The article above suggests abortion has thinned the ranks of Democrats. I think the author has a point and there are other points that aren't in the article that could back it up.
You know, if abortion had not been legalized one wonders what the political landscape would look like today. Here's a few points to consider:
1) More Democrats would be in office -- many potential Democrats vote with the Republicans because they favor getting rid of abortion on demand.
2) Immigration would be lower since those children aborted since 1973 would be in the workforce and there would be less demand for labor from other sources. I remember growing up in the 70s and teens worked jobs now that in my community are generally held by recent immigrants.
3) As the article suggests, Democrats abort more than Republicans and we generally hold onto the political leanings of our family. So many more Democrats would be in the voting population today if they had not been terminated prior to birth.
Any opinions on this or the article above?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
michaele8, any death is tragic, and except for this coming Presidential election I will probably live my life without ever voting democratic for reasons of abortion on demand. But I am almost equally dissenfranchised by my own party, the GOP that 2/3 of which supports the death penalty unquestioningly. I truly wish the government would never allow death of any kind.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[imagines the government locking people up for having illegally died]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Geoff, you know exactly what I meant, I truly hope that was not an attempt at humor to make light of the fact that the government sponsors and implements the killing of people and also allows abortion to take place. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
No, that was an attempt at making light of your specific word choice I'm sorry, I thought it was funny. It'll be a very sad day when our nation makes laughter illegal ...
[ July 01, 2004, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Especially laughter trivializing murder? Can't have comedy without that. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Look, a sentence can be funny, even if it's about death and pain. Most of the funniest sentences I've ever heard were about death and pain. Almost all humor involves pain at some level or another — with the exception of the pun, which is what makes it humor's lowest form
It doesn't trivialize an issue to make a joke at someone's word choice while they're talking about it. It's not as though talking about death suddenly causes you to be surrounded by a Holy Shield of Seriousness that makes you immune to teasing. Laugh a little, and maybe that will make people want to talk to you long enough to hear what you have to say. If you're so prickly that you lash out at the slightest joke, you make yourself very easy for people to dismiss and ignore.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Don't lecture me, I wasn't "lashing out," I was simply pointing out that was you said was offensive to me. If indignance at my offense gives you the right to begin a commentary on my social skills I don't think I'd like to sustain a conversation with you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Brian, you keep insisting on picking fights with some of the most reasonable and rational posters here (Dagonee, Geoff, TomD).
Why?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I hope you never go to kuro5hin, Brian.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Becuase I'm a stodgy, old bastard? Look, I don't go out of my way to pick fights with people, and certainly in those instances I did not think they were "reasonable." I get the message, I won't trouble you anymore. I should know enough not to cross more than 2 people of the popular clique somewhere. Adieu from the "Space Cowboy."
[ July 01, 2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sigh* I wasn't trying to imply that you -- or anyone -- should leave. Just maybe that you should examine why it is that you are managing to have such snarky dialogs with generally non-snarky posters.
Your choice. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Whoah, since when am I in the popular clique? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*places laurel wreath on Geoff's head*
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
If you placed a tree instead of a wreath Rivka, Geoff could be in the poplar clique.
(Yeah, well I thought it was funny.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*snort*
im, I would guess that Geoff might object a bit to the notion of carrying around an entire tree. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Maybe just a bit of a tree instead. Then he would be a branch of the poplar clique.
[ July 01, 2004, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Are you sleep posting again?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*checks* No, I seem to still be awake.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
On topic however - the article states that the socio-demographic background of people considered more likely to have an abortion was found using a survey of 2000 people. (This is the survey that led to the conclusion that Democrat voters are more likely to have an abortion).
Given the article then goes on to extrapolate the argument to over 24 000 000 people, I would suspect that the sample size isn't quite big enough. Statisticians?
Edit - Rivka, appear to be? Maybe you're really asleep and this is all a dream...
[ July 01, 2004, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Did no one else see this title and think immediately of the Governator?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think you're right, imogen. But I escaped becoming an actuary, so I refuse to remember how to do the necessary calculations.
As far as my sleep-status, that would imply that I was getting some sleep, neh? I'm in favor of that . . .
Boon, no. But then, I try really really hard not to allow anything to make me do that. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That article is not exactly logical. Children down't always absorb the values and political leanings of their parents or relatives, they sometimes rebel against them. I don't, for example, completely share my parent's values. Another thing is some conservatives are likely to have abortions if pressed to. Especially in the case of 15 year old daughters that might end up getting pregnant by accident. It's like saying that more liberals divorce when that may not be completely true. Then you'd have to take into consideration why and when each person would get an aboration before considering missing voters... Perhaps I am being illogical....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The other thing to consider is that, sadly, many abortions do happen for "timing" reasons. This means that a mother who gets an abortion might have a child 5 years later. Had she not had the abortion, she likely wouldn't have had the child 5 years later.
So the net decrease in population is less than the total number of abortions. There are complications from abortions that cause sterility, but I'd bet the numbers don't overcome this displacement effect.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
HEY MICHAEL
i'm just curious, where do you find all this stuff? is there some sort of fanatical-conservative, foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalist mailing list that provides you with this wealth of inflammatory source material, or do you just spend the majority of your time scouring the web in search of the most biased and slanted "news" pieces you can find?
[ July 01, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
The fact is (as I've said before) if ANY candidate who became president was REALLY strongly anti-abortion, he could snuff it out and overwrite the law with an Executive Order.
But no one is going to do that because it would be political suicide. (and probably get him impeached).
So does it really matter how the president feels about it since he has little control over the law other than this?
Farmgirl
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
that's exactly why i don't understand people voting based on politician's supposed stance on the issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it really possible to have so little respect for human life that you categorize fetuses in terms of whether they're going to be Democrats or Republicans 18 years and 6-9 months from now? That's exactly what you have to do to make a statement like that Democrats are losing voters to abortion.
How can anyone call themselves pro-life when they place so little value on humanity? This sort of "how can we exploit as many people as possible?" attitude is what turns me off from many conservative causes that I might otherwise agree with, like tort reform.
Ok, now that I've witnessed political rhetoric dropping to new depths of immorality, I should probably get back to work...
I'm not overly fond of the article, but I find this statement amazing. By all means, lets not look at one of the possible effects of a social policy that was implemented without voter input in the vast majority of states.
Claiming the high ground on "exploiting life" while supporting a policy that has resulted in 40 million dead, mostly for purely elective reasons, is pure hypocrisy. Helping fund birth control and abortions for people you don't want voting isn't something that's been done on the pro-life side.
I'm not even going to go into numbers on medically necessary abortions, but they don't drop the number of elective abortions below 39 million. Nor would all the medically necessary abortions result in a dead mother.
Dagonee *And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of refusing to use someone's own preferred label and leaving the word "abortion" entirely out of the new, preferred labels. Either let people label themselves as they see fit or make accurate labels. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:that's exactly why i don't understand people voting based on politician's supposed stance on the issue.
Because it's not a matter of life and death to you, or is a matter of life and death on a much smaller scale.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Are abortions going up or down, does anyone have these sorts of statistics?
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd need to research it. If I recall correctly, abortions in real numbers have held steady or dropped very slightly, which means the number of abortions per pregnancy has probably dropped.
Again, the statistics I know are at least 5 years old.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:Because it's not a matter of life and death to you
that's true, but it doesn't really invalidate my point. I'm not sure of the statistics (you probably are much more familiar with them), so this is conjecture. How many abortions has bush been able to stop in the US, really? And how much more religious could a president get? You have your perfect candidate in office, he had a good two years of almost unconditional support as well as control of both houses of congress, yet all he really managed to do was enact a partial-birth abortion ban which (i believe) has been ruled unconstitutional (although my memory here could be off). He's cut funding to 3rd-world programs that support abortion, but i would argue these policies have created more problems than they've solved.
so what has been accomplished?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
also, if you're going to rate politicians based on the lives they end, either directly or as a result of policy, i have to say that bush's lack of inaction regarding the AIDS epidemic is horrendous. how many people in 3rd world countries die of malnutrition from poverty imposed by our faming subsidies, how many more children will die here in the US as a result of relaxed environmental controls, how many iraqi civilians have died from the war?
some of these are stretching, i know...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree (edit: that Bush has not stopped many abortions), but court appointments are critical; and if court appointments have their desired effect, then pro-life candidates in state legislatures and Congress will be critical, either to pass laws or, hopefully, a Constitutional amendment.
Dagonee Edit: Iraqi civillian deaths are less than 20,000, right? Against those, you have to credit lives that would have been lost if Sadaam were still in power and about 5 days worth of abortions in the U.S.
[ July 01, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
still, i can't help but seeing this as a choice between which you would prefer: to legislate against killing fetuses and legislating against abandoning them once they're born. look at no child left behind: Bush might be very interested in keeping kids from being killed before they're born, but he clearly has little interest in what happend to them afterwards, or he would have funded the program. the same pattern seems to be true at all levels of education, funding for social programs (which ostensibly are intended to keep children from being punished for the economic situation of their parents), environmental controls, labor laws, etc etc etc.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i guess it just reminds me of the classical excuse which the chrisitan theocracy has peddled since the middle ages: don't worry about how we're opressing you right now, because heaven everlasting is your reward for you subservience.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's true only if you buy that gov't funding is the best way to make sure kids have enough.
Many people don't agree with that.
Dagonee Edit re Theocracy remark: And we were doing so well being nice in this conversation.
[ July 01, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:gov't funding is the best way to make sure kids have enough
here's the problems with the privitazation/charity argument: such organizations are not inherently democratic. There are plenty of charities which are completely egalitarian, but they are egalitarian by choice, as a result of beliefs which happen to support that view. the only truly democratic institution in our society is the government, and if we assume that our goal is to give all members of our society (roughly) equal opportunities, only a democratic institution can be expected to do so. The whole point of social programs (regardless of their source) is to help those who are the most disadvantaged, and these are precisely the people who are being neglected by existing social institutions.
what is the point of having a government if not to secure the rights of individuals? maybe the difference is that i consider the chance to develop one's abilites to their fullest a "right", while others consider it a cute ideal.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:And we were doing so well being nice in this conversation
i wasn't talking about the current church leadership, i was referring to the church of the middle ages when they held practically absolute control, before the scientific revolution.
it wasn't meant to be an insult of snarky comment, i apologize for the implication
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Theory: since most Pro-abortion people are democrats, and since most people follow the beliefs of their parents, then Abortion is zapping the democratic party of followers.
Wow. Talk about grabbing at straws.
How's this:
If there were an abundance of democratic followers, which allowed liberals to control the government, then the liberals would pass laws orchestrating Sexual Education Classes in all schools, hence teaching kids the dangers of unprotected sex, which would decrease the numbers of teen pregnancies, and hence decrease the number of future Democratic voters as well.
Basically, it would be best if Democrats just realized the truth and promoted as much teen pregnancy as they could.
Democratic To-do: 1) Sign up minorities to vote, and to vote often. 2) Donate all the cash you can to the Democratic party. 3) Go knock up a teen or two.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
"A teen or two" has a really nice ring to it.
Hobbes Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Until the pro-life movement is universally against this sort of anti-life behavior, they can't claim any sort of moral high ground.
Universally. You mean the entire movement has to completely purge itself of crazies before its ideas have merit? That's hardly fair. The fact that some people think this issue is worth killing a doctor over doesn't make my more reasonable opinion invalid. I don't think it's worth killing a doctor. I have a different stance on the issue than the crazies do. So when you're discussing this with me, you don't have to drag all those other people into it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well what makes you think they'll come if you don't drag them?
Hobbes Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Kerinin, I suspect most conservatives would be happy to fund those programs to help out children if the money existed. It does not. More than likely, it never will. It would have to be taken from other social programs already existing, or taxes would have to be raised massively--leaving no net benefit. Preventing someone else from doing harm is relatively easy; doing additional good yourself can be all but impossible.
And I would say that the purpose of government is to protect us from attack--either from criminals or from other governments. That's why actions involving military or police force are so much more effective than social programs; the government is inherently an instrument of force and coercion, only worth having because the alternative is worse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:First of all, the simple fact is that one can't be dead unless one was alive to start with. I'd be interested to see statistics on the number of abortions performed on fetuses that were developed enough to be able to survive outside of the mother, but if it were high, many people who are currently pro-choice wouldn't be.
Except the viability of a premature baby is incredibly dependent on the technology available to treat it. The state of our medical technology shouldn't be the criteria used to define life.
quote:From an anti-choice perspective, what's the difference between an abortion and murdering a doctor? By any moral or medical definition, a doctor is a viable human being, regardless of what kind of medicine he or she chooses to perform. Until the pro-life movement is universally against this sort of anti-life behavior, they can't claim any sort of moral high ground.
quote:Similiarly the pro-choice movement can't claim any sort of moral high ground until they are universally against abortions as a form of birth control where less severe methods of contraception would have been much more effective. Accidents happen, but if you're going to have sex, you need to be responsible about it.
Now, if I believe that abortion in some cases is wrong, why am I so against placing any governmental restrictions on it? The slippery slope theory; those who are in favor of abortion restrictions have a tendency to state the issue as all-or-nothing, and once you give up anything to that mentality, you've given up everything.
It is precisely elective abortions that are the target of most pro-lifers. Since these make up over 98% of all abortions in the U.S., you're allowing great wrong in order to avoid having a real political battle.
I'm interested to know what the rationale is for condemning one abortion of a child and excusing an abortion of another child at the exact same developmental phase based solely upon actions outside the scope of the children's control. I've never heard a coherent moral explanation of this.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Specious argument. If we send troops to stop genocide in the Sudan, and they kill people, the actions could still be considered pro-life.
Just to reaffirm, I'm against killing doctors who perform abortions.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Mabus:
quote:if the money existed. It does not
you must be kidding. i could (maybe) take this argument if we were talking about specific policy suggestions and the statement was made about the current financial status of the government (which may have been your intent). but if you're saying that it "never will" i'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. there are countless ways an economy can be structured, modified, and contourted. are you saying that and country with rates of taxation higher than ours is doomed to failure? look at countries such as Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, or Belgium, all of which have higher per hour production than we do. What this means is that they produce more GDP per hour worked than we do. We might produce more per capita, but we have to work more time to do so. Furthermore, while all of those countries listed have lower per capita GDP than the US, they also ALL have substantially lower wealth distributions than the US, which means that the majority of the population may very well have a better standard of life that we do. What else makes these countries similar? they all charge a LOT more taxes than we do, spend a LOT more on social programs that we do, and are all doing pretty well economically. so i'm sorry, but i don't agree with your statement about "no net benefit".
quote:And I would say that the purpose of government is to protect us from attack
that's nice; most of the world disagrees with you. in the history of democracy no government has been formed solely for this purpose, for the simple reason that most people (the foundation of the government's mandate in a democracy) believe that the government has a responsibility to do more than simply keep the other guys out. While we might argue over exactly which "rights" deserve protection by the government, surely we can agree that there are more than the right to not be killed by another government's army?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not true. You brought up an out-of-context example.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
yes, but not SOLELY for that purpose. Mabus was arguing that the only function of government is to protect from attack (as i understood him). the constitution was written to give the government broad powers over trade, taxation, as well as with a bill of rights ensuring various privlidges outside the scope of the right to be protected from either attack or oppression
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
also, one must remember that at the time of the constitution england was not considered another nation by most people: most people considered themselves british citizens. so it wasn't really an outside government they were trying to protect themselves from, but from the opression of their own
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm with kerinin. Take a look at the Declaration:
"...that among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Protection from invasion is included, but so is protection of life in general. All of criminal law can be justified by this statement, as can welfare programs, infrastructure programs, armed forces, taxes, contract, tort, and property law, and a host of others.
What particular combination of government activities actually best secures these rights is what politics is all about.
Dagonee
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.
This is from Hobbes--the man who came up with the concept of the social contract. There were major modifications, certainly, but ultimately modern democracy derives from his ideas.
I think it's clear that Hobbes means more by war than just "killing the other guy", of course. My point is that there are wrongs that happen to us in the ordinary course of nature rather than because someone has done them to us--poverty, disease, famine, and such--and that government is not formed to deal with these, but to solve direct conflicts between people. Abortion represents such a conflict--a "war" between the interests of the fetus and those of its mother. For the most part, the situations referenced by the pro-choice side as being ignored by conservatives are "natural", at least in the sense that there is no clear person or group standing there and taking away food or money from the family; they simply result from shortage of goods. There is no obvious oppressing party which government can prosecute, therefore government is not the best tool for remedying the situation.
[ July 01, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:My point is that there are wrongs that happen to us in the ordinary course of nature rather than because someone has done them to us--poverty, disease, famine, and such--and that government is not formed to deal with these, but to solve direct conflicts between people
so you're saying that poverty and starvation are the result of "natural" and "ordinary" processes, not by "conflicts between people"? do you mean conflicts between individuals rather than groups of people? your arguments seem to be based on levels of seperation: that it's ok for tertiary effects of something to kill people (starvation caused by monopolizing the labor force for example), but not for primary effects to kill people (a mother having an abortion). This might be more intuitive, but it is no more logical. It is easy to see how a mother is directly responsible for having an abortion, easy to blame her, but that doesn't excuse more complex causes for deaths, or abortions for that matter.
quote:Abortion represents such a conflict--a "war" between the interests of the fetus and those of its mother
i would argue that abortion represents a "war" between religious government officials and a pregnant woman. Do we critizice people for having tumors removed? In my opinion a fetus (at least in early development) is little different: a clump of cells. sure, it will become something more if nurtured enough, but it is not in my mind intrinsically valuable.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
There are many many many (keep going) threads on Abortion on Hatrack and all over the Internet. It should be discussed and that is good. I had two questions, one in particular that I haven't heard more about.
1) Have people been swayed from one stance to another in the Life/Choice argument? This might be another thread altogether (not an argument thread, but a declaration thread or sharing thread or something).
2) This is more pertinent to this thread. Why do even staunch pro-life people give exception to the Rape or Incest exemption from proposed anti-Abortion laws?
fil
[ July 01, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fil, on question 2, there are two main reasons:
1) Because we think it's all we can get, and we know they're a small fraction of the cases.
2) Not sure why some people think it's less morally objectionable. I've never looked at it from a maternal responsibility perspective but rather from a rights of the child perspective.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i don't think we were really arguing about abortion, at least not in terms of if it is a good thing or whatever. most of this thread's been about the significance of abortion relative to other issues.
and no, i don't think anybody's going to change their view on it (unless personal circumstances force a change of opinion)
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think you'd be surprised at how open-minded people at Hatrack can be.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Kerinin, tertiary effects, by their nature, can easily happen without the slightest malice or ill-will, without any disregard for another individual's existence, without even any knowledge of their existence. The same is not true of primary effects--unless you count willful ignorance of someone else's humanity. It is possible that by using this computer, I increase the use of fossil fuels, and therefore global warming, enough to kill another dozen people some time in the next decade. Should I be prosecuted? Should a person using dial-up be prosecuted if they inadvertently jam the phone lines long enough to prevent a 911 call from going through?
Each person who exists or has ever existed is in continuity with a "ball of cells" like the one you describe. Any injury done to such a ball of cells is injury that will manifest itself in that person. Destroy or remove that ball of cells and you destroy the person. That ball of cells has a distinct genetic identity. That ball of cells is a biological system dependent on, but clearly separate from, the mother. By saying what you are saying, you essentially argue that only life that happens to be in "human" shape at the time is worth protecting. I suppose that's a position that can be defended, but it's far from self-evident.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:i would argue that abortion represents a "war" between religious government officials and a pregnant woman. Do we critizice people for having tumors removed? In my opinion a fetus (at least in early development) is little different: a clump of cells. sure, it will become something more if nurtured enough, but it is not in my mind intrinsically valuable.
First of all, you don't have to be particularly religious or even particularly conservative to be against abortion. I cite Tom Davidson as a prime example. To be against abortion, you must believe that it is either morally wrong or harmful in some way. That belief can come from a variety of sources. Convenient as it is to paint all your political opponents with the same brush, it doesn't actually lead to much productive debate.
Second, your trivialization of the difference between a fetus and a tumor is bizarre. Perhaps if humans were incapable of considering the future, it would make sense, but ...
A "cluster of cells" can be a lot of things, the same way a "cluster of atoms" can be a lot of things. Say you hold out your hands — in one hand you have the gold master of The Sims 2, and in the other, you have a pile of dirt. Both are mere clusters of atoms, so I shouldn't value one above the other, right? Yet oddly enough, I grab the one that has the potential to entertain me for hours on end. (For those of you who may be wondering, that would be The Sims 2).
So when you hold out a tumor and a fetus, sure, both are clusters of cells that depend on a human body to give them nourishment. One of them has the potential to become a human life as real and as intelligent and as valuable as you or I — a real person that I could meet, love, and become friends with. The other has the potential to become a bigger tumor and kill someone that I love.
Which do you think I will value more?
The point is, yes, if you reduce your description of an item to the most general descriptive terms (like "a cluster of cells"), then you can make it sound equivalent to something else that can be reduced in the same way. But the qualities you are ignoring in order to do this are usually precisely what people actually care about. No one cares about ANY cluster of cells, unless there is something more to be said about it.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:2) This is more pertinent to this thread. Why do even staunch pro-life people give exception to the Rape or Incest exemption from proposed anti-Abortion laws?
I'm anti-abortion because I believe in accountability. I believe consentual sex to be an implied agreement to a possible child, and in cases of rape, there is no consent.
As for incest, I don't agree with all cases. I think it needs to be shown that the fetus will be delivered damaged (more likely in direct mother-son or father-daughter incest than, say, first cousins) before I'd agree. If a perfect fetus can be delivered, I think it should be.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm in the same boat as Frisco here. When I make the incest exception, I'm usually speaking under the assumption that we're talking about non-consensual incest between a parent and a child or some other such horror. First cousins getting together in some backwater doesn't seem like a good reason to me.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:The same is not true of primary effects--unless you count willful ignorance of someone else's humanity
that's true, but i'm much less interested in punishing those responsible for social problems than i am in eliminating them. punishment is of little importance unless it serves as a deterrance, and as a way of changing social conditions i find deterrance a rather weak remedy. because we're an intelligent species, however, we can recognize that if we eliminate or redirect the causes (however removed and diffuse) they might be of a problem, it's likely the problem will get better. anyway, i'm not going to press this point, it all comes down to punishment vs. prevention.
quote:That ball of cells is a biological system dependent on, but clearly separate from, the mother
if this is your logic than organs have the same status: a week old fetus has no clear seperation from the mother, it is protected by her immune system, nourished by her body, and has absolutely no capacity to survive or function outside of her.
quote:First of all, you don't have to be particularly religious or even particularly conservative to be against abortion.
no, but you do have to be religious, ie you have to have faith that something exists beyond the here and now. a fetus's only significance outside of some sort of religion/faith is that i could at some point become a human being if submitted to the proper conditions. of course, this could also be said of a sperm, and most people don't loose much sleep over the billions of sperm they kill over their lifetime (men at least).
i was not trying to "paint my opponents" as anything, i was simply restating something mabus had said to show a different conclusion based on alternate assumptions. i respect people who believe abortion is murder, and i am not trying to change their minds.
quote: But the qualities you are ignoring in order to do this are usually precisely what people actually care about
precisely, and the qualities i care about in a cluster of cells are intelligence, empathy, comprehension or love. in short, sentience. your argument that a fetus is inherently different than a tumor relies actions that happen in the future, except the action you are condemning is in the present. if i eat a hamburger that hamburger becomes part of me, it become a living being. would you condemn someone from stepping on that hamburger before i ate it? of course not because in and of itself it is not a person, it is not what we value as an individual in our society. This is obviously a very exaggerated example, but the point remains - a fetus is not an individual, it is something with the ability to BECOME one.
anyway, i'm not expecting anyone to change thier minds, i'm just giving my opinion.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: if this is your logic than organs have the same status: a week old fetus has no clear seperation from the mother, it is protected by her immune system, nourished by her body, and has absolutely no capacity to survive or function outside of her.
Organs are connected directly into the body by specific types of connections--blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, and nerves, which all weave directly into their tissues. They are "meant to stay"--they are integral parts of the body.
An embryo taps into the mother's blood supply "from outside", as it were, by eroding tissues away. Even the most deeply rooted placentas never mingle the blood of the two, because the maternal immune system would attack the embryo as an invader. Most organs will produce some kind of direct sensation (that is, through nerve connections), even if it is only pain, to consciously alert a person to their status, and all of them do so on an unconscious level; there are no neural connections between mother and fetus at all.
The embryo or fetus is no more a part of the mother's body than--to use an unflattering analogy--a mosquito taking a bite. If we were totally uninterested in protecting its existence, we'd abort them all. (Of course, at bare minimum, they represent continuity for the species even if they were not currently human. But then, why do we really care about that continuity, other than a meaningless biological drive to preserve our genes?)
[ July 01, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:if this is your logic than organs have the same status: a week old fetus has no clear seperation from the mother, it is protected by her immune system, nourished by her body, and has absolutely no capacity to survive or function outside of her.
It has a unique genetic code, distinct from the mother.
It's clearly alive. By any scientific definition it's clearly a different organism than the mother. Edit: It's also pretty clearly part of the species Homo Sapiens.
So what is it?
Dagonee
[ July 01, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:The embryo or fetus is no more a part of the mother's body than--to use an unflattering analogy--a mosquito taking a bite
right...
quote:Of course, at bare minimum, they represent continuity for the species even if they were not currently human. But then, why do we really care about that continuity, other than a meaningless biological drive to preserve our genes?
i'll assume this question is rhetorical.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, you don't have to be particularly religious or even particularly conservative to be against abortion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no, but you do have to be religious, ie you have to have faith that something exists beyond the here and now.
Wait, are you telling me I can't be an atheist, or that I can't be anti-abortion? *wink*
Moral reasons don't always have to be grounded in religion, you know. I believe killing in lieu of taking personal responsibility to be wrong, and I don't need any higher power to tell me so.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
*agrees w/Frisco*
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Feel free to roll your eyes all you like. I explained my reasoning as to why an embryo is not a part of the mother's body. It can't be logically compelling in the proper sense--I don't think there's any useful way to make a syllogism out of it--but I can't see any sensible way to get out of it.
And I was perfectly serious, not rhetorical at all. Why does it really matter if someone lives after you are dead? Will you notice or care? I want people who are now alive to stay alive; I don't care whether I have any descendants. If after everyone alive now is dead, there isn't a single human on earth, it's no skin off my nose.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:It has a unique genetic code, distinct from the mother
so do mitochondria (sp, i know), as well as the bacteria which digest our food, the microbes which clean our eyes, etc etc. taxonomy is a tricky thing.
quote:It's clearly alive. By any scientific definition it's clearly a different organism than the mother. Edit: It's also pretty clearly part of the species Homo Sapiens.
So what is it?
i'm not arguing that it isn't human. i'm arguing that it isn't a person, isn't an individual, and in my world, individuals have significance.
i agree with frisco too, as someone here said one time, i don't think anyone who's pro choice things that abortions are a good thing. and i'll take back the religious thing and say that in my experience, only people who have some sort of faith hold a fetus and a full-grown human in equal status, and are therefore both the victims of "murder" if their existences are ended.
and mabus, i wasn't rolling my eyes at your reasoning, just your metaphor. as to your question, you're absolutely right. without a belief in some sort of transendence or supreme authority, (IMHO; i'm learning...) there can be nothing which is not "meaningless", in the sense that it has transcendant significance. i thought it was a rhetorical question because my answer is that there is nothing more than a biological drive to justify the continuation of our species.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
For those who doubt the existence of souls, are we talking about sentience here as a guidline?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Okay...I guess my next question would hypothetically be why you allow your life to be run by those biological drives--but I suppose you would say there is nothing beyond them anyway.
I suppose at this point any argument I can make will run into a determinism/free will conflict rather quickly. Since I've never come across any useful way of resolving that, I'll settle back and wait for another line of argument to come my way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Erik, I hope not. Newborn babies aren't really sentient.
quote: First cousins getting together in some backwater doesn't seem like a good reason to me.
You know, I have several friends who chose to marry a first cousin. There's no reason to be nasty about such a choice. In any case, it's not universally considered to be incest.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
So, we're discussing potential?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Boinking anyone you'd meet at a family reunion squicks me out a bit, whether it's "universally" frowned upon or not. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Frisco, I have third and fourth cousins I know fairly well -- lots of them. So I disagree.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:2) Immigration would be lower since those children aborted since 1973 would be in the workforce and there would be less demand for labor from other sources. I remember growing up in the 70s and teens worked jobs now that in my community are generally held by recent immigrants.
I don't quite understand.
quote:3) As the article suggests, Democrats abort more than Republicans and we generally hold onto the political leanings of our family. So many more Democrats would be in the voting population today if they had not been terminated prior to birth.
This puts emphasis on the wrong priorities. I'm not pro-choice because I think that's what will win. I'm pro-choice because I believe that parents should want to be parents. If you are pro-choice in the name of some clever advantage, it makes about as much sense as LDS having large families kids in order to get a numbers advantage on the rest of us.
______________________________________________
For me, this isn't about having kids, it's about having good kids with fulfilled parents.
[ July 01, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:in my experience, only people who have some sort of faith hold a fetus and a full-grown human in equal status, and are therefore both the victims of "murder" if their existences are ended.
I don't consider fetuses to be equal to independent humans, and I don't think that abortion is murder. It doesn't have to be murder to be morally wrong. I don't think stomping a kitten's head is equivalent to murder, either, but can be evil and cruel, and if someone does it maliciously, without some grand higher purpose, they should be despised for it.
When someone goes through the act of creating a child for their own enjoyment, and then destroys the child they created because it's inconvenient for them to take responsibility for their actions, I consider that to be morally wrong. It's not murder. But in my opinion, it's pretty unjustifiable. All the excuses for why it doesn't really "count as a baby yet" just sound silly to me. Either this is your offspring, or it isn't. If you think we should be like rodents and destroy our own young as a fear reflex, then I suppose that's who you are. But I think the fact that we are sentient humans means that more should be expected of us.
[ July 01, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
rivka, I really wasn't trying to be disparaging there ... if anything, I was trying to say that it wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be.
Though you have to admit that that sort of marriage practice really is only considered acceptable by certain fringes of American society. The mainstream, by and large, says, "Cousins? Ick!"
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
well if we're talking about morality this discussion will change its nature pretty quickly. i was arguing in the contect of laws making abortion illegal because it is (a form of) murder. personally i don't like talking about morality because it so quickly degenerates in to subjective opinions based on irreconcilable differences in belief: policy is much more interesting to me.
quote:Erik, I hope not. Newborn babies aren't really sentient
i was expecting to be called out on this earlier, it's the major weakness of my position. logically i must support infanticide. alternate bases for valuation in an athiest worldview might be emotional attachment to something or behavioral differentiation from others (behavioral identification differentiation). i'm sure there are more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: rivka, I really wasn't trying to be disparaging there ... if anything, I was trying to say that it wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be.
Fair enough.
quote: Though you have to admit that that sort of marriage practice really is only considered acceptable by certain fringes of American society. The mainstream, by and large, says, "Cousins? Ick!"
*shrug* So? And since studies have shown that the odds of first cousins' offspring having birth defects is really not much higher than that of the general population . . . Anyway, even those who say "ick" would probably not actually consider it incest, neh?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Frisco, I have third and fourth cousins I know fairly well -- lots of them. So I disagree.
I'm not sure how you can disagree that it squicks me out, unless you're calling me a liar. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to boink your cousins, only that I wouldn't.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laugh* I disagree that someone showing up at a family reunion should be an automatic disqualifier for romantic attraction. You, of course, may hold any opinions you like.
Including the notion that using the expression "boinking" is not squicky in and of itself.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think it might be more commonly accepted in the Jewish community because there are so few Jews in the states.
I wonder if it's more accepted by European Jews than by "normal" Europeans (It was either that or "UnJews" ), and if it's directly realted to their population percentages.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's been a recent consanguinity study that suggests it's not bad at all for first cousins to marry, and it can provide benefits.
Also, more than half the world's population lives in countries where first cousins marry with some frequency.
I wouldn't do it, mainly because Eve isn't my first cousin. Plus it's illegal here in ol' Virginny.
Dagonee
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:There's been a recent consanguinity study that suggests it's not bad at all for first cousins to marry, and it can provide benefits.
One fewer person you'll have to send a Christmas card.
I don't think it's bad for first cousins to marry, either. I just wish I had more desirable cousins.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm sorry, I thought it was funny. It'll be a very sad day when our nation makes laughter illegal ...![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)