Jump to content
Cobber

The morality behind abortion

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

I would never have made those connections. Here are the ones I would have made:

Obviously, we don't want people to simply be pro-gun.  The point is to band them together and use the threat of armed force in politics.

Obviously, we don't want people to simply be nationalists.  The point is to breed loyalty through ignorance.

Obviously, we don't want people to simply wear outfits and exercise.  The point is to care to get health conscious people to think about themselves so they don't proselytize to the pink slime chewing, corn syrup chugging fatties.

Obviously, we don't want people to simply fight wars abroad.  The point is to kill off our poor as well as our enemies'.

Well then those are people who are twisting the letter of the law to a disrespectful spirit. 

That's why intentions count.  It doesn't matter what you believe in.  What matters is why you believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

Well then those are people who are twisting the letter of the law to a disrespectful spirit. 

That's why intentions count.  It doesn't matter what you believe in.  What matters is why you believe in it.

Simpler still, look to the results of a dogma, and let them speak for themselves. How people justify their participation is irrelevant - no one gives a fig why the Nazis or ISIS believe in their cause.

Edited by Buck Turgidson
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Simpler still, look to the results of a dogma, and let them speak for themselves. How people justify their participation is irrelevant - no one gives a fig why the Nazis or ISIS believe in their cause.

Eh... that might be simple, but it forces people to actually experience evil before we learn from it.

People don't deserve to have their rights violated just so others can learn from what they went through.

Being results-oriented also ignores alternate processes that could have happened.  For example, Germany's hateful history could have come from other sources besides national socialism, and modern terrorism could come from other sources besides Islamism.

There's also the matter of behind the scenes provocation that gets ignored.  For example, say someone told you to follow their lead just because they claim to be chosen by God to bring light unto nations.  If you refused to follow someone's lead, that person claimed you're a bigot for not tolerating someone's beliefs.

Likewise, let's say this person belonged to a group of others who believed in the same thing, and after it was recognized that you refused to follow their lead, they hid behind plausible deniability to make your life a hassle.

What would you want to do with them?

Edited by Dubayoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read the first page & don't intend to read further, nor will i respond again after this, because unless you're capable of carrying a fetus and giving birth, i don't care about your opinion on the topic and never will. i'm just going to address a few things that were mentioned.

1. women don't just decide to have late term abortions because they decided they don't want a child. at this point in pregnancy, women have chosen to give birth and have become emotionally attached. women have late term abortions because the fetus has a serious abnormality or because giving birth will risk their life. it is a devastating decision to have to make. making women have to jump through hoops to have a late term abortions is incredibly cruel.

2. adoption isn't a reasonable alternative, because:

a. not all babies get adopted, and less infants in the system = more older children get adopted

b. pregnancy is very difficult on the woman's body. it causes permanent changes. postpartum depression can be very severe. giving birth can cause tears that cause severe pain for months and years. here's a story!: "No one- absolutely no one told me before my pregnancy that my birth could end up being a diabolic experience with fourth degree tears, my flesh being cut from anus to vaginal hole, that we would need the assistance of a vacuum. That I could end up having multiple surgeries trying to give back my ability to hold my feces, that it would take 14 months for to be able to have sex with my husband again and even after that the sex would never be the same. I have suffered from horrible PPD and the feeling that my sex life and body had been robbed from me made me really angry, sad and bitter for a long time. My marriage has suffered from the fact that I couldn't have intimate connection with my husband."

3. the "people should take responsibility for their actions" argument is absolutely absurd. you're arguing that carrying a fetus and potentially have to raise a child for 18 years should be a punishment. why would you want someone to bring an unwanted child into the world? or a child that a parent can't afford? it doesn't just "punish" the mother, it punishes the child. that's ridiculous. find a better argument. and no, just give the child up for adoption isn't a valid response (see #2).

bye

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Really? I agree with you in theory, but in reality, the two are pretty linked.

There are some ex-mil people who hang out at the range I go to. A decent amount of them are anti-war, since they were in Desert Storm (or maybe Shield). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gabranth said:

a fetus doesn't choose to get aborted where people who engage in these activities do so voluntarily. You can throw your own life away, but not the life of an unborn child fetus. Even then I don't agree with the sentiment but I can understand it. 

 

9 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Isn't every cell in your body potentially an unborn fetus? No. I mean, fetuses are created and nurtured by their parents' cells and nutrients. By extension, doesn't this mean that every death in war is the same as killing unborn fetuses? No. If this is too outlandish for you, how do you feel about a female soldier who is unwittingly pregnant and on the front line? Should women be excluded from the military? No, though with them now able to serve in the military the military is definitely going to require women-specific healthcare.

Really? I agree with you in theory, but in reality, the two are pretty linked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the last example wasn't sufficient, let's try this:

A terminal cancer patient suffering immensely has a DNR. Is it up to the doctor to respect this decision about the patient's life or are you going to violate it and artificially extend their lives entirely contrary to the patient's decision about their body?

Just now, Gabranth said:

Screenshot_2.png

How nice for the dictionary. Makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

How nice for the dictionary. Makes no difference.

I just wanted to point out that correcting the term 'unborn child' to 'fetus' means literally nothing because they're the exact same thing.

9 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Isn't every cell in your body potentially an unborn fetus?

Uh. no. A cell is a cell. Human beings are made up of cells, not fetuses. Fetuses are also made up of cells. Does that make all human beings fetuses? Of course not, fetuses are unborn children.

9 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

I I mean, fetuses are created and nurtured by their parents' cells and nutrients. By extension, doesn't this mean that every death in war is the same as killing unborn fetuses?

?????? How did you come to this conclusion? PEOPLE ARE NOT MADE UP OF FETUSES

9 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

 If this is too outlandish for you, how do you feel about a female soldier who is unwittingly pregnant and on the front line? Should women be excluded from the military?

 

Well yeah but that's a topic for another time.

Edited by Gabranth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

I just wanted to point out that correcting the term 'unborn child' to 'fetus' means literally nothing because they're the exact same thing. Nope.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

No, though with them now able to serve in the military the military is definitely going to require women-specific healthcare.

They have been able to serve for a long time. They are just now able to be in combat roles. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Katie said:

i read the first page & don't intend to read further

Right back at you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Eh... that might be simple, but it forces people to actually experience evil before we learn from it.

People don't deserve to have their rights violated just so others can learn from what they went through.

So you would legislate against something that does not exist?

14 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

There are some ex-mil people who hang out at the range I go to. A decent amount of them are anti-war, since they were in Desert Storm (or maybe Shield). 

Yes, but I bet they were gung-ho and pro gun before they went to war. Funny thing is, I am anti-gun, and pro-war, and I have been to war zones unarmed.

9 hours ago, Gabranth said:

I just wanted to point out that correcting the term 'unborn child' to 'fetus' means literally nothing because they're the exact same thing.

Uh. no. A cell is a cell. Human beings are made up of cells, not fetuses. Fetuses are also made up of cells. Does that make all human beings fetuses? Of course not, fetuses are unborn children.

?????? How did you come to this conclusion? PEOPLE ARE NOT MADE UP OF FETUSES

Well yeah but that's a topic for another time.

Fetuses are created as a result of other cells. The question is how far back do you go. No fetus was ever created without a sperm and egg (don't take a religious line here please, or quote some oddball facts about frogs).

People are actually 100% made of fetuses. Some people are even made up of multiple fetuses. Holy cow, where did you school? I became a person when I ceased to be a fetus, was able to breath, and digest food. Otherwise, I would have become a corpse.

I don't think women in combat roles are a topic for another time - would you infringe on the freedom of someone who fights for your liberty, and puts their life on the line for it? In favor of a collection of cells that can't even indicate its favorite color?

If you value freedom, the ability to indicate choice is the acid test. As a parent of 2 sons, I can tell you that happens less than a minute after being born.

15 hours ago, Katie said:

2. adoption isn't a reasonable alternative, because:

It is absolutely a reasonable alternative, but it is a choice.

I am sorry for the pain you went through, but I am guessing that you wanted to have your kid, and from the sound of it, it was a hard experience. My wife had 3 miscarriages before our first son was born, and that was very hard on us both. She had to have a caesarian for both of our boys, and our first came out as APGAR 1 - a very harrowing first few minutes of life, especially considering the first 3 miscarriages - he is 8 now, the top of his class academically and in sport. Neither she nor I have any regrets, and while she recovered, physical intimacy was not our first thought because our hands were busy with that little lump of clay. I really hope you don't project your negative experience onto your child - you sound like you need to see a psychologist, and I mean that in the most heartfelt way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Buck Turgidson said:

So you would legislate against something that does not exist?

Would you drink unfiltered water from a questionable source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok apparently the forums notify you about being quoted now o

@buck a woman posted that in a reddit thread, it's not my story. i'll find the post later today. i don't have any children! i am sorry about what you and your wife went through, but happy for you that you have two children now (children who are very lucky to be loved and wanted by their parents)! baby/kid pics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting on the Supreme Ruler of other peoples' bodies to respond about whether he'd abide by a patient's DNR or just say !@#$ it because who are the patients to have an opinion over what can and can't be done to their bodies.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Would you drink unfiltered water from a questionable source?

Depends on how thirsty I was. Having lived in the desert for 7 years, I would say that I have more than once. I don't get your point. 

So would you legislate against something that does not exist?

For an understandable example, I don't think there should be speed limits on a stretch of road unless data indicates that it actually makes it safer at that speed. Take it further, and I don't think there should be any speed limit on a road unless someone died there, specifically from speeding.

The alternative is to let police place speed traps in places where common sense tells you that you are driving safely, but the cops can farm you for a speed tax.

I come from a western democracy, where precedent is the basis for law, so maybe this explains a difference of opinion.

2 hours ago, Katie said:

ok apparently the forums notify you about being quoted now o

@buck a woman posted that in a reddit thread, it's not my story. i'll find the post later today. i don't have any children! i am sorry about what you and your wife went through, but happy for you that you have two children now (children who are very lucky to be loved and wanted by their parents)! baby/kid pics?

Well, I don't know if I shoild be relieved, but I worry for your OP and their kin. Brimging life into the world can be scary, and I think most mothers suffer some form of PSTD, though I guess if they willingly do it more than once, the reward must be worth it. I can't think of anything sadder than an unwanted child, even an aborted fetus. It is such an important choice to make, and even surprises involve a lot of choices along the way. That's how we got #2...

Ever read Freakonomics?

Edited by Buck Turgidson
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Depends on how thirsty I was. Having lived in the desert for 7 years, I would say that I have more than once. I don't get your point. 

When it comes to the rule of law and order, thirst isn't the point.

The point is we should regulate people so they're not forced to assume risks of unreliability.  We don't wait to learn from experience about negative outcomes to have proof of what's wrong that happens.

For example, consider how a lot of towns don't install traffic lights in intersections until after an accident has happened there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 6:45 PM, Phoenix2683 said:

The state doesn't have the right in the way you phrase it, I completely agree. Unless we grant that the child is alive and has rights. thus it is murder to kill and yes the state has the right to, nay the obligation to prevent the murder. Remember many states already consider in murder if someone kills a pregnant woman (or rather a double murder). How can we have it both ways? A double murder if someone else does it, but if she does it, its not a murder? Either the child is alive and someone causing its death is murder, or it isn't. But that is the crux of it. Because that is all that matters. The mothers right to her body and all other arguments die at the steps of whether that child is alive. If it's alive it has to be protected. That is the only argument imo worth having..

Due to advances in medical technology, most people consider "brain dead" to be "dead." The opposite therefore must be alive. 

The evolution of brain development has been most popularly explained in the context of a house, where each "newer" section of the brain is an annex of the foundation. It is quite possible for the brain to retain some functionality in the "lower" foundations without having any functionality in higher sections. 

That being said, there are cases where people will have no functionality whatsoever above the brain stem, meaning that there is no cognitive function, and the brain is essentially controlling for basic reflexes and vital respiratory/cardiovascular functions. While technically that person is not "brain dead," very few people would consider that state as "alive." That is more or less the essential state of a fetus pre-partum.

Some more radical people would debate that being alive also includes the ability to be self-aware, that you recognize you exist and that you inhabit this realm as an actor. You can imagine that it can cause some outrage, since that period of self-awareness typically occurs after 2 years of age. In general though, most people would debate the former, since most consider a return policy on children to be relatively unethical at that point.

Think the first option is too liberal for you? No problem. Most up-and-coming chillins don't start developing a central nervous system until 2-4 weeks. It becomes developed and capable of basic connectivity between regions of the brain after 12. That means at 12 weeks, the fetus has the potential to be the vegetative state that most people who suffer strokes go into. More than 90% of abortions occur before 12 weeks in the UK. The numbers are much higher in the US. With the exception of some states allowing extreme cases (such as rape, incest, or danger to mother's life), ALL abortions occur within the first trimester. 

There is no debate behind this. It's already been debated out countless number of times and the logical conclusion is where we are now. Milton may say it's law and tell you to suck it up, but don't forget that the Roe v. Wade case had a conservative majority that recognized this is a done issue. 

 

 

Also, I forget who said this, but the federal government doesn't pay for abortions. States might tack on a co-pay if you live in a liberal stronghold like California. The federal government funds Planned Parenthood, and only specific sections of their services such as family planning, contraception, STI testing, and other pregnancy-related services. The federal government literally spends all of its money preventing abortions. You are misinformed by that Fox and Friends shit you keep watching. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

When it comes to the rule of law and order, thirst isn't the point.

The point is we should regulate people so they're not forced to assume risks of unreliability.  We don't wait to learn from experience about negative outcomes to have proof of what's wrong that happens.

For example, consider how a lot of towns don't install traffic lights in intersections until after an accident has happened there.

So what was the point of your thirst analogy? I still don't understand what you are talking about.

I cannot disagree with you more on the point of regulation. Communism and Islamic governments are the epic failures of precisely because they tried to regulate everything, and were based on opinion. They regulated against the fears of their regimes, and not against actuarial data.

If you don't wait for negative experiences to happen before writing a law, you wind up with a totalitarian government in no time.

Traffic lights should absolutely not be installed until there is an accident, or at the very least a congestion problem. If not, who wins, except for the traffic light manufacturer?

Please explain the thirst analogy. I honestly don't understand your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

So what was the point of your thirst analogy? I still don't understand what you are talking about.

I cannot disagree with you more on the point of regulation. Communism and Islamic governments are the epic failures of precisely because they tried to regulate everything, and were based on opinion. They regulated against the fears of their regimes, and not against actuarial data.

If you don't wait for negative experiences to happen before writing a law, you wind up with a totalitarian government in no time.

Traffic lights should absolutely not be installed until there is an accident, or at the very least a congestion problem. If not, who wins, except for the traffic light manufacturer?

Please explain the thirst analogy. I honestly don't understand your point.

Communism is a failure because it's based around dialectic materialism where it compares and contrasts real conditions.  It has no principled appreciation of civil rights or civic responsibilities.  It even believes the rule of law and order is a matter of power politics for the ruling class instead of recognizing ideals that transcend all classes of society.  

Islamism is a failure because it fails to appreciate the difference between living a happy lifestyle and living a hedonist lifestyle.  It's hyperdisciplinarian in generalizing any real satisfaction as being inherently sinful.  Therefore, it expects lifestyles to be regulated to the point of self-destructive frustration.

If you wait for negative experiences to happen, then you become an enabler of crime, tort, and accidents.  Totalitarianism is when you mandate a practical lifestyle for people to follow, not when you mandate ideals for people to follow.  We shouldn't compel people to endure victimization before securing their liberties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it another way, there is something called the golden rule that expects people to treat others the way they want to be treated.

This is actually an abbreviation of something else called the "Categorical Imperative" which says, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."  This imperative compels us to imagine consequences that are yet to become because we must recognize how multiple intentions coexist simultaneously which can collide in the sequence of time that flows. 

If we learn from experience, then we are not imagining consequences in the flow of time such that collisions end up happening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

50 cent words

No, they fail because they try to regulate beyond the limit of common sense. Any other justification is academic detail.

1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

Trying to confuse matters because wrong.

Let me know when you finish learning your vocabulary and other people's ideas, take a few years to understand them enough to express yourself clearly and learn to carry on a conversation.

In the meantime, I will go have a glass of water from a questionable source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buck Turgidson said:

No, they fail because they try to regulate beyond the limit of common sense. Any other justification is academic detail.

Let me know when you finish learning your vocabulary and other people's ideas, take a few years to understand them enough to express yourself clearly and learn to carry on a conversation.

In the meantime, I will go have a glass of water from a questionable source.

Actually, communism is grounded in common sense.  The point is to support the working class by governing the economy through democracy.

The problem is common sense doesn't work when you apply it to economics since it replaces marginal with average utility.

On top of that, I have expressed myself clearly.  Your failure to appreciate what's said doesn't make it unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Actually, communism is grounded in common sense.  The point is to support the working class by governing the economy through democracy.

The problem is common sense doesn't work when you apply it to economics since it replaces marginal with average utility.

On top of that, I have expressed myself clearly.  Your failure to appreciate what's said doesn't make it unclear.

I teach Masters level courses at a European University and in the corporate world on a few continents, and can tell you that it is supreme arrogance to place the burden of understanding on the audience. It is the speaker's responsibility to make himself clear, especially when asked for a clarification. Give yourself the challenge of using common words to express what you mean - it proves mastery in communication. It proves that you understand the subject. Trust me, I have been there - in your case, however, you misuse your own jargon to the point that you clearly don't understand what you are trying to say, or are just a common troll.

If you like 50 cent words, read A Confederacy of Dunces - an exceptional comedy by an author who wrote one book, killed himself, and won the Pulitzer prize 15 years later when his grieving mother finally got someone to publish it. I am known to have an outstanding vocabulary, probably a result of spending so many years learning languages modern and ancient in several disciplines, and I swear I had to carry a dictionary around with me when reading it - there was one word about every page that was so obscure that you only fully got the joke when you understood that it was precisely the word to use in that context. I had to get off buses on a regular basis because I burst out laughing and could not stop. It is humbling and rewarding, and I think it would serve you well. It will have the benefit of familiarizing you with Boethius, which I suspect you think you are already familiar with.

Your arguments are incomprehensible, and the truth is that I can't even confirm that they are wrong. The parts I did understand are wrong, however. Thinking before you communicate forces you to confront your own comprehension.

As for communism - it has had its chance, and proven that it is not even remotely democratic. Show me a communist state with universal suffrage, and I will admit that I am mistaken. At best it is an oligarchy with a worker's face on it in its modern form, or a warrior's face if you go further back than Marx.

It is precisely the application of common sense economics that led to the downfall of communism. Capitalism is natural, and never needed to be invented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.