The abortion paradox

[Red Celt]

I think most people who despise condoms simply had problems with maintaining erection while putting one on. It is a purely psychological thing. Pills tend to kill women's libido so I highly prefer gloved love to making love to someone who is practically a pharmacologically neutered female

Where did you hear that about the pill, FFS? If the women I've been intimate with were suffering from a restricted libido, I'd have suffered death-by-sex if they hadn't been on the pill. According to you. And that's my code for "you're talking shite".

I've also never had a problem putting on a condom. I'm 43 and I've never had an erectile problem in my life, not even as a one-off "this-never-happens-honest" type of way. Hopefully I never will... touch wood. (see what I did, there?)

They drastically lessen the tactile pleasure from sex. If you've never gone bareback, you won't appreciate what you're missing. Your loss... and in a big way.

---

Yeah, there is actually no real reason for abortion to exist. There are sooo many options for birth control it baffles me how anyone becomes pregnant on accident. Even though I'm pro-choice on the basis that cells don't have rights, I feel very little sympathy for those who become pregnant 'on accident'

WTF, people...

Contraceptives sometimes fail. Sometimes, people's lust allows for "silly" decisions that have long-term (unwanted) results. People make mistakes and not always due to stupidity.

Or, sometimes, a committed relationship ends between conception and fetal viability. Should a woman be forced to take care of a child that she has no possible means of supporting, on her own?

And then there's rape.

Claiming that "there is actually no real reason for abortion to exist" is a statement that deserves derision.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gender is irrelevant to the veracity of my argument because it goes far beyond the abortion debate. What a society believes about the humanity of the unborn effects its views about the retarded, the terminally ill, and criminals, among others. Abortion, like euthanasia, is a form of eugenics, a way to cull society of inconvenient populations. As our technology advances this tool becomes even more threatening. We could now abort those genetically predisposed to homosexuality, clinical depression, blue eyes, or use it for simple sex selection (some already do). Recognizing the humanity of the unborn forestalls moving into those areas.

Some of you have suggested that I am a hypocrite. Not one of you could volunteer for every cause that you care about. To demand that from me before allowing me to express my opinion is itself hypocritical. Each of us is called to the area in which we can make the most difference. For some that is working with crisis pregnancies. I myself am drawn to hospice work. Just because that isn’t where others volunteer their time and talents, I do not resent people that still express compassion for the terminally ill. It is offensive to suggest that my compassion in one area is false just because my charitable giving focuses on another source of human suffering.

Relative to moral obligations, my keywords, genkaus, are "greater or lesser extent". Your examples of doctors and cops are what I had in mind on the "greater extent" side of the scale. I do not consider moral obligations simple yes/no propositions, they depend heavily on the issue and the capacities/roles of the people involved.

"Quite a few assumptions here. You are assuming it has humanity to begin with. You are also assuming that whether someone deserves to live can be determined and quantified." -genkaus.

I consider the humanity of the fetus a matter of biology. It has a unique and human genetic structure and it's natural course of development is into a rational being. I find that most arguments to the contrary do not consider these two facts. I am however open to considering an alternate view. And I am not the one making a judgment between those who deserve to live and who does not. I am saying that by and large we should let matters proceed as they naturally would without interference. I argue against judging whether the inconvienience of children or the quality of the environment they are born into are factors in whether or not they are worthy of living.

[Anomalocaris]

Humanity is not a biological concept. It is a sociological concept.

Biology describes. We classify. The function of sociological classification is for the expendiency of the society. Perceived logical consistency in classification may be expedient, it may not be. It has no intrinsic value for this purpose other than its impact on expediency.

[Red Celt]

I am saying that by and large we should let matters proceed as they naturally would without interference.

So you'll never visit a doctor, again, and refuse any medical needs that you might have? I mean, if "by and large" we should let nature take its course...

Unless you just apply that rule to abortion?

[Faith No More]

In short, I believe that pro-choice advocates hold the position that the unborn are not really human and that that stance has repercussions far beyond the abortion debate.

And advocating that a zygote is human being at the moment of conception also has its repercussions, namely making in vitro fertalization illegal. The process involves creating and implanting more embryos than are likely to turn into viable pregnancies. The remaining embryos are kept in cryogenic storage for future use. This is how my child was born. Would you say he is the product of murder?

[The Grand Nudger]

What a society believes about the humanity of the unborn effects its views about the retarded, the terminally ill, and criminals, among others. Abortion, like euthanasia, is a form of eugenics, a way to cull society of inconvenient populations. As our technology advances this tool becomes even more threatening. We could now abort those genetically predisposed to homosexuality, clinical depression, blue eyes, or use it for simple sex selection (some already do). Recognizing the humanity of the unborn forestalls moving into those areas.

You think so eh? So why was it illegal to abort a fetus but perfectly legal to electrocute a criminal, or sterilize "the retarded" (forcibly and without consent) simultaneously? Why is it now legal to abort a fetus, but illegal to sterilize "the retarded" and split on the issue of electrocuting criminals? Clearly these things aren't as tied at the hip as you are hoping to suggest. In this case, your slippery slope doesn't even fucking exist. It's a level plane where these individual scenarios are handled by (largely) their own laws and statues, with full recognition (such as you express below this portion re rape etc) that they are not interchangeable.

Who, do you imagine, might abort a child for homosexuality btw? Honestly, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that anyone willing to abort their child because they don't want to give birth to a queer (or a blue eyed baby..or any of this nonsense) should probably be granted their wish. Mind you, I'm not personally a fan of abortion, but under the circumstances you've laid out it seems almost cruel (not to the mother..but to the fucking child) not to green-light the procedure.

I'm not entirely certain how selecting the sex of a child factors into something threatening, but I'm sure you have you reasons. As much as I joke about it, I'm not so attached to my penis that the notion of my mother selecting my sex to be female instead of male would cause me to lose much sleep. Mileage may vary on that count, clearly.

All this said, abortion is not a matter of personal morality but of legality. You and I are free to feel icky about abortion unto the end of days, but in this particular scenario the rights of the mother have been assigned precedence (this, ignoring that personhood hasn't been granted to the fetus). As unpalatable as abortion may be to you or I, the alternative is (to me) entirely more brutal. Am I to become the justification for a gang of moral busybodies invading the wombs of women? I think I'll pass.

[genkaus]

Gender is irrelevant to the veracity of my argument because it goes far beyond the abortion debate. What a society believes about the humanity of the unborn effects its views about the retarded, the terminally ill, and criminals, among others. Abortion, like euthanasia, is a form of eugenics, a way to cull society of inconvenient populations. As our technology advances this tool becomes even more threatening. We could now abort those genetically predisposed to homosexuality, clinical depression, blue eyes, or use it for simple sex selection (some already do). Recognizing the humanity of the unborn forestalls moving into those areas.

Except, it is not eugenics. Eugenics have the specific meaning of improving the gene pool, which neither abortion nor euthanasia are concerned about. Ironically, those who would use abortion to eliminate homosexuals or for sex-selection are those who oppose abortion to begin with - therefore, granting human status to the unborn is not the way to forestall that since both have the same roots.

As for the "culling the inconvenient" argument goes, all societies have those inconvenient members. All modern societies also recognize the fact that while these members do have the right to live, what they don't have is the right live off another person. The right of the person to choose whether or not to support that another life is paramount. So, you don't have the right to force the relatives of the terminally ill or the retarded to keep paying for their continued existence and you don't have the right to force a woman to continue to sustain something that to all intents and purposes is a parasite. If and when such technology exists, you can come back and argue against abortion and in favor of transplanting the fetus into an artificial womb.

Some of you have suggested that I am a hypocrite. Not one of you could volunteer for every cause that you care about. To demand that from me before allowing me to express my opinion is itself hypocritical. Each of us is called to the area in which we can make the most difference. For some that is working with crisis pregnancies. I myself am drawn to hospice work. Just because that isn’t where others volunteer their time and talents, I do not resent people that still express compassion for the terminally ill. It is offensive to suggest that my compassion in one area is false just because my charitable giving focuses on another source of human suffering.

Your hypocrisy lies in not affording the women the same choice. The choice of not having to sustain another human being simply because they don't choose to.

Relative to moral obligations, my keywords, genkaus, are "greater or lesser extent". Your examples of doctors and cops are what I had in mind on the "greater extent" side of the scale. I do not consider moral obligations simple yes/no propositions, they depend heavily on the issue and the capacities/roles of the people involved.

So you are saying that even an accountant would have the "moral obligation" to give CPR or interfere with a robbery if he finds himself in that situation. And you rationalization for that is?

I consider the humanity of the fetus a matter of biology. It has a unique and human genetic structure and it's natural course of development is into a rational being. I find that most arguments to the contrary do not consider these two facts.

No, they do. What they add to these two facts are 1) it should be capable of surviving in outside environment and 2) it should be born.

I am however open to considering an alternate view. And I am not the one making a judgment between those who deserve to live and who does not. I am saying that by and large we should let matters proceed as they naturally would without interference.

We never do that when our own health and happiness is concerned. Letting the matters proceed naturally and without interference would require us not to treat any of the diseases or health problems we may come across. Why should we make an exception in this case?

I argue against judging whether the inconvienience of children or the quality of the environment they are born into are factors in whether or not they are worthy of living.

Oh, I agree. We are not deciding if they are worthy of living or not. Whether or not you are worthy of living would depend upon your life and your actions and the unborn clearly have neither. In fact, I'd say that no one, at the moment of their birth, is either worthy of living or worthy of dying - that's a chance that the parents are taking. What we do use those factors to decide is whether they are worth the trouble.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And advocating that a zygote is human being at the moment of conception also has its repercussions, namely making in vitro fertalization illegal. ...Would you say he is the product of murder?

Yes there are implications for IVF. My own opinion, the viability of a test- tube zygote is so remote, that the resulting opportunities for new life make the procedure an overall positive. In addition, excess zygotes can be offered to infertile couples for "snowflake" babies, thus avoiding wontonly discarding them.

Hopefully I am making it clear that I advocate a moderate pro-life position, in which the rights of fully developed humans and the unborn are weighted against each other. I do not assume, like pro-choice believers, that the unborn have no rights at all. Nor do I believe they should be afforded the complete rights of a healthy competent adult. Age, viability and the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy matter. But I do believe that the unborn have some measure of human rights however minimal.

[Cyberman]

We opted to donate our excess zygotes for training and research. What does that say about me, I wonder (since I'm putting my Princess beyond judgement, though it was a joint decision)?

[genkaus]

Hopefully I am making it clear that I advocate a moderate pro-life position, in which the rights of fully developed humans and the unborn are weighted against each other. I do not assume, like pro-choice believers, that the unborn have no rights at all. Nor do I believe they should be afforded the complete rights of a healthy competent adult. Age, viability and the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy matter. But I do believe that the unborn have some measure of human rights however minimal.

A fully developed human has the right to live. Those that can be considered to be not "fully" developed - such as newly borns, the retarded, the terminally ill or those in vegetative state - also have the right to live. The unborn do not have that right. How exactly did you find a middle ground between life and death?