What's your position on abortion? And why?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by elucidate

This is the person who revived the thread.

Yes, but Aelle mistakenly thought I did. The comment was addressed to me. She just used reviving the thread as a pretense for calling me a noob because I expressed an opinion she disagreed with.

[Curious cat]

Derekb, i see your status to senior member unfolded in this one thread.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by DerekB

its the father saying "you're not going to kill my son/daughter just to save yourself from nine months of discomfort.

lol... just say no to sex with pro-lifers.

[James81]

5 pages in less than 24 hours. LMAO.

[James81]

And DerekB, I saw that your rep had fallen into the red, so I went ahead and POZZED you up.

(Who here is giving NEG REP? Let's flesh out the offenders and socially ostracize them!)

[aelle]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Miscarriage happens without interference. Its natural. So it isn't relevant to an abortion debate. I get the point your making about my use of the word "guaranteed" but if it naturally is miscarried than there's nothing to be done or said about it.

We talked about this too earlier in the thread. Really, you should read it.
It is very relevant in a society where women can be prosecuted for drinking while pregnant and incarcerated for falling down a flight of stairs.

Fetuses differ from born children by the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on the woman's body for survival. The natural state of an embryo is not to develop into an autonomous child on its own. It is to die unless the host (a live woman with rights) carries on feeding it the right foods, keeping it at the right temperature, and generally limits her own choices for the sake of the fetus. The implication, as far as many pro-life activists are concerned, is that the woman is responsible -nay, guilty- if she loses her pregnancy -nay, kills her baby- regardless of intent. That she should watch her every action and limit her every move for the sake of her embryo.

Consider the following "infanticides":
You fall down a flight of stairs while pregnant. Should you be prosecuted for child endangerment? Should women's right to use stairs be limited during their pregnancy, just in case?
You order sushi while looking pregnant. Can the chef be prosecuted if he fails to refuse service, for lacking to his duty to rescue? Should he have requested a urine test before refusing service?
You drive your car in the ditch while pregnant and lose your pregnancy. Should you be charged for involuntary manslaughter?
You go to the sauna while sexually active. Are you acting irresponsibly towards your children who may or may not have been conceived, yet are undetectable at the time?

Do you see how absurd giving zygotes legal personhood is, and how much criminalizing the loss of a pregnancy limits women's bodily autonomy and right to privacy?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by aelle

We talked about this too earlier in the thread. Really, you should read it.
It is very relevant in a society where women can be prosecuted for drinking while pregnant and incarcerated for falling down a flight of stairs.

Fetuses differ from born children by the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on the woman's body for survival. The natural state of an embryo is not to develop into an autonomous child on its own. It is to die unless the host (a live woman with rights) carries on feeding it the right foods, keeping it at the right temperature, and generally limits her own choices for the sake of the fetus. The implication, as far as many pro-life activists are concerned, is that the woman is responsible -nay, guilty- if she loses her pregnancy -nay, kills her baby- regardless of intent. That she should watch her every action and limit her every move for the sake of her embryo.

Consider the following "infanticides":
You fall down a flight of stairs while pregnant. Should you be prosecuted for child endangerment? Should women's right to use stairs be limited during their pregnancy, just in case?
You order sushi while looking pregnant. Can the chef be prosecuted if he fails to refuse service, for lacking to his duty to rescue? Should he have requested a urine test before refusing service?
You drive your car in the ditch while pregnant and lose your pregnancy. Should you be charged for involuntary manslaughter?
You go to the sauna while sexually active. Are you acting irresponsibly towards your children who may or may not have been conceived, yet are undetectable at the time?

Do you see how absurd giving zygotes legal personhood is, and how much criminalizing the loss of a pregnancy limits women's bodily autonomy and right to privacy?

Some women in America have already faced charges: Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges | World news | The Guardian

This has gone way, way too far.

An excerpt:

Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.

Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by James81

And DerekB, I saw that your rep had fallen into the red, so I went ahead and POZZED you up.

(Who here is giving NEG REP? Let's flesh out the offenders and socially ostracize them!)

I would be one of them. Not because I disagree, mind you-it's because of how the case is being made.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Cado

I would be one of them. Not because I disagree, mind you-it's because of how the case is being made.

Ha! Well it's an abortion discussion. It's one of those discussions where people hold die-hard, unchangeable, unmovable beliefs and then they sit and squack them back and forth to each other relentlessly until they tire out and "agree to disagree."

So, hounding him about his case is kind of like hounding Aunt Jemima about pancakes. Or giving her a neg rep for being too syruppy.

[James81]

wtf neg rep????

(Are you saying that you have decided to join the neg rep army? There's an opening available.)

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by James81

Ha! Well it's an abortion discussion. It's one of those discussions where people hold die-hard, unchangeable, unmovable beliefs and then they sit and squack them back and forth to each other relentlessly until they tire out and "agree to disagree."

Urrr....I used to be pro-life: staunchly, hardcore, all abortion should be illegal, "they deserved it" pro-life. This is not an unchangeable position, because I don't keep positions for strictly emotional reasons, even if I am attached to certain outcomes. And I expect people to be attached to the outcome they think it's best--it's the "what I think is best" dial that needs flexibility.

[James81]

And don't worry, Derek, buddy. These people forget how relentless and tenacious I am. I see someone tried to red-rep you back again, but I won't let them.

shoop da whoop

[Cado]

Concerning the "potential" argument: if you argue that a fetus should come to term because it could become the person that cures cancer you have to consider the opposite is just as likely. An abortion could kill the next Hitler. The fact is we don't know and we couldn't possibly know unless we debunk philosophical concepts like free will. No one has a particular destiny-their path is the result of choices they make and they could wind up taking any number of paths before it's said and done.

Second, it makes no rational sense to limit this argument to human beings. We like us, sure, but I'll bet there are plenty of creatures that think they'd be better off without us, and many of them would be right. In eating a certain animal or breathing a particular spore, you may be destroying a form of life which, left alone, would evolve beyond us in a few billion years and accomplish things we could never dream of. Likewise, by perpetuating our existence we may be damning the planet. It's not set in stone; in fact we could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to earth when it's over, but that's just it. We don't know. It's predicated on things we haven't done yet.

There is no rational, objective argument against abortion. Regarding when life really begins, that's largely a philosophical construct and it's not something set in stone. We may be able to create a better informed standard once we have more knowledge of the human brain but it will still be arbitrary if it's before the point that the child-to-be can maintain an independent existence from its mother. Pro-life arguments have an emotional resonance but what I have seen has no content beyond that. (Though again I want to stress that I respect pro-lifers who can make thoughtful arguments.)

From a purely emotional standpoint, I can accept the things that come with abortion more easily than I can accept what happens without it. Forget when life begins, if a kid is going to be born into a household where he's not wanted or he'll be stuck in poverty and die young from a lack of healthcare then I'd rather see the mother terminate the pregnancy. As I said earlier, we can't care for the people we already have, and the fact that pro-life usually means "against social programs" as well it's an indefensible stance. I feel for pro-lifers who don't fall in line with all the right-wing rhetoric but what they want isn't feasible in a world with limited resources that already has an overpopulation problem.

In short: you want a world without abortion? Work to make it the least attractive option. That means improving the quality of medical care and increasing its availability, it means creating systems that better serve the parentless children in this world, it means eliminating poverty, it means improving educational methods and standards, and lots of other things. If people want to argue the politics of it fine, just remember that while they're doing that a whole bunch of worthwhile causes are being ignored for the sake of people who don't exist yet and who are much more probable to be born into horrible circumstances if pro-lifers succeed.

[Curious cat]

Originally Posted by James81

I see someone tried to red-rep you back again, but I won't let them.

What do you mean? What is this power you speak of?

[Cado]

Originally Posted by James81

Ha! Well it's an abortion discussion. It's one of those discussions where people hold die-hard, unchangeable, unmovable beliefs and then they sit and squack them back and forth to each other relentlessly until they tire out and "agree to disagree."

So, hounding him about his case is kind of like hounding Aunt Jemima about pancakes. Or giving her a neg rep for being too syruppy.

I don't agree to disagree. That's a weak stance to take. And again, I want to stress I can respect pro-lifers who make thoughtful arguments. Someone who resorts to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies to make their points doesn't deserve any.

[James81]

Welcome to two bars, DerekB.

I'm in rep jail, but I'll catch ya tomorrow night.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

I don't agree to disagree. That's a weak stance to take. And again, I want to stress I can respect pro-lifers who make thoughtful arguments. Someone who resorts to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies to make their points doesn't deserve any.

Cado, the arguments I made were plenty thoughtful. I did not use ad-hominem attacks or logical fallacies. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that you should resort to petty methods of "getting me back".

[carpediem]

In general, I am highly against the idea of abortion. I hate it. But since I know that no one can completely change the ideas of people who want abortion, I think instead of focusing on where we stand on this issue, we should focus more on preventing it from happening. Preventing unwanted pregnancies the best we can. Educating more people on different forms of protection. Because we can sit and argue all day but the real issue will only be ignored. People are still having babies they don't want. THAT'S the problem.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Cado, the arguments I made were plenty thoughtful. I did not use ad-hominem attacks or logical fallacies. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that you should resort to petty methods of "getting me back".

If the rep system were about petty methods of getting someone back we'd abolish it. It's not. It's not about likes and dislikes--it's about having a method of feedback that leaves users accountable to other users. Generally, it's best to make a public statement as well, positive or negative (especially negative), but the rep adds an extra layer of accountability. Can it be abused? Absolutely. But there are checks for that (like needing a certain amount of posts and rep to rep).

[James81]

I repped a hundred people in 15 minutes. Yeah it can be abused. Lol

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

If the rep system were about petty methods of getting someone back we'd abolish it. It's not. It's not about likes and dislikes--it's about having a method of feedback that leaves users accountable to other users. Generally, it's best to make a public statement as well, positive or negative (especially negative), but the rep adds an extra layer of accountability. Can it be abused? Absolutely. But there are checks for that (like needing a certain amount of posts and rep to rep).

I've given DerekB multiple neg reps in this thread, I'll admit to that. That's a bit petty on my end. I have excuses-I've not been feeling top notch for the last few days, I'm going through emotional cleansing, etc.-but none of that matters. I did what I did and good or bad, I have to live with that. None of my personal stuff is your problem, Derek.

On the other hand, I do stand by what I've said, and I don't think a few extra neg reps is all that significant when I haven't used it as a medium for insults or otherwise said things I wouldn't say right here in a public post.

Derek, just because you say "it's not sexist" or "it's not ad hominem" doesn't make it so. I don't like you. I don't like anything you've posted. I disagree with your stance but that is the least of my issues with you. I've gone out of my way to articulate what I think and why and if your only response to that is, "don't neg rep me because you don't agree with me" then we're done because you have completely missed the point.

I'm convinced you're here to troll. If you're not, step up your game and show us what you can really do. I want to hear good arguments from pro-lifers. I want a legitimate challenge. Address some of the posts which point out logical fallacies and ad hominems, show us why you have a case. If you can't do that, then what's the point?

[Mariana Trench]

Thank you everyone for the discussion, but to be honest this has been far too triggering for me and I should have bowed out a long time ago.

I still maintain what I said and I hope my posts will still be read and considered. I never responded from a place that wasn't appropriate, but it's not healthy for me to continue this discussion anymore.

'Night y'all.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Yes, but Aelle mistakenly thought I did. The comment was addressed to me. She just used reviving the thread as a pretense for calling me a noob because I expressed an opinion she disagreed with.

Ah, ok.

Apologies, It's not an excuse but I can say my bitchiness this morning was partly due to it being 'that time of the month', which I didn't discover until after I logged out, and I also have a fair bit of stuff going on right now in my life. No harm intended.

Also, I never really thought of "noob" as being a put down, and just discovered today that it was. In my world someone only being a new poster does not equate with knowing nothing, unless their posts suggest a consistent level of unbearable ignorance.

I'm fairly new to the Internet, so I didn't really get the meaning behind the word, and that's why I couldn't work out why you would take it as an insult.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

I've given DerekB multiple neg reps in this thread, I'll admit to that. That's a bit petty on my end. I have excuses-I've not been feeling top notch for the last few days, I'm going through emotional cleansing, etc.-but none of that matters. I did what I did and good or bad, I have to live with that. None of my personal stuff is your problem, Derek.

On the other hand, I do stand by what I've said, and I don't think a few extra neg reps is all that significant when I haven't used it as a medium for insults or otherwise said things I wouldn't say right here in a public post.

Derek, just because you say "it's not sexist" or "it's not ad hominem" doesn't make it so. I don't like you. I don't like anything you've posted. I disagree with your stance but that is the least of my issues with you. I've gone out of my way to articulate what I think and why and if your only response to that is, "don't neg rep me because you don't agree with me" then we're done because you have completely missed the point.

I'm convinced you're here to troll. If you're not, step up your game and show us what you can really do. I want to hear good arguments from pro-lifers. I want a legitimate challenge. Address some of the posts which point out logical fallacies and ad hominems, show us why you have a case. If you can't do that, then what's the point?

I'm not a troll. I have made perfectly adequate arguments and countered every argument you've presented to me, though it seems you have either overlooked my answers or are ignoring them. I didn't say anything sexist, and I defy you to post a quote from me that proves me wrong. Also, I did specifically address your logical fallacy argument, as well as the rest. I'm pretty sure I replied to every post that seemed to be asking for one. It's all right there, black text on white background.

I think its sad that you are incapable of liking somebody who disagrees with you. Many of my best friends are very liberal, and despite my conservatism we get along swimmingly. In fact, we're better off as a result of being such close friends, because we get to hear the other side's perspective. You don't have to like what I believe or say, but you don't have to hate me for it either. I don't hate you. Also, just because you find my viewpoints as deplorable as you seem to doesn't mean I'm a troll. Believe it or not, many people feel the same way I do, and while that may not be the case with specific regard to this forum, it does hold true broadly.

By the way, as far as you being in an "emotional" time, my mother was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and my father only recently had open heart surgery, and to top it all off I'm at college away from them both, so I don't accept whatever your going through as an excuse for rudeness or pettiness.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I'm not a troll. I have made perfectly adequate arguments and countered every argument you've presented to me, though it seems you have either overlooked my answers or are ignoring them.

Which, again, you're accusing someone of something you have done.

I think its sad that you are incapable of liking somebody who disagrees with you.

You're making a sweeping statement about me that isn't true. And I don't hate you, I don't like you. There's a big difference, especially in terms of how I treat it. I find your arguments deplorable, but you? I find you unpleasant but not hate-worthy.

By the way, as far as you being in an "emotional" time, my mother was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and my father only recently had open heart surgery, so I don't accept whatever your going through as an excuse for rudeness or pettiness.

...And I didn't ask you to. In fact I outright said it's not your problem. I still wouldn't apologize for what I've said in public or elsewhere because I never got meanspirited and I stand by my words, but multiple neg reps was a bit much. That's what I concede, and it's mainly because of my own standards.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

Which, again, you're accusing someone of something you have done.



You're making a sweeping statement about me that isn't true. And I don't hate you, I don't like you. There's a big difference, especially in terms of how I treat it. I find your arguments deplorable, but you? I find you unpleasant but not hate-worthy.



...And I didn't ask you to. In fact I outright said it's not your problem. I still wouldn't apologize for what I've said in public or elsewhere because I never got meanspirited and I stand by my words, but multiple neg reps was a bit much. That's what I concede, and it's mainly because of my own standards.

Cado: What did you write that I ignored. For god sakes tell me. I honestly want to know, I looked and cannot find anything.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

Concerning the "potential" argument: if you argue that a fetus should come to term because it could become the person that cures cancer you have to consider the opposite is just as likely. An abortion could kill the next Hitler. The fact is we don't know and we couldn't possibly know unless we debunk philosophical concepts like free will. No one has a particular destiny-their path is the result of choices they make and they could wind up taking any number of paths before it's said and done.

Second, it makes no rational sense to limit this argument to human beings. We like us, sure, but I'll bet there are plenty of creatures that think they'd be better off without us, and many of them would be right. In eating a certain animal or breathing a particular spore, you may be destroying a form of life which, left alone, would evolve beyond us in a few billion years and accomplish things we could never dream of. Likewise, by perpetuating our existence we may be damning the planet. It's not set in stone; in fact we could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to earth when it's over, but that's just it. We don't know. It's predicated on things we haven't done yet.

There is no rational, objective argument against abortion. Regarding when life really begins, that's largely a philosophical construct and it's not something set in stone. We may be able to create a better informed standard once we have more knowledge of the human brain but it will still be arbitrary if it's before the point that the child-to-be can maintain an independent existence from its mother. Pro-life arguments have an emotional resonance but what I have seen has no content beyond that. (Though again I want to stress that I respect pro-lifers who can make thoughtful arguments.)

From a purely emotional standpoint, I can accept the things that come with abortion more easily than I can accept what happens without it. Forget when life begins, if a kid is going to be born into a household where he's not wanted or he'll be stuck in poverty and die young from a lack of healthcare then I'd rather see the mother terminate the pregnancy. As I said earlier, we can't care for the people we already have, and the fact that pro-life usually means "against social programs" as well it's an indefensible stance. I feel for pro-lifers who don't fall in line with all the right-wing rhetoric but what they want isn't feasible in a world with limited resources that already has an overpopulation problem.

In short: you want a world without abortion? Work to make it the least attractive option. That means improving the quality of medical care and increasing its availability, it means creating systems that better serve the parentless children in this world, it means eliminating poverty, it means improving educational methods and standards, and lots of other things. If people want to argue the politics of it fine, just remember that while they're doing that a whole bunch of worthwhile causes are being ignored for the sake of people who don't exist yet and who are much more probable to be born into horrible circumstances if pro-lifers succeed.

"Concerning the "potential" argument: if you argue that a fetus should come to term because it could become the person that cures cancer you have to consider the opposite is just as likely. An abortion could kill the next Hitler. The fact is we don't know and we couldn't possibly know unless we debunk philosophical concepts like free will. No one has a particular destiny-their path is the result of choices they make and they could wind up taking any number of paths before it's said and done". -

The Purpose of my potential argument wasn't to say that we shouldn't abort a fetus because it might cure cancer. It was to illustrate that a person should be expected to take the future into consideration when making decisions. Short term decision-making causes long term problems. As I said earlier "just because something is at a certain level of existence now doesn't mean you should just ignore its future"

"Second, it makes no rational sense to limit this argument to human beings. We like us, sure, but I'll bet there are plenty of creatures that think they'd be better off without us, and many of them would be right. In eating a certain animal or breathing a particular spore, you may be destroying a form of life which, left alone, would evolve beyond us in a few billion years and accomplish things we could never dream of. Likewise, by perpetuating our existence we may be damning the planet. It's not set in stone; in fact we could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to earth when it's over, but that's just it. We don't know. It's predicated on things we haven't done yet" -

If you hold humanity in equal esteem with manatees and plankton, than you are entitled to do that. Personally, I subscribe to the idea that humanity is above all else, that we are the "chosen" species if you will. Human being's natural purpose, our primary imperative, is to reproduce. I'm not too worried about sea-otter abortions (though I read they're quite controversial in the latest edition of the Wall Street Journal).

"From a purely emotional standpoint, I can accept the things that come with abortion more easily than I can accept what happens without it. Forget when life begins, if a kid is going to be born into a household where he's not wanted or he'll be stuck in poverty and die young from a lack of healthcare then I'd rather see the mother terminate the pregnancy. As I said earlier, we can't care for the people we already have, and the fact that pro-life usually means "against social programs" as well it's an indefensible stance. I feel for pro-lifers who don't fall in line with all the right-wing rhetoric but what they want isn't feasible in a world with limited resources that already has an overpopulation problem" -

This is predicated on the false assumption that a child in this situation will be stuck in poverty and/or die from a lack of healthcare (both of which are particularly large assumptions). Also, you essentially are saying that if a kid is born into a poor family, he's better off not being born. I'm sure many people here find that stance to be "disgusting" and "despicable".

"In short: you want a world without abortion? Work to make it the least attractive option. That means improving the quality of medical care and increasing its availability, it means creating systems that better serve the parent-less children in this world, it means eliminating poverty, it means improving educational methods and standards, and lots of other things. If people want to argue the politics of it fine, just remember that while they're doing that a whole bunch of worthwhile causes are being ignored for the sake of people who don't exist yet and who are much more probable to be born into horrible circumstances if pro-lifers succeed" -

Low quality medical care or lack of medicare is something I would imagine people prefer over death. Based on your beliefs we shouldn't even let the poor reproduce, as they won't be able to provide their children with what you've decided constitutes "adequate". Can you imagine telling the impoverished people of the world that they can't have kids because they'll be disadvantaged. The very notion is absurd.

[elucidate]

Why did you quote cado, and then type out his entire post as well, and answer?

Why didn't you just section off the quote?

[Andrew Gubb]

I like Erin's post about abortion: Abortion

Particularly:

to end the life of a child with whom you have made a spiritual contract does not come without consequences.

And:

But the universe only cares about intent and asks the question: Is it a loving decision? Is there love here? Or is there fear and irresponsibility?

So per the article, the answer would be: depends...

If I have to have an opinion on abortion right now I think I'd piggyback Erin's opinion. It depends a bit on her ability as a channeller but I trust her quite a lot on that count and what she says vibes with me.

[Andrew Gubb]

I also have had the opinion for a long time that if I make a connection with the other side of the veil and send out a mental advertisment saying "NO CHILDREN WANTED", I simply won't have accidents. Why would a soul come down where it wasn't welcome?

If anyone wants to try this I suggest they do what I do and use the best contraception they can as well ^^ If you make the message but then play with fire in practise it sends a bit of a mixed message that I think could be interpreted as an invitation. Also there's the risk I'm wrong here