Obama and Abortion

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Not all women get abortions, not all women get pregant. ANYONE can be found guilty of a capital crime and thus ANYONE can be executed. ONLY women can get abortions, ONLY women can get pregant. Is the difference between having the ability to something and not that difficult to grasp?

And that distinction is ridiculous. Anyone can be found guilty of a capital crime and sent to Death Row, but how many Senators and Representatives will? How many are thinking of that when they pass bills? When they increase the penalties and make it easier for capital punishment, do you think Senators and Representatives are thinking they may be there?! Hell no.

To simply cordon it off by saying it can only happen with considering likelihood of happening in deciding who gets a say is absolutely ridiculous. Frankly, the likelihood of a Senator or Representative being put on Death Row is probably less than the likelihood of a woman needing an abortion and FAR less than the likelihood of a woman getting pregnant.

No, my view is rejecting non-existant "equality" on the issue of pregnancy and accepting that only one sex can get pregnant. Only one sex gets the benfits and must burden the huge risks of being pregnant. That sex should have the main say about an activity only they can engage in. Both sexes can be parents (and thus have to pay child support), but until men start getting pregnant and thus have to deal with the consquences, I reject false claims of equality on the issue. When a man can die from childbirth or from complications relating to a pregnancy, then you can claim equality on this.

And I believe this view is utterly repugnant in its belief that those who cannot get pregnant cannot have equally valid moral views on the life or lack of life of the unborn. The ability to get pregnant does not in ANY WAY make you more qualified to make a moral judgement on when life begins.

What about women who are sterile? Does their say become diminished because they do not get the benefits or burdens of being pregnant? How about women who hit menopause? Being on the front lines for decades, but now can't get pregnant, so their say gets taken away?

You know only one sex can be subject to post partum depression, does that mean they should have the main say on women who kill their children while suffering from post partum depression?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And that distinction is ridiculous. Anyone can be found guilty of a capital crime and sent to Death Row, but how many Senators and Representatives will? How many are thinking of that when they pass bills? When they increase the penalties and make it easier for capital punishment, do you think Senators and Representatives are thinking they may be there?! Hell no.

To simply cordon it off by saying it can only happen with considering likelihood of happening in deciding who gets a say is absolutely ridiculous. Frankly, the likelihood of a Senator or Representative being put on Death Row is probably less than the likelihood of a woman needing an abortion and FAR less than the likelihood of a woman getting pregnant.

Sorry, but I find your reasoning silly. Its is an issue of what can be versus what can't be, between having 0 probability of something and a probability other than 0.

And I believe this view is utterly repugnant in its belief that those who cannot get pregnant cannot have equally valid moral views on the life or lack of life of the unborn. The ability to get pregnant does not in ANY WAY make you more qualified to make a moral judgement on when life begins.

What about women who are sterile? Does their say become diminished because they do not get the benefits or burdens of being pregnant? How about women who hit menopause? Being on the front lines for decades, but now can't get pregnant, so their say gets taken away?

You know only one sex can be subject to post partum depression, does that mean they should have the main say on women who kill their children while suffering from post partum depression?

Any idiot can have a moral view on anything, and can express it. That doesn't change the FACT that pregnancy and abortions are reserved to one sex only.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Anyone can be found guilty of a capital crime and sent to Death Row, but how many Senators and Representatives will? How many are thinking of that when they pass bills? When they increase the penalties and make it easier for capital punishment, do you think Senators and Representatives are thinking they may be there?! Hell no.

To simply cordon it off by saying it can only happen with considering likelihood of happening in deciding who gets a say is absolutely ridiculous. Frankly, the likelihood of a Senator or Representative being put on Death Row is probably less than the likelihood of a woman needing an abortion and FAR less than the likelihood of a woman getting pregnant.

I don't think you realise that Congresspersons are more likely to pass stronger laws against actions that they would never consider doing than they would laws that they may consider doing, such as white collar crimes. Your argument doesn't really work. A lot of people can see that the law is biased in favor of those in power.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's not hard at all.

Consider a lab buring down. There are 100 million zigots in that lab and there is a 110 year old man who lives in chronic pain who has no family and is an ******* to everyone he meets. You can only save either the old bastard or 100 million zigots, not both. Either you are a complete idiot or you save the the old man, even if you are a religious nutcase.

That doesn't answer the question at all. All it answers is "are we more sure that the old man is human/feeling/conscious than we are sure the zigot are". It doesn't tell us at what point the zigot becomes human/feeling/conscious. (Other than to define it as sometime inbetween the zigot and 110 yo man stages. Which is about as vague as you can get.)

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GePap
Any idiot can have a moral view on anything, and can express it. That doesn't change the FACT that pregnancy and abortions are reserved to one sex only.

And what if the best, most intelligent moral view on abortion happens to originate in a man's mind? Should it be disregarded because it did not come from a woman? Should the idea have a reduced value because you say women should have the most say? In that case, how do you go about quantifying the value of an opinion beyond its value to society?

If the total value of this one opinion is greater than the value of all opinions of women regarding abortion (after all, this is the most useful moral view thought up on the subject), then can individual women's views on abortion be quantified and shown to be less valuable than particular views on abortion originated by men? Sticky situation.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap
Personally speaking (since I haven't made my personal views clear on this), I would say that a fetus should be considered to have the possibility of legal rights only after it becomes fully viable if removed from the womb (which is some time in the third trimester). Abortions up until then should be completely legal. After that, I have no problem placing restrictions, as longs the health of the woman remains paramount.

Actually, viability currently occurs some time in the second trimester:

James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy.

From Wiki

JM

[Lancer]

I think you are a very wise person Aeson.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lorizael


And what if the best, most intelligent moral view on abortion happens to originate in a man's mind? Should it be disregarded because it did not come from a woman? Should the idea have a reduced value because you say women should have the most say? In that case, how do you go about quantifying the value of opinion beyond value to society?


If the total value of this one opinion is greater than the value of all opinions of women regarding abortion (after all, this is the most useful moral view thought up on the subject) then can individual women's views on abortion be quantified and shown to be less valuable than particular views on abortion originated by men? Sticky situation.

And what makes you think that if this view is so self evidently the best that women would be unwilling to hear it and adopt it? Are they incapable of reason or something?

[Jon Miller]

There are a lot of very selfish people, GePap. Look at how long slavery lasted, and it is obviously immoral.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but I find your reasoning silly. Its is an issue of what can be versus what can't be, between having 0 probability of something and a probability other than 0.

And I think reducing it to "can be vs. can't be" is an absolutely ludicrous distinction when it comes to making decisions on moral principle.

Any idiot can have a moral view on anything, and can express it. That doesn't change the FACT that pregnancy and abortions are reserved to one sex only.

And when the argument is between moral views, then that "FACT" doesn't matter one whit.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Actually, viability currently occurs some time in the second trimester:

James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy.

From Wiki

JM

A statistical outlier is not what heath care policy should be based. After all, some people have survived being in plane crashes after falling 30,000 feet. Should airline safety standards be based on that?

What percentage of fetuses born premature at that age survive?

[Jon Miller]

Why insist on calling them fetuses and not babies when they survive? Babies are regularly born in the second trimester now, the third trimester limitation was in the 19th century.

Finally, just because Bob is falling from 30000 feet doesn't mean he isn't a person any more. He is a person, and ceases to be one when he dies on impact. It isn't that he isn't a person, and then suddenly becomes one when he survives impact.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson


That doesn't answer the question at all. All it answers is "are we more sure that the old man is human/feeling/conscious than we are sure the zigot are". It doesn't tell us at what point the zigot becomes human/feeling/conscious. (Other than to define it as sometime inbetween the zigot and 110 yo man stages. Which is about as vague as you can get.)

First, I don't believe in abortion after the second trimester.

Second, it doesn't matter when the zigot (zygote actually I think) has human consciousness. All that matters is when we think he does. If we don't think he has human consciousness than how can we demand that a women carry it in her womb against her will.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And I think reducing it to "can be vs. can't be" is an absolutely ludicrous distinction when it comes to making decisions on moral principle.

And when the argument is between moral views, then that "FACT" doesn't matter one whit.

If Abortion is a moral issue, then there is no point in debate of it, unless you are open to saying that morality is something up for debate, and then facts damn well better matter.

The problem in the US is viewing abortion as a moral issue as opposed to a health and social issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think you realise that Congresspersons are more likely to pass stronger laws against actions that they would never consider doing than they would laws that they may consider doing, such as white collar crimes. Your argument doesn't really work. A lot of people can see that the law is biased in favor of those in power.

That's actually my point. Just because everyone CAN be convicted of a capital crime doesn't mean that Congresspeople take that into account when passing laws on it. They merely take into account how likely it is that THEY will be held to that punishment. Therefore the fact that they can be held to a capital crime does not factor into their decision at all.