Abortion

[Microcosm]

Should abortion be legal? Debate the topic in this thread.

Personally, I think it should absolutely be legal. Whether you view it as right or wrong doesn't matter to the rape victim who so desperately wants an abortion. People will say"well it's murder. "Not really. While you are killing a living thing, the thing you are killing (at that stage in development) isn't rational or grown at all.

[Vermilion]

I think it should be legal as long as it's for rape victim's or mentally I'll people with no idea of they are doing. I also wouldn't bring a child in to the world without being able to provide for it.

[Vlerchan]

Legal, on request, at any point until term.

[Katie96xox]

Once a baby has been inside his or her mother's womb for 20 weeks they are able to exist outside of the womb and have human features. Sure they are in a development stage but we keep developing into our 20s, have you heard of a thing called puberty? If they can exist outside of the womb then that's human enough for me to class aborting them as murder.

[Left Now]

Until the end of fourth month it must be legal.Otherwise it must be restrictly legal,only according to severe conditions,since the child is more than alive to be aborted.For example if the birth of child will endanger the mother's health and life.

[Babs]

I think it should be legal regardless of whether or not the fetus was concieved through rape.

[Dying Ember]

I agree with Aristocrats , abortion should be legal

[Fritos43]

Abortion should be legal in all cases. A woman should always have choice of what she wants to do, and she has control of her body.

[xAbnormalxAlphax]

Women have the choice to abort their children. If they were a rape victim or the child was simply and accident, they should of course, have the choice to abort the child.

[Uniquemind]

Complicated issue and over simplified question that involves political and legal details, which may included interstate travel for such services.

Let me just say I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, both on the restrictions on when a woman can get an abortion and when that opportunity closes for them.

I am however against abortion personally, the concept of it creeps me out and in a perfect world I would not allow it to happen in the cases of "accidentally got pregnant" scenarios.

Instead I think social programs should educate people of all ages about safe sex, and should encourage those already pregnant to keep the baby in return for providing services like affordable childcare, food, shelter, and mother-friendly well-paying jobs.

All parents should be able to raise a loved and well supported child, rather than a latch-key neglected kid who might have mental issues and cause society problems down the road.

I recognize making abortion illegal just pushes it underground like it did in the 1960's and 1970's, allowing for shady pseudo-doctors to tinker around pregnant girl/women privates and abuse them and in a lot of cases back then even cause fatal consequences.


I once saw a documentary video on youtube that showed this fake doctor offering abortion services where abortion is illegal, and he basically performed the service, and then for payment ended up having sex with the women he just performed an abortion on.


The only time I make an exception for abortion, is if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother (fertilized egg implanted in the fallopian tube and not the uterus etc.)

[Left Now]

The only time I make an exception for abortion, is if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother (fertilized egg implanted in the fallopian tube and not the uterus etc.)

Fertilized Zygote doesn't get implanted in fallopian tube.It will just turn into Blastocyst in there and then it will go to Uterus to develop further into fetus.

Anyway,although I hate when they say "It was an accident.",but abortion must be legal,however just until the end of fourth month and after that it only should be restrictively legal.Just in serious cases.

[phuckphace]

legal for the first trimester only, and in cases of life-threatening medical complications or rape

that's in combination with my other plans, of course. merely banning abortion won't make it go away *cough* Republicans *cough* but methinks a little social engineering would reduce the numbers.

[Uniquemind]

Fertilized Zygote doesn't get implanted in fallopian tube.It will just turn into Blastocyst in there and then it will go to Uterus to develop further into fetus.

Anyway,although I hate when they say "It was an accident.",but abortion must be legal,however just until the end of fourth month and after that it only should be restrictively legal.Just in serious cases.

Well you are describing what SHOULD happen in a normal fertilization and implantation.

The reality is that stuff goes wrong and nature is cruel.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

^ read medical textbooks to verify what Wikipedia found.


Ask about this medical scenario in health class. You'll freak your peers out in an already awkward class during sex ed.


(FYI: if your female and this goes untreated you will die or at the very least become infertile and be in lots of pain)

[Left Now]

Well you are describing what SHOULD happen in a normal fertilization and implantation.

The reality is that stuff goes wrong and nature is cruel.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

^ read medical textbooks to verify what Wikipedia found.


Ask about this medical scenario in health class. You'll freak your peers out in an already awkward class during sex ed.


(FYI: if your female and this goes untreated you will die or at the very least become infertile and be in lots of pain)

Oh so you were talking about this.I thought that you are talking about normal fertilization.Sorry my mistake.

Well,actually there were more awkward things when we were discussing this issues in our biology class this year,one which was lesser interesting in this matter was how heavy physical exercises may cause problems for women to get pregnant and this stuff...

[Vlerchan]

[...] but methinks a little social engineering would reduce the numbers.
Speaking of social engineering, what do you of the link between the legalisation of abortion and lower crimes rates?

see: Donohue, J. & Levitt, S. (2001). The Impact of Legalised Abortion on Crime. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 379 - 420. (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf)

It makes sense intuitively.

[phuckphace]

Speaking of social engineering, what do you of the link between the legalisation of abortion and lower crimes rates?

see: Donohue, J. & Levitt, S. (2001). The Impact of Legalised Abortion on Crime. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 379 - 420. (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf)

It makes sense intuitively.

First, women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity. Teenagers, unmarried women, and the economically disadvantaged are all substantially more likely to seek abortions [Levine et al. 1996]. Recent studies have found children born to these mothers to be at higher risk for committing crime in adolescence [Comanor and Phillips 1999].

we didn't really need a study to tell us this, but yes it certainly does make absolute sense that crime would be substantially reduced if the conditions of the working classes were improved and the 50's style two-parent, single-income family could make a comeback. at this juncture I see regulated abortion as a necessary evil and stopgap (basically a crude form of eugenics) until this is accomplished, and this study seems to have concluded as much.

that's why I've always argued that the culture war is a waste of time even though I find abortion morally reprehensible, "it's the economy, stupid"

[PennyRoyalTea]

Abortion should be totally legal for every woman in every country, just my opinion but women have the right to decide what happens to their body, i don't think the guy should have much of a say at all, a mother is bound to her kids for life, but a lot of dudes consider it an option.

[Uniquemind]

Abortion should be totally legal for every woman in every country, just my opinion but women have the right to decide what happens to their body, i don't think the guy should have much of a say at all, a mother is bound to her kids for life, but a lot of dudes consider it an option.

What about situations where the man is willing to take the baby and raise it and let the mother walk away?

Also let's revisit this question under the context that in the future science can remove an embryo from a woman and let it develop in:

1. A surrogate

2. An artificial womb


The woman's body theoretically isn't necessary now for gestation. If science gets us this far (and in someways we are there regarding legal issues involving frozen embryos created from in-vitro fertilization where surrogacy is used)

The egg and sperm are both out of their host bodies, how much legal control would they have over the growing embryo in a 3rd party woman?


Also what if a woman who makes a deal with a surrogacy arrangement with a couples agrees to do it, gets paid in part or full, and then aborte the embryo and flees the country with their money?

[Vlerchan]

[W]e didn't really need a study to tell us this[.]
I've come across lots of social conservatives who will argue for pages about how the study is flawed.

[...] and the 50's style two-parent, single-income family could make a comeback.
Never happening, and I'd say it's probably impossible.

---

What about situations where the man is willing to take the baby and raise it and let the mother walk away?
If the woman is willing to carry the foetus to term, then that's fine.

Otherwise, no. I also don't think that a man who is willing to threaten a woman with (state-enforced) violence to take a foetus to term has the moral high-ground here either.

1. A surrogate

2. An artificial womb

If developments make it possible to transfer a fertilised zygote into either of these, without causing harm to the woman, then I wouldn't have much of an issue with it.

The egg and sperm are both out of their host bodies, how much legal control would they have over the growing embryo in a 3rd party woman?
Zero.

Also what if a woman who makes a deal with a surrogacy arrangement with a couples agrees to do it, gets paid in part or full, and then aborte the embryo and flees the country with their money?
Re: Fraud.

[Uniquemind]

But Fraud doesn't nearly carry the same penalties as "murder".

[Hideous]

Legal. Her body, her choice.

[Vlerchan]

But Fraud doesn't nearly carry the same penalties as "murder".
I don't consider it murder.

[phuckphace]

I've come across lots of social conservatives who will argue for pages about how the study is flawed.

the Do-Nothings will go to surprising lengths to defend their strategy of doing nothing even when doing nothing is shown to be the worst possible option. better dead than red!

Never happening, and I'd say it's probably impossible.

for the time being, sure. I don't see what's preventing it at some point in the future after the current suboptimal conditions are removed.

[Uniquemind]

I've come across lots of social conservatives who will argue for pages about how the study is flawed.


Never happening, and I'd say it's probably impossible.

---


If the woman is willing to carry the foetus to term, then that's fine.

Otherwise, no. I also don't think that a man who is willing to threaten a woman with (state-enforced) violence to take a foetus to term has the moral high-ground here either.



If developments make it possible to transfer a fertilised zygote into either of these, without causing harm to the woman, then I wouldn't have much of an issue with it.


Zero.


Re: Fraud.

So this entire debate revolves around the mechanics of gestation involving the female body by default, and because of nature's lack of equality among the sexes in reproduction, thus man's law cannot embrace equality on this issue regarding the rights to terminate or keep.

If the man runs away from his responsibility of fatherhood and/or lacks the resources (money, maturity) to raise the child on their own, then fine that's their 50% consent to abort, and then the decision is up to the mom.

But if a woman has sex with a man, and that man wants the child and has the resources and will and ethos to raise it to allow the woman to walk away, I think that's fair.

Forget the state-enforced aspect of this issue for a moment, and focus on the philosophical consequence that nature enforces by default. Not to mention birth control and condoms should be used correctly which should drastically reduce those in this predicament in the first place.



It can be debated that a female's life is changed forever regardless of whether she undergoes an abortion or not.


I do believe that in order for a man to have a say in forcing the foetus to term, that they must have ample monetary assets locked and set aside for that kid (per kid basis) for all the costs of raising a child + the rate of inflation for those costs projected during the years of that child's life span.

1. Cost of pre-school through college calculated and locked in.

2. Cost of new cars, strollers, and car seats locked in.

3. Cost of doctors visits and medical care for the kid locked in.

4. Cost stable shelter and electricity and water locked in.

5. Cost of diapers, baby food, baby medicine, blankets, crib, bed, mattresses etc.)

It's gotta be fair. If a man is going to get 50% of his say on the issue of to abort or not to abort it must be equally difficult on them as it would be for the women who physically endures gestating and giving birth.


How's that for fair and playing devils advocate on this issue?

[Vlerchan]

I don't see what's preventing it at some point in the future after the current suboptimal conditions are removed.
I'm not sure what the suboptimal conditions are.
The big issue is how hard it has become to support oneself and their families on a single income. Supporting this with welfare flows will also be difficult since removing woman from the workforce will diminish the levels production (i.e., cause economic contraction). Since the woman's engagement also contributes to a large extent to the savings level - and thus to the level of investment and this to production growth - that's also going to be difficult to recover.

I also have a question: would you have an issue with it being the men who remained at home and the woman who worked? Or does it need to be just like the 50s?

Forget the state-enforced aspect of this issue for a moment, and focus on the philosophical consequence that nature enforces by default.
I understand the philosophical consequences. I still don't see how just because men can't naturally bring a child to term means that men should be allowed to use woman's bodies without their permission.

It's also not the state enforced aspects that bothers me. It's violent enforcement in general: I think people should have control of their own bodies and using violence to undermine that is unethical to say the least. I also find it hard to forget what's the central aspect of the debate to me.

---

You'll also find man's law also can embrace equal treatment: a right to control ones own person. Letting men control woman's bodies in certain respects would also undermine this equal treatment.

Not to mention birth control and condoms should be used correctly which should drastically reduce those out in this predicament in the first place.
Of course.

It can be debated that a female's life is changed forever regardless of whether she undergoes an abortion or not.
The point of abortion is that she gets to judge the most positive change and run with it.

[Quartz]

I do not think abortion should be legal.

A fetus, albeit underdeveloped, is still a human. It is reproduced from humans, and has potential to be something great, to do great things, and to live a normal life. It is a living organism; not much different from other living organisms, except for the fact that it cannot live on its own for time being. It has (or will have) a beating heart and a functioning mind, just like every single normal human.
I believe that every single human life is sacred. No matter who you are, or what you've done, you are sacred. You have the potential do great things.

Every single one of us has come from the fetal state. It is a necessary part of the human life cycle. Tell me, who's never been a fetus before? We cannot be in this stage without going through our unborn stage. We cannot be who we are without being babies.
If we didn't need fetuses, then why do they exist? They're not just some useless waste product. Even if they were made through unfortunate situations, such as rape or irresponsible sex, that does not take away their right to live. We have the duty as humans to protect our young.

They are weak and defenseless; they are without sin or evil; they are pure. What makes them any lower than us?
If they were made by rape or irresponsible sex, it is not their fault for being made. It is the rapist and the irresponsible parents' fault for being irresponsible. Do not punish the child for the actions of his parents. Do not take away someone's life because of a mistake he didn't even make. It is outrageous to kill simply because you do not want to deal with the child. It is your duty to take care of it, since you made it. If you didn't want to make it, you shoudn't have had sex. Those who were responsible for the creation of the child should own up to his or her mistakes, and nurture the child, because they made it. Killing fetuses is still killing people. We should all be responsible, and make an effort to make the wrongs right. We shouldn't just throw that life away because we made a mistake.

We are left with so many could-have-beens when we take away life. Who knows, that baby you just killed could have been the artist that could have made art that could have made you cry because it was so damn beautiful. It could have been scientist to discover the cure to the disease that would kill half the population of the earth. That child your friend killed could have been your son's best friend, or your son's lover. It could have been the politician to bring a country up, it could have been the activist to finally achieve rights for a certain group of people. We just took away his chance. WE JUST DEPRIVED HIM OF THE CHANCE TO LIVE A NORMAL HUMAN LIFE. Can you live with that?

Legal. Her body, her choice.
Wrong. What she is killing is NOT HER BODY. She is killing someone else.

I don't consider it murder.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, murder is "the crime of deliberately killing a person"
I do believe this fits the definition quite well.

[Uniquemind]

I'm not sure what the suboptimal conditions are.
The big issue is how hard it has become to support oneself and their families on a single income. Supporting this with welfare flows will also be difficult since removing woman from the workforce will diminish the levels production (i.e., cause economic contraction). Since the woman's engagement also contributes to a large extent to the savings level - and thus to the level of investment and this to production growth - that's also going to be difficult to recover.

I also have a question: would you have an issue with it being the men who remained at home and the woman who worked? Or does it need to be just like the 50s?


I understand the philosophical consequences. I still don't see how just because men can't naturally bring a child to term means that men should be allowed to use woman's bodies without their permission.

It's also not the state enforced aspects that bothers me. It's violent enforcement in general: I think people should have control of their own bodies and using violence to undermine that is unethical to say the least. I also find it hard to forget what's the central aspect of the debate to me.

---

You'll also find man's law also can embrace equal treatment: a right to control ones own person. Letting men control woman's bodies in certain respects would also undermine this equal treatment.


Of course.


The point of abortion is that she gets to judge the most positive change and run with it.


That's the rub isn't it? That it's subjective of what is or isn't positive.

Once an abortion occurs it cannot be undone.

Whereas at least if she gives birth and surrenders the child she can still walk away from motherhood.

--

I also don't see going with abortion or forcing the woman to bear the child as any more or less ethical than the other.

To me they seem equally violent so my conscience feels either option is on par.



Also I highly doubt most men will have $1 million+ dollars on hand to allow them to have a say anyway if my philosophy were enabled. Meaning by default in most cases a woman would have the right to choose.


Let me also point out socio-economic places where abortion happens usually cater to poorer women who need the procedure. So assuming their partner is within the same economic tier as them, the women have the right to choose because the guy isn't ready to have a kid.

Face it, the reality is that most "player men" aren't thinking about being parents when they're getting it on with various women.


(Economic contraction is another issue I don't want to debate right now)

I believe in smoothing out of bear and bullish trends and the reduction of volatile economies: too fast growth creates bubbles which pop and lead to painful declines...I'd prefer a long term economic strategy that supports slow growth and slow declines through phased in economic and social policies. During slow declines changes in social policy, transitions to new technologies, and the workforce undergoing new training, can take place more gracefully.

[Left Now]

I do not think abortion should be legal.

A fetus, albeit underdeveloped, is still a human. It is reproduced from humans, and has potential to be something great, to do great things, and to live a normal life. It is a living organism; not much different from other living organisms, except for the fact that it cannot live on its own for time being. It has (or will have) a beating heart and a functioning mind, just like every single normal human.
I believe that every single human life is sacred. No matter who you are, or what you've done, you are sacred. You have the potential do great things.

Every single one of us has come from the fetal state. It is a necessary part of the human life cycle. Tell me, who's never been a fetus before? We cannot be in this stage without going through our unborn stage. We cannot be who we are without being babies.
If we didn't need fetuses, then why do they exist? They're not just some useless waste product. Even if they were made through unfortunate situations, such as rape or irresponsible sex, that does not take away their right to live. We have the duty as humans to protect our young.

They are weak and defenseless; they are without sin or evil; they are pure. What makes them any lower than us?
If they were made by rape or irresponsible sex, it is not their fault for being made. It is the rapist and the irresponsible parents' fault for being irresponsible. Do not punish the child for the actions of his parents. Do not take away someone's life because of a mistake he didn't even make. It is outrageous to kill simply because you do not want to deal with the child. It is your duty to take care of it, since you made it. If you didn't want to make it, you shoudn't have had sex. Those who were responsible for the creation of the child should own up to his or her mistakes, and nurture the child, because they made it. Killing fetuses is still killing people. We should all be responsible, and make an effort to make the wrongs right. We shouldn't just throw that life away because we made a mistake.

We are left with so many could-have-beens when we take away life. Who knows, that baby you just killed could have been the artist that could have made art that could have made you cry because it was so damn beautiful. It could have been scientist to discover the cure to the disease that would kill half the population of the earth. That child your friend killed could have been your son's best friend, or your son's lover. It could have been the politician to bring a country up, it could have been the activist to finally achieve rights for a certain group of people. We just took away his chance. WE JUST DEPRIVED HIM OF THE CHANCE TO LIVE A NORMAL HUMAN LIFE. Can you live with that?


Wrong. What she is killing is NOT HER BODY. She is killing someone else.


According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, murder is "the crime of deliberately killing a person"
I do believe this fits the definition quite well.

Well,according to our biology books,a fetus until at least 4 months is just a fetus not a child.So although for most of the times abortion has just been a result of thinking sex is a game or something for fun,or rape,I think at least until the fetus is not completely developed yet it must be legal.I believe four months is enough for thinking and getting assured about pregnancy right?After fourth months,I do not agree with abortion neither,that's not her choice anymore.

[Uniquemind]

Well,according to our biology books,a fetus until at least 4 months is just a fetus not a child.So although for most of the times abortion has just been a result of thinking sex is a game or something for fun,or rape,I think at least until the fetus is not completely developed yet it must be legal.I believe four months is enough for thinking and getting assured about pregnancy right?After fourth months,I do not agree with abortion neither,that's not her choice anymore.

So what do you think of my philosophy-solution to this problem then?

It seems more fair right since it raises a chance for a man to have a say based on the resources he can provide which mirrors nature in a way?

[Left Now]

So what do you think of my philosophy-solution to this problem then?

It seems more fair right since it raises a chance for a man to have a say based on the resources he can provide which mirrors nature in a way?

Pardon me,but I am a little lazy to get to your previous posts and read about your philosophy.

Would you please once again say what your philosophy suggests in this matter?

[Ridonks_CB]

Until the end of fourth month it must be legal.Otherwise it must be restrictly legal,only according to severe conditions,since the child is more than alive to be aborted.For example if the birth of child will endanger the mother's health and life.

I agree (some say 40 days but I personally believe it's 4 months).

[Vlerchan]

Apologies, Uniquemind. I didn't see your edit until after I responded, and then didn't have a chance to perform a response until now.

If a man is going to get 50% of his say on the issue of to abort or not to abort it must be equally difficult on them as it would be for the women who physically endures gestating and giving birth.
The problem here is that it relies on the presumption that all woman go through the same toil. This is probably quite untrue. If you want to reduce this to economism then you would be better off allowing the woman to negotiate how much her toil is worth with the man, and then you would get a more accurate value of the woman's body. For some woman, like rape victims, it might just be impossible to make them go through with it, though.

Of course, I don't think men should be allowed to control woman's bodies, even if they are rich.

That's the rub isn't it? That it's subjective of what is or isn't positive.
Sure. That's the reason I delegate the decision to the mother since the decisions, negative or positive, all surround her body.

Once an abortion occurs it cannot be undone.

Whereas at least if she gives birth and surrenders the child she can still walk away from motherhood.
That's fine. But I'm not trying to argue that woman should or shouldn't go through with abortions, I'm just trying to argue that woman should have the right to decide whether they want one or not.

I also don't see going with abortion or forcing the woman to bear the child as any more or less ethical than the other.

To me they seem equally violent so my conscience feels either option is on par.
It has little to do with the level of violence involved.

It has to do with my belief that people should be allowed to control their own bodies. I find undermining this right through violent force to be the unethical consideration on this basis.

too fast growth creates bubbles which pop and lead to painful declines..
Sometimes fast growth might be a result of economic bubbles, but it can occur without an economic bubble underlying it. I'm not going to respond to the rest of the economic considerations expressed because it's not quite on-topic, and you also stated you didn't want to discuss the issue.

---

A fetus, albeit underdeveloped, is still a human.
It's a human zygote, not a human.

It might become a human at some stage during the pregnancy, but there's no scientific consensus on this.

However, the pro-choice argument I espouse has nothing to do with whether it's a human or not.

It is reproduced from humans, and has potential to be something great, to do great things, and to live a normal life.
Potential. That's the important term here. It has the potential to lead a normal - human - life. However, it's not a human as consideration of even the language you used above will indicate.

It is a living organism; not much different from other living organisms, except for the fact that it cannot live on its own for time being.
Sounds like a parasite. Do we consider parasites sacred?

It has (or will have) a beating heart and a functioning mind, just like every single normal human.
This is not certain. Lots of woman have miscarriages.

But you're arguing from potential again here.

I believe that every single human life is sacred.
That's cool.

But you're yet to demonstrate how it's a human. I also wonder if there's a reason that just human life's a sacred? Do you consider animal lives sacred too? These are living organisms, with working minds, and hearts, just like humans!

Every single one of us has come from the fetal state. It is a necessary part of the human life cycle. Tell me, who's never been a fetus before? We cannot be in this stage without going through our unborn stage.
We also start out as seamen. Is seamen sacred?

If we didn't need fetuses, then why do they exist? They're not just some useless waste product.
No one is claiming that we don't need fetouses, i.e., this is a strawman.

I also could claim the same about seamen.

Even if they were made through unfortunate situations, such as rape or irresponsible sex, that does not take away their right to live.
But our right to control over our own person - the basis for living a meaningful life - is irrelevant?

You're also yet to demonstrate that foetus' deserve a right to life though anyway.

They are weak and defenseless; they are without sin or evil; they are pure. What makes them any lower than us?
What makes them of value?

The rest of this paragraph rests on this.

It is the rapist[1] and the irresponsible parents'[2] fault for being irresponsible.
[1]: But we're still going to punish the innocent girl anyway.

[2]: It's possible to get pregnant after taking all the precautions available. What then?

I'm also presuming you're Christian. What do you think of the idea of Original Sin?

It is outrageous to kill simply because you do not want to deal with the child[1]. It is your duty to take care of it, since you made it[2]. If you didn't want to make it, you shoudn't have had sex[3]. Those who were responsible for the creation of the child should own up to his or her mistakes, and nurture the child, because they made it[4].
[1]: This presumes the foetus is worth moral consideration. I question this. I also question whether the considerations of a foetus are worth near the amount of a trauma-stricken girl or woman. It would seem that she is the one enduring realised, as opposed to unrealised, harm here.

[2]: So, you feel that rapists are duty-bound to raise their offspring?

[3]: This presumes that when people have sex they sign up to having children. I know I don't. I doubt most people do.

[4]: So, giving your child up for adoption is wrong? I also find the implications made here that victims of rape are in some manner responsible disgusting.

Who knows, that baby you just killed could have been the artist that could have made art that could have made you cry because it was so damn beautiful. It could have been scientist to discover the cure to the disease that would kill half the population of the earth. That child your friend killed could have been your son's best friend, or your son's lover. It could have been the politician to bring a country up, it could have been the activist to finally achieve rights for a certain group of people.
The foetus could also grow up to be a genocidal dictator.

The fact of the matter is that it never exists as a thing worth actual consideration.

Can you live with that?
In a lot of cases, yes.

Wrong. What she is killing is NOT HER BODY. She is killing someone else.
That has nothing to do with the argument. If it's the woman's body then she should have a right to control who uses it. It might be deemed that the foetus uses her body without her permission. In that case it becomes ethical to remove the foetus.

I presume you disagree with theft? Or should I be allowed to steal from your fridge because life is sacred?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, murder is "the crime of deliberately killing a person"
I do believe this fits the definition quite well.
First, murder is a legal term, and exists with reference to a crime, so foeticide is not definitional murder.

Second, it refers to the killing of a person, and in most legal jurisdictions it doesn't have that statues, not is their scientific consensus surrounding it having that statues, and not do I believe it should have that statues.

Third, laws regarding murder aren't black-and-white like that, see: self-defence.

[CosmicNoodle]

Legal

[Uniquemind]

Apologies, Uniquemind. I didn't see your edit until after I responded, and then didn't have a chance to perform a response until now.


The problem here is that it relies on the presumption that all woman go through the same toil. This is probably quite untrue. If you want to reduce this to economism then you would be better off allowing the woman to negotiate how much her toil is worth with the man, and then you would get a more accurate value of the woman's body. For some woman, like rape victims, it might just be impossible to make them go through with it, though.

Of course, I don't think men should be allowed to control woman's bodies, even if they are rich.


Sure. That's the reason I delegate the decision to the mother since the decisions, negative or positive, all surround her body.


That's fine. But I'm not trying to argue that woman should or shouldn't go through with abortions, I'm just trying to argue that woman should have the right to decide whether they want one or not.


It has little to do with the level of violence involved.

It has to do with my belief that people should be allowed to control their own bodies. I find undermining this right through violent force to be the unethical consideration on this basis.


Sometimes fast growth might be a result of economic bubbles, but it can occur without an economic bubble underlying it. I'm not going to respond to the rest of the economic considerations expressed because it's not quite on-topic, and you also stated you didn't want to discuss the issue.

---


It's a human zygote, not a human.

It might become a human at some stage during the pregnancy, but there's no scientific consensus on this.

However, the pro-choice argument I espouse has nothing to do with whether it's a human or not.


Potential. That's the important term here. It has the potential to lead a normal - human - life. However, it's not a human as consideration of even the language you used above will indicate.


Sounds like a parasite. Do we consider parasites sacred?


This is not certain. Lots of woman have miscarriages.

But you're arguing from potential again here.


That's cool.

But you're yet to demonstrate how it's a human. I also wonder if there's a reason that just human life's a sacred? Do you consider animal lives sacred too? These are living organisms, with working minds, and hearts, just like humans!


We also start out as seamen. Is seamen sacred?


No one is claiming that we don't need fetouses, i.e., this is a strawman.

I also could claim the same about seamen.


But our right to control over our own person - the basis for living a meaningful life - is irrelevant?

You're also yet to demonstrate that foetus' deserve a right to life though anyway.


What makes them of value?

The rest of this paragraph rests on this.


[1]: But we're still going to punish the innocent girl anyway.

[2]: It's possible to get pregnant after taking all the precautions available. What then?

I'm also presuming you're Christian. What do you think of the idea of Original Sin?


[1]: This presumes the foetus is worth moral consideration. I question this. I also question whether the considerations of a foetus are worth near the amount of a trauma-stricken girl or woman. It would seem that she is the one enduring realised, as opposed to unrealised, harm here.

[2]: So, you feel that rapists are duty-bound to raise their offspring?

[3]: This presumes that when people have sex they sign up to having children. I know I don't. I doubt most people do.

[4]: So, giving your child up for adoption is wrong? I also find the implications made here that victims of rape are in some manner responsible disgusting.


The foetus could also grow up to be a genocidal dictator.

The fact of the matter is that it never exists as a thing worth actual consideration.


In a lot of cases, yes.


That has nothing to do with the argument. If it's the woman's body then she should have a right to control who uses it. It might be deemed that the foetus uses her body without her permission. In that case it becomes ethical to remove the foetus.

I presume you disagree with theft? Or should I be allowed to steal from your fridge because life is sacred?


First, murder is a legal term, and exists with reference to a crime, so foeticide is not definitional murder.

Second, it refers to the killing of a person, and in most legal jurisdictions it doesn't have that statues, not is their scientific consensus surrounding it having that statues, and not do I believe it should have that statues.

Third, laws regarding murder aren't black-and-white like that, see: self-defence.


Yeah but that presumption of toil upon the woman differing, woman to woman for bearing a child (gestation and delivery is what I mean by "bearing"), is not harmful. It is just an objective measure the law can take to measure against what a man needs to do in order to have "a say".

So let me simplify my position of all my complex posts while I've been playing devil's advocate for debate purposes:


1. If the man --being the biological father of the child-- wants to keep the child(ren), he must have (in-cash set aside) enough money AND a loving and supportive family and a childproof environment to raise the child(ren) on his own without any supportive role from the mother, on a per child basis from age 0-18, at the rate of inflation and rising cost projections for the years the child would theoretically live. He would have to have the support structure and the money instantly upon news that the woman he had sex with got pregnant by him.
If he cannot do this > women's right to choose up until 22 weeks.


2. Past 22 weeks > the women must give birth to the child(ren) but can drop off the infant at a "safe shelter" no questions asked after birth.

3. EXCEPTION: In the case where gestation and/or giving birth endangers the life of the mother and/or infant(s) an abortion can be done legally upon the woman's request.

4. At no time or stage can a woman be forced to have an abortion, even upon the biological father's or either individual's family members insistence that one be performed.

----

I think that this is a fair and balanced philosophy to adopt on the issue. It puts pressure on society to make the decision quickly. Teaches that consentual sex is serious business that carries real consequences.

Sex isn't for pure fun, fleeting pleasure and games. It's the act that says I've acknowledged this individual as a worthy candidate to have offspring with. I also trust them not to give me a sexually transmitted disease/infection.

^you are saying this even when you are using birth control like condoms AND the birth control pill, patch, IUD, or whatever else that has a very high success rating at preventing pregnancy in the first place and then have sex or the exchange of sexual bodily fluids that carry sperm into the vagina (i.e. I don't trust spermicides).

Both men and women need to be able to be more picky on who they're messing around with. If they aren't learning this, that's bad for society overall in regards to the concept of sexual responsibility.

You want to adopt a philosophy or policy that doesn't encourage the "live wildly YOLO lifestyle" but rather a "live wisely, live long, live prosperous, and live responsibly" ideal.


Realistically though, I think most men are going to fail the requirements laid out in #1, so ultimately women will probably have the last word. The cost of raising a child well in a high quality lifestyle exceeds $1,700,000 and that cost will only rise as more time passes.



I debate this issue, just because I know of a situation at my high school where this one girl treats access to abortion services as a form of birth control and I think the law ought to patch loopholes like that.

I also think that unless you can stomach a video of an abortion procedure being done, you shouldn't support abortion, especially late term abortion. If you can eat lunch while watching the medical procedure, I'll hold my peace with you and consider that you walked the talk.


Some will also argue that my idea on this is wrong or unfair because of natural mechanics of what the female body has to go through to be pregnant and give birth, and men don't have to deal with that so why should they get a choice at all?

My answer is that unfairness is due to a outside influence called nature and evolution, that made the different genders have different consequences. There's enough flexibility in what I suggested to treat both biological parents fairly regarding the law and with regard to the potential child(ren) conceived. Woman should've been educated about the potential risk you were taking by engaging in sex, and same for men. With regards to the failure of equality on this issue with the law, the law failed in holding men accountable for the children they helped create and failed to ensure they are providing support as a mature parent, and monetary support.

Pro-abortion/choice people use the premise that women are stuck with the burden of raising the child while the men run away from responsibility, and with my suggestion I've just nullified that premise.

Let me also add that with today's technology it is very easy to track down men fleeing from parental responsibility. (there's facial recognition software, data mining etc...) There's no place to hide, and assets can be seized electronically nowadays.


---

P.S. Let me make clear I am not talking about cases of rape and impregnation...I consider that a special case.

But I will say that even in those cases I have mixed feelings because my family has a family friend who is a "rape baby" and he's a really great person who has done a lot of advocacy work for groups that help abused women.

[Vlerchan]

4. At no time or stage can a woman be forced to have an abortion, even upon the biological father's or either individual's family members insistence that one be performed.
As long as this clause is included then I have no issue but you do realise that voids the other 3 clauses?

I also feel that I should add that I want to minimise the number of abortions that occur too, I just want woman's rights to the control of their own bodies to be respected at the same time. So, I'll support incentives to bring the foetus to term.

Teaches that consentual sex is serious business that carries real consequences.

Sex isn't for pure fun, fleeting pleasure and games. It's the act that says I've acknowledged this individual as a worthy candidate to have offspring with. I also trust them not to give me a sexually transmitted disease/infection.
I live in a state where abortions are illegal unless:
Serious life-threathening - but not health-threatening risks - have been determined;
There is a strong chance of the woman going through with a suicide, as determined by three psychiatrists in a closed meeting.
and that has not helped with the issue of re-sacralising sex, it's just resulted in lots of 'holidays' to England, and a number of high-profile suicides.

^you are saying this even when you are using birth control like condoms AND the birth control pill, patch, IUD, or whatever else that has a very high success rating at preventing pregnancy in the first place and then have sex or the exchange of sexual bodily fluids that carry sperm into the vagina (i.e. I don't trust spermicides).

Both men and women need to be able to be more picky on who they're messing around with. If they aren't learning this, that's bad for society overall in regards to the concept of sexual responsibility.

You want to adopt a philosophy or policy that doesn't encourage the "live wildly YOLO lifestyle" but rather a "live wisely, live long, live prosperous, and live responsibly" ideal.
I'm not sure who the 'you' is directed at. I haven't made these claims.

I'm also not necessarily disagreeing with this. But I don't see how abortion dis-enables it when other comprehensive forms of protection exist.

I debate this issue, just because I know of a situation at my high school where this one girl treats access to abortion services as a form of birth control and I think the law ought to patch loopholes like that.
Nothing you've argued quite relates back to this point.

I also think this is awful practice but still feel she should had had the right to engage in it.
I also think that unless you can stomach a video of an abortion procedure being done, you shouldn't support abortion, especially late term abortion. If you can eat lunch while watching the medical procedure, I'll hold my peace with you and consider that you walked the talk.
This is an adhom.

You're also failing to see the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Some will also argue that my idea on this is wrong or unfair because of natural mechanics of what the female body has to go through to be pregnant and give birth, and men don't have to deal with that so why should they get a choice at all?
I don't argue this.

Pro-abortion/choice people use the premise that women are stuck with the burden of raising the child while the men run away from responsibility.
I also don't argue this.

[Living For Love]

Illegal, except in cases of rape or if determined that the baby will be born with severe congenital disorders or malfunctions.

[Quartz]

---


It's a human zygote, not a human.


It might become a human at some stage during the pregnancy, but there's no scientific consensus on this.

However, the pro-choice argument I espouse has nothing to do with whether it's a human or not.


"[A]s early as eight or ten weeks of gestation, the fetus has a fully formed, beating heart, a complete brain... a recognizably human form...

There are three important points we wish to make about this human embryo. First, it is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or of the father. This is clear because it is growing in its own distinct direction. Its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. Second, the embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, and most importantly, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed actively to develop himself or herself to the mature stage of a human being, and, unless prevented by disease or violence, will actually do so...

So, a human embryo (or fetus) is not something distinct from a human being; he or she is not an individual of any non-human or intermediate species. Rather, an embryo (and fetus) is a human being at a certain (early) stage of development – the embryonic (or fetal) stage." ~ Robert P. George, JD, DPhil, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, and Patrick Lee, PhD, the John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville, wrote in their chapter titled "The Wrong of Abortion," published in the 2005 book Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, edited by Andrew I. Cohen and Christopher Wellman

Potential. That's the important term here. It has the potential to lead a normal - human - life. However, it's not a human as consideration of even the language you used above will indicate.

I guess I have to rephrase that. It already has a normal human life, but what I'm referring to is life after birth. Potential because it could die before; either from miscarriage or abortion, or anything, really.

Sounds like a parasite. Do we consider parasites sacred?
Is it a parasite just because it can't live on its own yet? Are babies parasites? Are children parasites? Tell me, can newborn babies live on their own yet? They are not parasites because they need someone else to survive. Besides, they won't stay that way forever.

This is not certain. Lots of woman have miscarriages.

But you're arguing from potential again here.
Yes, lots of women have miscarriages. That's unfortunate, of course. But hey, you could die tomorrow. Does that give us the right to kill you? My point is that if everything goes as it should, then it will have a beating heart and a functioning mind.

That's cool.

But you're yet to demonstrate how it's a human. I also wonder if there's a reason that just human life's a sacred? Do you consider animal lives sacred too? These are living organisms, with working minds, and hearts, just like humans!
Yes, I do in fact consider animal lives to be sacred. Do you think they aren't? Are you perfectly fine with killing them for no apparent reason? I mean, I can understand food, because that's what they're made for. But we shouldn't treat them like they aren't living beings. Do you even have a bit of regard for life at all? Do you think that just because animals can't think like we do, we could just treat them like they're trash? I feel bad for animals, because we exploit them in so many ways. Unfortunately, I have to deal with the exploitation because I'm a human being. Riding horses and drinking milk make me cringe, but what can I do? I have to go with how society is because it's not likely to change.

We also start out as seamen. Is seamen sacred?
First of all, it's semen, not seamen. Semen are living cells. You are made of living cells. Millions of cells in your body die every day. Most of the sperm cells are made to die, anyway. But the millions are made because of the fact that every single one has the potential to reach the egg. Once it has reached the egg, that's a different story. It has achieved its first major goal. That's the sacred one, because it is the special one to make it through. Millions of fetuses aren't made in a body of a woman. That one fetus is not expendable, just like the semen. Though she could make another one, it would be disregard for human life. If everything goes well, which happens in most cases, then that unborn child will become a healthy born child. It isn't a one-in-a-million chance just like semen; the odds are in favor of the baby.

No one is claiming that we don't need fetouses, i.e., this is a strawman.

I also could claim the same about seamen.
What I'm saying is that we shouldn't just throw them away like it's not likely for them to turn into born human children. Again, millions of semen are made in a single human. Only one of them makes it. It's designed that way by nature. Millions of children are not made in a single human. We aren't spiders, with lots of eggs because most of them would die anyway. That fetus has gone through a lot already. If something goes wrong while the child is unborn, such as miscarriage, then it isn't the mother's fault. She has no control over that. But if the mother chooses to kill it through abortion, then it is her decision that kills the child. We say kill, because it had life in the first place. If it hadn't had life, then what are we killing?

But our right to control over our own person - the basis for living a meaningful life - is irrelevant?
You are free to control your own person. The only problem is that you made a new person, and you want to destroy it. That thing you made is not you anymore, it is something that came from you, and stays within you until it can live outside of you. It is a separate entity, which is only connected to you through a placenta. But it is not you. It wasn't in you before. It wasn't made just for you. You were just the means for it's creation. That fetus was made for the world, not just its mother.

You're also yet to demonstrate that foetus' deserve a right to life though anyway.
And why not? What makes them not deserve a life? As far as I know, they'll be born children soon enough, provided that they don't die on the way. They've done absolutely nothing wrong. Why kill it? Because it would only be a burden to the world? Because you can't handle it? If that's the case, then why don't we just kill all those children in the adoption centers? Why don't we just kill ever single prison convict or mental asylum patient? Why don't we kill people who cannot live alone because of terminal illness? They are such a burden to society. They are such parasites. What makes them deserve life?

What makes them of value?
That they will soon be contributing to society. Not right now, but soon. That's what matters. Just the same as children are of value. What makes a 2 year old any less valuable than an 18 year old? Sure it can't do anything at the moment, but it will. Well, fetuses can die, but so can 2-year-olds, 18-year-olds and 75-year-olds. A child of 2 is less developed, less mature, less useful, less intelligent, etc. than a 20 year old. Does that decrease its value? Why don't we make it legal to kill 2-year-olds because they're just "parasites"?


[1]: But we're still going to punish the innocent girl anyway.
Punish the rapist. In this case, it is NOT the innocent girl's fault. Only those who are at fault must own up to his or her mistakes. The innocent girl has no mistakes to own up to, but she still shouldn't kill. Simply because, as stated above, it's a living human being!
If the mother can't handle it, at the very least do she should do what she can to ensure that it stays alive. That's why life-sentence prisoners and the terminally ill aren't killed. That's the most important thing you can possibly do for someone who is your responsibility. That's the least you can do for that poor unfortunate soul. Adoption is an option. Though it may be hard, at least you're not taking a life.

[2]: It's possible to get pregnant after taking all the precautions available. What then?
Sex is no joke. If you have any "accidents," is still your responsibility. Not entirely you fault, but you're still responsible for it. Don't have sex if you can't deal with the consequences. If you do it just for pleasure, then that is your risk. That is your choice.

I'm also presuming you're Christian. What do you think of the idea of Original Sin?
I'm not Christian. I do not believe in Original Sin. I may be bombarded with Catholic ideals, but that doesn't mean I believe in them. By sacrality, I mean that it should be treated correctly; it's not feces or scrap metal.

[1]: This presumes the foetus is worth moral consideration. I question this. I also question whether the considerations of a foetus are worth near the amount of a trauma-stricken girl or woman. It would seem that she is the one enduring realised, as opposed to unrealised, harm here.
I do not want the girl to experience harm. However, things out of our control happen. When a natural disaster strikes, it is out of our control. But we still try our very best to help those affected. It's like that. The girl who has been raped has to be helped by other people. She must help her child, even temporarily, because she's the person closest to it, and it is her responsibility for the moment. If it would cause her a great deal of harm, there isn't much she can do. The one thing she can do is keep it alive. Her job is to find ways to deal with it. Somebody's got to take care of it.

[2]: So, you feel that rapists are duty-bound to raise their offspring?
There's more than one reason why rapists are evil.
[3]: This presumes that when people have sex they sign up to having children. I know I don't. I doubt most people do.[/QUOTE= Vlerchan]
You should be aware of the risk. Don't want to risk it? Don't have sex. You don't sign up for it, but you risk it. You don't have to have sex; you only want to have sex. Your decision; no one's forcing you to do it.

[QUOTE= Vlerchan][4]: So, giving your child up for adoption is wrong? I also find the implications made here that victims of rape are in some manner responsible disgusting.
Nurture the child by keeping it alive! You can keep it alive by sending it to an adoption center or something! Just make sure it's being nurtured! It is the victim's responsibility until she does something about it. She is responsible for life and death. It is definitely not her fault, but the baby's life is in her hands.

The foetus could also grow up to be a genocidal dictator.
YOU could turn into a genocidal dictator. Why do we keep you alive? Because you could also NOT be a genocidal dictator! Why do we keep babies alive? THEY can also turn out to be genocidal dictators. Yet we still keep them alive. We keep them alive because of what they could become in the future.


In a lot of cases, yes.
How could you live with that?!?! How heartless can you be?!?

That has nothing to do with the argument. If it's the woman's body then she should have a right to control who uses it. It might be deemed that the foetus uses her body without her permission. In that case it becomes ethical to remove the foetus.
It won't stay there forever! It's only there temporarily. The fetus did not choose to be made; it is not at fault. The mother may not want it, but she should still try to keep it alive. Think of the child! The mother will live (hopefully), but the child won't! I don't want the child to be forsaken.

I presume you disagree with theft? Or should I be allowed to steal from your fridge because life is sacred?
It's not stealing, it's hospitality. If the baby could survive on it's own, I bet it will. But it can't! The mother must provide it with food because she's the mother. That's her role as a mother. It won't survive without the mother's body. The mother can survive with the child. Why can't we just lessen the death?

First, murder is a legal term, and exists with reference to a crime, so foeticide is not definitional murder.
I do not mean legally. I mean according to definition. Legally, that is not murder, but it is still "deliberately killing a person". Death always gives us more loss. You know the saying, "nobody wins a war"? That's because, though you fought for something, at the end of the day you end up with less than what you've had antebellum. It's not murder legally, but it is still a loss. It is still murder in my eyes.

Second, it refers to the killing of a person, and in most legal jurisdictions it doesn't have that statues, not is their scientific consensus surrounding it having that statues, and not do I believe it should have that statues.
They're people too. ;-;

Third, laws regarding murder aren't black-and-white like that, see: self-defence.
It does not meet the legal definition, but it does meet the Merriam Webster definition. That does not make it any less of a crime. It still results in death, and that is what matters.



"Abortion should be legal if the babies are not persons. What is the difference between a baby in the womb and a 2 year old? There are 4 basic differences, they are the size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.

Is a fetus a nonperson due to its size? Is a 4 foot person any less a person than a 6 foot one? No, so the size no matter what of the fetus should make the fetus or any human a nonperson.

The second thing is level of developement. Is a 17 year old more developed physically and mentally than a 2 year old? Yes. But is that 2 year old any less human? No. Level of developement had nothing to due with the nature of personhood.

Thirdly is the environment. How does a change of location classify a human as a nonperson? Does moving to a new state make you not a person? So how does living in a womb make a baby not a person, and quite simply it doesn't.

And finally is the degree of dependency. Are diabetics living on insulin or a man living on life support make them nonpersons? Would it be right to kill them based on their condition? No, so why would it be right to murder a baby in the womb.

The abortion issue isn't about the rights of the mother. It's about the rights of the baby. Murdering a human being is never okay. And. Based on the evidence above I have concluded that fetuses are persons and shod therefore have their own undeniable rights." ~Hobbes

[Vlerchan]

"[A]s early as eight or ten weeks of gestation, the fetus has a fully formed, beating heart, a complete brain... a recognizably human form...
Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.

That isn't surprising, because the idea that there is a precise moment when a foetus gets the right to live, which it didn't have a few moments earlier, feels very strange.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

You can quote people that agree with you. I can quote people that agree with me. The point is "t might become a human at some stage during the pregnancy, but there's no scientific consensus on this" as I mentioned earlier. The most common reference point is the point in which the foetus becomes viable if we want to argue to authority.

Does this also mean you support abortion up until 8 - 10 weeks?

I guess I have to rephrase that. It already has a normal human life, but what I'm referring to is life after birth. Potential because it could die before; either from miscarriage or abortion, or anything, really.
In what way is the life of a foetus comparable to that of a human being.

Human beings exist as a foetus first but this is before the human being's life begins.

Is it a parasite just because it can't live on its own yet?
That's what the definition of a parasite is.

Are babies parasites? Are children parasites? Tell me, can newborn babies live on their own yet?
Babies and children are not parasites in the sense I used it before. Both have a reliance on the mother or another person but their life isn't utterly dependent on the mother.

Besides, they won't stay that way forever.
Lets approach this from a different angle:

Should we also give it the right to vote? It will be 18 some day too.

But hey, you could die tomorrow. Does that give us the right to kill you?
No. But I don't think you should give me rights that are reserved for people further on in their development before the fact.

My point is that if everything goes as it should, then it will have a beating heart and a functioning mind.
If everything goes as it should I should have a PhD in economics.

I'm not expecting the Central Bank to recognise me as having a PhD in economics today though.

Yes, I do in fact consider animal lives to be sacred.
Do you support killing them for food?

Do you think they aren't?
I don't think the lives of animals are sacred, no.

I mean, I can understand food, because that's what they're made for.
No, it's not. We just decided that animals were tastier than the alternative.

But we shouldn't treat them like they aren't living beings.
Excluding killing them for food because that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to living beings whose lives are sacred right?

Is supporting abortion ethical if I commit to consuming the fouteses afterwards?

Do you even have a bit of regard for life at all?
Yes.

Do you think that just because animals can't think like we do, we could just treat them like they're trash?
I think it's moral to eat them. Though I think it's just sadistic to make their lives miserable otherwise.

Unfortunately, I have to deal with the exploitation because I'm a human being. Riding horses and drinking milk make me cringe, but what can I do? I have to go with how society is because it's not likely to change.
You can stop riding horses and drinking milk.

My girlfriend happens to be able to live a perfectly fine life while doing neither. Though I like milk.

First of all, it's semen, not seamen.
Thank you.

Millions of cells in your body die every day.
Lots of people die every day.

I don't think this is a reason to presume people aren't sacred, do you?

That's the sacred one, because it is the special one to make it through.
So, things aren't just sacred because we start as them.

Okay. I'm fine with that.

Millions of fetuses aren't made in a body of a woman.
But it's quite possible they can be.

The only reason the foetus is sacred is because you set some arbitrary point further back in our development.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't just throw them away like it's not likely for them to turn into born human children.
Ok. Well no-one has made this claim either.

Again, millions of semen are made in a single human.
I think you mean one semen in a million has a chance of impregnating a woman.

Only one of them makes it.
10 - 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage that means nature hasn't destined that foetus are to make it to term either. It might be the case that a foetus has more of a chance but that seems an entirely arbitrary judgement to me.

It's also the case that sometimes more than one makes it actually.

If something goes wrong while the child is unborn, such as miscarriage, then it isn't the mother's fault. She has no control over that But if the mother chooses to kill it through abortion, then it is her decision that kills the child We say kill, because it had life in the first place. If it hadn't had life, then what are we killing?
I never made the claim we weren't killing something. But sperm also has a life - when one of them doesn't make it: it dies - and if I choose to use a condom I'm making a deliberate effort to kill sperm. Is there an issue here? Just to hammer the point home I rephrased the above:

"If something goes wrong during sex, like the sperm just doesn't manage to fertilise the egg, then it's no-one's fault. But if someone chooses to use protection then it's their decision to kill the sperm. We say kill, because it had life in the first place. If it hadn't had life, then what are we killing?"

I'm also not seeing how this quite connects to the statement I made. But I'm responding to it anyway.

You are free to control your own person. The only problem is that you made a new person, and you want to destroy it.
If I'm free to control my own person then I should get to decide who gets to use my own person right? That seems essential.

That thing you made is not you anymore, it is something that came from you, and stays within you until it can live outside of you. It is a separate entity, which is only connected to you through a placenta. But it is not you. It wasn't in you before. It wasn't made just for you. You were just the means for it's creation. That fetus was made for the world, not just its mother.
It not being part of me makes it something that's it's possible to exclude from my person.

I'm not claiming I should get to control the foetus, by the way.

And why not?
You're the one who wants to grant it a right. You tell me why it should.

I like the Chomskian position that if an authroity can't be justified then it should be deconstructed post-haste.

As far as I know, they'll be born children soon enough, provided that they don't die on the way. They've done absolutely nothing wrong. Why kill it? Because it would only be a burden to the world? Because you can't handle it? If that's the case, then why don't we just kill all those children in the adoption centers? Why don't we just kill ever single prison convict or mental asylum patient? Why don't we kill people who cannot live alone because of terminal illness?
Why we should or shouldn't kill something is a different question to why something should have a right to life.

What makes them deserve life?
I like to use this argument:


Life is inherently meaningless; individuals are of no intrinsic value.
Through interaction, individuals create meaning; the value of the individual is founded within this process: as such, the value of the individual exists only with reference to others.
Individuals, being products of their historical & material realities, are an outgrowth of their communities: owing to this, communities form the base of all value; and whilst individuals themselves create meaning, their connection to their communities is of formidable importance.
From these three premises I derive a number of rights and duties:
Individuals have rights to create; that is, freedom of thought, speech, person, and association. These rights are all required in order to facilitate meaningful interaction.
Individuals have duties to conserve; that is, obligations towards universal sustenance (provision of health-care, shelter, food, water [founded in minimum basic income]), strengthening learning (provision of educational resources), the preservation of other’s lives, and the maintenance of social cohesion (base assimilation), all to be directed by a technocratic government. These duties are all required in order to ensure the integrity of the community is upheld.
That's it at its shortest.

I should add that I feel the right to life is an outgrowth of the right to control over ones own person. If you have this right then it should be impossible for a person to make a legitimate attempt on someone's life unless that someone is infringing prior to that original persons right to control over their own person.

That they will soon be contributing to society.
It sounds like they have the potential to be valuable. That's not the same as being valuable.

I would also consider two year olds valuable for what they contribute to the people around them through verbal and nonverbal interaction.

Why don't we make it legal to kill 2-year-olds because they're just "parasites"?
Just to be clear, this is based in you misunderstanding what I meant by 'parasite' and ignoring the idea that the basis of abortion is grounded in a person's assertion of their right to control over their own person. I'm not saying we should just go out and kill people for fun.

Though it may be hard, at least you're not taking a life.
In Ireland we've had a number of cases where the pregnant girl couldn't handle it and hung themselves. What should be done in their case?

I would also still consider this punishment.

I may be bombarded with Catholic ideals, but that doesn't mean I believe in them.
Snap. I'm the exact same.

Though, your rhetoric does come across as being at least influenced by Christianity. It's why I asked.

If it would cause her a great deal of harm, there isn't much she can do.
That you agree with.

I've also a question:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist

Is it moral to unplug? It seems to me like a similar case to the idea of rape-induced pregnancies.

There's more than one reason why rapists are evil.
Sorry. Is that a yes or a no to rapists being duty-bound in your moral universe to raising their offspring?

You should be aware of the risk.
Sure. But I'm also aware of the risk that each time I cross the road I might be hit by a speeding car.

This isn't me signing up to committing suicide regardless what happens.

Nurture the child by keeping it alive!
Ok. It seems I misunderstood what you meant by nurture.

To me nurture has connotations of the action being more personalised.

YOU could turn into a genocidal dictator. Why do we keep you alive? Because you could also NOT be a genocidal dictator! Why do we keep babies alive? THEY can also turn out to be genocidal dictators. Yet we still keep them alive. We keep them alive because of what they could become in the future.
So we're going to keep it alive for the sake of keeping it alive.

I'm not quite inclined to accept this argument.

How could you live with that?!?! How heartless can you be?!?
I'm studying economics and law. You tell me?

It won't stay there forever! It's only there temporarily. The fetus did not choose to be made; it is not at fault. The mother may not want it, but she should still try to keep it alive. Think of the child! The mother will live (hopefully), but the child won't! I don't want the child to be forsaken.
This does not address the argument I made.

It's not stealing, it's hospitality[1]. If the baby could survive on it's own, I bet it will. But it can't! The mother must provide it with food because she's the mother. That's her role as a mother[2]. It won't survive without the mother's body. The mother can survive with the child. Why can't we just lessen the death?[3]
[1]: Hospitality is something volunteered, and when you force woman to carry their children to term, then they're not volunteering.

[2]: But you're fine with woman giving up their roles as mothers through supporting adoption agencies? The woman is also providing it with a lot more than food with the foetus resides within her body.

[3]: I prefer to lessen the suffering and since the baby isn't sentient the suffering falls squarely on the person who wants to abort.

I do not mean legally. I mean according to definition. Legally, that is not murder, but it is still "deliberately killing a person".
Let's look at your definition.

[[i]Ibid:] murder (n): the crime of deliberately killing a person

I emphasised crime which refers to acts punishable by law. But let's look at legal dictionary:

The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

So murder is very much a legal construct. Since me and Uniquemind were discussing acts within the context of the law though it should have been quite clear that I was defining it as such.

They're people too. ;-;
I'm starting to see we're just not going to reach agreement on this issue are we?

It does not meet the legal definition, but it does meet the Merriam Webster definition. That does not make it any less of a crime. It still results in death, and that is what matters.
It doesn't meet the legal definition but still happens to be a crime?

Unless you're using the term crime in the archaic moral sense you're objectively wrong.

The second thing is level of developement. Is a 17 year old more developed physically and mentally than a 2 year old? Yes. But is that 2 year old any less human? No. Level of developement had nothing to due with the nature of personhood.
In this case. That's because we set a base level of development required to be considered human below both the median development of a 2 year old and 17 year old.

Thirdly is the environment. How does a change of location classify a human as a nonperson? Does moving to a new state make you not a person? So how does living in a womb make a baby not a person, and quite simply it doesn't.
How about existing outside the womb makes you a person, and existing inside the womb doesn't?

Seems coherent to me.

And finally is the degree of dependency. Are diabetics living on insulin or a man living on life support make them nonpersons? Would it be right to kill them based on their condition? No, so why would it be right to murder a baby in the womb.
You're again making incorrect assumptions about the meaning of these statements. Just because someone is dependent doesn't strip them of personhood. But we might consider a persona as existing above a base level of dependency.

You'll find the only other thing as dependent as a foetus is someone comatose and on life support. We're all quite comfortable with pulling the plug on him.

~Hobbes
Hobbes lived 300 years before the Suffragettes.

He also believed that an absolute dictatorship was the most moral form of government. Of course that's a character assassination and that's fallacious reasoning - but it's no more fallacious that citing random philosophers opinions and pretending they're authoritative.

[Uniquemind]

Well Quartz is making his own argument.

I'm making mine.


But my position in this debate is that all life is sacred. However what makes killing human life in a class of it's own as compared to killing animals, is that humans have a level of cognition that animals do not. Humans can understand their placement in and outside of time and use tools to make other tools that make the product.


Pro-choice: is the woman's right to both keep or abort the child.

Pro-abortion: is a more narrower definition that states one is pro-abortion for whatever reason. As I understand it those who hold this view, just don't see the problem with abortion, it doesn't bother them.

I am arguing a more nuanced position that balances pro-life ideals down to their premise, acknowledge a small flaw in the concept of equality among the genders over the right to parenthood, and also address 3 different scenarios where (1. female wants child while male does not. 2. male wants the child and can raise it but female does not. 3. female's life is in danger, child being wanted or not, is irrelevant).


--

Technical note of the debate: some of my comments/posts are written in the 2nd person. "You" isn't referring to a former VT poster, but is rather a general pronoun, the main point is the arguing concept behind the post.

Hence why you thought it was an ad hom post, when it's about critiquing the ethos of those who generally hold the position on this argument rather than just getting strength in numbers for an argument because that position happens to be the popular political correct opinion.

--

Also I think that while one is alive and can do everything to stay as safe as possible, they can still die in a freak accident but part of life is default consent of death from whatever, we just tend to push that concept out of our minds because it is uncomfortable. But you've reached a state in which you have control to minimize or maximize risk.



Also keep in mind that in my ideal societal situation, society makes sure newborns have a strong support network for moms or dads to raise their children so balancing work, school, parenthood, daycare, and really push away issues of lack of support single parent homes suffer from today in reality.


So it is in that kind of world, where women if pregnant, would be heavily pressured to give birth to the child.

Also within my own argument, I have to acknowledge that in cases were women choose to keep the child, they obviously cannot get resources from the man if the man doesn't have them to begin with and there's still the reality the man can flee beyond legal reach or the man is just crazy. In these cases, obviously the man fearing forced fatherhood can't force a woman to have an abortion against her will and that of the unborn offspring. His fate is up to fate as well.

Miscarriages are also up to fate, as long as they are induced. So since miscarriages are done without conscious action by either the male or female, I didn't bring them up.

Abortion implies direct interference beyond what biology encodes for.

--

Keep in mind that one of my first posts here in this thread, is siding with how the U.S. Surpreme Court Ruled regarding Roe v. Wade.


--

I'm not going into what drives or doesn't drive one to suicide because that's a separate topic, and suicides often occur after that person suffered tunnel vision thinking about what life had to offer them, in reality they probably had more options they couldn't see at the time.

So separate issue I'm getting distracted.

[phuckphace]

I'm not sure what the suboptimal conditions are.
The big issue is how hard it has become to support oneself and their families on a single income.

actually, you answered your own question there. having a family nowadays in the present conditions is an expensive proposition and in today's "fuck you, got mine" iEconomy where any given Monday your boss could call a meeting and say "we crunched the numbers and decided to give your job to an Indian contractor, see ya", a stupid gamble as well.

Supporting this with welfare flows will also be difficult since removing woman from the workforce will diminish the levels production (i.e., cause economic contraction).

I'm not going to remove them "manually" if that's what's you're referring to. I predict that if the optimal family-friendly economic conditions were to return, more women would leave the workforce voluntarily and have families as they used to.

Since the woman's engagement also contributes to a large extent to the savings level - and thus to the level of investment and this to production growth - that's also going to be difficult to recover.

I fully expect there to be quite a bit of economic contraction anyway - since our consumerist economy is padded out by a lot of excess shit that needs to be purged (see: Hollywood, professional sports, the pornography industry, etc.) Americans are people who will vote against a 0.02% sales tax increase to fund infrastructure but rush out in droves to give the NFL 10 billion dollars a year.

I also have a question: would you have an issue with it being the men who remained at home and the woman who worked? Or does it need to be just like the 50s?

don't care, I just want to see lots of healthy families not in peril of economic ruin.

[Vlerchan]

However what makes killing human life in a class of it's own as compared to killing animals, is that humans have a level of cognition that animals do not. Humans can understand their placement in and outside of time and use tools to make other tools that make the product.
Most humans have a certain level of cogitation that animals do not. Some don't Foetus' don't. So we're back to square one here.

---

We used to have a radical vegan here called Gamma Male, I'm going to presume he'd appreciate me regurgitating his arguments, and asking whether you thought the stance above was akin to social darwinism, just because something is not as competent as some arbitrary standard, does that make their life less valuable? Children and Foetus and some Mentally Disabled do not have the level of cognition described, what's there life worth? I think the structuralist theory of rights I outlined in the post I sent to Quartz is a better model of thought to use.

Hence why you thought it was an ad hom post, when it's about critiquing the ethos of those who generally hold the position on this argument rather than just getting strength in numbers for an argument because that position happens to be the popular political correct opinion.
No, it's still very much an adhom post when you claim that people shouldn't support other people doing what they can't stomach.

Where I live, my opinion is not politically popular, to the extent that there's more fingers on my hand than the amount of 'out' pro-choice people's in our national parliament.

Keep in mind that one of my first posts here in this thread, is siding with how the U.S. Surpreme Court Ruled regarding Roe v. Wade.
I remember that. Reading this post I really don't think we disagree on much.

---

actually, you answered your own question there. having a family nowadays in the present conditions is an expensive proposition and in today's "fuck you, got mine" iEconomy where any given Monday your boss could call a meeting and say "we crunched the numbers and decided to give your job to an Indian contractor, see ya", a stupid gamble as well.
I meant more that raising a family on a single median income doesn't tend to cut it regardless of how secure your job is. In order to afford a good standard of living it more or less requires that both parents work, i.e., there's a substantial enough difference between the median individual income and the median household income (~$20,000). You can remove this through two means and I'll describe their consequences:
Welfare flows, but with a return to one working-parent families there's going to be less and less of a scope for this, because there will be less production (because less producers) and less value-creation to be taxed;
Increased wages, presuming you use protection to stem the loss of competitiveness, the issue here is that the price of goods and services will rise, and this will around the real gains, i.e., you're not going to be richer, you're just going to have more cash on hand to purchase goods at inflated prices.
Welfare flows can naturally give way to the increased wages, because as woman pull out of the work force, and the supply of labour contracts, the price of labour (i.e., wages) will increase, but as I've mentioned there's going to be no real gains. However, an argument can be made here for the social costs of relative impoverishment being outweighed by the social costs of absent families.

I personally think if we want to go down this route, which I don't want to, compulsory dormitrisation during the school year (i.e., a switch to just military-orientated boarding schools), with welfare flows during the earliest years, would be superior. Like, if we're going to be paternalistic, then we might as well do it properly.

I'm not going to remove them "manually" if that's what's you're referring to. I predict that if the optimal family-friendly economic conditions were to return, more women would leave the workforce voluntarily and have families as they used to.
I wasn't. I was referring to incentivising them with welfare transfers.

You'll also need to describe family-friendly economic conditions. I've tried considering them, but we might be on different pages here.

I fully expect there to be quite a bit of economic contraction anyway - since our consumerist economy is padded out by a lot of excess shit that needs to be purged (see: Hollywood, professional sports, the pornography industry, etc.) Americans are people who will vote against a 0.02% sales tax increase to fund infrastructure but rush out in droves to give the NFL 10 billion dollars a year.
I wasn't talking about an economic contraction, I was talking about recovering from the economic contraction: you'd be running an economy of severely diminished potential.

[Uniquemind]

Most humans have a certain level of cogitation that animals do not. Some don't Foetus' don't. So we're back to square one here.

---

We used to have a radical vegan here called Gamma Male, I'm going to presume he'd appreciate me regurgitating his arguments, and asking whether you thought the stance above was akin to social darwinism, just because something is not as competent as some arbitrary standard, does that make their life less valuable? Children and Foetus and some Mentally Disabled do not have the level of cognition described, what's there life worth? I think the structuralist theory of rights I outlined in the post I sent to Quartz is a better model of thought to use.


No, it's still very much an adhom post when you claim that people shouldn't support other people doing what they can't stomach.

Where I live, my opinion is not politically popular, to the extent that there's more fingers on my hand than the amount of 'out' pro-choice people's in our national parliament.


I remember that. Reading this post I really don't think we disagree on much.

---


I meant more that raising a family on a single median income doesn't tend to cut it regardless of how secure your job is. In order to afford a good standard of living it more or less requires that both parents work, i.e., there's a substantial enough difference between the median individual income and the median household income (~$20,000). You can remove this through two means and I'll describe their consequences:
Welfare flows, but with a return to one working-parent families there's going to be less and less of a scope for this, because there will be less production (because less producers) and less value-creation to be taxed;
Increased wages, presuming you use protection to stem the loss of competitiveness, the issue here is that the price of goods and services will rise, and this will around the real gains, i.e., you're not going to be richer, you're just going to have more cash on hand to purchase goods at inflated prices.
Welfare flows can naturally give way to the increased wages, because as woman pull out of the work force, and the supply of labour contracts, the price of labour (i.e., wages) will increase, but as I've mentioned there's going to be no real gains. However, an argument can be made here for the social costs of relative impoverishment being outweighed by the social costs of absent families.

I personally think if we want to go down this route, which I don't want to, compulsory dormitrisation during the school year (i.e., a switch to just military-orientated boarding schools), with welfare flows during the earliest years, would be superior. Like, if we're going to be paternalistic, then we might as well do it properly.


I wasn't. I was referring to incentivising them with welfare transfers.

You'll also need to describe family-friendly economic conditions. I've tried considering them, but we might be on different pages here.


I wasn't talking about an economic contraction, I was talking about recovering from the economic contraction: you'd be running an economy of severely diminished potential.


Yeah but animals do not hold the potential for the neo-cortex. Animal intelligence sadly, caps out, with the exception of a few prodigies.

A foetus is on a developmental plan to have that high level thinking and executive function. Remember once born a child is legally still a minor for that reason, but it is still a crime to kill a child.

[Vlerchan]

Yeah but animals do not hold the potential for the neo-cortex. Animal intelligence sadly, caps out, with the exception of a few prodigies.
Your claim was that killing human was in a class of its own because of their superior intelligence, not their potential for this.

It's also the case that some of the severely mentally handicapped don't have this potential, is killing them more ethical?

Remember once born a child is legally still a minor for that reason, but it is still a crime to kill a child.
I believe you're on quite shaky ground when you begin attempt to connect legal principals to certain ethical principals. Self-defence clauses seems void the idea that human life is something inherently sacred, whilst the severely mentally handicapped remaining to have a right to life equivalent to other people seems to indicate that it's not something connected to potential.

[Uniquemind]

Your claim was that killing human was in a class of its own because of their superior intelligence, not their potential for this.

It's also the case that some of the severely mentally handicapped don't have this potential, is killing them more ethical?


I believe you're on quite shaky ground when you begin attempt to connect legal principals to certain ethical principals. Self-defence clauses seems void the idea that human life is something inherently sacred, whilst the severely mentally handicapped remaining to have a right to life equivalent to other people seems to indicate that it's not something connected to potential.


We'll let me say this. Human life is sacred yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't scenarios where it's acceptable to take human life of fully formed humans who had their shot at life and squandered it.


The idea behind pro-life the way I'm arguing it is that in abortion you are takin away life via a conscious 3rd party decision, of someone who had no causation to be not given a shot at life.


The disabled and handicapped still represent innocent humans, and because of human track record of not being able to quantify their worth in the past, they kinda get a free pass. For instance many with severe autism were cast aside in the past yet they contained many talents that were hidden from first analysis and first glance.

But we take people off life support all the time who are "disabled" now. As a society we already throw people away, but only after they were given a shot at as a fully formed being.

The disabled and handicapped are also a minority group.

Broad policies are meant to address the majority, just like I already made an acception about rape pregnancies.

[Vlerchan]

Human life is sacred yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't scenarios where it's acceptable to take human life of fully formed humans who had their shot at life and squandered it.
If it's the case that we can consider taking life acceptable then that leads to the conclusion that it's not sacred on the basis of it being a human life - or it having potential since even the most unethical of people hold this.

The idea behind pro-life the way I'm arguing it is that in abortion you are takin away life via a conscious 3rd party decision, of someone who had no causation to be not given a shot at life.
The woman - who's making the decision - is not a 3rd party since she holds a direct connection to the foetus. There also is cause - otherwise she wouldn't request it. It's a fair question over whether it's good cause though.

The disabled and handicapped still represent innocent humans, and because of human track record of not being able to quantify their worth in the past, they kinda get a free pass. For instance many with severe autism were cast aside in the past yet they contained many talents that were hidden from first analysis and first glance.
It doesn't matter if these people represent innocent humans. You've set the standard at them having potential - which I make an attempt to refute above. It's also the case that at least some don't have this potential - in which the question from above still stands - and I also find it questionable reasoning that because errors exist in the past we should just presume we're incorrect. But perhaps that's because I'm quite the Empiricist.

As a society we already throw people away, but only after they were given a shot at as a fully formed being.
You're now switching arguments. This is an appeal to perceived fairness.

I figure the same works with animals. Do you believe the same should apply to all animals?

It also does seem that this brings us full circle.

The disabled and handicapped are also a minority group.
Sure. But if we want our ethical principals to be coherent then minorities require consideration.

Broad policies are meant to address the majority, just like I already made an acception about rape pregnancies.
This is a lead-off from the debate I was having with Quartz. It was ethics and not policies we were discussing.

[Uniquemind]

Quartz was arguing ethics wasn't he?

My bad I think my arguments got a bit mixed up with his.

I apologize.
---

And to be quite blunt, yes the disabled who show no worth to society against the ratio of resources they take in versus what they could output would determine their worth either alive or dead, and that is probably tied to their cognition and general brain activity.


Except in the case for animals, we can't eat them for food. So their utility to us dead is also limited.

[Liven]

Abortion in my eyes should only be legal if the person had been raped. I think having a child should be a final decision, not an accidental thing.

[Aajj333]

It's not about whether or not you agree with it or not, it's about a women's right to it. There are valid reasons to get one and making it illegal will only unnecessarily put women through dangerous operations regardless of its legality. Quit worrying about a unborn baby and start worrying about living homeless children.

[Uniquemind]

It's not about whether or not you agree with it or not, it's about a women's right to it. There are valid reasons to get one and making it illegal will only unnecessarily put women through dangerous operations regardless of its legality. Quit worrying about a unborn baby and start worrying about living homeless children.

I get the sense you haven't followed the thread since page 1, if you had you'll know I'm playing devil's advocate.


You will also know that pro-lifers disagree and that they believe it is very necessary for women to endure it because that's what nature says should happen and the law should reflect that reality of nature.




Just in the same way men don't have to put up with menstrual cramps and monthly periods while women do. Such is the case of the consequences of sex. It is unfair but they are required because that's how you were born.


Another counter-argument I made was that the problem of homeless children is a problem due to society not valuing the concept of taking care of those who are already here and valuing children POST-birth.

I didn't get into it too much because it was a separate topic, but I did hint at promoting an entire societal structure change regarding support for families and parents to help support a decision to raise a child.

I never argued the position of getting rid of abortion while keeping the status quo of a high income-wealth gap, along with unsympathetic sick day and maternity/paternity leave for women and men.

[Vlerchan]

Quartz was arguing ethics wasn't he?

My bad I think my arguments got a bit mixed up with his.

I apologize.
It's cool. I can talk about policies either - but it's never something I'm quite fixated on in debates like this. I do think though that policies should reflect coherent standards.

And to be quite blunt, yes the disabled who show no worth to society against the ratio of resources they take in versus what they could output would determine their worth either alive or dead, and that is probably tied to their cognition and general brain activity.

Except in the case for animals, we can't eat them for food. So their utility to us dead is also limited.
Would you mind re-wording this? I'm not quite understanding. Thank you.

[Uniquemind]

It's cool. I can talk about policies either - but it's never something I'm quite fixated on in debates like this. I do think though that policies should reflect coherent standards.


Would you mind re-wording this? I'm not quite understanding. Thank you.

So just because someone is disabled doesn't mean their without merit in terms of their contribution to society: physical labor or intellectual/academic labor and reproductive labor, with the former two being mainly more important.

To stay alive and in existence, everyone uses the resources of food, water, shelter, money, electricity, and time just to name a few. If during your life one does not create and return something of value to break even with the cost of the resources they needed to stay alive, are they not a drain on society where those resources could've been redirected to another person who is just as deserving but might be more productive?


Given the framing of my debate, and the logical argument that one's intellect defines their humanity and worth keeping alive, the discussion now takes on why I would consider some people within the disabled community, due to their lack of self-sufficiency, match that of farm animals society kills for food, which we obviously don't consider sacred or bat an eyelash at disposing.

The only difference is that in death farm animals raised for food, creates merit for society, whereas theoretically throwing away the disabled doesn't create any merit in death, in the same way abortion doesn't create anything of merit. It's just a situation of cutting losses for a situation an individual or society is not prepared to deal with.

[Vlerchan]

This seems to be the main thrust of your point so I'm going to address just this.

[...] whereas theoretically throwing away the disabled doesn't create any merit in death, in the same way abortion doesn't create anything of merit.
Killing a severely disabled person does create merit, the elimination of a drain. Killing one person would save in terms of calories, carbon production, water wastage, etc., which I would consider a merit in itself. I think we don't kill these people because these people do create value: they mean something to someone (and we recognise this), it's just something we can't determine through the reduction of all things to logical positivism.

Aborting a foetus also creates some merit, or else the woman-in-question wouldn't request the abortion. In this case I also don't think the foetus creates value, because it does not have the ability to engage in the interactions to create it. This also does get back to the structuralist view of rights I presented to Quartz.

[Uniquemind]

This seems to be the main thrust of your point so I'm going to address just this.


Killing a severely disabled person does create merit, the elimination of a drain. Killing one person would save in terms of calories, carbon production, water wastage, etc., which I would consider a merit in itself. I think we don't kill these people because these people do create value: they mean something to someone (and we recognise this), it's just something we can't determine through the reduction of all things to logical positivism.

Aborting a foetus also creates some merit, or else the woman-in-question wouldn't request the abortion. In this case I also don't think the foetus creates value, because it does not have the ability to engage in the interactions to create it. This also does get back to the structuralist view of rights I presented to Quartz.

But like I said in the last sentence, what you call merit in those cases, I consider it as cutting losses. There's nothing created, only a reduction in demand for resources but that's all.

You are also saying that society does not value the foetus in the same way the dependent disabled are valued and that is why abortion is acceptably legal and ending the life of someone dependently disabled is suddenly a crime.

Both are dependent for society to care to keep them around because there is intrinsic value to their existence.


Abortion is horrible and should not be legal except in rare circumstances, and I am pointing out that it's premise is immoral, just as casting aside the disabled is immoral and society is repulsed by one and not the other.

If you are repulsed by something, why would you support it?

The moment you agree to have sex, you are agreeing to possible parenthood and abortion being legal as a means for those who took that crossroads choice, and allowing them to avoid the natural consequences of their actions, at the expense of new life.

I argued or addressed a possible reason abortion is sought out in the first place, is due to the pressure of parenthood being so hard, in which case my solution to that was having society embrace social changes to make and promote parenthood.

Any society needs a constant and consistent wave after wave of new generations of life to stay competitive as a society and as a species. Abortion when not used for saving the life of the mother, or in rape cases, hurts those values and slowly hurt society and it's moral premise is grey at best.


We'll see if women when living in a more welcoming motherhood and fatherhood society, still seek out underground abortions.

[Vlerchan]

But like I said in the last sentence, what you call merit in those cases, I consider it as cutting losses. There's nothing created, only a reduction in demand for resources but that's all.
This is just semantics.

The most common definition of merit - Eg: [1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merit)[2] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/merit)[3] (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/merit) also doesn't necessitate creation. So it's not even correct semantics.

You are also saying that society does not value the foetus in the same way the dependent disabled are valued and that is why abortion is acceptably legal and ending the life of someone dependently disabled is suddenly a crime.
This is an obvious truth. If it's justifiable to kill one and not the other then a difference in valuation must exist. Presuming that the basis of killing one has a basis in value at all. I'm sceptical of this though considering the most common pro-choice argument is derived from self-ownership.

Both are dependent for society to care to keep them around because there is intrinsic value to their existence.
I rejected earlier that either have intrinsic value.

I believe peoples value is founded in their connection with their communities as based in interactions.

Abortion is horrible and should not be legal except in rare circumstances, and I am pointing out that it's premise is immoral, just as casting aside the disabled is immoral and society is repulsed by one and not the other.
You're throwing a lot of things out here that I haven't seen substantiated.

I have questioned life as having intrinsic value or being sacred (self-defense clause - actions against animals).
I have questioned human life as having value founded in unique potential (reductio ad absurdum: forced euthanasia of the disabled).
I have questioned whether all life deserves a chance (actions against animals).

Is there a different arguments that's now being used to demonstrate how both are immoral without it being over-expansive?

---

This is also presuming - again - that we're viewing abortion law as based in devaluing the life of the foetus and not other things. It's coherent to believe that human life is sacred - but woman should have the right to abortion as based in their right to control over their own person or right to a private life.

[Uniquemind]

This is just semantics.

The most common definition of merit - Eg: [1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merit)[2] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/merit)[3] (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/merit) also doesn't necessitate creation. So it's not even correct semantics.


This is an obvious truth. If it's justifiable to kill one and not the other then a difference in valuation must exist. Presuming that the basis of killing one has a basis in value at all. I'm skeptical of this though considering the most common pro-choice argument is derived from self-ownership.


I rejected earlier that either have intrinsic value.

I believe peoples value is founded in their connection with their communities as based in interactions.


You're throwing a lot of things out here that I haven't seen substantiated.

I have questioned life as having intrinsic value or being sacred (self-defense clause - actions against animals).
I have questioned human life as having value founded in unique potential (reductio ad absurdum: forced euthanasia of the disabled).
I have questioned whether all life deserves a chance (actions against animals).

Is there a different arguments that's now being used to demonstrate how both are immoral without it being over-expansive?

---

This is also presuming - again - that we're viewing abortion law as based in devaluing the life of the foetus and not other things. It's coherent to believe that human life is sacred - but woman should have the right to abortion as based in their right to control over their own person or right to a private life.

If nature intended for women to have a choice post-sex, natural abortion, also known as miscarriage, should be a conscious decision within willful control, like flexing a muscle. But humans did not evolve this way.


In fact both potential parents post-sex, suspend control over their fate based on the results of the sex act. But they should know that going in. If they don't that's a failure on the sex education system.


1. Life does have intrinsic value, we kill animals for the sole purpose of promoting human life elsewhere. This contrast with abortion not used with the purpose of saving life, rather it's just taking it and not promoting it elsewhere.

[Vlerchan]

If nature intended for women to have a choice post-sex, natural abortion, also known as miscarriage, should be a conscious decision within willful control, like flexing a muscle. But humans did not evolve this way.
OK. I don't see a reason to care what nature intends.

I also have no idea how it's possible to relate ease back to nature's intentions.

In fact both potential parents post-sex, suspend control over their fate based on the results of the sex act.
Except when the woman takes the morning-after pill or decides to get an abortion.

1. Life does have intrinsic value, we kill animals for the sole purpose of promoting human life elsewhere. This contrast with abortion not used with the purpose of saving life, rather it's just taking it and not promoting it elsewhere.
This doesn't demonstrate that life has intrinsic value in the generally intended sense.

I also don't disagree that hunting and abortions occur for different reasons. I'm not sure of the relevance though. If we're basing abortion in a right to kill - as opposed to a devaluation of the foetus life: and that is what we have shifted to - then I see the woman's right as grounded in her right to control over her own person.

Two questions:
Would foeticide then me moral if we passed on its remains to stem cell research?
Would foeticide then me moral if we committed to consuming the remains?

[Uniquemind]

OK. I don't see a reason to care what nature intends.

I also have no idea how it's possible to relate ease back to nature's intentions.


Except when the woman takes the morning-after pill or decides to get an abortion.


This doesn't demonstrate that life has intrinsic value in the generally intended sense.

I also don't disagree that hunting and abortions occur for different reasons. I'm not sure of the relevance though. If we're basing abortion in a right to kill - as opposed to a devaluation of the foetus life: and that is what we have shifted to - then I see the woman's right as grounded in her right to control over her own person.

Two questions:
Would foeticide then me moral if we passed on its remains to stem cell research?
Would foeticide then me moral if we committed to consuming the remains?


Okay I have to say this. (non-devil's advocate comment/post)

What nature intends is the whole core of why abortion offends pro-lifers.

The morning-after-pill is also hated by pro-lifers for the same reason abortion is.

In some cases in-vitro fertilization is also frowned upon by pro-lifers.

Death, if due to natural causes, is welcome, but tragic from those who reside in the pro-life community.

In the case of abortion, pro-lifers only see the reason for the procedure of abortion for two things:

1. Escaping parenthood/consequences of parenthood

(for whatever sub-reasons: not mentally mature enough, not wealthy enough, don't like the father, etc.)

2. Medical Reasons

3. Rape

---(resume devil's advocate)-----

To answer your two last questions:

1. It would be more redeeming yes, until science found a way to get stem cells or another resource that serves the same purpose that foetal stem cell medical treatments would without the practice of ending the life.


2. If it were safe for humans to consume it's own kind for sustenance, sure.




Also self-defense, is the concept preserving life, usually one's own or loved ones, means taking life only in a very narrow reason of being threatened with your life being taken.

[Vlerchan]

Okay I have to say this. (non-devil's advocate comment/post)
I realise what the pro-life position entails, I just don't agree with it.

1. It would be more redeeming[,] yes[.]

2. If it were safe for humans to consume it's own kind for sustenance, sure.
This is an interesting line we're taking. Let me be more general:

Is it moral to kill something as long as its useful to us? Or just because it furthers life otherwise? I also don't believe it's possible to refer to cost-benefit analysis here, since that would require placing a value on life, which might be difficult.

I also think that the above undermines all appeals to the inherent sacredness of life. If like is sacred, then the above wouldn't even be of consideration.

Also self-defense, is the concept preserving life, usually one's own or loved ones, means taking life only in a very narrow reason of being threatened with your life being taken.
Sure. However, the point remains, that in some cases we are all willing to accept that life has no inherent sacredness.

[Uniquemind]

Well I think our views differ in the implementation of theory.


You are adopting a broad blanket theory.


My theory is a precision theory that is looking and treating the issue of allowing or not allowing abortion on a more circumstantial basis.


--

We also have different views on what sacredness means.

Sacredness to me means you hold something in high esteem, but doing so doesn't mean it is off the table for use to you even if you require it's death. You just have to use it responsibly and replenish what you took to show respect.

You violate sacredness when you use resources without control or abandon.


A lot of my argument is based on the premise that abortion is not used correctly by society, and should not be legal past a certain point in development and for certain reasons regarding wanting one only because one is escaping parenthood.

[Vlerchan]

You are adopting a broad blanket theory.

My theory is a precision theory that is looking and treating the issue of allowing or not allowing abortion on a more circumstantial basis.
No, what I've done is created a overarching principal (metalogical framework) which I use to derive circumstantial ethical values from. It just happens to be the case here that the structure is quite uncomplicated - holding a single consideration - so it leads to quite an unambiguous favouring.

What you've done is selected a principal to applies in the case of X but then refuse to apply that same principal in the case in Y - which seems the same - with no actual reasoning offered (that I don't question). Each time I've questioned a line of reasoning of yours, it has had to do with attempting to figure the basis of the distinctions between these cases.

Or this is how I see it.

Sacredness to me means you hold something in high esteem, but doing so doesn't mean it is off the table for use to you even if you require it's death. You just have to use it responsibly and replenish what you took to show respect.
I hold sacredness more in-line with religious connotations of the term; invaluable; of the ultimate esteem.

I also don't think killing someone in self-defence replenish life. It just protects yours, and perhaps others, but that's not the same thing.

I last question whether it's possible to truly replenish life outside a most-redundant abstract sense.

[Atom]

Hell no I'm not reading 3 pages of debate on abortion. Will still leave my probably unwanted (because I'm a) a guy, and b) a gay guy) opinion though.
I'm pro-choice. I'll go ahead and redirect your attention without giving a solid argument - there are tons of things that are just as unnatural as abortion.
Like:
- having same-sex relationships;
- being thin, trying to stay in shape (ladies?);
- sexual monogamy;
- wiping (jk).
etc.
What I'm saying is that abortion is just another thing people need to get over. Nobody forces you to do it (if he does then you need to leave that fucker). If a woman really doesn't want this baby - she'll find a way to get rid of it and this would be a lot less pretty. So why not offer legal help of a professional? I know there are many other different bad things about abortion, but I believe that they do not outweigh the good ones.

[Uniquemind]

Hell no I'm not reading 3 pages of debate on abortion. Will still leave my probably unwanted (because I'm a) a guy, and b) a gay guy) opinion though.
I'm pro-choice. I'll go ahead and redirect your attention without giving a solid argument - there are tons of things that are just as unnatural as abortion.
Like:
- having same-sex relationships;
- being thin, trying to stay in shape (ladies?);
- sexual monogamy;
- wiping (jk).
etc.
What I'm saying is that abortion is just another thing people need to get over. Nobody forces you to do it (if he does then you need to leave that fucker). If a woman really doesn't want this baby - she'll find a way to get rid of it and this would be a lot less pretty. So why not offer legal help of a professional? I know there are many other different bad things about abortion, but I believe that they do not outweigh the good ones.

Actually the first two are natural.

Sexual monogamy makes sense to not be natural, but wiping?

I don't understand the example of wiping...like wiping one's butt for cleanliness?

If so animals have grooming behaviors to keep clean.

--

Also one can argue that due to unnatural society's standards of cleanliness it has only contributed to an elastic effect and humanity will be more than made up by the era of anti-biotic resistant disease epidemics soon.


Only in a religious context (and only in some main religions) are same-sex relations looked down on.

And in the premise of anti-abortion I was not inherently on the platform of no abortion at all, even as I was playing devil's advocate.

[Atom]

Like wiping one's butt for cleanliness?
Yes, and I've already told that it was a joke, so... I don't see why you would start an argument about it.
Only in a religious context (and only in some main religions) are same-sex relations looked down on.
It is unnatural in the organic life's sense. Baby making and all that. But, as I've said already, I don't see anything wrong with it. Just like abortion and staying thin.

[Elena_]

I think it shouldnt be legal , killing a human being is not good ...

[Arkansasguy]

Should abortion be legal? Debate the topic in this thread.

Personally, I think it should absolutely be legal. Whether you view it as right or wrong doesn't matter to the rape victim who so desperately wants an abortion. People will say"well it's murder. "Not really. While you are killing a living thing, the thing you are killing (at that stage in development) isn't rational or grown at all.

Abortion is an unspeakable crime. It is the murder of one's own progeny, a combination of the evils of murder and suicide in one crime.

Every argument you just advanced could equally be used to justify infanticide.

[Microcosm]

Abortion is an unspeakable crime. It is the murder of one's own progeny, a combination of the evils of murder and suicide in one crime.

It is debatable whether an unborn baby having been in the womb for only two weeks is the equivalent of an actually born baby. Therefore, you need to back up your claim that an unborn baby of such is equal to one's own progeny a bit more.

Every argument you just advanced could equally be used to justify infanticide.

Following on my previous statement, this is not true because infanticide is completely different from abortion and holds a different effect entirely as you are not killing something that would be able to feel and understand what was happening to it.

[Arkansasguy]

It is debatable whether an unborn baby having been in the womb for only two weeks is the equivalent of an actually born baby. Therefore, you need to back up your claim that an unborn baby of such is equal to one's own progeny a bit more.

it is a human being. Literally, a being that is human. Unless you can identify some other characteristic to attach personhood to, my statement stands.

Following on my previous statement, this is not true because infanticide is completely different from abortion and holds a different effect entirely as you are not killing something that would be able to feel and understand what was happening to it.

1. An infanticide victim cannot understand what is happening to it.

2. Some infants lack physical feeling (e.g. Those with only a brain stem).

[Uniquemind]

it is a human being. Literally, a being that is human. Unless you can identify some other characteristic to attach personhood to, my statement stands.



1. An infanticide victim cannot understand what is happening to it.

2. Some infants lack physical feeling (e.g. Those with only a brain stem).

Well that's the rub isn't it?

What is a human being? Is it the chromosome count or the DNA? Is it the soul?

If it's the soul how do you prove or explore what the soul is without dabbling in occult?

[CharlieHorse]

technically human babies are born a few months too early compared to other animals, so why not allow abortions up until then? XD

[dubsteppredator]

As long as your not using a coat hangar. No just kidding, as said above a rape victim probably wouldn't want to see the baby. It would remind them of the person who raped them and it might even make them hate the baby. Especially young girls who are raped.

[Arkansasguy]

Well that's the rub isn't it?

What is a human being? Is it the chromosome count or the DNA? Is it the soul?

If it's the soul how do you prove or explore what the soul is without dabbling in occult?

A human being is an individual being, that is human.

[Microcosm]

A human being is an individual being, that is human.

Up to a certain point in its unborn development, a baby cannot feel pain and it cannot think or perceive what is happening to it. Therefore, without its perception or feeling or reason, what makes it human? Is it such a bad thing to kill it? It doesn't meet all of the characteristics of a human being in its entirety. It cannot think properly or feel. It is really no more than killing an animal, when you think about it.

I know that sounds kind of heartless at first, and trust me I wouldn't want to kill an unborn baby either, but if someone really didn't want their baby and it was at such a stage in its development, then why stop them from getting rid of it?

I agree that there should be limitations on abortion, but no abortion whatsoever seems a bit harsh.

[Vlerchan]

A human being is an individual being, that is human.
Define: "individual"?

If I hold an inherent reliance on another organism am I an "individual"?

---

I'm also going to leave Uniquemind to deal with the general vagueness of this definition.

[Arkansasguy]

Up to a certain point in its unborn development, a baby cannot feel pain and it cannot think or perceive what is happening to it. Therefore, without its perception or feeling or reason, what makes it human? Is it such a bad thing to kill it? It doesn't meet all of the characteristics of a human being in its entirety. It cannot think properly or feel. It is really no more than killing an animal, when you think about it.

I know that sounds kind of heartless at first, and trust me I wouldn't want to kill an unborn baby either, but if someone really didn't want their baby and it was at such a stage in its development, then why stop them from getting rid of it?

I agree that there should be limitations on abortion, but no abortion whatsoever seems a bit harsh.

There are born people who lack perception. What makes it human is that it has the form of a human (human DNA, it tends to physically look like a human, etc.).

Define: "individual"?

If I hold an inherent reliance on another organism am I an "individual"?

---

I'm also going to leave Uniquemind to deal with the general vagueness of this definition.

Yes. Every human on Earth is inherently reliant on other organisms.

[Vlerchan]

Yes. Every human on Earth is inherently reliant on other organisms.
That was poor phrasing on the part of mine.

I am referring to the fact that the foetus has a constant dependence on the mother to allow for it's continued existence. In what manner does it exist as an individual?

It might also be quicker to provide a coherent definition of what an individual is. It would avoid needing to engage with my tiresome semantics.

[Arkansasguy]

That was poor phrasing on the part of mine.

I am referring to the fact that the foetus has a constant dependence on the mother to allow for it's continued existence. In what manner does it exist as an individual?

It might also be quicker to provide a coherent definition of what an individual is. It would avoid needing to engage with my tiresome semantics.

An individual X is an X that is not a proper part of another X.

Everyone constantly depends on other things.

[Vlerchan]

An individual X is an X that is not a proper part of another X.
Now define: "proper" please.

Everyone constantly depends on other things.
You'll find a foetus relies constantly on a living thing to cater to all manner of its existence.

I again ask in what manner is it "individual"?