xS1TH L0RDx
Banned
jaydubya, i've been reading your comments when i'm lurking in the poligaf thread during debates and whatnot, and i have to say, after that and reading your OP, you're probably one of the only intelligent posters on GAF. thanks.
Abortion Debate / Discussion Only In This Thread
- Thread starter JayDubya
- Start date
- Status
White Man said:
*slow clap*
Me, I'm simutaneously pro-choice and pro-life. I emphasize that pro-choice is not "pro-death" and that I do respect the sanctity of human life. However, I do recognize that the world is not black and white and there are many mitigating circumstances and beliefs that cannot be encompassed by a single law.
At the very least, I believe that the right of individuality superceeds my own personal beliefs. It is not my place as to dictate another person's actions as long as it does not harm another person.
was pretty much what I was going to say. It all comes down to when you think it's a person, and most people's minds aren't going to be changed. Me, I think considering a weeks-old fetus a person is completely absurd, but that's just my opinion.Rorschach said:
White Man said:Set theory, JDThe child's body is a subset of the mother's body, so while it is still its own set, it still belongs to the superset. It's math dude. /thread, get killin' your fetuses, people.
It's not a subset.
There's two bodies, two living human organisms in play. Furthermore, one human being cannot own another.
terrene said:
Not really semantics.
I believe to my core that what you do with "your body" is your own business; tattoos, consumption of food / alcohol / drugs, etc., etc.
I agree that government has no Constitutional authority to interfere in your private (law-abiding) life.
I just don't agree that "the right to privacy" has anything reasonable to do with a right to kill living human beings in private. There was obviously an incarnation of the Supreme Court that disagreed.
Vinzer Deling
Banned
terrene said:
You can predict the future? Give me lotto numbers for this week's jackpot.
I see pro-life as a restriction and pro-choice as more personal freedom. The vast majority of people do not want abortion to happen. A good example of this was the hoax thread about a woman who aborted fetuses for an art exhibit As with a lot of things, it would be more significant if we could change American culture so that people are more responsible with sex and take it more seriously.
I'm the result of my mother being raped and I'm for abortion. I'm certainly glad my mother decided to keep me but I'm still solidly for abortion (With the exception being late term abortions)... I was Pro-Life for much of my teen years, I'm not exactly sure if I'm comfortable sharing the reason for my change of heart. It's a tad bit personal.
Vinzer Deling
Banned
JCX9 said:
Naw, too much trouble to put a jimmy hat on.
harSon said:
My mother was advised to abort me for medical reasons (Early '80s + DM Type II). She's still here, I'm obviously here (and happy for it). She did very nearly die without seeing me, but not due to childbirth itself (medical error - one nurse gave prescribed insulin, then another nurse gave the same amount of insulin).
It'd be impossible to deny that information was formative, but I do not use it to argue. I mention it because you shared something personal and I felt inclined to do the same.
rainking187
Member
John Dunbar said:
I'm pro-choice as well, but that's probably the worst argument in favor of it I've ever heard.
:lolVinzer Deling said:
I'm not the one predicting hardship for the would-be parents of aborted children - they are, hence their choice. It is laughable in the extreme that predicting safety and independence for women under legalized abortion is comparable to predicting lotto numbers.
In my eyes:
Why the "Its a Woman's body" argument does not work:
This argument implies that abortion is a viable option until just before the babies head, or legs, pops out of the mothers vagina.
Why the "Life begins at conception" argument does not work:
Aside form constantly having religion placed into the argument at this point, there is no brain activity and it is just a lump of cells.
So I can see more people disagreeing with the second point but can most people agree there is a cut off point, somewhere, where the rights shift from the mother to the fetus?
Why the "Its a Woman's body" argument does not work:
This argument implies that abortion is a viable option until just before the babies head, or legs, pops out of the mothers vagina.
Why the "Life begins at conception" argument does not work:
Aside form constantly having religion placed into the argument at this point, there is no brain activity and it is just a lump of cells.
So I can see more people disagreeing with the second point but can most people agree there is a cut off point, somewhere, where the rights shift from the mother to the fetus?
JayDubya said:It's not a subset.
Furthermore, one human being cannot own another.
Sort of a cynical way of looking at things but isn't a pregnancy parasitic by definition? Or would the passing of the host's genes make it symbiotic?
adamsappel
Member
I find this to be true of so much of JayDubya's World O' Reason. Jay defends many things that cause collective jaws across the GAFverse to drop. People can torture their pets as they see fit; the elimination of social programs may result in children starving to death, too bad; there is zero justification for aborting a child (though he hasn't answered the ectopic pregnancy conundrum); the most beloved of our presidents are little more than traitors to him. And many more!Souldriver said:
I agree. I think Jay's ideas are scary and dangerous, but I do give him respect for maintaining them in the face of certain disdain. Although, I do wonder if he maintains such a harsh stance in face-to-face and casual conversation.Souldriver said:
Xdrive05
Member
My wife advises me to not get involved in this thread because she knows how obsessive I get with ANYTHING for which I have even the slightest opinion on here, so I'll just say my piece and quietly observe the awesome from behind the trenches.
First of all, big kudos to JayDub for fucking laying it all out there, pink and naked, in the OP. That was very well written and I think it communicates your position very clearly, going by your history for the topic on GAF. That's a fantastic starting point for this discussion and it will help rein in many misconceptions with which his opposition would otherwise dive in.
For the most part I agree with your approach to the issue, JayDubya. I too am a science geek and I think that science (and certainly embryology) necessarily has a lot to say about this issue, though I do not believe that science ultimately defines or decides it (at least not by itself - you agree as you employ your rationality in addition to it). I also have some trouble with the ethical/foundational premise on which you approach the issue, and maybe that does in fact cut to the heart of its divisiveness thereof, but I'll leave that to the impending 30 pages to decide.
My trouble with your position lies in the moral ambiguity (as I see it) caused by the disproportionally high frequency of natural abortion (miscarriages) among healthy women - something like 20 to 50 percent, or billions per generation. If I remember correctly, when we discussed this before, you agreed that this is an unfortunate natural disaster; billions of humans with a right to life snuffed out by natural causes. I still have to admit that in my view it would be inconsistent of you to hold your beliefs and at the same time not dedicate yourself entirely to fighting this natural holocaust financially, scientifically, or with whatever other means you can manage. This would be asking a lot of you, I understand, but I still feel that this is the natural extension of your position on abortion, and otherwise would be inconsistent to not follow through in it.
Now I'm aware that this doesn't make you wrong. If your premise is correct then there's nothing about my objection to negate that - at least directly. The furthest I could take it would be to indict you of not following through to the logical end of your convictions. The question of the correctness of your premise is where I think the rub will ultimately lie. I'm only conveying my personal feelings on why I think this issue is a legitimately difficult one and that the debate should go on. Just letting off a little steam in other words.
Anyways, thanks again for raising the question in such a productive way. Hopefully everyone here can learn a thing or two from the discussion. I'll recede to my trench, popcorn in hand.
First of all, big kudos to JayDub for fucking laying it all out there, pink and naked, in the OP. That was very well written and I think it communicates your position very clearly, going by your history for the topic on GAF. That's a fantastic starting point for this discussion and it will help rein in many misconceptions with which his opposition would otherwise dive in.
For the most part I agree with your approach to the issue, JayDubya. I too am a science geek and I think that science (and certainly embryology) necessarily has a lot to say about this issue, though I do not believe that science ultimately defines or decides it (at least not by itself - you agree as you employ your rationality in addition to it). I also have some trouble with the ethical/foundational premise on which you approach the issue, and maybe that does in fact cut to the heart of its divisiveness thereof, but I'll leave that to the impending 30 pages to decide.
My trouble with your position lies in the moral ambiguity (as I see it) caused by the disproportionally high frequency of natural abortion (miscarriages) among healthy women - something like 20 to 50 percent, or billions per generation. If I remember correctly, when we discussed this before, you agreed that this is an unfortunate natural disaster; billions of humans with a right to life snuffed out by natural causes. I still have to admit that in my view it would be inconsistent of you to hold your beliefs and at the same time not dedicate yourself entirely to fighting this natural holocaust financially, scientifically, or with whatever other means you can manage. This would be asking a lot of you, I understand, but I still feel that this is the natural extension of your position on abortion, and otherwise would be inconsistent to not follow through in it.
Now I'm aware that this doesn't make you wrong. If your premise is correct then there's nothing about my objection to negate that - at least directly. The furthest I could take it would be to indict you of not following through to the logical end of your convictions. The question of the correctness of your premise is where I think the rub will ultimately lie. I'm only conveying my personal feelings on why I think this issue is a legitimately difficult one and that the debate should go on. Just letting off a little steam in other words.
Anyways, thanks again for raising the question in such a productive way. Hopefully everyone here can learn a thing or two from the discussion. I'll recede to my trench, popcorn in hand.
I also kind of see the "would you have wanted to be aborted" argue a bit wrong, because had I been aborted, I would have no opinion on the matter.
i am also only for abortion up to a certain point (first 3 months). A woman should know by then if she is ready to take care of a child.
i am also only for abortion up to a certain point (first 3 months). A woman should know by then if she is ready to take care of a child.
Sure, you can avoid semantics by categorically referring to fetuses as human beings, not touching the privacy argument in any detail, and evasively referring to "your body" in quote-marks, but that would hardly be a worthwhile response.JayDubya said:
Edit: Bonus points for dismissively referring to the support base for abortion as "an incarnation of the Supreme Court." What, did they decide on this while high or something?
Well it's impossible when your definition purposely excludes fetuses from being people. You're just saying "I don't believe fetuses can be people because I define people to exclude fetuses."malek4980 said:
The question is if your definition is a good one. I don't think it is, because it would also make conjoined twins non-people.
The obvious crux of the issue is life.
If someone could prove conclusively to you that a 4 cell blastocyte is actually a human being, then by pure definition, killing it would be murder. There is no question in my mind that I would vote pro-life if I was completely and entirely convinced that a week old fetus was in fact a human. I doubt many liberal GAFfers will disagree: for example, consider third trimester abortions, where the fetus looks and acts just like a human, and is likely capable of some form of cognition. That is a human to me, and killing that is wrong -- which is why many liberals (let alone conservatives) are against third trimester abortions, and they have been banned in most states.
The real central problem is that I do not believe a blastocyte is a human being. As a non-religious person, my definition of humanity is defined by our cognitive ability: our capacity to understand what is around us and feel pain. Somewhere in the development cycle of a child, the fetus gains these capacities. Before they gain these capacities, they are not human and are no privy to the right of a human; after they do, they are human and cannot be murdered at will. I think the point at which this occurs is somewhere around the third trimester -- which is why I too am against third trimester abortions.
But again, for emphasis: if anyone could genuinely and conclusively prove to me that a human is created the moment of conception, then I would absolutely be against abortion. No question. It's just that I have seen no such conclusive proof; in fact, empirical evidence leads me to believe quite the opposite.
If someone could prove conclusively to you that a 4 cell blastocyte is actually a human being, then by pure definition, killing it would be murder. There is no question in my mind that I would vote pro-life if I was completely and entirely convinced that a week old fetus was in fact a human. I doubt many liberal GAFfers will disagree: for example, consider third trimester abortions, where the fetus looks and acts just like a human, and is likely capable of some form of cognition. That is a human to me, and killing that is wrong -- which is why many liberals (let alone conservatives) are against third trimester abortions, and they have been banned in most states.
The real central problem is that I do not believe a blastocyte is a human being. As a non-religious person, my definition of humanity is defined by our cognitive ability: our capacity to understand what is around us and feel pain. Somewhere in the development cycle of a child, the fetus gains these capacities. Before they gain these capacities, they are not human and are no privy to the right of a human; after they do, they are human and cannot be murdered at will. I think the point at which this occurs is somewhere around the third trimester -- which is why I too am against third trimester abortions.
But again, for emphasis: if anyone could genuinely and conclusively prove to me that a human is created the moment of conception, then I would absolutely be against abortion. No question. It's just that I have seen no such conclusive proof; in fact, empirical evidence leads me to believe quite the opposite.
adamsappel said:
Side-topic within a thread I started... indulge or ignore? Hrm.
Indulge, for now.
Without making too much of a generalization, most people don't let everyone in on their political stances unless it's known that everyone's on the same page and you can agree and be comfortable.
Politics and religion are generally conversational taboo, especially in the professional world.
So I talk online about this with others who are interested in politics, my wife, my close friends, and very rarely - others I meet.
That said, when the topic is broached, I will now stand my ground; in college, I used to hide and ignore the conversation. Of course, in college, my political belief system was in flux. All I knew was that I didn't agree with my parents, I didn't agree with my brothers, I didn't agree with any of my friends, and I knew that I hated politics and didn't want to bring up anything for fear of self-ostracizing.
At some point, I guess I realized that being spineless like that because you wanted to be everyone's friend was self-defeating; and as I got older, I felt the need to put everything I believed through scrutiny. If I had a dumb, non-answer to a topic, I knew it was time for some deep thinking.
Basically, in this thread I encourage people to post their principles / political beliefs on this issue and discuss the nuances. I made this thread because I missed a lengthy debate / discussion and that venue was closed off to response.
Branduil said:
I agree, the definition of a human is the crux of the issue (hello again by the way, Branduil). Looking at the post I just made a few moments ago, my definition of a human is something that is capable of cognition and pain. In particular, the ability to form complex thoughts is what makes us different than, say, ducks, and is the reason humans dominate the world so entirely and completely.
Using that definition, there is no question that a recently fertilized egg does not fit this definition. A three month old fetus likely does not, but a 7 old fetus likely does. Therefore, I believe abortions at 0 and 3 months are fine, but 7 is not. Anything in between (say, 6 months?) is a very difficult decision to make.
malek4980 said:
Being dependent does not make a fetus any less human or any less alive.
A newborn is wholly dependent and not as intelligent, capable, or aware as many newborn mammalian peers in the animal community (whole other can of worms, but addressed in the OP). Set a newborn baby on a table and leave him alone and he will cry until he becomes unconscious and eventually dies.
We do not call a newborn a "potential" human, nor do we deny him human rights.
Microscopic clumps of DNA are not people. The body flushes them out for even the slightest imperfection. They are not "ensouled" or any such religious nonsense, and they are not independent organisms, being incapable of surviving outside the womb.
More importantly, this is a nonsensical issue to give half a shit about given the broader issues impacting us. Evangelicals are ruining this country.
More importantly, this is a nonsensical issue to give half a shit about given the broader issues impacting us. Evangelicals are ruining this country.
The Lamonster
Member
I commend you for creating this separate thread, and I'm glad to see you address everyone's arguments, including mine. Quality OP, even though I disagree w/you.
TheClimaxan
Member
pnjtony said:
Bingo. Why this is so hard for people to grasp I have no idea.
I would challenge any poster here to answer this question differently than I do: if someone could absolutely convince you that an egg fertilized ten seconds ago is, in fact, a human being, would you still be for abortion? My answer is no, I would not be for it, and I doubt anyone else here would be, either.
The act of "murder" is killing another person. Killing an animal or any other living thing is not considered murder (although it can be considered animal cruelty, in some instances). Since we just agreed that a fertilized egg is a human, the act of aborting a 30 seconds old fertilized egg is, by definition, murder.
I don't think anyone here would argue that the right to choose ever trumps the right to life. The only instance where murder is ever considered justified is in self defense, and no one seems to be arguing self defense here (although there is the rare case where a mother will likely die from child birth, that's never known until 7-8 months in to the term). Therefore, I think virtually all of us would simply be forced to admit that abortion is immoral.
That is, if we agreed that a 30 second old fertilized egg was a human, which we do not. Which is why the crux of the issue is, as I stated, when an egg becomes a human, because when it becomes a human, I don't think any reasonable people argue that abortion is okay.
The act of "murder" is killing another person. Killing an animal or any other living thing is not considered murder (although it can be considered animal cruelty, in some instances). Since we just agreed that a fertilized egg is a human, the act of aborting a 30 seconds old fertilized egg is, by definition, murder.
I don't think anyone here would argue that the right to choose ever trumps the right to life. The only instance where murder is ever considered justified is in self defense, and no one seems to be arguing self defense here (although there is the rare case where a mother will likely die from child birth, that's never known until 7-8 months in to the term). Therefore, I think virtually all of us would simply be forced to admit that abortion is immoral.
That is, if we agreed that a 30 second old fertilized egg was a human, which we do not. Which is why the crux of the issue is, as I stated, when an egg becomes a human, because when it becomes a human, I don't think any reasonable people argue that abortion is okay.
The Lamonster
Member
So a bunch of car parts on a conveyor belt in Detroit - would you call that a car?
Or does it become a car when all those parts are put together? Or does it become a car the first time it's started? Or the first time somebody drives it down the street?
Or does it become a car when all those parts are put together? Or does it become a car the first time it's started? Or the first time somebody drives it down the street?
gkrykewy said:
Kind of a straw man; no one's arguing about any of those things. Although I suppose if you used the words "a bundle of cells is not a person" I'd still have to agree that you're right, because personhood is denied to some living human beings.
I'd also have to restate that I disagree with denying rights to a living human being.
See most recent post, above.
This is not an important issue to you because you favor the status quo and do not fear it changing. That does not mean that people can not disagree with you in good faith, and if they do, it would be absurd for them NOT to consider this an issue worthy of well more than half a shit. Maybe even a couple of whole shits. Or three or four.
MightyHedgehog
Member
This is the most important thing to consider when talking about abortion.White Man said:
MightyHedgehog said:
I disagree.
The fact that someone will do something regardless of its legality has no bearing on whether or not it should or should not be illegal.
As a crude, quick example: there is a black market for child porn.
I am not concerned about providing a safe, private environment for the consumption of child porn.
I do not think that because someone will consume child porn regardless of its legality that child porn should be legal.
For a historical example, it wasn't that people were going to drink anyway that made the 18th Amendment / Prohibition wrong. It was that it was unjust to tell people they can't consume alcohol - what they do with their own bodies, and all that.
- Status