Abortion?

[Patroklos]

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

Cover fire and suppression fire have legitimate uses and is not the same thing as purposely avoiding outright killing your enemy by and stretch of the imagination. Please, pretty please, back up your ridiculous assertion.

This is Godwinized basically.

Don't be obtuse. Godwinizing is not the act of bringing up Nazis period, but rather the act of making a obviously greatly exaggerated comparison.

This is not the case here. If the comparison bothers you it isn't because it is not appropriate, but rather because it shreds your ridiculous position beyond recognition.

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.

And plenty didn't. Not that it matters, this line of thought isn't a boon to you postition in the slightest.

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?

No, the are socialized into being greedy, irresponisble selfish memes which has gotten so bad people like you can rationalize murder for your convienence.

And there is always fear. Even if you want the child it is a daunting proposition. People have rationalized killing for less.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Cover fire and suppression fire have legitimate uses and is not the same thing as purposely avoiding outright killing your enemy by and stretch of the imagination. Please, pretty please, back up your ridiculous assertion.

That has nothing to do with it. What are you trying to say, that only a few infantry soldiers were ever assigned to kill the enemy and most of the were assigned cover fire? Even if that's true it doesn't support your argument.

Don't be obtuse. Godwinizing is not the act of bringing up Nazis period, but rather the act of making a obviously greatly exaggerated comparison.

That's exactly what you did. Genocide is a specific type of killing that occurs in specific circumstances. It can't happen otherwise.

And plenty didn't. Not that it matters, this line of thought isn't a boon to you postition in the slightest.

It does. Even though the executionors were socially conditioned to kill jews some still failed. That indicates a strong natural resistance to killing. Similarly, despite modern psychological conditioning some soldiers still can not kill.

No, the are socialized into being greedy, irresponisble selfish memes which has gotten so bad people like you can rationalize murder for your convienence.

Oh, what a bunch of nonsense. There are a lot of greedy people. They don't go around killing people, because they are incapable of it.

And there is always fear. Even if you want the child it is a daunting proposition. People have rationalized killing for less.

Fear doesn't help you kill. You don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing about psychology.

[Patroklos]

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.

Your quality of life arguement is moot. We do not decide on who lives or dies based on what WE think someone elses quality of life is.

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?

No we don't. You have to be brain dead to pull the plug. Not to mention that most of the time such decisons are made with imputs from the person themselves via do not recesitate statements and the like.

Of course the justification for this is there is no hope of recovery, while most of the timethe opposite is true of a fetus.

Doctor: "Good news ma'am, your husband should come to within a week!"

Wife: "Pull the plug"

Come on now, this was a very weak arguement for you to pull out.

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...

Actually no, it is far easier to dispose of them at this point. Why don't we?

Come on, follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion. Lets go kill some of those worthless homeless people. Hell, my roomate is a Bengals fan, can you imagine any lower quality of life? Off to the glue factory with him!

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

I know, like I said earlier we are in agreement for all practical purposes.

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...

Not really, if the alternative is killing people who wanted to live. Lets go ask some of QoL deficient poor people from the trailor parks if they wish they were never alive. What do you think the vast majority of the answers will be?

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?

It is a sophmoric way to justify the position, which is why I am not using it.

Even if we could ask them, assisted suicide is illegal. But again, go ask as many people who you deem have lifes unworthy of existing and see if they agree with you assesment. Something tells me we would be killing far more people who want to live than letting live people who wanted to not exist who can of course kill themselves on their time.

[Patroklos]

That has nothing to do with it. What are you trying to say, that only a few infantry soldiers were ever assigned to kill the enemy and most of the were assigned cover fire? Even if that's true it doesn't support your argument.

No, I am saying that an aircraft carrier of 5000 people only needs to send out a dozen to actually go kill.

So, do you have anything to back up your accusation? Nope? Shock

That's exactly what you did. Genocide is a specific type of killing that occurs in specific circumstances. It can't happen otherwise.

Who mentioned genocide? I was talking about a group of people rationalizing the killing of another group of people. That the Tutsie/Hutu troubles may have also been genocide is irrelevant. Would you prefer Catholics and Hugenots?

The comparison is apt.

It does. Even though the executionors were socially conditioned to kill jews some still failed. That indicates a strong natural resistance to killing. Similarly, despite modern psychological conditioning some soldiers still can not kill.

Kind of like how near half of Americans are revolted at killing unborn children? What, did we all go to special "abortion is bad" concentration camps?

If I go up to a child, point to his mothers stomach where his potential baby sister is, and they hit the mother's stomach with a baseball bat what do you think that child will think just happened?

Better yet, why don't women getting abortions ask to look at it like when people have their tonsils or a tumor removed? Lets put it in a jar and take it home! Its like a little action figure, Neeto!

Similarly, despite modern psychological conditioning some soldiers still can not kill.

God, this dead end of yours again. Please, pretty please (again), providing proof not only that this happens (should't be hard) but also that it is somhow the vast majority of soldiers it would have to be for it to support you positin.

Oh, what a bunch of nonsense. There are a lot of greedy people. They don't go around killing people, because they are incapable of it.

Oh really? You know we used to fight wars over spices right? Thats right, millions have died over nutmeg.

And has been alluded to already, it is far easier to justify killing someone you can't actual look in the face like the guy in a bombsight from 30K feet, than say someone standing in front of you at the ATM line whp said high when you walked up. That doesn't make either one of them less of a person though.

And despite that, people do kill humans standing in ATM lines all the time. Or the guy behind the gas station counter. Or the gal behind the teller desk.

Wait, aren't you a communist? Are you honestly telling me people are not capable of killing over greed? Worst. Communist. Ever.

Fear doesn't help you kill. You don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing about psychology.

In this case no Kid, in is not an immediate threat and they have time to think. Thats why they rationalize that they are not killing. I hope a light just went off in your head somewhere

So now people don't kill of of greed or fear? Seriously, get back on your meds.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Your quality of life arguement is moot. We do not decide on who lives or dies based on what WE think someone elses quality of life is.

I think we do, however, have a responsibility to decide what's best for the child; if the situation they would be born into is profoundly negative, the quality of life so meagre, as the parent, the argument can be made to not bring the child into existence.

And as far as that argument goes, we do, to an extent--which we'll discuss next.

No we don't. You have to be brain dead to pull the plug. Not to mention that most of the time such decisons are made with imputs from the person themselves via do not recesitate statements and the like.

Actually, not quite--which is why we had the whole issue about Terri Schiavo.

Of course the justification for this is there is no hope of recovery, while most of the timethe opposite is true of a fetus.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'recovery', because they'll still end up dead, it's just a matter of when.

Actually no, it is far easier to dispose of them at this point. Why don't we?

Well, it strikes me that providing food aid is cheaper than setting up mass gravesites and so on, but I will admit that I haven't done the calculations on the topic.

Come on, follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion. Lets go kill some of those worthless homeless people. Hell, my roomate is a Bengals fan, can you imagine any lower quality of life? Off to the glue factory with him!

I'm not saying that the state, or disinterested, uninvolved parties should determine the bar for the quality of life. Far from it.

If the parents know that they cannot provide for the child, and there is a lack of suitable adoptive families in the area (I don't know, maybe they live in fagville or something, because we all know devoted *** couples don't deserve to have kids, right Ben?), and the social network is so poor as to also be unable to provide support for the child...

Who are we to say to the parents that the miserable, meagre existence the child would have is better than to have not known existence at all?

Not really, if the alternative is killing people who wanted to live. Lets go ask some of QoL deficient poor people from the trailor parks if they wish they were never alive. What do you think the vast majority of the answers will be?

Because we can ask them, and they appear to fake sentience well enough, I don't mind what they say. They're the ones who are satisfied with their quality of life. I won't impose my beliefs on them.

Even if we could ask them, assisted suicide is illegal. But again, go ask as many people who you deem have lifes unworthy of existing and see if they agree with you assesment.

You might not be using the other sophomoric argument, but you are using juvenile tactics here. I'm not suggesting the government, or some ignorant, uninvolved entity judge who should and shouldn't live based on quality of life.

You are being juvenile by reducing my argument to an extreme position which I do not hold, and have tried to clarify multiple times--and then arguing against it.

I am saying that if you're going to be that pro-life, however, you should also be among the first to help ensure quality of life for these unwanted children--particularly if you're going to agitate for their births, however tortured the parents may be, however problematic their situations should be.

The problem here is that I don't see that happening. I'll admit I'm not doing my part of it, either--but since I'm not pro-life, I don't feel the same moral obligation to see that all embryos are born. What's more, the social costs and problems I see from banning abortion outweigh the benefits of having it; if the goal is to reduce abortion as best as possible, wouldn't other methods, such as increased education, availability of contraception, and a robust social support network be more effective?

The problem of unwanted children will never go away. At best, one can mitigate it, and I am unconvinced that banning abortion would be a positive way of trying to minimize the issue.

Something tells me we would be killing far more people who want to live than letting live people who wanted to not exist who can of course kill themselves on their time.

Something tells me that if current global trends continue, those people who are alive will more frequently question the value of their existence.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Your sig is made of win. I didn't get it at first but now it's hilarious.

If you're referring to me, then thank you, my dear.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
No, I am saying that an aircraft carrier of 5000 people only needs to send out a dozen to actually go kill.

So, do you have anything to back up your accusation? Nope? Shock

Human resistance to killing humans

One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as the official U.S. historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his postcombat interviews, Marshall concluded in his landmark book, Men Against Fire, that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Specialized weapons, such as a flame-thrower, usually were fired. Crew-served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always were fired.

Patti: Kind of like how near half of Americans are revolted at killing unborn children? What, did we all go to special "abortion is bad" concentration camps?

Err... No. It's not like that. Please concentrate on what I'm saying. Humans have a natural resistance to killing other humans. This resistance is a primal instinct.

[Elok]

"Pro-abortion groups?" When did I say anything about "pro-abortion groups?" There are pro-choice groups, which in effect are close enough (I hear Planned Parenthood's counselors to women considering abortion almost invariably tell them to do it), but that's irrelevant, since I was talking about general social expectations.

Originally posted by Kidicious
They never think of them as human. All animals have a natural resitance to killing their own kind, including human beings.

As for all animals, that's blatant and obvious BS. Lions kill each others' cubs all the time, just for one example. Every time a male takes over a pride the first thing he does is commit mass infanticide, so his new hos don't waste time and energy on another male's kids. Plus they go into heat sooner that way. Also, hippos fight to the death in territorial and mating battles. I'd list more, but I don't know a lot about animal behavior. That's just what I recall reading. As for people, I imagine we do have some sort of instinct, but Patty seems to be covering that end well enough. You have nothing but a batch of bland assertions to challenge him with. Unless you get a lot better I think I'll leave the hassle of dealing with you to him from here on out.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Elok
There are pro-choice groups, which in effect are close enough

If you're going to argue like that, you can't complain when people call pro-life groups anti-choice religionist fascists.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
"Pro-abortion groups?" When did I say anything about "pro-abortion groups?" There are pro-choice groups, which in effect are close enough (I hear Planned Parenthood's counselors to women considering abortion almost invariably tell them to do it), but that's irrelevant, since I was talking about general social expectations.

You are comparing pro-choice people to Nazi's and other hate groups. Pro-choice groups do not try to get people to have abortions. They have nothing personal against fetuses. Some actually like fetuses and others have no feelings towards them at all. That is not at all the same as society conditioning individuals to commit genocide.

As for all animals, that's blatant and obvious BS. Lions kill each others' cubs all the time, just for one example. Every time a male takes over a pride the first thing he does is commit mass infanticide, so his new hos don't waste time and energy on another male's kids. Plus they go into heat sooner that way. Also, hippos fight to the death in territorial and mating battles. I'd list more, but I don't know a lot about animal behavior. That's just what I recall reading.

All of those animals still have resistance to killing their own kind. For example male lions do not fight to the death usually. What they do is try to intimidate their opponent. This is the exact same thing that humans try to do.

As for people, I imagine we do have some sort of instinct, but Patty seems to be covering that end well enough. You have nothing but a batch of bland assertions to challenge him with. Unless you get a lot better I think I'll leave the hassle of dealing with you to him from here on out.

No. Patty is just being ridiculous. In fact, I've already started to ignore most of what he's saying. If you want to win this debate you will have to pick it up yourself.

[Patroklos]

I think we do, however, have a responsibility to decide what's best for the child; if the situation they would be born into is profoundly negative, the quality of life so meagre, as the parent, the argument can be made to not bring the child into existence.

The decision on whethere or not to bring a child into existance is made before the child is in existance.

Well, it strikes me that providing food aid is cheaper than setting up mass gravesites and so on, but I will admit that I haven't done the calculations on the topic.

You toss the child directly into the field, the tractor will run over it eventually. Instant fertilizer to grow food for the people you deamed worthy to experiance life!

Actually, not quite--which is why we had the whole issue about Terri Schiavo.

The judgement of the medical personel involved was that she was no longer a person, and wasn't going to recover or develope into one either.

If the parents know that they cannot provide for the child, and there is a lack of suitable adoptive families in the area (I don't know, maybe they live in fagville or something, because we all know devoted *** couples don't deserve to have kids, right Ben?), and the social network is so poor as to also be unable to provide support for the child...

Then they should not have concieved a child.

Who are we to say to the parents that the miserable, meagre existence the child would have is better than to have not known existence at all?

The same people who say they can't off their two year old because daddy lost the savings at the Venetian.

Because we can ask them, and they appear to fake sentience well enough, I don't mind what they say. They're the ones who are satisfied with their quality of life. I won't impose my beliefs on them.

But you will impose your beliefs on unborn children. And yeah, I realize I would be doing that too, but the difference is my way nobody gets killed.

You might not be using the other sophomoric argument, but you are using juvenile tactics here. I'm not suggesting the government, or some ignorant, uninvolved entity judge who should and shouldn't live based on quality of life.

So? NOBODY has the right to deny someone their right to life because they they its not worth living. It is a basic tenent of our society. If they are a person then they get all the rights every onter person does.

I am saying that if you're going to be that pro-life, however, you should also be among the first to help ensure quality of life for these unwanted children--particularly if you're going to agitate for their births, however tortured the parents may be, however problematic their situations should be.

Following through on the reality of what you are actually proposing is not juvenile. You are rationalizing the murder of people for convienence, and thats it. If you think they are people, and you kill them for the reasons stated, you are murdering.

The problem here is that I don't see that happening. I'll admit I'm not doing my part of it, either--but since I'm not pro-life,

I or you are no more obligated to improve there QoL than I am to do so for five year olds because we don't support their "retirement."

if the goal is to reduce abortion as best as possible, wouldn't other methods, such as increased education, availability of contraception, and a robust social support network be more effective?

All of the above please

Something tells me that if current global trends continue, those people who are alive will more frequently question the value of their existence.

At least it will be them doing it, not you for them.

[Kidlicious]

Here's some Hippos fighting. No killing.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The decision on whethere or not to bring a child into existance is made before the child is in existance.

I both agree and disagree. If you posit that life begins at conception, and that's the only barometer, than no, I don't think the decision's necessarily been made on a concious or unconcious level. Just because you have sex doesn't mean you've decided to have a child.

If you posit that life begins at self-awareness or signs of sentience, then it's probably somewhere along the lines of the second trimester; which would give one plenty of time to make a reasoned decision whether to carry the child to term or not.

So it's really a matter of when you think the 'child', per se, starts to exist as a being with fundamental rights.

You toss the child directly into the field, the tractor will run over it eventually. Instant fertilizer to grow food for the people you deamed worthy to experiance life!

Stop pulling a Kid on me (both in your argumentative style, and odd sensibilities of spelling). I've stated before, neither I nor any uninvolved party has the knowledge to determine whether the QoL is enough for the parent's child.

The judgement of the medical personel involved was that she was no longer a person, and wasn't going to recover or develope into one either.

Yes, but she wasn't brain dead.

Which was your argument.

Then they should not have concieved a child.

You do realize that conception is a process that does not actually request permission from the intellect? The sperm doesn't stop outside of the egg, communicate to both parties' brains and say, "Begin conception? [y/N]" It's an involuntary result from a behavior which modern medical science has been able to, by and large, moderate.

The same people who say they can't off their two year old because daddy lost the savings at the Venetian.

There's a difference between that. The two year old is already out. A two-month old foetus is not.

But you will impose your beliefs on unborn children. And yeah, I realize I would be doing that too, but the difference is my way nobody gets killed.

I'm not imposing my beliefs on unborn children. I'm refusing to allow others to do so, and enabling the parents to impose their beliefs on their unborn children.

So? NOBODY has the right to deny someone their right to life because they they its not worth living. It is a basic tenent of our society. If they are a person then they get all the rights every onter person does.

Which comes back to the issue: when is a foetus a person?

Following through on the reality of what you are actually proposing is not juvenile. You are rationalizing the murder of people for convienence, and thats it.

And you're rationalizing the destruction of lives based on your moral code, which others may not hew to.

If you think they are people, and you kill them for the reasons stated, you are murdering.

Again, we're getting to the problem of when personhood should be applied.

I or you are no more obligated to improve there QoL than I am to do so for five year olds because we don't support their "retirement."

This is where we disagree. If you're going to support one political and moral argument, then you should be willing to support tools and procedures that lead to its success.

I can't justify taking away abortion rights; I don't support abortion. Thus, I think it's proper to leave abortion rights as they are, but strive to help programs which reduce the frequency which they're performed. Therefore, I donate when I can.

All of the above please

We're in agreement here. Unfortunately, until these things come to pass, until I'm comfortable that these are strong and viable alternatives, again, I can't justify removing abortion, the most blunt and brutal of all the tools at our disposal, from the table.

At least it will be them doing it, not you for them.

Again, it's not me deciding for them. It's their parents. We allow their parents to make innumerable decisions on their behalf, and I'm willing to let them make this one, too.

[Patroklos]

Human resistance to killing humans

Resistance /= Won't kill.

While interesting, the anecdotal observations of historian 70 years ago isn't proof of anything. Hell, how do you know what someone was shooting at?

Err... No. It's not like that. Please concentrate on what I'm saying. Humans have a natural resistance to killing other humans. This resistance is a primal instinct.

Of course they do Kid, thats why the have to rationalize. You don't like killing people, so you tell yourself the fetus isn't human. Hutus don't like killing people so the rationalize and dehuminize thier Tutsie victims. Bank robbers don't like killing people, so they rationalize that their own benefit is more improtant that whoever they hurt.

Very few people kill for the sake of killing Kid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Resistance /= Won't kill.

It doesn't have to. All that matters is that the resistance must be overcome. Without psychological conditioning it is impossible for a normal human to kill another human on purpose. Normal human beings do not need such conditioning to abort fetuses. The website describes the psychologial conditioning required to get normal human beings to kill.

While interesting, the anecdotal observations of historian 70 years ago isn't proof of anything. Hell, how do you know what someone was shooting at?

It's a behavioral psychology website. They know because they are trained to know. How do you know anything?

Of course they do Kid, thats why the have to rationalize. You don't like killing people, so you tell yourself the fetus isn't human. Hutus don't like killing people so the rationalize and dehuminize thier Tutsie victims. Bank robbers don't like killing people, so they rationalize that their own benefit is more improtant that whoever they hurt.

Very few people kill for the sake of killing Kid.

No, no. I can't just rationalize killing someone because I want their money and then do it. Either I have to be a sociopath or I have to be a part of a culture where individuals are conditioned in a way that makes that possible.

The psychology of genocide

Ervin Staub argues that genocide and mass killing do not directly arise from difficult life conditions and their psychological effects. There is a progression along a continuum of destruction. People learn and change by participation, as a consequence of their own actions. Small, seemingly insignificant acts can involve a person with a destructive system: for example, accepting benefits provided by the system or even using a required greeting, such as "Heil Hitler." Initial acts that cause limited harm result in psychological changes that make further destructive actions possible. Victims are further devalued: for example, just-world thinking may lead people to believe that suffering is deserved. Perpetrators change and become more able and willing to act against victims. In the end people develop powerful commitment to genocide or to an ideology that supports it.