of abortions are predicated specifically on the state of the child. Be that some terrible birth defect, crippling and miserable poverty, or run of the mill abuse and neglect.
Quote:You mentioned a warzone abortion earlier so how bizarre of situations are you considering? I mean... we could come up with a bizarre scenario where rape is the moral thing to do. That doesn't mean we should just legalize rape.The warzone example is just one of many that present a persons own notions of duty bowling over any consideration of the wellbeing of the child. It could be extended to include a third party, where you believe it's your duty to force a female to give birth in a warzone. Now a persons individual duty is bowling over mother and child. Or where a group of people believe that it;s their collective duty to enforce childbirth, as they all..including all of the already born bay-bees...starve. Perhaps, since you like nazi examples...these bay-bees are all starving in a concentration camp. What good is served, what consideration for the as yet unborn child is happening here?
Warzones aren't the only place where the wellbeing of an unwanted child or the wellbeing of an uncooperative mother, or the general wellbeing of every motherfucker apply.
Take a look around the world, though, and you'll see the warzone example being carried out daily. Alot of our favorite "Thanks Jesus!" posters are a product of this sort of unhinged moralizing. It may be easier to see in those examples, but the operative bits of the example aren't limited to the most apparent manifestations of the same. The circumstance that make abortion a potential moral good in a warzone or concentration camp don't need a warzone or a concentration camp to be present.
I think I've shared this one before, but it seems as good a time as any. When europeans first began to really interact with inuit tribes in an effort to study their culture...it was found that they practiced infanticide. Not abortion..(which our society was a-okay with at the time)..infanticide. This horrified the observers, proof, if one needed more..that the inuit were cruel savages. They didn;t even give a shit about babies!
Except this wasn't even close to the case. With much consideration and care for children and others, and the child involved, and with as much trepidation and sorrow as any other mother, lacking reliable abortifacients and giving chance as much time to operate and change circumstances as possible....inuits would leave children in the snow to freeze rather than starve that child, other children, members of the group, and the mother. It was understood that regardless of the imperative of the act..a mother may not want to do it, may be physically unable....in which case, others would do it for her. The profound harm that the birth of a child could cause was their practical and moral justification.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
