quote:What if she had accidentally gotten pregnant, through a broken condom, or failed birth control pill? Would abortion be murder then? Hmm?
If it's a human being, a broken condum or failed birth control obviously makes no difference to the question of whether killing it is murder. I realize you think you're posing all these scathing questions, but this is again really basic level stuff, and if you're going to be discussing it on the talk-show level of sophistication, I don't know why you're still so smug-except perhaps to fit in with the talk show theme.
-------
Just wanted to echo what CT was saying about your willingness and tone, Lyrhawn. I think you might (and this is very possibly my own reading subtext into words that isn't there, hard to tell in text) be getting a bit heated, but even if you are, it's a tricky, tense subject and it's groovy to hear you willing to discuss things in detail.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if she had accidentally gotten pregnant, through a broken condom, or failed birth control pill? Would abortion be murder then? Hmm?
If it's a human being, a broken condum or failed birth control obviously makes no difference to the question of whether killing it is murder. I realize you think you're posing all these scathing questions, but this is again really basic level stuff, and if you're going to be discussing it on the talk-show level of sophistication, I don't know why you're still so smug-except perhaps to fit in with the talk show theme.
No, I don't think my questions are scathing, and I'm quite capable of thinking and talking about this subject at a higher level. I'm tailoring this to my audience, i.e., Lyrhawn. This is the level he's at, at this time. There's no point in using more subtle, higher-level approaches, or really fully engaging with the best arguments I can think of. You don't expect a beginning pianist to play a concerto with the New York Philharmonic. You work him up to that slowly.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is the level he's at, at this time. There's no point in using more subtle, higher-level approaches, or really fully engaging with the best arguments I can think of. You don't expect a beginning pianist to play a concerto with the New York Philharmonic. You work him up to that slowly.
*snort* Yeah, you're a real educator, steven. I'm not sure if you actually think this way or if this is more of your dishonesty schtick, but either way, amusing!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
I know. And I don't want to stifle your input. I guess I just wanted some acknowledgment that you are deciding "should" and "supposed to do" and acceptable risks and behavior for other people. That requires, I think, more humility than when you are deciding things that impact yourself.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
Without speaking for kmbboots, I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem, the way your words fells on the ear, has to do with the fact that...you and I are dudes. These problems simply aren't ever going to affect us, except as through women. Y'know? It's difficult to make a comparison that doesn't seem contrived, but it would be if I decided one day, through only indirect knowledge, that I was going to help resolve problems between India and Pakistan-and that my thoughts on the matter weren't indirect and were as relevant as those of Indians and Pakistanis.
I mean, my thoughts could be relevant, but it would take a very great deal of research and education, I think, before I'd be anything more than an armchair quarterback, y'know? That's a pretty clunky comparison-perhaps someone might come along and clarify it, once clutter is defeated.
Anyway, I think the argument was that the 'what we're supposed to do' standard is always changing, and it's not even a settled thing right now throughout the world or even in the United States-except in the minds of its citizens, varying from person to person. The argument wasn't that women shouldn't have care during pregancy, the argument was (I think), "How do we decide what 'supposed to do' is, anyway?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For me, the difference between aborting a pregnancy at six weeks, and killing a baby shortly after it's born is pretty small.
I pay a lot of attention to potential. The question of whether or not a fetus is truly alive in any sense when it's six weeks old doesn't really matter, because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person.
By your standards, potential to become a human = same as human, so:
Killing a baby = murder Aborting a fetus = killing a baby = murder Using birth control and stopping the potential human from forming = killing a baby = murder Masturbation (male) where sperm is discarded = preventing the possible human from forming = killing a baby = murder
This is just an example of how far this line of thought could be taken legitimately, or in other words, this line of thinking is flawed.
While potential should be taken into account, to say it is the same thing as achievement (or should be treated the same way) is nonsensical.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And as a side question, are miscarriage rates really that high? It doesn't change my argument, but I didn't realize they were.
When large samples of women are monitored by blood hormone levels, a lot more pregnancies are detected. It's not uncommon to be irregular in general or to feel a little out of sorts and be "late" few or more weeks -- but to actually be in early pregnancy without realizing it.
When assayed by blood levels to diagnose pregnancies that might be otherwise missed, about 60-70% of diagnosable pregnancies spontaneously miscarry.
---
The argument that something should be permitted to happen because unless interfered with, it WILL happen is a far different one than the distinction between natural and artificial. It's okay to make both of them, but it might be confusing to emphasize one as a foundational claim for an argument if its truth value is, in fact, irrelevant.
I don't find the belief that natural things are good and artificial ones are bad at all compelling in medicine. I do so many unnatural things: cut into flesh, stitch it up, inject various and sundry medications, prescribe other drugs, stick a plastic and metal scope up someone's bum, etc. Even participate in the giving of medications (chemtherapy) that has its own strong chance of more bad effect than good, even to being lethal.
Of course, one could say that it is only in the case of continuing a pregnancy that the distinction is important, but that seems rather ad hoc. It also ignores the many artificial things that may be done to maintain a pregnancy (sewing shut the cervix, IV medication, various surgeries, etc) -- are they also bad because they are artificial?
Or is it only in the case that one is ending the pregnancy that "artificial" becomes wrong? If so, it's getting even more of an ad hoc flavor.
I know it seems arbitrary, but I think you can still separate out all the things you mentioned from an abortion (as used for the purposes of birth control). All of the medical procedures you mention have one purpose: Improve the health of the patient at no one else's expense. I'm not sure why my arguments are somehow being interpreted as an attack on modern medicine. They aren't in any way, shape, or form.
Artificial, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. When you apply artificial techniques, as you've described them, to help save the life of a patient, then they're good. If you use them to end a life when the life being ended has no say in the matter, then they are bad. I think this clarifies your complaint somewhat (and as with many clarifications, also complicates it).
I suppose this circles us back around to questions of the mother's health, but I don't have an answer on that one. If a doctor advises a woman to get an abortion because there's an avoidable high risk pregnancy, or if complications arise that might cause problems, then I don't object, for reasons I stated previously.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For me, the difference between aborting a pregnancy at six weeks, and killing a baby shortly after it's born is pretty small.
I pay a lot of attention to potential. The question of whether or not a fetus is truly alive in any sense when it's six weeks old doesn't really matter, because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person.
By your standards, potential to become a human = same as human, so:
Killing a baby = murder Aborting a fetus = killing a baby = murder Using birth control and stopping the potential human from forming = killing a baby = murder Masturbation (male) where sperm is discarded = preventing the possible human from forming = killing a baby = murder
This is just an example of how far this line of thought could be taken legitimately, or in other words, this line of thinking is flawed.
While potential should be taken into account, to say it is the same thing as achievement is nonsensical.
Yeah, and that's an argument I've jokingly made myself. For me, it starts at conception. I don't have a problem with birth control. I know a lot of people who do for that very reason.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
I know. And I don't want to stifle your input. I guess I just wanted some acknowledgment that you are deciding "should" and "supposed to do" and acceptable risks and behavior for other people. That requires, I think, more humility than when you are deciding things that impact yourself.
I see your point.
Plugging your argument into my belief system, however, you're making decisions for unborn children that impacts their lives in the most powerful way possible.
I understand the "it doesn't effect you" argument, and frankly I beg to differ, because, post-birth, a child should change a father's life as much as a mother's, but I don't want to get into that argument again. I absolutely acknowledge the vast disparity that exists between the burden men and women carry during a pregnancy.
And I should add, yet again, that it's that level of power over women that prevents me from supporting a change in the legal status quo. These are my beliefs, but I'm not comfortable with forcing them on you, or enforcing them. Doesn't that speak to a certain level of humility?
Rakeesh - This sort of answers your point too. And you also speak to some of my discomfort with enforcing my own personal morality. Just because we don't have "skin in the game," doesn't mean we don't have an opinion, and that's never more true that when someone believes that killing an innocent life is involved in the equation. Surely we're all allowed to have a voice in such a matter. But I recognize that, despite this universal moral question, we're still not directly involved with the pregnancy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it does. In fact, I agree. I am not pro-choice because I think that abortion is a good or even a neutral thing. I believe the potential for life - even if an embryo is not yet an unborn child - is precious. I am pro choice precisely because I don't think that we should be able to enforce that level of power over women.
I also believe that there is a moral obligation (not the same obligation but a moral one nonetheless) for those who are able to donate blood, be organ donors (once they are done with them) or to donate that kidney I mentioned earlier. But I shudder at the notion of legally forcing someone to do those things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plugging your argument into my belief system, however, you're making decisions for unborn children that impacts their lives in the most powerful way possible.
I understand the "it doesn't effect you" argument, and frankly I beg to differ, because, post-birth, a child should change a father's life as much as a mother's, but I don't want to get into that argument again. I absolutely acknowledge the vast disparity that exists between the burden men and women carry during a pregnancy.
The thing is, we've got two competing things here. On the one hand, the things kmbboots said that you're responding to-that women are affected in such and such ways-are factual, undeniable arguments. They're not on the table-women are affected, they've got the risks and need (or don't need) to change their behavior, and men don't.
On the other hand, we've got fetuses which may or may not be children. You don't know that, I don't know that-who knows when they are and when they aren't? If you're right, and a fetus is a human child at a given point, then I agree, it should trump-in many cases-the woman's right to complete, unchallenged sovereignty over her own body. (Please, everyone, note the careful use of qualifiers there-if, in many, and 'total sovereignty'.)
But we don't know if you're right or not-except you're posing your idea, that fetuses are unborn children, as though it's a given. As though it's a starting point for other discussion, and it simply isn't. You start out by believing a fetus is an unborn child, and that informs all of your other beliefs. Which makes sense, really, given that starting point.
quote:This sort of answers your point too. And you also speak to some of my discomfort with enforcing my own personal morality. Just because we don't have "skin in the game," doesn't mean we don't have an opinion, and that's never more true that when someone believes that killing an innocent life is involved in the equation. Surely we're all allowed to have a voice in such a matter. But I recognize that, despite this universal moral question, we're still not directly involved with the pregnancy.
I'm glad (and didn't doubt) that you appreciated the differences in moral investment here. It's just that...well, men and women both being human beings all have an equal need to be involved in the 'killing an innocent life' question. That's a given. But then women also have other involvements that make their concern necessarily greater, y'know?
Anyway, not to resume the argumen but just to understand your position: is it your opinion that men and women do (worldwide, in the USA, not sure where you're talking about) share an equal burden after pregnancy concerning raising and being responsible for children? Note that I'm not asking for what the level of responsibility should be.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This standard you're using isn't a given, because it involves, well, current standards of medical technology. Or if it is a given, you need to do a much better job of establishing that.
Why must there be a universal standard? I think there's an universal bottom line, though this bottom line isn't nearly as successful as using modern science would be. As you say, "what woman should do" changes from person to person and moment to moment. Why can't that standard be as fluid as reality demands?
quote:Why not? Speaking strictly in terms of what is 'supposed' to happen, we wouldn't even know the mother's life is in danger in many such pregnancies and if we did, we wouldn't have the means to address it except perhaps a cup of poison or something.
But we do know. Modern science asks us to adjust our standards of morality in ever increasing and more complicated ways. This is one of them. Since we have the option, we're faced with the moral quandary of choosing one over the other.
quote:You don't know that they're children. The operative words in this paragraph are 'to me'. And that sets aside the problem of the 'our' in this case being accurate, but one party being much more invested in the 'our' than the other. Specifically, one group is-biologically speaking-an observer. They don't have a horse in the race, not in terms of their own bodies. The other party does. I don't know if fetuses are children or when they become children (I believe it happens sometime before birth, myself), but I do know that one party's bioligically involved and the other is an observer.
That's not much against the death of children, if it's happening...but it is something against the death of we-don't-knows.
Well, here's where things get a little tricky don't they? Clearly we're in some sort of gray area between belief and science. Science can't prove when life begins. We all have different ideas of what life is, and until we could agree on a universally agreed upon definition of life, science can only try to answer each definition as best it can. For me, life pretty much begins at conception, or I guess more accurately, once the embryo attaches. To me, it's already alive, and if unhindered, will eventually be born. Saying "well, it might die anyway!" as a pretext for hastening the process is a suspect argument to me. If we're allowed to use that sort of reasoning, all sorts of moral issues in society crop up.
If I know that a bank is going to be robbed tomorrow, is it okay if I rob it first? If I know that someone is going to die tomorrow, can I kill them? Now I don't know if either of these things are going to happen. Can I rob and kill under the assumption that something might happen? No. So you ere on the side of life.
quote:It depends on how you define your words. You're defining 'human' as 'anything that has the potential, someday, to become human'. That includes, strangely enough, "An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." You can guess where I pasted that quote from.
Well, then by that definition, the only "parasite" that can ever grow to be a human being is a human embryo/fetus. It's sort of a moot argument isn't it?
ETA: I think I answered parts of this last post while answering your post from the last page. Sorry, this is becoming tricky to keep up with because of all the posts. I'll look at it again though to make sure.
posted
"Unhindered" is an interesting word. It seems to imply that the woman just do nothing. And that is sort of true if we are only talking about what she does intentionally. Her body, however, is not doing nothing when it comes to bearing a child. Even in the best circumstances, it is working hard, actively working hard and at the expense of the woman herself. There is a cost to a woman's body to bear a child and not just a temporary nine-month cost. Pregnancy causes permanent changes to a woman's body. Most women think it is well worth the cost, but it is far more that simple not "hindering" the embryo. Recognizing this is part of that humility I am talking about and "unhindered" gives the impression that you don't quite get that yet.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why the word "unhindered" implies anything like that at all.
The hindering can refer to natural forces that cause a miscarriage, and artificial forces, like an abortion. If all goes well for the fetus, it gets born. If something bad happens along the way, it dies.
The part the woman isn't supposed to do is actively participate in killing the fetus. Other than that, I've made zero comments on the rigors women suffer through a pregnancy, and what they do and don't have to do for themselves. I don't think that implies that a pregnancy is a simple or easy affair, and in fact, I've commented on it being a hardship, and the disparity of the burden between the genders. I think you're reaching a little bit with that assumption. I can't say I blame you, because I think you're working from an image you've built up of me over the course of this thread (apparently a pretty negative one where women are concerned), but even so, I don't think that's a fair assumption.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if she had accidentally gotten pregnant, through a broken condom, or failed birth control pill? Would abortion be murder then? Hmm?
If it's a human being, a broken condum or failed birth control obviously makes no difference to the question of whether killing it is murder. I realize you think you're posing all these scathing questions, but this is again really basic level stuff, and if you're going to be discussing it on the talk-show level of sophistication, I don't know why you're still so smug-except perhaps to fit in with the talk show theme.
No, I don't think my questions are scathing, and I'm quite capable of thinking and talking about this subject at a higher level. I'm tailoring this to my audience, i.e., Lyrhawn. This is the level he's at, at this time. There's no point in using more subtle, higher-level approaches, or really fully engaging with the best arguments I can think of. You don't expect a beginning pianist to play a concerto with the New York Philharmonic. You work him up to that slowly.
I think it's fascinating that you think you can talk to people this way and then expect them to answer your questions. Obviously you really do think I'm as stupid as your post implies.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the other hand, we've got fetuses which may or may not be children. You don't know that, I don't know that-who knows when they are and when they aren't? If you're right, and a fetus is a human child at a given point, then I agree, it should trump-in many cases-the woman's right to complete, unchallenged sovereignty over her own body. (Please, everyone, note the careful use of qualifiers there-if, in many, and 'total sovereignty'.)
But we don't know if you're right or not-except you're posing your idea, that fetuses are unborn children, as though it's a given. As though it's a starting point for other discussion, and it simply isn't. You start out by believing a fetus is an unborn child, and that informs all of your other beliefs. Which makes sense, really, given that starting point.
I think this is the party of the debate that simply comes down to a difference of opinion. This is what I believe.
I note your qualifiers, and I SHARE your qualifiers, to a degree. I don't know for sure, I'm not sure if it's possible to know for sure. But in the meantime, I ere on the side of life. If I used a different starting point, I'd have to change my belief system. I'm not sure what neutral ground you'd like to meet on where neither of us come into it with preconceived ideas or beliefs. Is science the final word, and not our beliefs? Science can't give us a definitive answer, so all we have is our beliefs.
quote:I'm glad (and didn't doubt) that you appreciated the differences in moral investment here. It's just that...well, men and women both being human beings all have an equal need to be involved in the 'killing an innocent life' question. That's a given. But then women also have other involvements that make their concern necessarily greater, y'know?
Anyway, not to resume the argumen but just to understand your position: is it your opinion that men and women do (worldwide, in the USA, not sure where you're talking about) share an equal burden after pregnancy concerning raising and being responsible for children? Note that I'm not asking for what the level of responsibility should be.
I know, and I agree. You can conceive of scenario in which woman should not have total and complete control of their bodies in all circumstances. The difference between us, I guess, is that you aren't as far along the line as I am in what you believe life is, and when it begins. Regardless though, we both share a severe hesitance to take away that sovereignty without more definitive proof.
As for your question: As it stands? No. And I should note that this is something I argue against just as vociferously as I do this issue. I have a bone to pick with fathers as well.
..........
Rakeesh & CT (and others)-
Thanks to you as well for not letting this debate develop into a heated argument. I hope you both know how much I respect you, and your willingness to calmly go at this, even if you totally disagree with me. I also really appreciate a lot of the questions you're asking. I've never tackled this question at this level before, never considered all the side scenarios, and I'm dealing with some of it as it comes up, so it's not as polished as I'd like it to be, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to explore in a safe environment. And Rakeesh, you guessed earlier that I might be getting a little heated, and I'm not. Tone is hard to gauge on a forum, especially when it's a topic like this where you expect people to get heated. Any exasperation you might detect is probably directed at myself for not being able to clearly express what I'm thinking.
And if I missed a response to anyone's post, please point it out to me. I'm not ignoring anyone intentionally.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself morally anti-abortion, legally pro-choice. After going through pregnancy, I realized there is no way I can make someone go through that, even to preserve a child's life. After I had my last pregnancy, when my first ultrasound had some concerning results, I realized there were circumstances that I would get an abortion. Thankfully, the next ultrasound looked good and I didn't have to make those tough calls but I could understand better the decisions people make.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to pop in to say thanks to Rivka and CT for their specific responses and patience with my slow comprehension skills. My only excuse is that it's my first week at a new school. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I consider myself morally anti-abortion, legally pro-choice.
This is my stance as well. I also think there is a definite difference between the very earliest stages of pregnancy (before about 6-8 weeks gestational age, when the placenta is complete and the fetus grows big enough to see with an unaided eye) and later.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Artificial, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. When you apply artificial techniques, as you've described them, to help save the life of a patient, then they're good. If you use them to end a life when the life being ended has no say in the matter, then they are bad.
Pretty sure you don't mean this quite literally, as it would make antibiotics off limits.
(Oh, and ere and err and homophones, but they mean rather different things. You want err -- like a shortened form of error.)
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Just wanted to pop in to say thanks to Rivka and CT for their specific responses and patience with my slow comprehension skills.
I will accept the thanks for specificity, but really wish you would knock off the deprecation of someone who happens to be a friend of mine. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and sorting through the details of what are some very complex problems slowly doesn't imply anything about your comprehension skills. Which I happen to know are just fine. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't see why the word "unhindered" implies anything like that at all.
The hindering can refer to natural forces that cause a miscarriage, and artificial forces, like an abortion. If all goes well for the fetus, it gets born. If something bad happens along the way, it dies.
The part the woman isn't supposed to do is actively participate in killing the fetus. Other than that, I've made zero comments on the rigors women suffer through a pregnancy, and what they do and don't have to do for themselves. I don't think that implies that a pregnancy is a simple or easy affair, and in fact, I've commented on it being a hardship, and the disparity of the burden between the genders. I think you're reaching a little bit with that assumption. I can't say I blame you, because I think you're working from an image you've built up of me over the course of this thread (apparently a pretty negative one where women are concerned), but even so, I don't think that's a fair assumption.
I haven't formed a negative opinion of you at all. I do think that abortion is often framed as an active harm where bearing the child is seen as a passive non-action in sort of a do no harm kind of way. But bearing a child is at least as much of an action as abortion albeit sometimes less intentional.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I haven't formed a negative opinion of you at all. I do think that abortion is often framed as an active harm where bearing the child is seen as a passive non-action in sort of a do no harm kind of way. But bearing a child is at least as much of an action as abortion albeit sometimes less intentional.
I'm not sure if that follows reasonably. If we're going to consider pregancy as well as birthing a child to be an action, something that ought not be compelled by law, then abortion will usually be at least a bit less of an action on the mother's part than carrying the child to term. There is, after all, the weeks or even months of pregnancy that are avoided.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I will accept the thanks for specificity, but really wish you would knock off the deprecation of someone who happens to be a friend of mine.
Seconded.
quote:There is a lot of misinformation out there, and sorting through the details of what are some very complex problems slowly doesn't imply anything about your comprehension skills. Which I happen to know are just fine.
I come at this from having been anti-abortion, as I was raised, but then having been forced to analyze it from many different angles -- both as a philosophy graduate student reading academic texts on it and writing papers, and as a university course instructor who read literally over a hundred student papers a year from many different perspectives. Not to mention the medical issues -- realizing how bizarre life is in its fullness really shook me.
That doesn't mean I think better. It doesn't mean I'm right, either. It just means that part of my job was to listen to and parse through it over and over again with many different people. So I am familiar with things that someone starting out may not be. Please don't make that into anything more than it is!
---
Added: By this I mean that I'm like the guy at the bar who has drank beers from most every country in the world. That is a lot of beer, but it doesn't necessarily translate into wisdom.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Just wanted to pop in to say thanks to Rivka and CT for their specific responses and patience with my slow comprehension skills. My only excuse is that it's my first week at a new school.
Oh, pshaw.
Same goes for you. Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... But bearing a child is at least as much of an action as abortion albeit sometimes less intentional.
I'm not sure if that follows reasonably. ... then abortion will usually be at least a bit less of an action on the mother's part than carrying the child to term.
I'm not sure there's a disagreement here, "at least as much" seems to cover that.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think it's fascinating that you think you can talk to people this way and then expect them to answer your questions. Obviously you really do think I'm as stupid as your post implies. [/QB]
No, I think you're quite intelligent, and very well-informed on politics and history, far more than I am. Your views on these issues, however, reflect simplistic thinking that I believe comes from your lack of experience in relationships with women (particularly around parenting/childbirth/pregnancy), as well as your age. I've got about 10 or 12 years on you, and I've been a parent for 13 years. I've also been married, and in long-term relationships with three different women, two of which were mothers, over the last 10 years. I've lived. You've theorized. That's not a terrible thing, that's just how it is.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: By your standards, potential to become a human = same as human, so:
Killing a baby = murder Aborting a fetus = killing a baby = murder Using birth control and stopping the potential human from forming = killing a baby = murder Masturbation (male) where sperm is discarded = preventing the possible human from forming = killing a baby = murder
This is just an example of how far this line of thought could be taken legitimately, or in other words, this line of thinking is flawed.
While potential should be taken into account, to say it is the same thing as achievement is nonsensical.
Yeah, and that's an argument I've jokingly made myself. For me, it starts at conception. I don't have a problem with birth control. I know a lot of people who do for that very reason.
To be honest, I have to say that I also have problems with this kind of classification scheme.
If you can't separate between something like an IUD or the morning-after pill which AFAIK sometimes acts by preventing implantation (after conception) and infanticide (say drowning a baby in a bucket or literally eating a baby) then it seems to trivialize the latter which is still a very serious problem in many parts of the world.
I realize that the intention was probably not to trivialize the latter, but to magnify the significance of the former. However, while I can respect taking one's principles to the bitter end, in practice, I think popularizing such a position would probably only lead to a "well you do it too" argument in support of infanticide.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, I think you're quite intelligent, and very well-informed on politics and history, far more than I am. Your views on these issues, however, reflect simplistic thinking that I believe comes from your lack of experience in relationships with women (particularly around parenting/childbirth/pregnancy), as well as your age. I've got about 10 or 12 years on you, and I've been a parent for 13 years. I've also been married, and in long-term relationships with three different women, two of which were mothers, over the last 10 years. I've lived. You've theorized. That's not a terrible thing, that's just how it is.
So, apparently your living hasn't...y'know...enabled you to obtain a long-term, monogamous relationship that lasts more than a few years? *Rock-solid* grounds for being so patronizing, dude. I mean if we're going to, y'know, take what (little) we know about people's lives and on that basis laud or reject their reasoning.
But given that, how many of those 10-12 years you've got on Lyrhawn were you a pregnant woman, steven? I'm no doctor and I lack your...extensive experience 'living', but I *think* the answer is 'none'. Just guessin'.
Wanna hear simplistic reasoning? Claiming 'it would've died anyway' makes killing it, for any kind of it, a non-action. Or 'all such and such people are being outed'. That's just two examples from the past two days of obviously stupid reasoning. Your extra years don't make your thoughts more credible, they make the silly conclusions you bring to the table more cringe-inducing.
Put another way, you talk as though you ought to have the kind of credibility CT mentioned, through much and varied academic, professional, and personal experience. But what do you bring to the table to support your appeal to authority (which is an appeal to yourself, heh)? "Oh, I've been in three long term relationships, a father for a decade or so, and I'm older than you."
Well, geeze Steven, I *guarantee* that if we ask around, we'll find someone with more kids, more years, and more relationships under their belt than you who can speak 'to your level'. I don't think I've ever met someone who asserts so much wisdom as you do, but grounds it in *that*.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, I think you're quite intelligent, and very well-informed on politics and history, far more than I am. Your views on these issues, however, reflect simplistic thinking that I believe comes from your lack of experience in relationships with women (particularly around parenting/childbirth/pregnancy), as well as your age. I've got about 10 or 12 years on you, and I've been a parent for 13 years. I've also been married, and in long-term relationships with three different women, two of which were mothers, over the last 10 years. I've lived. You've theorized. That's not a terrible thing, that's just how it is.
So, apparently your living hasn't...y'know...enabled you to obtain a long-term, monogamous relationship that lasts more than a few years? *Rock-solid* grounds for being so patronizing, dude. I mean if we're going to, y'know, take what (little) we know about people's lives and on that basis laud or reject their reasoning.
But given that, how many of those 10-12 years you've got on Lyrhawn were you a pregnant woman, steven? I'm no doctor and I lack your...extensive experience 'living', but I *think* the answer is 'none'. Just guessin'.
Wanna hear simplistic reasoning? Claiming 'it would've died anyway' makes killing it, for any kind of it, a non-action. Or 'all such and such people are being outed'. That's just two examples from the past two days of obviously stupid reasoning. Your extra years don't make your thoughts more credible, they make the silly conclusions you bring to the table more cringe-inducing.
Put another way, you talk as though you ought to have the kind of credibility CT mentioned, through much and varied academic, professional, and personal experience. But what do you bring to the table to support your appeal to authority (which is an appeal to yourself, heh)? "Oh, I've been in three long term relationships, a father for a decade or so, and I'm older than you."
Well, geeze Steven, I *guarantee* that if we ask around, we'll find someone with more kids, more years, and more relationships under their belt than you who can speak 'to your level'. I don't think I've ever met someone who asserts so much wisdom as you do, but grounds it in *that*.
Oh, I get it. No kids, no wife...yeah. You're a little boy too.
*pats head*
And, for the record, going through a difficult (and yeah, it was a tough 10 years) time in life doesn't always mean that someone didn't learn something during that time...quite the opposite. ROFL
I mean seriously, just because I have personal flaws, and have had some really difficult stretches in my life, doesn't necessarily mean my judgement is somehow automatically invalidated.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that you have had poor judgment tends to invalidate you though. About as much as the way you act, which is really childish.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean seriously, just because I have personal flaws, and have had some really difficult stretches in my life, doesn't necessarily mean my judgement is somehow automatically invalidated.
It *also* doesn't mean your judgment and thoughts *on abortion* are automatically validated either, which was the entire point, and why your claim was so deeply foolish.
*pats head*
It's funny how easy it was to get you to expose what you actually thought about Lyrhawn on this subject too, btw. Not that it wasn't obvious anyway, that you were being dishonest, but still. For someone who's made such a habit of online dishonesty, I would've thought you'd be better at it.
Anyway, a good sign you're not using your brain is when your thoughts go something like this: he doesn't think like I do, therefore he is stupid/childish/inexperienced/etc. The way your brain is *supposed* to work, if you actually wish to learn anyway, is to continually reevaluate your conclusions when they're challenged, and see if you still feel the same way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a side note, but I have to do it for my peace of mind. Feel free not to comment -- I'm just going to edge in to clarify, because I may have been unclear:
I have academic and professional qualifications. I was citing them not to make myself out to be an authority on any conclusions I might draw, but merely to explain why I have looked at it from different angles and know the lay of the land.
I felt so bad that Lyrhawn and JimMe were even at all apologetic or self-deprecating about not having expected certain objections or know certain bits of information. I had to come across them because my job. I wouldn't have, otherwise.
That does not make me an authority on the endpoint. It means I am familiar with many of the paths I am walking, not that I have more authority on figuring out where the final destination is. I have been going around in circles for a long, long time. If you want someone who recognizes the insects on the various hedges of this maze, I'm a relatively good source. If you want to know where it leads, I am not a better source than anyone else.
posted
CT, while you're probably the single person here who could most easily throw around your credentials and use them to claim authority on this subject, I would be very, very surprised if anybody here thought that that was what you were doing. You've been pretty scrupulously clear on the fact that you're not doing that.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. What Jake said, emphatically. I there *was* someone who could cite credentials on the subject, given what you said you'd be one of them.
The point I was making was to point out that an appeal to authority on this subject is pretty odd and if anyone is going to, they'd need something like what you described, or other kinds of extensive experience. A *helluva* lot more than 'older, father, multiple past relationships'. It's just...it still baffles me that anyone would try and cite experience on this topic *without* the sort of background you described. That was the only reason I mentioned you, because you described a bit about yourself-in fact it was far from strutting, it was an explanation as to what helped lead you to your conclusions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I feel bad. I was apologizing because I was far from the top of my game and this is a topic I care deeply about. There was certainly nothing in any of the corrections directed at me that was anything less than the grace I have always gotten from y'all.
The only problem I have *ever* had with you, CT, is that you are far too nice. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know for sure, I'm not sure if it's possible to know for sure. But in the meantime, I ere on the side of life.
This seems to presume that there IS something to know. What exactly do you expect to change about your knowledge that might adjust your erring towards the "conception" end of the spectrum.
I don't consider "life" to have moral weight (at all). Nor do I value being human (in the abstract). What has moral weight is consciousness. I think there is a close to 0% chance that a human fetus is conscious in the first few weeks. (After that I think it becomes a complicated question, which science will gradually illuminate, but which will always involve complex, subjective analysis)
If your moral framework isn't based on consciousness (I'm not here to argue what moral framework is right, just examine whether particular frameworks are consistent), what is it based on, that makes conception a reasonable upper bound on where humans gain moral weight, but which might possibly be overturned later by new discoveries?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't consider "life" to have moral weight (at all). Nor do I value being human (in the abstract). What has moral weight is consciousness. I think there is a close to 0% chance that a human fetus is conscious in the first few weeks.
Wouldn't potential for consciousness merit moral weight of some degree?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't potential for consciousness merit moral weight of some degree?
And if it should (as with Jake, I think it's a question that needs asking as far as the whole discussion goes), where do we draw the line? I mean, that's a tricky situation is the moral-weight starting point is 'potential for consciousness', because there are some potentials for consciousness that pretty much everyone is going to agree are simply absurd. If certain conditions persist, semen will have a potential for consciousness. Likewise an egg. Human sexual intercourse has a potential for consciousness between two capable people.
For me the reason that potential for consciousness is important is because I'm largely convinced that at some point, probably earlier than we realize (though I doubt it happens at conception), the fetus has consciousness, The potential for consciousness question is important to me because it causes us to examine things more carefully, in hopes of pinning down the real range of when a fetus will have human consciousness.
And then I have to add-for myself-a whole lot of uncertainty, because I'm a serious layman on the various relevant topics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know for sure, I'm not sure if it's possible to know for sure. But in the meantime, I ere on the side of life.
This seems to presume that there IS something to know. What exactly do you expect to change about your knowledge that might adjust your erring towards the "conception" end of the spectrum.
I don't consider "life" to have moral weight (at all). Nor do I value being human (in the abstract). What has moral weight is consciousness. I think there is a close to 0% chance that a human fetus is conscious in the first few weeks. (After that I think it becomes a complicated question, which science will gradually illuminate, but which will always involve complex, subjective analysis)
If your moral framework isn't based on consciousness (I'm not here to argue what moral framework is right, just examine whether particular frameworks are consistent), what is it based on, that makes conception a reasonable upper bound on where humans gain moral weight, but which might possibly be overturned later by new discoveries?
The knowledge I speak of there is which fetuses will and won't develop into birthable human beings. Rakeesh was speaking of the impossibility of knowing which embryos will become fetuses and which fetuses will become babies, and the uncertainty of the birthing process in general. I don't know if that will ever be possible, but if it were, I think that would change my perception on which pregnancies could morally be terminated.
My moral framework does depend a great deal on potential. A lot of people, like Rakeesh, are bugged by the fact that we can't know when a fetus achieves consciousness, and consciousness is the line they won't cross when it comes to allowing an abortion. But even if we knew the exact moment, that tomorrow, Fetus A will achieve consciousness, and is then off-limits, I don't see how that can be justifiable. For me, preventing a fetus from achieving consciousness is as bad as taking it away once it has been achieved. I see the difference, I suppose, but it doesn't matter. You're still taking it away, but in one instance it's more of a tease by letting it live a little. The end result is the same.
As to where we draw the line on potential...personally I draw it at conception. To draw the line any earlier than that enters into some pretty bizarre territory.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The fact that you have had poor judgment tends to invalidate you though.
So having difficult times in one's life automatically means poor judgment? Interesting.
Lol no not at all. This ha all to do with how you act here. If your experience helped your judgment in life there's no evidence of it in the way you act here.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
People keep saying erring on the side of life, but from my viewpoint that doesn't really answer which side. Every pregnancy can go from mundane to life threatening in moments and aborting once life is threatened won't do any good. I have had a friend almost die from complications from her baby's birth-everything looked good, released from hospital and a week later, she nearly died. If we want to protect life, the woman, we know is a human life and we know there is a chance of death for her. So, if you say err for life, you could be meaning either side.
Of course, I am one of the crazy pro-choice people who doesn't care if the baby is a "life." I would never pass a law requiring a woman to make that kind of sacrifice to save someone who was already born of any age (even if she was the one who caused the person's need for the sacrifice). Morally, that is a whole different story, but legally it doesn't matter too much to me.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. The first one is a significant "if", though, and paternity testing takes time. Especially if it has to be court-ordered, as that takes time too.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. If you read comments though, a lot of people think that the fact that the woman was 8 months pregnant and walking to work disqualifies him from getting custody. Obviously, he didn't care enough about the baby to protect the baby's mother so he shouldn't get to care now. Some people are even asking for his alibi and assuming that he must have been behind the hit and run because he didn't want the baby (which seems kinda ridiculous since if he didn't want the baby, why is he now asking for custody?) I think that the grandparents/aunt should retain custody until the test is done, but ideally, they would be taking some effort to include him in the baby's life until that test is complete. Or they could do their own paternity test privately which would be a lot faster and if positive include him and if negative, not.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If you read comments though
There's your mistake. Comments sections on news articles are often vile sewers of hatred, ignorance, and filth.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
might come along and clarify it, once clutter is defeated.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
There is a lot of misinformation out there, and sorting through the details of what are some very complex problems slowly doesn't imply anything about your comprehension skills. Which I happen to know are just fine. 
