Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[Minimalist]

The US seems to be moving in the opposite direction though, tack.

Many states have had to cut child care for the working poor. You're right, though. It's a societal problem.

[Samson]

Just another reason that every state in the U.S. should have some form of "Planned Parenthood" office etc. for all the above....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/


There are many states that do have this (States that have abortion legalized).....but regardless of the stupidity of certain states that have not legalized abortion, there should be places for woman and men to go etc.

[tackattack]

I know min, I've had an increasing desire to move out of country for years now. How's Ireland, England and Germany on societal issues like theese?

[Violet]

Seems the debate is over then, both sides having made their final remarks.

You're proposing a new debate then? I'll assume so

http://usualrhetoric.blogspot.com/2010/0...lking.html
http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/more-fail...-rhetoric/

Personally, having followed the discussion, I'm now anti choice and no longer pro choice. From conception it seems clear that there is life of it's own. Deserving of consideration as such.

Bacterium also have a life of their own... but why should we care (excluding special circumstances, such as the development of antibiotics)? Some bacteria damages us... as all birthing damages us. When we apply antibiotics and the like to bacterium... we don't even ponder things such as "But they live too! Don't they have a right to live?"... we kill them so that the one affected by them will either stop being damaged by the bacterium or so that they don't begin to damage the individual.

When it comes to human babies... all of them will damage the individual bodily throughout the birthing process... and will continue to damage the economy (time, money, attention, etc) of the individual for years after the birthing process is over. Some people ponder "But they live too! Don't they have a right to live?"... but I am not one of these people. A child is a long term investment (and may never turn out positively) that a person faced with one should not take lightly. For their own sake, and the sake of the future child... I would strongly recommend not having any children until one is quite financially secure, with a fairly large surplus, and living in a fairly sanitary and safe environment.

There are then very difficult decisions following on from anti choice. None of which were really covered here. Rape; child pregnancy; risk of death etc to either mother or child.

If the mother actively desires to take the risks, under the full knowledge that she or her planned child could well die (and will most certainly suffer much damage)... I say bloody well let her take that risk. Rape doesn't change the fact of pregnancy (it changes only the origin). And although it is unsafe for a 'child' to be pregnant... they can evidently survive the process (at least on one occasion) by age 5 1/2 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina (well how interesting, i certainly didn't expect to find anything below 8 )

---

No. Equally. Lives begin and end.

Or does neither in fact ever occur?

/end religious joke argument ^_^

I don't pretend there aren't problems. I just see it's taking a life. Lawful or not, the fact remains.

The fact can remain all it wants... I am going to see it made universal to all life before I'm going to give a damn about it... and then I will give a damn only to argue that a thing's status as 'life' warrants nothing.

---

I actually went from anti-choice to pro-choice on this one. I think the better solution would be a societal approach of lessening the factors that would force women in to having to have or desire an abortion. Increasing parenting classes, less stigmatism and better conditions for orphans and adoptions, lowering sexual crime rates, inreasing awareness, etc. I don't think a normal woman under normal circumstances with a normal child and a means to care for the child would intentionally choose to give up that child, so my switch to pro choice actually falls on the character of humanity and relies less on the definition of life.

Quite true I'm going to bold it because I like it ^_<

[tavarish]

Seems the debate is over then, both sides having made their final remarks.

http://usualrhetoric.blogspot.com/2010/0...lking.html
http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/more-fail...-rhetoric/

Personally, having followed the discussion, I'm now anti choice and no longer pro choice. From conception it seems clear that there is life of it's own. Deserving of consideration as such.

There are then very difficult decisions following on from anti choice. None of which were really covered here. Rape; child pregnancy; risk of death etc to either mother or child.

I'm not at all happy about the way the dialogue turned out. Ryft went an awful long way to play a semantics game and repeat his own talking points without addressing the issues I presented. He made the case that he would be in favor of abortion if it was in the case of rape, incest, or bodily harm to the mother. It's clear the only thing he's opposing is certain circumstances, especially ones in which he can take the choice away from the woman, and grant her the ability to terminate the pregnancy wherever his morals seek to guide him.

A woman can have an abortion if she was forcibly raped, but can't make that decision on her own if she feels it's a viable option. Yay for double standards. You can have an abortion - you just can't weigh your options and come to that conclusion, as it's immoral - and we all know Christians have a monopoly on morality.

Makes perfect sense.

He also didn't address the question of proposing a viable solution to the issue. Does he really think banning 93% of abortions will solve 93% of the problem?

[Autumnlicious]

He also didn't address the question of proposing a viable solution to the issue. Does he really think banning 93% of abortions will solve 93% of the problem?

Killing 100% of the people involved will also solve 100% of the problem.

[tavarish]

No brain, no pain.

[fr0d0]

@ Sae : yes how does that apply to all life and not just human life. All I accept is the fact that this is the taking of life. I think it's impossible for anyone to knowingly take any life and be morally blameless for it. There are no circumstances where anyone could possibly know enough to make a morally justified decision. For me, that only works with God.

Ethically the ability of our victim to feel pain can be a boundary. Self defence is legally just. Morally not always so. We are attacked for a reason, that we may not always be innocent of.

Human procreation is a damaging process. So what. To suggest it shouldn't occur only in perfectly favourable circumstances is verging on the obscene. It's our species method of survival, not the preserve of the wealthy. Natural selection would suggest the opposite... that healthy genes stem from difficult circumstances.

@ Tav : I think Ryft addressed everything of relevance that you said.

He made the case that he would be in favor of abortion if it was in the case of rape, incest, or bodily harm to the mother.

By Marc:

Ryft,

Have I misunderstood your stand here: Do you hold abortion acceptable in situations where the mother has been raped etc?

By Ryft:

Personally? No, as those circumstances still qualify as elective, that is, abortions that are not medically necessitated (such as an ectopic pregnancy).

What he clearly says is that the mother has the moral right to decide what happens to her body, but not what happens to a separate life dependent on her body. She cannot terminate that life without bearing the moral responsibility.

He clearly states that your moral compass is, by it's secular nature, movable. Yes the religious position is firm: it isn't moral to take life. You display what Arcanus accuses you of: a confused conception of the POV. One that mirrors your own shifting basis.

His viable solution is to make law what is morally observed. It works for every other aspect of human society.

[tavarish]

@ Tav : I think Ryft addressed everything of relevance that you said.

He made the case that he would be in favor of abortion if it was in the case of rape, incest, or bodily harm to the mother.

By Marc:

Ryft,

Have I misunderstood your stand here: Do you hold abortion acceptable in situations where the mother has been raped etc?

By Ryft:

Personally? No, as those circumstances still qualify as elective, that is, abortions that are not medically necessitated (such as an ectopic pregnancy).

What he clearly says is that the mother has the moral right to decide what happens to her body, but not what happens to a separate life dependent on her body. She cannot terminate that life without bearing the moral responsibility.

...unless she is a victim of rape, incest, or medical complications. Even if he morally does not agree, he advocates banning all abortions without this qualifier as an "effective" solution:

"Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn; according to the Guttmacher Institute, those comprise only 7% of all abortions."

He clearly states that your moral compass is, by it's secular nature, movable.

As is every other person's in history.

Yes the religious position is firm: it isn't moral to take life.

Sure it is. Within various religious positions, it is justified to take life in the context of:

1. Times of war
2. Self defense
3. Divine command
4. Blood sacrifice & martyrdom

You can justify absolutely anything if you wanted it bad enough.

You display what Arcanus accuses you of: a confused conception of the POV. One that mirrors your own shifting basis.

Actually I think I've been pretty clear. Taking away choice doesn't solve problems, and a certain morality is only necessarily good to the people that agree with it. Within a salad bowl society like ours, we don't sanction an absolute morality (whatever that is) within our laws, we promote freedom and try to act decently to others for the most part - based off a guiding tenet called the golden rule, which in itself, can be broken from time to time.

His viable solution is to make law what is morally observed. It works for every other aspect of human society.

His solution isn't realistic in the least. What is moral to one person isn't necessarily so for the entirety of a nation. With this, we have amendments to laws, because as a society, we don't deal with absolutes, we deal with a steady progression to adapt the best we can to work with one another for a more harmonious future.

Taking options away from someone who frankly don't give a crap about your moral system isn't solving any problems, it's creating them.

[Violet]

@ Sae : yes how does that apply to all life and not just human life. All I accept is the fact that this is the taking of life. I think it's impossible for anyone to knowingly take any life and be morally blameless for it. There are no circumstances where anyone could possibly know enough to make a morally justified decision. For me, that only works with God.

Why does a person have to know anything to make a 'morally justified decision' to kill something? Also, morals are subjective... and what is not morally justifiable to you might be entirely justifiable to someone else. Justification doesn't even have to be 'right'... it is simply the reason(s) a person uses to defend their actions (perhaps from themselves at times).

Nothing that affects a situation is blameless for that situation, fr0d0. I think it is impossible for anyone to do anything (or even in many cases not do something) and be blameless in any relevant way for what occurs as a result.

Ethically the ability of our victim to feel pain can be a boundary. Self defence is legally just. Morally not always so. We are attacked for a reason, that we may not always be innocent of.

Why should it matter that it feels pain? It'll be dead soon anyway Or were you referring to what compassion may arise from witnessing a creature in pain (perhaps by one's own hands)? I don't see a thing's feeling pain (as a 'boundary') as a question of ethics, but as one of compassion. Simply, if you have no compassion for it, and have no particular reason to keep it comfortable: why would you make it comfortable at all?

Human procreation is a damaging process. So what. To suggest it shouldn't occur only in perfectly favourable circumstances is verging on the obscene. It's our species method of survival, not the preserve of the wealthy. Natural selection would suggest the opposite... that healthy genes stem from difficult circumstances.

Human procreation is a damaging process :: Fire is a damaging process.

We should procreate when it is unfavorable :: We should have fires when it is unfavorable.

Actually, it is the preserve of the wealthy. Who would be wealthy if there's nobody left? If sex is our species method of survival... I should wonder: at what cost? And I should answer myself: a vast portion of a person's economy, unless they are rich, or lucky, or both.

Natural selection would suggest that healthy genes stem from difficult circumstances... like fire... therefore we should build houses of straw, and never protect against fire... for how else could we possibly keep the gene pool healthy? It works for the Krogan

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Krogan

And does it strike you as interesting that the only way for natural selection to work is by killing the less lucky ones? Natural selection is not a formulae of having better genes and carrying them on... it is that the lucky will carry on their genes, and that a creature has 'good'/'strong' genes it is more likely to do so, given an equivalent situation with others of the species who do not have as 'good' or 'strong' genes.