You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 09:38:29 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech  (Read 10092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2010, 03:14:29 PM »
If you would like to discuss each others' posts at length, there is a dialogue forum for that.

A general discussion of ethics is off-topic. So discuss it somewhere else, please.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #51 on: October 16, 2010, 08:04:15 AM »
Your argument seems to be:  "the fact that the fetus will become a human being means it deserves the rights of a human being."  The problem with that is, it will only become a human being if the mother suffers through nine months of pregnancy to facilitate its maturation within her womb.  You're setting an arbitrary point at which the potential for life becomes important -- your view it's conception, why not preconception?  Why aren't egg cells and semen given the same reverence since they have the potential to form the basis of a human life as well.

It seems as if you're arguing that because, for example, semen cannot form a child on its own then it shouldn't be given the same reverence.  That seems reasonable until you realize that a fetus cannot become a child on its own either.  Returning to my earlier point, it has to be nourished by a mother in her womb at her expense for nine months in order to receive all of the chemicals it needs to become a child.  A fetus is simply further down the line than semen is, more complete to be certain, but not complete.  That human being is being constructed while in her womb from materials it is taking from the mother.

Saying genetic material is the defining material that gives moral weight strikes me as completely arbitrary, a designation made simply for the sake of justifying a position in opposition to abortion.  Genetic material is not special; it too is just physical material arranged in a particular way.We know when biological life begins, but certainly that isn't "human life."  The question is, when does human life begin?  The two do not begin concurrently, but all of the things we associate with human life (mainly thought) are fundamentally impossible for a fetus because it doesn't have the mental faculties to do such for reasons discussed throughout the thread.

A fetus is a child just an unborn one. An egg on its own or a sperm on its own is not a genetic child gestating in the mother is it? You need both right now until they develop cloning or some technique to get around basic natural biology. As for the latter what is more arbitrary your assumption that a child at birth is a person or mine that its at conception. I have as much ground as you the unborn little baby in the mother will be a human being and at birth its also a human being. My position is when one cannot be sure then go for the simplest view that offers the most protection to human life at conception so that the mother then has the same rights to life but matching her child to live. If the mothers life is in danger I'm all for tipping the balance of survival to that life that is here the standard the Jewish faith gives. Over the narrow one that defends the child at all costs. But I pointed out all other options must be ruled out including giving a very premature child even a 1% chance of survival outside the childs mother if needed. As for the mother and the pregnacy its for me not an issue her right was gone when the child was conceivd in her but she can opt to adopt out the child.

As for why should it be illegal abortion should not, that is medical practice and may be necessary to save the life of the mother. What should be the case is tolimit it to medically necessary cases which noone is saying should not be the case. But have also strong sex educationa and ready available to contraception to avoid getting pregnant i'm not a purde I'm all for sex but in a way that is responsible so that abortions are not necessary. Roe vs, Wade was a bad case the states have the right and should regulate medical practice then if you want abortion on demand fight it out at that level.

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2010, 12:49:46 PM »
I have as much ground as you the unborn little baby in the mother will be a human being and at birth its also a human being.

Will be is the operational word. Which is why the question is asked what makes its potential more protectable or sacred than the potential of an unfertilized egg or sperm who also have the potential to become a human being. Why is it acceptable to masturbate and kill millions of 'potentials' in one go, or to shed potential once a month via menstruation, but eliminating the potential of a fetus is a more grave offense?

Quote
My position is when one cannot be sure then go for the simplest view that offers the most protection to human life at conception so that the mother then has the same rights to life but matching her child to live.

Is the simplest view forcing a woman to allow a second life to leech off of the very things her body requires to survive for nine months followed by painful labor and weeks of recovery followed by more than several months to struggle to take the weight off, or is it to value the pre-existing life more than mere potential and allow the pre-established life to decide what can and cannot take over her body and use her resources and allowing her to decide? A woman isn't going to choose abortion every time. The fact that the option is there doesn't mean it's going to be right for everyone. There are plenty of women out there who will choose to carry to term and there will be some who don't, as we've seen since the advent of Roe v Wade.

The simplest solution is not to force women and men alike into a decision and take some of their own dignity in the process -- and it certainly wouldn't prevent those who wanted one badly enough from seeking a remedy anyway -- but allowing them to decide what is best for their situation. A fetus does not have and should not have the same amount of rights that a fully-grown and established adult does and never at any point in time should an organism that essentially leeches for survival be ruled over its host. Something that requires me to rent out my womb to feed and nurture it in every aspect of its early development in order to even give it a hope of exiting my body alive does not have the same right to life that I do.

Quote
As for why should it be illegal abortion should not, that is medical practice and may be necessary to save the life of the mother. What should be the case is tolimit it to medically necessary cases which noone is saying should not be the case. But have also strong sex educationa and ready available to contraception to avoid getting pregnant i'm not a purde I'm all for sex but in a way that is responsible so that abortions are not necessary.

Well no, actually, I'm saying that shouldn't be the case. There are plenty of people who are saying that it shouldn't be only medically necessary abortions should be legal. That's kind of the whole point of a lot of people rallying to keep abortion legal to the general public.

The biggest flaw in your view on contraception is that the only failsafe form of contraception is abstinence, which already doesn't line up with your opinion that sex is okay. No form of contraception is 100% effective -- there will always be the margin of user error on top of its general rate of protection. The pill is 99% effective with perfect use, but how many women forget to take a pill now and then? Condoms are about 97% effective with perfect use, but average use drops that number down to 90% or so -- and that's if you use a condom every single time. 10 out of 100 women will get pregnant despite trying to be safe, and you're still willing to deny them an abortion despite the fact that they've taken the right steps to prevent the need for one? Your expectations are unrealistic. If we had a form of contraception that guaranteed there would be no pregnancy, that person would probably be given a Nobel prize, but the fact is, it doesn't exist. Any sex you have comes with a risk at some level. People don't typically plan on winding up with STD's just like they don't typically plan to wind up with an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy.

Offline Serephino

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2010, 08:09:26 PM »
Something that's been brought up, but still not answered is that if a pregnant woman is murdered the killer usually gets charged with the murder of the unborn child too.  But if the mother doesn't want it she can kill it?  That just seems like a double standard to me.  You can't have it both ways.  Either the life of an unborn child has value, or it doesn't. 

Also, while I agree that only abstinence is 100% effective, there are many resources, such as the ovulation calender on the American Pregnancy Association website. 

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/ovulationcalendar.html

It can't pinpoint ovulation exactly, but it does tell you about when your fertile period is.  If you really don't want to get pregnant that badly, you use that calender and then you don't have sex on the days with the little circles on them.

I don't think sex is bad, but I do believe in personal responsibility.  While sex is fun, its primary biological function is reproduction.  Every time you do it you risk pregnancy.  If that risk isn't worth it to you, then don't do it, or do everything humanly possible to make the risk as low as you can.  That's one of the reasons why I never had sex with any of the girls I've dated, even when they wanted to.   

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2010, 08:44:57 PM »
The ovulation calendar, while useful for trying to become pregnant, is one of the least effective ways of avoiding pregnancy.  They used to call it the 'rhythm method', it was the only method of birth control (other than abstinence) approved by the Catholic Church - and they had a name for people who used it as their primary birth control method.



Parents.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #55 on: October 16, 2010, 08:46:48 PM »
In the case of incest and rape one can debate to me the birth control option but if a woman willingly splays her legs she has to expect pregnancy can result. If a woman uses the pill or similar method and the man one form its more effectiove or a woman can use a diaphram and the pill, or contraceptive foam and the pill or any other combo. I take the pill and am gay in case some sick pervert rapes me I want that layer of protection since as a sexually mature woman I Can get pregnant.

But even if its the case of incest or rape one can consider the health of the mother if a very young mother its likely a concern, if not adopt out the child. I actually want this all out of the hands of the parents but in the hands of doctors using their best medical knowledge and clear laws. Ideally to get an abortion one should get a legal opinion of two doctors and the approval of a judge in writing, if there are medical grounds then it should be simple enough.

As for the egg and sperm until they are together in a little baby in the mother is it life in the sense it will become a human being after nine months, apart its clearly not. Unless you can show me where an egg or sperm can become a gestating child alone without medical technology. For me its not a reasonable argument.

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #56 on: October 16, 2010, 09:24:44 PM »
In the case of incest and rape one can debate to me the birth control option but if a woman willingly splays her legs she has to expect pregnancy can result.

I thought we got past the attitude that women who have sex are whores beginning with the feminist sexual revolution around the 60's or so. Actually, if a woman "willingly splays her legs", she's practicing a normal, healthy human behavior -- AKA the drive to have sex. Your views are all over the board -- you think sex is okay, that women should use contraception, but that if they open their legs, they should expect to become pregnant...even though they're taking measures so they don't have to expect pregnancy? I think that's more than just a little misogynistic and painfully hypocritical of you. It's not even consistent.

Quote
If a woman uses the pill or similar method and the man one form its more effectiove or a woman can use a diaphram and the pill, or contraceptive foam and the pill or any other combo. I take the pill and am gay in case some sick pervert rapes me I want that layer of protection since as a sexually mature woman I Can get pregnant.

You take the pill and you're gay and that...what? I...don't understand...That doesn't make sense.

And I'm pretty sure women that rely on free/reduced-cost clinics can only be prescribed one method of birth control at a time under their coverage. Do those women deserve to be slightly more prone to pregnancy because they can't afford it? Do they "deserve" pregnancy they can't afford? If I recall, you often defend the lower-class as needing to be protected, and here we are now...

Quote
But even if its the case of incest or rape one can consider the health of the mother if a very young mother its likely a concern, if not adopt out the child.

Just curious. If you're raped, if your sister or mother or even any potential daughter of yours is raped, you'd make them carry it to term. Can we clarify this? I actually personally find that absolutely horrifying. Age should not play a factor. That is absolutely horrendous and extending that pain by making a woman carry a child conceived through a brutal and abhorrent act is cruel. Some women choose to carry to term and they find that they love their baby and it has changed their life for the better in the end, but they need to be allowed to make that choice to begin with.

Quote
I actually want this all out of the hands of the parents but in the hands of doctors using their best medical knowledge and clear laws. Ideally to get an abortion one should get a legal opinion of two doctors and the approval of a judge in writing, if there are medical grounds then it should be simple enough.

...Why would you completely remove this from the hands of the people -- the women whose bodies are actually affected by this, as well as the men who will have to support the child? How does that make sense at all? I'm all for letting medical professionals be involved, but I'm not about to agree that the foreign occupation of my womb and forced resource-leeching be entirely left up to people who don't actually have to live with the long-term consequences. We're not talking about lending out an inanimate space here. We're talking about whether or not it's okay to tell a person that they have to share their body, their actual physical being with something they don't want. That's not an issue you exclude the actual person on given that it's their life and their only body.

I don't think abortions should be like fast food, I don't think it should be that easy, but I'm also not comfortable with someone who's not me having the final word that I have to carry something in my body and nurture it. You know what some are going to do instead? They're going to keep smoking and drinking and doing everything they can to terminate their pregnancy through other means. If they don't kill the baby, they're sure as hell upping its chances of coming out deformed either mentally or physically. Are we going to police that, too? That's hardly fair to the child and it's hardly fair to the mother. Nobody wins. Pregnancy should not be punishment.

Quote
As for the egg and sperm until they are together in a little baby in the mother is it life in the sense it will become a human being after nine months, apart its clearly not. Unless you can show me where an egg or sperm can become a gestating child alone without medical technology. For me its not a reasonable argument.

You keep missing the point. How much potential is "enough" potential? Why are they more worthy of protection when they are conjoined than when they are separately? What makes a fertilized egg that will possibly gestate in nine months more precious than an egg and a sperm that could connect tomorrow and form a baby in nine months and one day?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 10:01:24 PM by Noelle »

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #57 on: October 16, 2010, 09:36:50 PM »
Sorry, I'm double-posting. Figured it might be easier to reply individually this way.

Something that's been brought up, but still not answered is that if a pregnant woman is murdered the killer usually gets charged with the murder of the unborn child too.  But if the mother doesn't want it she can kill it?  That just seems like a double standard to me.  You can't have it both ways.  Either the life of an unborn child has value, or it doesn't. 

Do you support abortion in cases of rape or incest? Curious.

I think intent plays a large part in blame in terms of fetus murder. Yes, it places a lot of power in the hands of the mother, and as much as I hate resorting back to this argument, she's the one who is sacrificing her body, health, and other resources to bring new life into this world. I don't necessarily agree with the imbalance of power, since I think men should be able to at least protect themselves from financial obligation if they don't want the child but the mother does, but it is what it is.  If another person forcefully takes the child away from her without her consent, I think they rule based on intent to give birth to another human. I honestly wouldn't be opposed to them reducing the penalty on behalf of the fetus, though, because I don't think intent is enough alone to deem it worthy of calling it a full-fledged murder, same as any person outside the womb. :P Justice, maybe? Avenging the wrongful death of a mother and soon-to-be child? No idea.


Quote
I don't think sex is bad, but I do believe in personal responsibility.  While sex is fun, its primary biological function is reproduction.  Every time you do it you risk pregnancy.  If that risk isn't worth it to you, then don't do it, or do everything humanly possible to make the risk as low as you can.  That's one of the reasons why I never had sex with any of the girls I've dated, even when they wanted to.   
[/color]

That works for you, but your decision should not be everyone's decision, and for a lot of human beings in general, that's easier said than done. People have been having sex for pleasure for a very long time now -- it's a perfectly natural urge. A lot of what makes abortion important is that it levels the playing field between men and women. Men have little to no direct risk involved (besides the mother carrying it to term, making him pay child support, blah blah, but even that isn't foolproof given how many deadbeat guys there are out there and the hassle you have to go through to go after them to pay it, if they even can) and I can't agree that women should have to be the only ones to bear the burden of consequence for their actions. It's inequal, simple biology has made sure of it, that much can't be disputed, but we can try and balance those inequalities by offering women a way to take more control of that. It's human to err. If a man doesn't pull out in time, if he doesn't put the condom on correctly, the woman is the direct recipient of the consequence.

Abstinence only doesn't work as an effective advertisement, and because humans are going to be naturally apt to ignore it, it's more vigilant to find ways to protect those people from ever needing an abortion than it is to try to convince them to stop all together. Using pregnancy as a "haha, told you so" is a very poor way to justify it (not that I'm saying that's what you want).

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #58 on: October 16, 2010, 10:09:50 PM »
You take the pill and you're gay and that...what? I...don't understand...That doesn't make sense.

I believe that was supposed to mean that, although Ruby is gay, and would not be able to get pregnant by accident in the normal course of consensual activities, she chooses to take the Pill as a precaution, on the (hopefully) off chance that some sicko rapes her.

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #59 on: October 16, 2010, 10:15:30 PM »
Ahaha, it was just worded very strangely, jumping from talking about two different methods of contraception and then listing the pill and being gay. I was very confused!

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #60 on: October 16, 2010, 10:17:30 PM »
It's really, really insulting to be preached to about the dangers of sex by people who are in primarily homosexual relationships. If the point of having sex is reproduction, why would two women or two men do it? Oh, right, because it feels good. Which would be the actual primary reason people who are not actively looking to conceive have sex.

So don't even start down that path, please.

It's also not a double standard to prosecute someone who kills a fetus of murder in addition to the mother, any more than it's a double standard to charge someone with assault if they attack her and remove her uterus while it's legal for her to do so. The difference is consent, and it has to do with what's done to another's body with or without their permission.

There seems to be a point missing here: Criminalizing abortion doesn't actually stop abortions from happening. It just makes them more dangerous, and makes a modern medical procedure available only to the affluent, while those who can't afford one on the sly make do with shoving stuff up their vagina or ingesting toxic substances and hoping that those substances are more toxic to the unwanted embryo than they are to the person ingesting them.

Why, why, why would we deny modern medicine to the lower classes deliberately when we've just spent so much frustration and money and time trying to make health care - yes, including abortions - accessible to people who can't afford it? Is it that people who don't share the anti-choice view -  the view that parasitic embryonic tissue is sacred - should be punished with disease, infection, sterility and death? That's not right, man.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 10:24:53 PM by Trieste »

Offline mystictiger

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #61 on: October 16, 2010, 11:14:48 PM »
I completely agree with the "Criminalising-most things-doesn't-stop-them" point. What stops me from stealing or murdering or having carnal knowledge of a cow isn't the fact that it's illegal, but that I think it's wrong. The kind of thing that criminalisation stops me from doing is parking illegally, but that's mostly because I don't want to get a ticket.

I'm far less sanguine 'people will do it anyway' argument, does it apply also to drugs? Criminalising cocaine means that it gets cut with all kind of nasties. If it were legal, it would be safer. The same is true of a number of other really very divisive issues: euthanasia, prostitution, fox hunting, arms dealing, bear-baiting, dwarf-tossing, and so on. Or is abortion 'special'?

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2010, 12:23:33 AM »
Absolutely it applies to drugs. If you'd like to discuss it in-depth, I'd be happy to make a separate thread with my view, but for now, I'll give you the abridged version to stay relevant. Long story slightly shorter? Drugs aren't nearly as dangerous as people make them out to be. Promoting responsible use and providing people with ample information about the drug is the best possible protection you could offer them. Knowledge truly is power. Legalizing drugs allows not only a safer and more controlled end-product, but it also allows a push for people to make more informed decisions, to provide them with safe outlets for their recreation, and to better provide support for those who truly do need help. Not every person caught smoking pot needs NA or has a soul-crushing addiction. We need to save those resources for those who truly do have a problem and focus more of our attention on those people instead.

Anyway, drawing back from that tangent, how does this relate to abortion? Provide women with all possible angles, with all possible knowledge she can have about her choices and she will be more likely to make the best possible decision in the end. It doesn't matter to me whether or not that decision ends up in an abortion, it matters that the option to choose it -- or not choose it at all is there. You can better protect those women who can so easily fall victim to people who are illegally providing potentially questionable and unsanitary forms of abortion. You can better care for those who truly are having emotional struggles over their pregnancy (and potential abortion) rather than forcing those women to stay silent and deal with it on their own. I would say the same of prostitution and euthanasia, as well. It comes back to protecting the people and providing adequate and accurate knowledge instead of letting them rely on hearsay from possibly dangerous places. The more you know, the better your choice will likely be.

Offline mystictiger

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #63 on: October 17, 2010, 07:52:48 AM »
The point I was rather unsuccessfully trying to make is this:

Laws are a method of social control
Laws are enacted by the legislative organ of a state
Laws are therefore what the legislature thinks is right

Thus if a state outlaw abortion or drug use or dwarf tossing it does so in the knowledge that people will continue to have abortions, and that the moral price of accepting abortion is worse than the price of people dying or getting seriously injured.

This is not a value statement, but rather an observation. I personally dislike the attitude; it makes as much sense to me as bombing abortion clinics to save lives. You either have an absolute belief that life is sacred, or you don't.

It's interesting to see that different countries have strongly divergent views on the acceptability of abortion. Different states, different rules. I thought it particularly interesting that former communist countries were much more supportive of the idea apparently - but it's hard to compare the datasets used between the various surveys.

My concern with the 'but they'll do it anyway' approach is that it doesn't answer the question, but rather sidesteps the debate entirely. Basing choices on the lowest common denominator, on pragmatism, or on the right to privacy resulsts in such awkward and unsatisfactory political quick fixes like Wade v Roe.

Offline Jude

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2010, 10:42:18 AM »
Laws are a method of social control
Laws are enacted by the legislative organ of a state
Laws are therefore what the legislature thinks is right
Part of what I'm going to say will inevitably seem like needless nitpicking and part of it contains my point, so I want to preface my actual argument with this in hopes that you won't be offended by the statements that I make that aren't relevant and may seem needlessly judicious.

Laws are not always enacted by the legislative organ of a state.  In a totalitarian regime they come about by decree or edict, but even in a democracy they can be enacted by ballot initiative that has nothing to do with the legislature.  The purpose of a legislature is to enact laws, so the way you're framing the discussion is a little chicken-before-the-egg.  In the case of a tyrant, laws as passed that serve his or her whims.  Sometimes those whims have an organized philosophy behind them, sometimes they're merely self-serving decrees.  Ironically, despite the act that we live in a representative Democracy, the same can be said of the individual legislators as well.

There are many different philosophies that motivate laws, and morality is not necessarily a basis of all of these points of view.  I personally do not believe that the purpose of law is to mandate that people follow certain rules -- I feel the entire point of morality is negated if every single moral tenet is enacted into law and people are forced to adhere to them like commandments by governmental power -- in fact I don't think morality has anything to do with just law whatsoever.  I am a student of Hobbes.

Without law there is no order, and life becomes an endless series of battles between you and others as you ceaselessly compete for your own selfish interests.  In a system of complete anarchy no one wins because we're all too busy screwing each other over.  All of the good things about civilization (language, literature, technology) are a result of us agreeing upon a set of ground rules that serve as the basis of cooperation and mediation of conflict.  These rules, known as laws, exist to create order wherein mankind can flourish and each individual can pursue their own selfish desires in-as-much as they do not impede on each other's ability to do so.

So, ultimately, I believe the purpose of law is to enshrine and protect the freedom of the individual to determine the course of their own life by limiting the ways that both the cruel circumstances of reality and other human beings can force us to accept outcomes we did not choose by way of force.  Obviously everyone does not agree with me.
Thus if a state outlaw abortion or drug use or dwarf tossing it does so in the knowledge that people will continue to have abortions, and that the moral price of accepting abortion is worse than the price of people dying or getting seriously injured.
I agree that's the choice being made at current by most of our elected officials, and it's not all based on religion either.  There are plenty of moral philosophies that make it clear that abortion is morally repugnant (and of course there are philosophies that disagree with that sentiment too).  Kantian philosophy for example holds that if an action cannot be universalized, then it is not morally right.  Put simply, if every woman got an abortion when they became pregnant the human race would cease to exist, thus a strict Kantian could consider abortion immoral on grounds of pure reason (though that's the problem with Kantian ethics -- it's still ultimately subjective).
This is not a value statement, but rather an observation. I personally dislike the attitude; it makes as much sense to me as bombing abortion clinics to save lives. You either have an absolute belief that life is sacred, or you don't.
You can have a belief that life is sacred and still take life.  People who bomb abortion clinics do so for the same reason that soldiers go off to war -- not that I'm equating the two.  Our soldiers are fighting to protect our liberties and are not misguided in their aims, but the logic used is the same.  If you can end one life to save many others, it makes sense.
It's interesting to see that different countries have strongly divergent views on the acceptability of abortion. Different states, different rules. I thought it particularly interesting that former communist countries were much more supportive of the idea apparently - but it's hard to compare the datasets used between the various surveys.
Not really very surprising.  Communism came loaded with the idea of atheism in many instances, and atheism rejects the notion of a soul.  If you remove the soul from the equation, a fetus really isn't anything special in and of itself.  It's a lot harder to make the jump to outlawing abortion when that's in play -- plus communists greater understand scarcity and making tough decisions for their own sake.  I'm not surprised that they have a keen understanding and appreciation for abortion.
My concern with the 'but they'll do it anyway' approach is that it doesn't answer the question, but rather sidesteps the debate entirely. Basing choices on the lowest common denominator, on pragmatism, or on the right to privacy resulsts in such awkward and unsatisfactory political quick fixes like Wade v Roe.
I agree.  The fact that "they'll do it anyway" is completely irrelevant.  If you believe the purpose of law is to enshrine morality and you believe abortion is immoral, then you're not going to be too troubled by a few women accidentally killing themselves in the process of aborting their children -- after all, they were trying to do something morally repugnant in the first place.

The Roe v Wade privacy ruling was very shaky, quite honestly I think it's absolute nonsense.  Right to privacy has nothing to do with this issue anymore than it does with any other legal issue pertaining to an individual committing criminal acts.  I'm equally annoyed by the "it's my body" argument -- not because it's necessarily false, but it's basically spouting a knee-jerk talking point that often seems completely void of any nuance or actual thought.

However, analyzing the situation from my perspective on law, I think it's pretty clear that abortion should be legal.  In prohibiting it, the government would be requiring women to carry children to term that they do not want.  That is, quite clearly, forcing them to accept a certain existence for nine months of their life that they may not want.  This is not done to protect the interests of another human being ultimately, there is no human in the equation, just a bundle of cells that could eventually be a human.

Now, if you want to treat the fetus like a human being, then lets do so.  Imagine a human being approached a woman and latched onto her, refusing to let go.  Lets say this person demands nourishment, a safe environment in which to stay, and in doing so hurt the complete stranger that they chose to essentially kidnap.  We, as a society, would not tolerate their behavior, even if for some reason the only way that person could survive is by controlling the life of a complete stranger for nine months.  Why should fetuses, that aren't even human, be given special treatment?

You can argue that the person brought it on themself by having sex, and it's true that they opened themself up for pregnancy that way, but you open yourself up for a car accident by getting into your vehicle everyday, fully knowing it could happen, and we still don't tell people:  "You were in a car accident?  Well, deal with it.  You knew the risks."  The comparison is doubly apt because living in our society without a car is difficult, and resisting the temptations of sex is even harder (especially for the younger generations) -- we're wired to fuck against any and all rational impulses.

Online Doomsday

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #65 on: December 04, 2010, 05:29:26 AM »
Some people do deserve to die, that isn't murder.

That's some harsh judgment you're passing.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #66 on: December 04, 2010, 07:30:55 AM »
Jude, unless incest and rape is the case and those are rare the woman chooses to splay her legs for the man or men and risks pregnancy one then must take prudent measures to not get pregnant. If your in a car driving your expected to pay attention, wear a seatbelt, not be impaired, practice the rules of the road and therefore reduce your risk. You don't do these your likely partially or fully at fault as in your driving and very tired so as to be impaired and hit a tree thats on you.

My parents put me on the Pill young in case I might be raped even though my father taught me how to hurt someone trying that and how to use legally carry weapons. I still take it just in case even though gay because if raped I want no child from it. Even if the case I get pregnant my duty is to the child then to carry the unborn to term then I could adopt it out or raise the child. As a woman one must prepare for that in the worse case and I don't want to consider abortion at all.

In this age there is no reason to have a child if one doesn't want one abortion might have been the only option for many a long time ago, but now there are options.



Offline Jude

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #67 on: December 04, 2010, 09:12:32 AM »
If the pill was 100% effective and provided free of charge, I would agree with you, but it's not.  Just as wearing your seatbelt and taking all of those precautions won't prevent car accidents in extreme circumstances, all of the birth control in the world doesn't always prevent pregnancy.  Abstinence is the equivalent of being a non-driver.

There are definitely some areas you can live in where you don't need to drive.  Big cities, small communities, et cetera -- but in those circumstances you are still relying on other people to drive, so I don't know that the metaphor is at all apt.  Without automobiles to bring us to and from work, move goods about the country, and create networks of connection throughout the country, our lives would be set back hundreds of years.

Choosing abstinence wouldn't have such disastrous consequences, of course, but viewing it as the "solution" to all that ails us fails to take into account the positive things that sex does.  It can bring you closer to another person, it's a great way to relieve stress and also is pretty good exercise.  The risks for many types of cancer decease with frequent sexual activity (and the only ones that increase can be warded off against by administration of HPV, which conservatives are also consequently against) and it's generally a very healthy action.

I'm stepping off the rails of reason for a second here and stating my frank opinion on the subject:  the Christian Right wants the world to view sex as a negative thing.  Their crusade against abortion is really just a thinly veiled attack on sexuality in general.  The possibility of an unwanted child was the final barrier in place that kept people fearful of indulging.  It's not at all surprising that they oppose abortion, it's a get out of jail free card to one of the final "punishments" that keeps their traditional, repressive ideas in place.

I've watched religious conservatives smile as depressing statistics about the danger posed by STDs were read, I've seen them stand outside abortion clinics and yell at women going in as if they were witches from the Puritanical period of early America, and I've seen people weep for the death of unintelligent cellular formations that, scientifically speaking, were not even remotely human.

This is getting out of hand.

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2010, 09:31:57 AM »
Jude, unless incest and rape is the case and those are rare the woman chooses to splay her legs for the man or men and risks pregnancy one then must take prudent measures to not get pregnant. If your in a car driving your expected to pay attention, wear a seatbelt, not be impaired, practice the rules of the road and therefore reduce your risk. You don't do these your likely partially or fully at fault as in your driving and very tired so as to be impaired and hit a tree thats on you.

Slut-shaming doesn't do anything but suggest that those silly women should stop tramping around and getting themselves into these crazy messes! Using words like "choosing to splay her legs" suggests that the man is innocent in his sexuality, but a woman who "chooses to splay her legs" deserves any consequence because she's a loose whore and didn't 'protect her purity'. People "wear their seatbelt" and practice safer sex every single day and still manage to get pregnant. Even the best drivers get into accidents, what do you blame then?

Quote
My parents put me on the Pill young in case I might be raped even though my father taught me how to hurt someone trying that and how to use legally carry weapons. I still take it just in case even though gay because if raped I want no child from it. Even if the case I get pregnant my duty is to the child then to carry the unborn to term then I could adopt it out or raise the child. As a woman one must prepare for that in the worse case and I don't want to consider abortion at all.

Your choice is not everyone's choice. Your "duty" is only self-imposed. Not all women can take the pill, not all women want to take the pill. Using yourself as a paragon of how others should act is a very poor mechanism.

I'm even going to go out on a limb to say that being gay is an especially poor standpoint to judge women who "splay their legs" from considering that neither protected nor unprotected sex for gays has any consequence like pregnancy -- you know, unless you want to just tell homosexuals to suck it up and live with any STDs they contract and never treat them because it's just what happens sometimes when you open your legs for someone.

Quote
In this age there is no reason to have a child if one doesn't want one abortion might have been the only option for many a long time ago, but now there are options.

There has been no better or safer time for abortion than now. I am going to argue that previously, abortion really wasn't the option it was today, given that the methods were far more unreliable and more likely to end in death for both parties, as well as the fact that it was much more heavily socially stigmatized. Abortion has NEVER been a woman's only option, that's absurd, and nobody here is arguing that it SHOULD be the only alternative.

In this day and age, there is no reason to have a child if one doesn't want, and that's why abortion is available along side birth control, because for straight people (and gay women who are raped, I guess), there is no guaranteed safe sex.

Offline Serephino

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #69 on: December 04, 2010, 08:35:54 PM »
I sort of agree with Ruby, and am not Christian.  I know that birth control isn't 100% effective, and both parties know that when choosing to have sex.  Sex isn't bad, but if you are a heterosexual, pregnancy is a possible outcome.  What is so horrible about personal responsibility? 

I dated women, but never had sex with them for that very reason.  When thinking about it, that was one of the first things that came to mind.  If she ends up pregnant, is this someone I want to be tied to for the rest of my life?  The answer was always no, so I kept it in my pants.

My thought is, if you're going to have sex, be as careful as you can be.  There is clocking (which is similar to the rhythm method, but more involved and has a much higher success rate as a form of pregnancy prevention), birth control, condoms, female condoms, spermicide....  I educated myself well, because no, I don't think men are without responsibility. 

If you do get pregnant despite your best efforts, and you really can't care for the child, there is always adoption.  Just getting rid of it seems so cold...

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #70 on: December 04, 2010, 09:28:41 PM »
I utterly fail to see how having an abortion is synonymous with a lack of personal responsibility. A lack of personal responsibility is having unprotected sex and using abortion as your main go-to birth control. A lack of personal responsibility is a teenager who hits somebody else's car and then drives away, or someone who gets caught smoking pot and tries to make excuses, or someone who a kid who's only sorry they got caught. Pulling the bar back and saying that using protection is responsible but having an abortion if that fails is a lack thereof simply does not follow. Using your own personal accounts of abstinence or protection or what-have-you as an expectation of how others should behave does not work on a realistic scale.

Offline mystictiger

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #71 on: December 04, 2010, 10:25:25 PM »
Quote
Now, if you want to treat the fetus like a human being, then lets do so.  Imagine a human being approached a woman and latched onto her, refusing to let go.  Lets say this person demands nourishment, a safe environment in which to stay, and in doing so hurt the complete stranger that they chose to essentially kidnap.  We, as a society, would not tolerate their behavior, even if for some reason the only way that person could survive is by controlling the life of a complete stranger for nine months.  Why should fetuses, that aren't even human, be given special treatment?

How do you define human-ness? I would suggest that, on a genetic level, that a fetus is absolutely human. It is the production of two humans, and will result in another human. How could that not be human? At what point is human-hood conferred?

Birth? That's kind of arbitrary. You're saying that it's not a human when it's inside its mother but then at the first moment that it has contact with atmospheric oxygen then it is human?

How about this way - we put it in terms of functional capacity to live! Yes, this seems objective. We could say that if it doesn't have functional lungs it isn't human. Ah. Right. Patients with lung cancer suddenly stop being people. Or maybe we could put it in terms of brain function. Ooops - there go the coma patients.

There are different expectations of what and how humans should act at different stages of their development. Peeing yourself and falling asleep in public is only acceptable for the very young and the very old. You don't, for example, give 7 year olds the right to vote.
And to equate pregnancy as assault? Come on. There's no equivalent or analogy to pregnancy. It's not cancer, or a male who's sick or anything else. It's a unique status that only effects females. Any argument by analogy is therefore going to be utterly and gloriously irrelevent!

To use another selective, useless, and utterly biased analogy:

I go out to a pub, and meet someone. I get talking, and we become friends - and even add him or her on facebook. Then a few weeks later I discover that I don't actually want to be friends with him! I therefore have him shot.

This isn't an objective, detached judgment that one can make. It's a purely subjective decision based on personal preference. I think that abortion before 24ish weeks is acceptable, and after not. This is utterly arbitrary, and I base it purely on the idea that at 24 weeks it's vaguely capable of being born alive and being supported by additional means. I would apply this to all humans though - if a human being is too damaged, too immature, too undeveloped, too old to live without a technical crutch then I'm quite happy to let it die.

There is no amount of pictures of dialation and curetage pictures, the silent scream, and all that will convince me otherwise. There is no amount of bra-burning placard-waving human rights speak that will convince me to shift my view in the other direction. This is a personal moral choice. As such, it cannot be wrong if it is come to personally. What may be right for me now is not necessarily the same as what is right for you, or indeed me in the future. There is no such thing as objective scientific truth in such matters - positivism tried to prove this, but now we've got scientific realism that recongises the cultural embeddedness of knowledge.

So yes, wave hands and make wild and inflamatory statements. It won't bring us any closer to a dialectic synthesis - it'll just leave us more entrenched and firmly convinced that I Am Right And You Are Wrong.

As a purely intellectual exercise, the Abortion-as-lack-of-responsibility would run along the following lines I suspect:
All birth control measures are a gamble - the 'win' is pleasure, the 'lose' is parenthood. If you lack the personal moral fibre to pay up if you lose, then you'd better stick to masturbation or oral.


Online Zakharra

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #72 on: December 04, 2010, 10:30:37 PM »
 Then I am very glad you are not able to make the laws, Mystictiger.

  No woman should ever be forced to carry a fetus she doesn't want to.  To force a woman to carry one full term, birth it and then either care for it or give it up for adoption is foolish and uncaring. Untill that  fecut is born it is a potential human. It is not a human until that moment.  Nature aborts a hell of alot of pregnancies on it's own.

 You would force a woman to bear the child though? Pregnancy puts a huge strain on a woman's body during and afterward. It's not an easy thing you are wantng to inflict upon women.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 10:38:52 PM by Zakharra »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #73 on: December 04, 2010, 10:36:43 PM »
Then I am very glad you are not able to make the laws, Mystictiger.

+1.

I know of three people who had abortions, that have admitted to me. None of the three of them felt that it was a decision entered into lightly. They, for the most part, didn't explain all their reasoning for doing so but none of them were doing cartwheels afterward.

Even the girl who did it for purely medical reasons hated doing it, but she had to go through it. She spent months in therapy battling the depression from doing it and dealing with the fears she might NEVER be able to carry a child to term.

Offline mystictiger

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #74 on: December 04, 2010, 10:38:57 PM »
Quote
You would force a woman to bear the child though? Pregnancy puts a huge strain on a woman's body during and afterward. It's not an easy thing you are wantng to inflict upon women.

Er. No. Where did I say that? Which part of 'before 24 weeks is fine' suggest this?

Quote
No woman should ever be forced to carry a fetus she doesn't want to.  To force a woman to carry one full term, birth it and then either care for it or give it up for adoption is foolish and uncaring. Untill that  fecut is born it is a potential human. It is not a human until that moment.  Nature aborts a hell of alot of pregnancies on it's own.

So you should be allowed to abort a pre-human up to the point that contractions start?!


Quote
Then I am very glad you are not able to make the laws, Mystictiger.
Well, actually as a voter in a democracy I can make laws.

And guess what? Democracies tend to choose to allow abortion up to... 24 weeks - this relfects the point at which assisted life is possible
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 10:44:58 PM by mystictiger »