Abortion?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Almost missed this point.

It's an important decision, but the question is not whether to bet on the child or not, you've already made that decision in the affirmative. It would be like making the decision to buy and then sell shortly, and incurring a cost for both transactions.

I don't quite see it that way, but even then, my argument works:

So it's not just a case of the decision eventually paying off, it's a decision as to whether you can afford to take a loss now or hold tight and see what happens.

Those aren't the only solutions. Take a loss now and hold for better times (i.e., keep the child and raise it); take a loss and sell it as soon as it's feasible (i.e., keep the child and give it up for adoption); take a loss but get out of the market to prevent any further losses (i.e., terminate the pregnancy).

There may be some very valid reasons for people to seek abortion unrelated to health issues.

What makes you think that prolife folks don't adopt when they have an opportunity to do so? I don't seen any evidence of it, and I've met a fair number of them.

I didn't say that they didn't. I simply said that for the number of people that are vocally pro-life does not match up with the number of available foster families. It's that disparity that's disturbing--becaues clearly those pro-life families are making an economic calculus, and finding that they are either unable or unwilling to take on the burden of another child... and don't mind that their banning of abortion would force someone else who is unable or unwilling to care for a child to do so.

That's a good question. They believe children have a right to a mother and a father, and that it would be wrong to deprive them of either.

So, don't let gays adopt because it would be wrong to deprive them of a mother and a father.

Why then, do we not take away children from single parents, who are deprived? Why then, do we not ban divorces when children are involved?

It would be wrong to deprive those children a mother and a father. Why is it okay for those kids to suffer such an egregious violation of their rights, but adoptive children not?

One step at a time. You can't defend someone's quality of life, if they do not have the right to life.

I think it's completely fair to argue quality of life in the same breath as the right to life. Life is more than simply 'existing'; I do think that one must consider what kind of environment the child will be living in must be critical to the decision.

(Admittedly, it does dovetail right into another Catholic sensibility, the opposition to euthanasia. Disagree with it as I might, I respect that at least they're consistent with the pro-life position, something which most pro-lifers are not.)

If you seriously believe in adoption, why would you be saying this? We have an obligation to help these children that are already here. It doesn't matter what the social conditions are, people are always being born, and we should help them as best as we can.

Then why aren't we doing more to help them? And why should we force more children onto a system that's already overburdened and in some areas on the border of collapse?

Along with contraceptive use declining. It's clear. Contraceptives and abortion go hand in hand.

I think you're reading too much into that correlation.

The child doesn't have a choice. The child didn't ask to be here.

Exactly. If the child didn't ask to be here, why are we forcing him or her to be here?

How can you tell this child, I didn't want you so I am going to make sure you don't get your shot. Your mother gave you your shot, so why can't you give your kid his?

How can you tell a child, "I didn't want you to be here, you probably don't want to be here, but I dragged you out here into this world so you can suffer along with us."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
Classy.

You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Classy.

(Well, on second thought, Ali is a female...)

They traded me for two male babies as part of a babyhandover swap. Their official rationale was "measure taken to minimize social unrest and distress to surroundings".

...

In this respect the Chinese government demonstrated rare foresight.

[Patroklos]

My reason leads to the conclusion that illegality raises prices and danger (see: black market, drugs); therefore, only those wealthy enough to have an abortion will be able to attempt one; the underclass will simply have to deal with yet another mouth they may not be able to care for.

Anyone who wants an abortion can get one now. If we make it illegal, some won't. There is no way making it illegal will increase the number of abortions. Now, some may get them anyway and that will be unsafe, but that will probably pail in comparison to lives saved.

And the moths to feed/unwanted/a life unworthy to live BS is the worst arguement you could possible make. It is not up to you to murder people because you think their life is not worth living.

We don't count them better people; we do place more worth on their abilities and capabilities, though--otherwise, a janitor would be making just as much as a doctor.

Again, that value has no bearing on their legal rights.

I've never said a foetus isn't human. And I'm not in favor of late-term abortions. That said, I can't justify banning abortions because it won't solve the underlying issues.

We are of the same mind for all practical purposes. This discussion went this way because Imran said the humanity of the fetus being aborted was irrelevant.

That's the problem. I don't believe in 'wages of sin', and find it somewhat reprehensible.

Pretty much nobody does, that is a strawman set up to pretend people want to ban abortions to punish women instead of baning them to save lives.

We're not arguing just elective abortions done by men and women who are just getting rocks off, we're also considering elective abortions for those who actually may have very legitimate, socioeconomic, political, or biological reasons to have one.

There is no such thing as legitimate reasons to kill people for socioeconomic or political reasons. Well, at least in this scope, governments do wage war for such reasons afterall (though many call those crimes as well).

Biologically sure, doctors make decisions that end lives for the better good all the time. Siamese twins comes to mind. Treat the situation just like that.

And Pat, please don't mingle my comments with someone else's in the same thread without clearly delineating where each response ends.

I try, but it gets hard with so many posts going back and forth.

[Patroklos]

So forget forcing Biblical values on the US population by taking away human dignity from the already-viable population.

Preventing the murder of human beings is forcing Biblical values on people?

If you honestly believe (or have scientific proof as in my case) that humans are being killed for trivial convienence in your midst and you did nothing about it, what kind of monster would you be?

It's a fact that in war most of the killing is done by a minority of people, because the rest just can't do it.

Actually, it is because fewer and fewer have the OPPORTUNITY to do it in the overall organization.

It's very easy to have an abortion, and over 90% of women are relieved after they have one.

Just like it is easier to hack Tutsies to death once you rationalize it.

I think it's completely fair to argue quality of life in the same breath as the right to life. Life is more than simply 'existing'; I do think that one must consider what kind of environment the child will be living in must be critical to the decision.

Why don't we apply this to all people?

Exactly. If the child didn't ask to be here, why are we forcing him or her to be here?

We can ask them when they can talk, and then execute them for having a worthless life as you earlier suggested once we know for sure.

[Kidlicious]

You should respond to each person's post in seperate posts of your own.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Actually, it is because fewer and fewer have the OPPORTUNITY to do it in the overall organization.

No. Most infantry men fire at random to intimidate the enemy. Only a relative small number actually try to kill.

Just like it is easier to hack Tutsies to death once you rationalize it.

This is Godwinized basically. You might as well have mentioned Nazis. Even the Nazi executionors had much trouble executing jews. Many of them couldn't even shoot them from close range.

But to do such things people have to be socialized into having a worldview that makes it easier to do that. You aren't suggesting that people are socialized into killing fetuses are you?

[Zenn-La]

Re: Abortion?

Abortion should be illegal, it is murder plain & simple. People act like a woman doesn't have options. If you get raped by an uncle or if you're dirt poor the solution is real simple... You don't murder a innocent child you have the baby & put it up for adoption & continue on with your life. Only reason an abortion should be done is if the mothers life is at risk.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.

You keep using WORDS, but I don't think they mean what YOU think they MEAN.

Edited to get your diction right.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Anyone who wants an abortion can get one now. If we make it illegal, some won't. There is no way making it illegal will increase the number of abortions. Now, some may get them anyway and that will be unsafe, but that will probably pail in comparison to lives saved.

I don't know if I buy that line of argument. Yes, the babies will be saved, but what of the social costs from banning it? Not just pro-life, but pro-quality-of-life.

And the moths to feed/unwanted/a life unworthy to live BS is the worst arguement you could possible make. It is not up to you to murder people because you think their life is not worth living.

It's a decision we grant the families and doctors involved with hospitalized patients who have not displayed sentience.

Why are we abrogating the rights of the same family in this case?

I try, but it gets hard with so many posts going back and forth.

At least break them into different posts? I do so hate having to quote you and then try to formulate a response to an absurd claim, only to realize it's not mine but some idiotic kid's...

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Why don't we apply this to all people?

QoL? Why don't we? Admittedly, once they're out of the womb, it's far easier to try to raise their QoL than it is to dispose of them...

We can ask them when they can talk, and then execute them for having a worthless life as you earlier suggested once we know for sure.

I've only joked about being in favor of abortions until the 10,00th trimester; I was never serious about it.

But you have to admit, that's a really back-asswards way of arguing against abortion--seeing as the only way to ask them would be to force them into existence, possibly against their will...

I'm merely pointing out the illogic of using the argument that the children "didn't ask to be conceived" or "didn't ask to be born" when trying to buttress the argument--if they didn't ask, what is to say they want it either way? What is to say that they acheived sufficient self-awareness and sentience to know whether they wanted to be born?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Your sig is made of win. I didn't get it at first but now it's hilarious.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But to do such things people have to be socialized into having a worldview that makes it easier to do that. You aren't suggesting that people are socialized into killing fetuses are you?

And that's unlikely because...? Not that I think girls go into secret "death to fetuses" class in middle school or anything, but it's not like people throughout history haven't been convinced to do some terminally weird and creepy **** just by seeing it done or hearing about it every day. Just look at Chinese foot binding.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


And that's unlikely because...? Not that I think girls go into secret "death to fetuses" class in middle school or anything, but it's not like people throughout history haven't been convinced to do some terminally weird and creepy **** just by seeing it done or hearing about it every day. Just look at Chinese foot binding.

People aren't seriously convinced to have abortions at all. There are no pro-abortion groups that I know of.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You don't know how hard it is to kill someone [outside of in passion]. It's a fact that in war most of the killing is done by a minority of people, because the rest just can't do it. It's a lot easier to kill people with artillery or bombing though, and that's how most people are killed. The reason is that the killer is far removed from his victim.

That's how Americans kill people. Many of our opponents (now and in the twentieth century) kill with their opponent in view. This may also be a question of values -- life is somehow less dear(?). Almost anyone can get excited enough to kill someone in passion, but in cold blood, there are limits.

Women getting abortions and doctors in the process almost certainly dehumanize the fetus, so it is not murder to them. This argument actually makes sense to me for nonviable fetuses. But whatever the feelings and opinions related to the humanity of a lump of flesh, I still contend that the main reason not to outlaw abortions is the unenforcability of such a law. If you can't tell if a woman is pregnant (and in the first trimester, you usually can't), then how can you prevent her from doing anything she damn well pleases. Leave other people alone and worry about your own soul.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Women getting abortions and doctors in the process almost certainly dehumanize the fetus, so it is not murder to them.

They never think of them as human. All animals have a natural resitance to killing their own kind, including human beings. Some human beings are abnormal, which allows them to kill other humans. But most human beings can't do it without psychological conditioning. Even with this conditioning most will suffer psychologically afterwords.

So killing a human and having abortion are completely different things.