What's your position on abortion? And why?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by DerekB

No, what I meant was that as a species we should assure our continued existence. Nobody *has* to reproduce. I'm merely saying that it is our primary biological drive, and enough of us must reproduce to ensure the continuity of our species.

Ok. There's about 7 000 000 000 of us. And our collective activities are causing a mass extinction to other species.

I think we got the reproduction part covered. To worry about abortion somehow endangering our survival is to not look at where the world is today, I think.

[ZephyrusX]

To be honest, I don't understand this at all. If you are pro-life, by definition, you must see pro-choice people as murderers as you see the fetus as a human being. This, as far as I can see, is the premise of the pro-life position. Conversely, if you are pro-life, you must be anti-woman as you are basically advocating for their legal and reproductive rights to be taken away from them under the unproven assumption that the fetus constitutes a human being.

Originally Posted by James81

My point being that because I take a pro-baby mindset in this discussion, does not mean that I am anti-woman. I think it would do for a LOT of people who are pro-choice to understand that. In the same way that pro-choice are not baby murderers, pro-life people are not anti-woman.

Yes it does. The whole legal battle for reproductive rights was fought in order to alleviate the suffering of women, and by extension, their loved ones. You cannot speak of choices that are divorced from the real world. Women will rationally choose to undergo an illegal abortion and risk their lives and health doing so because they see the consequences of not doing so as potentially incurring greater harm. There is a simple solution for this. Protect the right that women ought to have to control their reproduction via the State. Give women the ability to choose the option that will best meet their physical, emotional and spiritual needs and the needs of their family.

Because the argument has nothing to do with women's suffering. A woman getting an abortion when it's illegal is not a woman's suffering issue. That's a CHOICE that she makes. If that choice brings suffering, then, again, she chose that. It wasn't forced upon her to go have an illegal abortion. That was the point I was making. Don't just automatically negate the element of choice in that situation. A woman does not HAVE to stick a coat hanger up her vagina. She chooses to do that. And in choosing to do that, she assumes the risk that is involved with it.

So, you might say I'm Pro-Taking-Responsibility-For-Your-Choices.

[ZephyrusX]

That sounds incredibly human-centred.

Originally Posted by DerekB

Edit: If the survival of humanity was dependent on one person reproducing or not (highly unlikely I imagine...) than I suppose yes, they would be morally obligated to reproduce.

[DerekB]

"To be honest, I don't understand this at all. If you are pro-life, by definition, you must see pro-choice people as murderers as you see the fetus as a human being. This, as far as I can see, is the premise of the pro-life position. Conversely, if you are pro-life, you must be anti-woman as you are basically advocating for their legal and reproductive rights to be taken away from them under the unproven assumption that the fetus constitutes a human being."

Pro-Choice people aren't murderers, they are just advocating murder. Murderers are directly involved in abortion(s). You do not have to be anti-woman, this is a line of bull spewed by the left to defame pro-lifers. We are merely making the perfectly logical and easily defensible claim that the right to life of the baby is of more importance than nine months of discomfort for the woman.



"Yes it does. The whole legal battle for reproductive rights was fought in order to alleviate the suffering of women, and by extension, their loved ones. You cannot speak of choices that are divorced from the real world. Women will rationally choose to undergo an illegal abortion and risk their lives and health doing so because they see the consequences of not doing so as potentially incurring greater harm. There is a simple solution for this. Protect the right that women ought to have to control their reproduction via the State. Give women the ability to choose the option that will best meet their physical, emotional and spiritual needs and the needs of their family."

No, they won't. Some may, I'll grant you, but enough won't that this argument has a flaw in its foundation.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by DerekB

We aren't special because of our imperative to reproduce...not sure where you got that idea. We're special because we have the unique cognitive ability to ponder our existence, to philosophize, to create art and music. You get where I'm going with this I assume.

I saw two sentences that directly followed each other in that quote of yours and I assumed they were related to each other. My mistake.

Yes I see where you're going with it. Beyond the question of seeing if we're special or not and to what extent, it seems to me that you're ignoring more pressing problems. You see, the amount of resources on the planet remain relatively the same, but our numbers are increasing exponentially. We're polluting our planet, which in turn affects our collective health. We're destroying the ecosystem. And the more of us there are the faster we're doing all this. These issues are truly a menace to our survival. Fretting over abortion negatively affecting our chances of survival seems silly to me in today's context.

And you never answered my question...Who chose us?

[ZephyrusX]

This has more to do with the needs of the family and the woman who will be carrying the fetus inside her body. Whether the baby may potentially live a happy life is irrelevant by the simple basis that it has no human will. To put it another way, 10 little Zephy spawns may have a grand old time living, but that potential does not morally inform me as to whether or not I ought to have 10 little Zephy spawns. If I choose not to do so, the consequences influence only my self and my family as there is no other being (i.e 'the baby') to account for.

Originally Posted by DerekB

People with bad/unloving parents can still lead perfectly happy lives. Also, if parents were that terrible why even keep the baby (as in adoption, not abortion)? If they don't love it its just a financial drain as far as they're concerned.

This is irrational. You can't desire something when you have no will to do so.

I'd much prefer being alive to being dust, especially since I'm very skeptical about an afterlife.

[ZephyrusX]

This is only logical if a fetus indeed constitutes human life, but when we discussed the issue earlier, you had no response to what I said. Why?

Originally Posted by DerekB

We are merely making the perfectly logical and easily defensible claim that the right to life of the baby is of more importance than nine months of discomfort for the woman.

I don't understand this response as it relates to what I posted.

No, they won't. Some may, I'll grant you, but enough won't that this argument has a flaw in its foundation.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I saw two sentences that directly followed each other in that quote of yours and I assumed they were related to each other. My mistake.

Yes I see where you're going with it. Beyond the question of seeing if we're special or not and to what extent, it seems to me that you're ignoring more pressing problems. You see, the amount of resources on the planet remain relatively the same, but our numbers are increasing exponentially. We're polluting our planet, which in turn affects our collective health. We're destroying the ecosystem. And the more of us there are the faster we're doing all this. These issues are truly a menace to our survival. Fretting over abortion negatively affecting our chances of survival seems silly to me in today's context.

And you never answered my question...Who chose us?

Before I type this reply, just asking a favor: can somebody explain to be how to quote different parts of a post separately. I get the quote tags, but I'm not sure what the numbers in the opening tag accomplish.

Anyway...

Our population problem is true, but my reply is that a combination of scientific advances and (eventually) government incentives for limiting numbers of children to one or two will take care of that problem. Note, I'm not referring to abortion when I talk about limiting the number of children, merely providing a "reward" for people who don't conceive more than 2. Aborting a child would not allow you to receive the incentive money.

"Who chose us" - We did.

[ZephyrusX]

Derek - Previously you said that you would rather error on the side of caution and not have an abortion rather than risk murdering a being that really is human. I'll give you another response.

I'd rather place my loyalty on the woman that I can speak with, touch with my hands and love physically and spiritually rather than put my faith in the ideological dribble of pro-lifers who can't even keep a consistent argument.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

This has more to do with the needs of the family and the woman who will be carrying the fetus inside her body. Whether the baby may potentially live a happy life is irrelevant by the simple basis that it has no human will. To put it another way, 10 little Zephy spawns may have a grand old time living, but that potential does not morally inform me as to whether or not I ought to have 10 little Zephy spawns. If I choose not to do so, the consequences influence only my self and my family as there is no other being (i.e 'the baby') to account for.



This is irrational. You can't desire something when you have no will to do so.

You're not accounting for the ten "spawns". You're snuffing out those ten lives. Ten people who would have lived and laughed and loved had you not taken action against them.

Just because they cannot vocalize or be consciously aware of it doesn't mean they cant desire life. Plants don't have brains, yet they do everything in their power to stay alive, as all living things do...except for terrorists...

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Derek - Previously you said that you would rather error on the side of caution and not have an abortion rather than risk murdering a being that really is human. I'll give you another response.

I'd rather place my loyalty on the woman that I can speak with, touch with my hands and love physically and spiritually rather than put my faith in the ideological dribble of pro-lifers who can't even keep a consistent argument.

I have "faith" that nine months of discomfort eventually end, and the woman can go on. The fetus, on the other hand, cannot, and by siding with the woman, you have made the determination not to allow the fetus to ever be able to speak with you, touch your hands, or love you.

Please elaborate on my inconsistency, I'm dying to hear about it.

[ZephyrusX]

I actually did account for this. The potential for human life does not actually constitute human life. The potential for human life does not morally inform me as to whether or not I should follow through with that potential.

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're not accounting for the ten "spawns". You're snuffing out those ten lives. Ten people who would have lived and laughed and loved had you not taken action against them.

A plant is not a human being.

Just because they cannot vocalize or be consciously aware of it doesn't mean they cant desire life. Plants don't have brains, yet they do everything in their power to stay alive, as all living things do...except for terrorists...

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by James81

Again, that assumes that the baby is not wanted.

For anybody who has ever had a child, there is a HUGE difference between finding out you are about to have a child and actually holding your child in your arms the day he/she is born. It's a pretty amazing shift.

But understandably, that doesn't ALWAYS happen, it is possible that the parents change their mind once the baby arrives.

On the flip side, even IF they still don't want the child, it doesn't mean that nobody, nowhere will ever want it. Life is pretty amazing, and having a chance at living, complete with all the complexities of it is a pretty amazing experience. And it's all a matter of CHOICE.

I think that NOT being born is limiting choice moreso than actually being born.

Originally Posted by DerekB

People with bad/unloving parents can still lead perfectly happy lives. Also, if parents were that terrible why even keep the baby (as in adoption, not abortion)? If they don't love it its just a financial drain as far as they're concerned.

I'd much prefer being alive to being dust, especially since I'm very skeptical about an afterlife.

To both these answers, if we assume three basic scenarios that could happen after death (reborn, heaven, or nothing). Let me know if that is a problem for you, or if I have overlooked a scenario.

A child who has a horrible childhood because she is not wanted (assuming she isn't because the abortion would be an option)
Why would nothing, being reborn, or heaven be worse then a horrible childhood?

Of course, there is a chance that life is good and great and wonderful as well.

However, the chance of that happening vs the chance of a horrible childhood where the child is unwanted vs heaven, rebirth or nothing.. why is heaven, rebirth or nothing worse?

(and to be clear... nothing is nothing, so you cannot have regrets about anything... because you don't exist anymore. So there is nothing to feel about that, after it is done... it is done.)

[ZephyrusX]

This only makes sense in my mind if you believe that we have the moral obligation to follow through with the potential for human life, but by your own words, you denied this.

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're not accounting for the ten "spawns". You're snuffing out those ten lives. Ten people who would have lived and laughed and loved had you not taken action against them.

Just because they cannot vocalize or be consciously aware of it doesn't mean they cant desire life. Plants don't have brains, yet they do everything in their power to stay alive, as all living things do...except for terrorists...

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ssandra

To both these answers, if we assume three basic scenarios that could happen after death (reborn, heaven, or nothing). Let me know if that is a problem for you, or if I have overlooked a scenario.

A child who has a horrible childhood because she is not wanted (assuming she isn't because the abortion would be an option)
Why would nothing, being reborn, or heaven be worse then a horrible childhood?

Of course, there is a chance that life is good and great and wonderful as well.

However, the chance of that happening vs the chance of a horrible childhood where the child is unwanted vs heaven, rebirth or nothing.. why is heaven, rebirth or nothing worse?

(and to be clear... nothing is nothing, so you cannot have regrets about anything... because you don't exist anymore. So there is nothing to feel about that, after it is done... it is done.)

Sandra, think about this for a moment. If someone were to kill you now, just put one in between your eyes without you noticing, would you care? You might not be able to vocalize that care (as is a common side effect of deadness), but you care now, and future you would've cared deeply had they not put a bullet between your eyes.

[ZephyrusX]

And if I choose to do so, I have done no wrong. I certainly have done no wrong to a potential baby that has no will of its own that I can account for. The only wrong I have done is to people who have opposing opinions, and essentially, I believe that this is what this is really about. Pro-lifers wanting the power to impose their own opinion onto others by stripping them of their reproductive and legal rights. Tough luck. For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to take your opinions into consideration, but when it comes down to my reproductive choices, I simply don't care what you think.

Originally Posted by DerekB

I have "faith" that nine months of discomfort eventually end, and the woman can go on. The fetus, on the other hand, cannot, and by siding with the woman, you have made the determination not to allow the fetus to ever be able to speak with you, touch your hands, or love you.

Please elaborate on my inconsistency, I'm dying to hear about it.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

This only makes sense in my mind if you believe that we have the moral obligation to follow through with the potential for human life, but by your own words, you denied this.

I have not denied it. Any notion to the contrary is mistaken. Which words I said have led you to this belief?

[ZephyrusX]

I'll quote it later, Derek.

I'm going to go have a loving dinner with my mother. Someone who actually has the will to be the recipient of my love.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

And if I choose to do so, I have done no wrong. I certainly have done no wrong to a potential baby that has no will of its own that I can account for. The only wrong I have done is to people who have opposing opinions, and essentially, I believe that this is what this is really about. Pro-lifers wanting the power to impose their own opinion onto others by stripping them of their reproductive and legal rights. Tough luck. For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to take your opinions into consideration, but when it comes down to my reproductive choices, I simply don't care what you think.

I don't think the bolded part is fair. I think most pro-lifers genuinely just have very strong convictions regarding helping the helpless. In the instance of abortion at least.

EDIT Enjoy your dinner and keep this discussion out of your mind while you're enjoying your mom's company

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Sandra, think about this for a moment. If someone were to kill you now, just put one in between your eyes without you noticing, would you care? You might not be able to vocalize that care (as is a common side effect of deadness), but you care now, and future you would've cared deeply had they not put a bullet between your eyes.

If I would get killed now, my future me wouldn't care because

a. I would be dead and nothing (if there is nothing, it is not possible to care)
b. I would be in heaven (heaven, on all accounts, seems to be a pretty good place to be, as well as being forgiving and stuff)
c. I would be reborn and wouldn't remember having lived before, or if I did, would have a chance to do it again...

I would care right now if I were about to get killed. However, after the fact, I wouldn't anymore assuming any one of these scenario's is true.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Sandra, think about this for a moment. If someone were to kill you now, just put one in between your eyes without you noticing, would you care? You might not be able to vocalize that care (as is a common side effect of deadness), but you care now, and future you would've cared deeply had they not put a bullet between your eyes.

I'll be Sandra

I wouldn't care. If I never notice it, how could I? Future me would not care either, unless some idea of the afterlife were to be true. And maybe I wouldn't in that scenario either. It would be rather presumptuous to assume what states of being we are in after death. I have no recollection of it either.

Besides, your questions are about fully sentient, adult human beings. Foetuses don't have thoughts or nerve endings. Their potential suffering is nothing compared to the suffering of a living breathing human being, if there is any at all.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ssandra

If I would get killed now, my future me wouldn't care because

a. I would be dead and nothing (if there is nothing, it is not possible to care)
b. I would be in heaven (heaven, on all accounts, seems to be a pretty good place to be, as well as being forgiving and stuff)
c. I would be reborn and wouldn't remember having lived before, or if I did, would have a chance to do it again...

I would care right now if I were about to get killed. However, after the fact, I wouldn't anymore assuming any one of these scenario's is true.

If this is true, than why is murder even illegal? If there's no harm no foul, why do we care?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I'll be Sandra

Oh wow. I'm cute!

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Zephy

This only makes sense in my mind if you believe that we have the moral obligation to follow through with the potential for human life, but by your own words, you denied this.

Originally Posted by DerekB

I have not denied it. Any notion to the contrary is mistaken. Which words I said have led you to this belief?

From earlier:

Originally Posted by Zephy

By this, do you mean to say that men and women are morally obligated to reproduce so long as they have the potential to do so?

Originally Posted by Derek

No, what I meant was that as a species we should assure our continued existence. Nobody *has* to reproduce. I'm merely saying that it is our primary biological drive, and enough of us must reproduce to ensure the continuity of our species.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by DerekB

"It is better to have loved and lost, than never loved at all".

That's about how I'd sum up my argument with your point. Let me know if you'd like more elaboration.

Indeed I would! Because we're not talking about love, we're talking about life.

Originally Posted by DerekB

Some may, I'll grant you, but enough won't that this argument has a flaw in its foundation.

Just to make sure I have this part clear, since some people got confused by this part of your reply, you're saying that women won't get abortions if it's illegal right? Or precisely, that too few of them will go that route for the argument of pro choicers to have any weight to it right?

If that is indeed what you're saying, I'll reply that we're not talking about numbers and statistics. We're talking about real women, risking their health and their lives. Their suffering is very real. The jury is still out on whether foetuses can suffer or not, but even if they can, their suffering is not comparable to a living human being's suffering.

Regarding your line of reasoning about us being chosen...I have to admit, you threw me a curveball I was expecting you to say God chose us. Assumptions assumptions haha. Anyway...you say we were chosen by ourselves. Every single other species was chosen by itself to reproduce as well, so I don't see how that makes us special. Granted, you specified that we are special because we can create art, philosophize think etc. And that part makes sense to me. I just don't understand why you mentioned that we chose ourselves in the first place. What is the point you're making when saying that?

[ZephyrusX]

Perhaps. I can understand this, especially if the pro-lifer in question was never exposed to critical feedback on the issue. But how can a potential baby that does not yet have a will of its own be 'helpless'? There is no being to help.

After you explained said this over and over again to a pro-lifer, what explains their continued belief that what they are doing is out of love or a desire to help? The only thing they are loving is their own ideology. There is no other will to be the recipient of their love.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I don't think the bolded part is fair. I think most pro-lifers genuinely just have very strong convictions regarding helping the helpless. In the instance of abortion at least.

EDIT Enjoy your dinner and keep this discussion out of your mind while you're enjoying your mom's company

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by DerekB

If this is true, than why is murder even illegal? If there's no harm no foul, why do we care?

Well for one most murders don't happen without the victim never being aware of it like in your example. For two, you're cutting someone else's life short and depriving them of many future experiences. Of course, the corpse itself doesn't care. It's dead after all. For three, because murder affects all the living people who have come into contact with the deceased.

[meggarz]

Medically I already put my life on the line by having my daughter, I might have knocked off a few years on my kidneys, in the end it was worth it and I can't imagine not having her. She's only 3 months old, and I had a high risk/complicated pregnancy, I have severe kidney disease which will end up in kidney failure. My choices are dialysis/and kidney transplant, but finding a donor may not happen in time. I couldn't see myself going through with an abortion, at the time of finding out I was pregnant I could already see a heart beat on the monitor, I personally couldn't do it. I felt the first kicks/flutters at week 13 and 4 days in, never would have been able to do it even if the doctor said I wouldn't make it out of the pregnancy alive. I'm not pro anything, I think it takes a lot of strength to go through with it, emotionally draining and scary.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Perhaps. I can understand this, especially if the pro-lifer in question was never exposed to critical feedback on the issue. But how can a potential baby that does not yet have a will of its own be 'helpless'? There is no being to help.

After you explained said this over and over again to a pro-lifer, what explains their continued belief that what they are doing is out of love or a desire to help? The only thing they are loving is their own ideology. There is no other will to be the recipient of their love.

I think it boils down to belief. It runs deeper. If you believe that foetuses have wills and actually are beings, you will want to protect them. Why do you say they are not beings? That they have no will? What does our scientific understanding have to say on the matter?

PS. Don't miss your dinner!!

[ZephyrusX]

Why do you say they are not beings? That they have no will? What does our scientific understanding have to say on the matter

Originally Posted by aelle

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Personhood refers to the status of a being with regards to their individual human rights - note the use of the term individual. It's not just a matter of common definition, but of a legal one, and I think the term was used that way in Roe vs. Wade. Personhood legally implies that this entity with rights and duties is separate and distinct from other entities.

If it can become two persons, then by definition it is not an individual. It has the potential to become an individual, and so does an unfertilized egg.

For my own explanation, I think self-awareness and sentience are defining aspects of being human (more so than intelligence, though I would include that) and I don't believe a fetus has those attributes.

I already ate dinner! May be we eat really quick or something...