Abortion

[leo33wii]

well then, i you could, please define what it means "being human" means to you. this is for the purpose to know what we think.
for me, human is just a word to make the homo sapiens feel superior to the rest of the animals that we belong to. each animal on earth is unique and special, actually, everything on earth that is alive is.
what make us human is our ability to appreciate the fact that we can reason and have ideas. this to me is what makes us human.

i can agree to a point that a fetus is alive, where alive means that it isn't dead. it's a group of cells that hasn't reached a point in opinion to have the ability to be "human."

i shared my thoughts and would like to hear yours, please.

 

[Queen Shiva]

I agree that Homo sapiens aren't any better than animals, however there is a big difference between Humans and say, a cow. Get what I'm saying? When I said arguably human, I should've said arguably ALIVE. I'm pretty sure a fetus can't reason or develop ideas while inside the womb.

Honestly, it doesn't seem alive. It's a parasite. I really don't think it feels pain when you abort it.

 

[leo33wii]

what i'm saying that i would rather have a child be born and experience life. but i have no right on another persons own body. that is all.

 

[Queen Shiva]

Well, I'm glad you're indignant about that. :)

 

[Renegade]

lmao are you serious

Well, someone probably would have if you would haven't said:



Which asserts that:

a)Any objections to your premises are irrational because they are objections to your premises.
b)Any debate involving the objection of your premises are not worth debating because they come from irrationality.

Which are both pretty much debate non-starters. However, I will try to use your "we are not looking at what could be; we are looking at what is" principle into other areas of life and see what happens.

At the grocery store!
"Hm...should I buy this loaf of bread? Well, I'll have to wait to eat it, and thus its only potentially food to consume, and not actually food to consume, therefore I will not buy this loaf of bread. In fact! I will not buy any food, as I will have to wait to consume it and it will have no value as it is only potential-food, nor will I grow any food, as it will have no value as potential-food. I will just live off the land! But wait. I can't do that. Because everything is potential-food. And in the moment, there is only potential-food. Therefore, I will not eat." *starves*

At the playground!
"Hm...all of these children are dependent on external benefactors and do not have higher levels of cognition that I deem to be criteria for human sentience. They only have value as potential-humans, but right now, they are just parasites of the economy. Therefore, I must kill all children." *pulls out machine gun*

At a nursing home!
"They are like children...only not cute and less likely to be independent. Therefore, I must kill all old people." *pulls out machine gun again*

At home!
"Hm, I am not currently engaging in any interpersonal relationships, thus I am only a potential-friend and lover. Therefore, I only have potential-value to other people. I am also not currently doing work, therefore, I am only a potential-worker, and thus, I have no current value to society or myself as I am not currently producing my own means to live, and only parasitically living on my previous self. Therefore, I must kill myself." *yet again pulls out machine gun*

you spent an entire post nitpicking at my closing sentence without ever stopping to consider why i wrote it in the first place. i dismissed the argument right out of the bat because using potentiality as an argument is indisputably fallacious. all your arguments, even disregarding that they are exaggerated and hyperbolic, can be countered by arguments from like these:

-you cannot curb individual rights solely because of the potential for all people to be terrorists
-you cannot outlaw automobiles because every driver has the potential to get into an accident
-you cannot kill all criminals instead of rehabilitating them because they have the potential to commit crime again

and so on. now please dont type up another big post dissecting the above three points alone. theyre bad arguments, as are yours. potentiality is inherently fallacious because potentiality is just that: potentiality, and nothing more. you cannot take an action or form an argument based around potentiality alone. you cannot debate against abortion based on potentiality alone. potentiality is a retarded rationalisation for the illegalisation of abortion.

also this:

...that is, your arguments have severe ethical implications, and my theory of ethics that puts human value in emotional attachment has much better explanatory power than yours, which puts human value in current independence and sentience.

wtf? the only way in which my arguments remotely have 'ethical implications' is through your dumb examples, and even 'ethical implications' is an extremely pseudo-intellectual way of phrasing something not even consciously implied by my argument. as for your theory of ethics or of their self-proclaimed better explanatory power (whatever that means), i couldnt care less.

 

[Eloi]

lmao are you serious

Obviously, considering you are the one who is laughing, I would be in a better mind to ask you.

you spent an entire post nitpicking at my closing sentence without ever stopping to consider why i wrote it in the first place.

Actually, you introduced the closing sentence as a logical principle that served as the foundation of your argument, and thus it was eligible to be subject to the scrutinization that I employed.

i dismissed the argument right out of the bat because using potentiality as an argument is indisputably fallacious. all your arguments, even disregarding that they are exaggerated and hyperbolic, can be countered by arguments from like these:

-you cannot curb individual rights solely because of the potential for all people to be terrorists
-you cannot outlaw automobiles because every driver has the potential to get into an accident
-you cannot kill all criminals instead of rehabilitating them because they have the potential to commit crime again

Yes you can why do you think we have:

-airport security
-traffic safety laws
-death penalty

and so on. now please dont type up another big post dissecting the above three points alone. theyre bad arguments, as are yours. potentiality is inherently fallacious because potentiality is just that: potentiality, and nothing more. you cannot take an action or form an argument based around potentiality alone. you cannot debate against abortion based on potentiality alone. potentiality is a retarded rationalisation for the illegalisation of abortion.

You are the one who introduced anti-potentiality as a be-all, end-all indisputale principle of logic that is applicable to most contexts. I was showing that it isn't applicable to most of any contexts at all. My arguments were just the logical exploration of your supposedly logical principle.

also this:

wtf? the only way in which my arguments remotely have 'ethical implications' is through your dumb examples, and even 'ethical implications' is an extremely pseudo-intellectual way of phrasing something not even consciously implied by my argument.

Politics is the implications of ethical principles. Abortion is a political issue. I was exploring your ethical principles by pointing how it was not a good foundation for any other political issue.

as for your theory of ethics or of their self-proclaimed better explanatory power (whatever that means)

It means it has the potential to explain more than yours in a sensical manner. As in, you can apply my ethical principles to more than one political issue and not have it fall apart.

i couldnt care less.

Your words say you don't care, your entire reply says you do care. Quit being dismissive. I am at least having the courtesy of examining your principles and arguments.

 

[Saith]

Sorry, I thought you were. =(

No no, don't apologise. It was nice of you, but I've already made up my mind in regards to what I myself want. No amount of advice'll change that, so it's pointless to try. :)

You probably shouldn't make her feel bad, because it is not likely you will get a good result from pressuring someone into doing something they may not want to do, as you are not the one who makes the final choice on the matter. =/

Well I mean yeah, I'm not going to pressure her or anything, but I still have rights. Or at least, I should. If nothing else, I have rights to my family, don't I?

I didn't say that, as I have suggested foetuses could have emotional value.

Must have been someone else, though I was trying to explain how one could feel attached to a foetus.

If you say so, I can't really dispute your emotional investments, though it makes your situation harder if you remain steadfast in them if/when circumstances change.

But, well, that's my point. I am emotionally invested. This is my baby, and aborting it is no different to murdering it in my eyes. Again, I'm not saying all abortion is murder, I'm not even saying that this one would be murder. But I am saying that aborting this foetus, my foetus, will have the same effect on me as though my child was murdered.

I can't get pregnant. However, if I could pregnant, and I did have a miscarriage, I think I would try to emotionally distance myself from the lost foetus to ease the pain, which would be hard to do if my partner was insisting that it was their kid, and such.

Oh sorry, I thought you were female. Uh, sex-wise that is. My bad.

And well, I guess I don't know how someone could have such control over their emotions. I don't. I have a sister, and if she were to die, I'd break down into nothingness, I love her so much. Same with my brother, and my girlfriend. I can't just, you know, stop loving them. That's not how love works. And now I love my baby. :/


...


Oh, also there's this:

you didnt dispute anything i said.

Yes I did.

i never suggested everybody in the world should have an abortion.

No, you didn't, however the logic through which you came to your conclusion was faulty in that that same logic could be used to justify forced-sterilisation. You said that a foetus is worth nothing and that it is merely a clump of cells. If what it could be isn't valid, then you could argue for forced sterilisations based on saving women from themselves.

nothing about emotion is a viable argument

Well that's where we fundamentally disagree, I guess. I believe that empathy, that is the ability to understand someone else, is vital to any discussion. Emotion plays such a huge part in everybody's life, that you can't just take it out of a debate. Are you going to argue that emotion is illogical? Irrational? 'Cause you're wrong. Emotions are totally logical, totally rational. They may not be the most straightforward subject (but hey! that's where people-skills come in!), but they always make sense. Anger always stems from confrontation, love always leads into actions you never thought you'd take. Fear makes you do stupid things, and happiness is never present without a positive stimulus.

there's literally no argument bar 'what about the father' that holds any weight. and in that case it's only unfortunate, because its not his body and choice to make. he can't force her to have his kid.

So everybody has a right to their child as long as they're female? Is that really what you're saying?

 

[Eloi]

No no, don't apologise. It was nice of you, but I've already made up my mind in regards to what I myself want. No amount of advice'll change that, so it's pointless to try. :)

Um, no problem, always happy to help! =D
Well, I'll try to be more helpful by presuming your position as inflexible.

Well I mean yeah, I'm not going to pressure her or anything, but I still have rights. Or at least, I should. If nothing else, I have rights to my family, don't I?

Must have been someone else, though I was trying to explain how one could feel attached to a foetus.
But, well, that's my point. I am emotionally invested. This is my baby, and aborting it is no different to murdering it in my eyes. Again, I'm not saying all abortion is murder, I'm not even saying that this one would be murder. But I am saying that aborting this foetus, my foetus, will have the same effect on me as though my child was murdered.

I can't really rationally justify rights from you to the foetus, but I can rationally justify your emotional investment, and your emotional state should be a consideration in the choice, though not the prime consideration, though a serious one you should at least bring up to her considering the possible emotional impact on the relationship between the two of you.

Oh sorry, I thought you were female. Uh, sex-wise that is. My bad.

No, its okay! I'm weirdly flattered I guess? xD Don't worry about it regardless. ^^;

And well, I guess I don't know how someone could have such control over their emotions. I don't. I have a sister, and if she were to die, I'd break down into nothingness, I love her so much. Same with my brother, and my girlfriend. I can't just, you know, stop loving them. That's not how love works. And now I love my baby. :/

I have no control over my emotions as well. I constantly put the needs of my loved ones above my own needs or possible rational decisions, and it can be trying if they are in direct conflict. This is completely normal though, and is called "love" which is by no means an ill thing in of itself. You just have to make your concerns clear (but not sabotaging in nature) to the one(s) you love that affecting the one(s) you love and hope for the best...

Well that's where we fundamentally disagree, I guess. I believe that empathy, that is the ability to understand someone else, is vital to any discussion. Emotion plays such a huge part in everybody's life, that you can't just take it out of a debate. Are you going to argue that emotion is illogical? Irrational? 'Cause you're wrong. Emotions are totally logical, totally rational. They may not be the most straightforward subject (but hey! that's where people-skills come in!), but they always make sense. Anger always stems from confrontation, love always leads into actions you never thought you'd take. Fear makes you do stupid things, and happiness is never present without a positive stimulus.

Indeed, emotions are a factor of reality (reality being whatever affects a thinking agent) and thus must be considered in any system that can involve or does involve thinking agent(s) (therefore, ethical dilemmas).

So...yeah, emotions are real and need not be ignored.

 

[Saith]

Um, no problem, always happy to help! =D
Well, I'll try to be more helpful by presuming your position as inflexible.

Thanks. :)

I can't really rationally justify rights from you to the foetus,

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that I don't have rights to a family? I've always felt that was the most important right. You have the right to an education, the right to free speech yadda yadda, and a lot of HRA can be debated, but I always thought the 'right to a family life' was the most important one, the one that no one, ever, debates.

Hmm, I'm not trying to appeal to popularity or anything there, I just mean that it's always seemed like a fundamental, even instinctual right, in the same area as the right not to be murdered.

but I can rationally justify your emotional investment, and your emotional state should be a consideration in the choice, though not the prime consideration, though a serious one you should at least bring up to her considering the possible emotional impact on the relationship between the two of you.

[...]

I have no control over my emotions as well. I constantly put the needs of my loved ones above my own needs or possible rational decisions, and it can be trying if they are in direct conflict. This is completely normal though, and is called "love" which is by no means an ill thing in of itself. You just have to make your concerns clear (but not sabotaging in nature) to the one(s) you love that affecting the one(s) you love and hope for the best...

I guess you're right. I mean, I'm not going to try to stop her or anything. I probably conjure up the image of a fat skinhead in his boxers and a wifebeater vest, considering some of the things I've posted over the years, but I'm not a bad guy. If an abortion is the thing she needs, I'll stand by her. I'll support her as best I can. I'm man enough to put the sense of loss and despair to the side in order to help my love. At least, I hope I am.

No, its okay! I'm weirdly flattered I guess? xD Don't worry about it regardless. ^^;

Oh okay, good, I'm glad. :) Again, despite things I've posted, I really really do not like to hurt people, so I'm happy you weren't offended.

Also, I owe you an apology. When I said you were demonising and belittling pregnancy, I thought it was out of some passive-aggressive thing. I don't know, I just know enough about nerds (being one myself) to understand different attitude to mean different things. I thought you were using language like that because you were 'asexual'* or whatever. Or maybe you were just being annoyingly PC.

Either way, I didn't put two and two together, and realise that words like 'sperm-donator' and 'foetus-barer' are words that you actually have to use, because 'father' and 'mother' don't work in your situation. Anyway, I'm sorry for ranting, I should have been more sensitive.

Friends? :)

*I don't want to offend any real asexuals, here. By 'asexual' I was talking about the sort of people who can't get any, and use asexuality as an excuse for not getting laid. I really really really don't mean it in a way that's offensive to people who really are asexual.

 

[Butterfree]

Saith:

I must admit to having a very hard time understanding your emotions on this matter, especially seeing as if I were pregnant and planning to have a child and then I miscarried, I think I really would just shrug and go "oh, well, we'll try again." You have yourself admitted that the fetus has no intrinsic value beyond that you have ascribed to it, and it seems silly to me to go around ascribing value to unborn fetuses. However, I suppose on reflection I can understand a similar sort of thing, in 'nostalgia': I care about (for instance) old drawings I made years ago, not because they're good drawings (they're not) or because I even especially associate any memories with them but just because I drew them. Maybe you feel something similar concerning this fetus.

However, to reduce the argument for it being her choice to "so you only have a right to your child if you're female, huh?" is missing the point horribly. It's not about anybody's sex; it's about the fact it is growing inside her against her will. While being sentimental is all well and good and I'm sorry for the feelings you might go through as a result, you simply can't use that to justify hijacking her body for nine months to carry a baby she doesn't want. I'm sure if the option to just transfer the fetus from her body to yours existed, she'd be glad to take it (well, less so if she were to be forced to take part in raising the child against her will), but the fact is that option isn't there and when the choice is between you feeling irrationally sad about an event even you admit is only significant in your head and her being forced to carry a baby she doesn't want to term inside her own body, she wins out any day.

Tell her what you think if she asks, but you honestly have no right to get a say here except insofar as she cares about your opinion on the matter. It's her body, and your feelings' irrationality means they have no real weight unless she chooses to give them weight.

Try looking at the situation another way. Imagine a woman gets cancer. Her husband despises medication, not because he has reason to distrust it but because he is a member of a religious sect which believes illnesses are God's way of testing us, and thus it will severely hurt his feelings if she chooses to take medication. Would you seriously argue that she has some kind of moral obligation to choose to forgo medical treatment because of his feelings, or that he has a right to guilt-trip her if she starts to lean towards taking it?

It would make some sense if he genuinely thought it to be in her best interests to not take the medication - it would justify why he might feel an obligation to try to persuade her - but this isn't the case; his belief is his and is not grounded in arguments that apply to her. Likewise, if you had a genuine moral objection to abortion in general, if you truly believed the fetus had a soul or something, I would argue you're wrong but still kind of sympathize with your drive to persuade her of the same. But you don't, so this is kind of on par with thinking one's personal revulsion at seeing two men kissing should have some bearing on whether gays should be allowed to marry.

 

[Eloi]

Thanks. :)

^^ Mhm!

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that I don't have rights to a family? I've always felt that was the most important right. You have the right to an education, the right to free speech yadda yadda, and a lot of HRA can be debated, but I always thought the 'right to a family life' was the most important one, the one that no one, ever, debates.

Hmm, I'm not trying to appeal to popularity or anything there, I just mean that it's always seemed like a fundamental, even instinctual right, in the same area as the right not to be murdered.

Well, I mean, I can't connect any property rights over the foetus to you nor can I justify your interests for prime consideration in the foetus' fate in a logically expressible manner. (re: What Butterfree said.)

I guess you're right. I mean, I'm not going to try to stop her or anything. I probably conjure up the image of a fat skinhead in his boxers and a wifebeater vest, considering some of the things I've posted over the years, but I'm not a bad guy. If an abortion is the thing she needs, I'll stand by her. I'll support her as best I can. I'm man enough to put the sense of loss and despair to the side in order to help my love. At least, I hope I am.

I think you are. :)

Oh okay, good, I'm glad. :) Again, despite things I've posted, I really really do not like to hurt people, so I'm happy you weren't offended.

Also, I owe you an apology. When I said you were demonising and belittling pregnancy, I thought it was out of some passive-aggressive thing. I don't know, I just know enough about nerds (being one myself) to understand different attitude to mean different things. I thought you were using language like that because you were 'asexual'* or whatever. Or maybe you were just being annoyingly PC.

Either way, I didn't put two and two together, and realise that words like 'sperm-donator' and 'foetus-barer' are words that you actually have to use, because 'father' and 'mother' don't work in your situation. Anyway, I'm sorry for ranting, I should have been more sensitive.

Nah, I probably should have made it clearer why I was personally using those terms. Otherwise, yay no ill-will! :3

Friends? :)

Sure! :D -sends friend request-

 

[Saith]

A really big argument that can't be dissected into bite-sized chunks.

I agree with you, totally (apart from the analogy at the end). It's her body, and I have no right to force her one way or another.
But that's why I'm so conflicted. Okay, to you this may just be a foetus, but to me it's my baby. It's my child. It has about as much value as a newborn, to me. And I know that it's her body, and that I have no right to control her, but that's why it hurts.
This is my baby, I love it, and I have no method, nor any right to protect it. Not only that, but even wanting to protect my baby feels both good and evil. I'm literally tearing my hair out over this, and I just need to know what she decides.

For the record, she did ask for my opinion and I gave it (that I want the baby, but she shouldn't have it because it'll fuck up her Cambridge stuff and ruin her life, and so she should have an abortion and that I'll still love her), and she said she'll get back to me with it.

Nah, I probably should have made it clearer why I was personally using those terms.

Why? I was the one who came off looking like a twat. You shouldn't have to compromise your identity to deal with people like me, you know.

 

[Light]

My opinion is that abortion is fine up until neurological functioning begins (somewhere between 9 and 16 weeks). Plus of course other gray areas can be considered. You can always put it up for adoption. And I know there's the issue of not wanting people to know you are pregnant, but I just don't think that morally outweighs ending the life of what is being conceived past a certain point.

Oh, and let me say I'm only interested in the moral aspect of this topic. I really don't give a shit about the political question of whether it should be illegalized.

Then there's the thing about labels. People who oppose the practice of abortion call themselves pro-life, and their opponents pro-abortion, and people who affirm the practice of abortion call themselves pro-choice and their opponents anti-choice. All of these labels (are designed to?) carry a great deal of emotional weight, and the terms one uses support one's own position. With an already delicate topic such as this, this does nothing but make people more sensitive to each other's opinions and stir up emotions in a discussion we need to think very logically about. I wish we could just go with pro-abortion and anti-abortion, but then we have "but you can be pro-choice and anti-abortion" and it becomes something of a technicality mess. Anyone got an intuitive solution for a place where we need to break a wide range of varying opinions on a touchy subject into a few simple, neutral labels?

 

[opaltiger]

"but you can be pro-choice and anti-abortion"

Also, "pro-abortion" makes it sound like you're specifically advocating abortion as a good thing, whereas in reality the vast majority of pro-choice people see abortion as an unfortunate but sometimes necessary last measure.

Personally I don't see what's wrong with "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". I don't think they carry emotional weight, certainly not in the same way "pro-life" does.

 

[Butterfree]

"Anti-choice" does carry emotional weight and implies the person is against the notion of choice, just like "pro-abortion" implies the person is cheerfully in favor of abortion rather than considering it a necessary evil.

In this sense "choice" and "life" are actually fairly accurate descriptors, since it's the dichotomy between valuing the mother's choice over the life of the fetus or the other way around. Though "pro-choice" or "pro-life" just sound silly because they make it sound as if you're either for one or the other. I'm all for both choice and life, but the choice of the mother should still have priority over the life of the fetus.

 

[opaltiger]

"Anti-choice" does carry emotional weight and implies the person is against the notion of choice

Well, yes, but they are against the notion of choice, at least in this case, and if you're discussing abortion presumably you don't assume they are therefore against choice in any situation ever.

 

[Light]

"Anti-choice" does carry emotional weight and implies the person is against the notion of choice, just like "pro-abortion" implies the person is cheerfully in favor of abortion rather than considering it a necessary evil.

Yeah, I would probably consider "pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" as roughly equal in terms of emotional appeal. And although "anti-choice" might be correct regarding this specific issue, it seems to me like a deliberately negative way of looking at a viewpoint.

Also, "pro-abortion" makes it sound like you're specifically advocating abortion as a good thing, whereas in reality the vast majority of pro-choice people see abortion as an unfortunate but sometimes necessary last measure.

Save for the case in which the fetus could harm the mother, how is abortion a necessary last measure when you can put the child up for adoption?

 

[opaltiger]

Yeah, I would probably consider "pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" as roughly equal in terms of emotional appeal. And although "anti-choice" might be correct regarding this specific issue, it seems to me like a deliberately negative way of looking at a viewpoint.

Okay, but come on, no one thinks "anti-choice" has meaning outside of the abortion debate. Why is using "anti" being deliberately negative? I am perfectly happy with, say, "anti-death penalty".

Save for the case in which the fetus could harm the mother, how is abortion a necessary last measure when you can put the child up for adoption?

I thought we were arguing about terms, not abortion itself. I clearly said "pro-choice people see it as...". But to answer the question: adoption isn't an acceptable alternative because it requires carrying the child to term. There is no reason why a woman should be forced to do so, and plenty of reasons why she might not want to. Adoption isn't a magical process that solves everyone's problems.

 

[1. Luftballon]

Save for the case in which the fetus could harm the mother, how is abortion a necessary last measure when you can put the child up for adoption?

you've found at least one case, no? it's pretty silly to ask, effective, "when is x necessary, excluding the included case y"!

(and adoption isn't really a particularly good option! but other people will tell you that soon enough and even give you reasons.)

 

[Butterfree]

Okay, but come on, no one thinks "anti-choice" has meaning outside of the abortion debate. Why is using "anti" being deliberately negative? I am perfectly happy with, say, "anti-death penalty".

It's not the "anti" that's the problem, it's the fact that it's prefixing "choice" - just like you wouldn't want to call yourself "anti-life". "Anti-death penalty" is saying you're against the death penalty, which is exactly what you believe. "Anti-choice" or "anti-life" is implying you're against "choice" or "life" in general; although yes, of course we know actually they refer to your stance on this particular issue, that doesn't stop them having those demonizing connotations.