posted
Dag, I find it perfectly logical to say that killing the unborn child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is fundamentally different from killing a child in the case of a normal healthy pregnancy. I do believe that intentions are important in determining the morality of an action. What I find to beyond logic, is claiming that the one case is abortion while the other is not. That distinction is totally artificial and as I said I do not believe it is benign.
If there is a huge non-symbolic importance to not actively killing a person, what is it? I'm afraid I just don't see this the way you do. People and real physical consequences are simply more important to me the principles. Any philosophy that puts principles above the lives and well being of people is, from my perspective at least, anti-life.
If I had been in an accident and my death was certain and imminent and it was certain that another life could be extended for many years by the use of my organs, I would be honored to shorten my life by a few hours to give life to another. I see such an act as an affirmation of life and its value. If I were conscious, I would want that choice. If I were unable to make the decision myself, I would want my closest family members to be allowed to make that choice for me.
I guess this is why we will never agree. I see the tangible outcome of saving one persons life as far more important than the principle of never actively killing a person. You, if I am not once again mistaken, see that principle as all important.
[ January 24, 2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is a huge non-symbolic importance to not actively killing a person, what is it?
Essentially, I don't believe that the physical (or tangible) outcome is necessarily the most important component of a moral choice. Or, more accurately, I believe that acts have consequences beyond the physical.
quote:If I had been in an accident and my death was certain and imminent and it was certain that another life could be extended for many years by the use of my organs, I would be honored to shorten my life by a few hours to give life to another.
I would, too (although I don't claim to know how I would react when faced with the choice - fear is strong and unpredictable). I would authorize removal of life support and cessation of attempts to save me. But I wouldn't authorize active killing, nor would I take my own life to gain those hours.
quote:I see the tangible outcome of saving one persons life as far more important the principle of never actively killing a person. You, if I am not once again mistaken, see that principle as all important.
That principle is not all-important. For example, I think killing an aggressor in self-defense is sometimes OK (I prefer not to divert this into when it's OK, but please note the "sometimes").
But, yes, I see the principle of not actively taking a life as very important.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Awareness, decision making, productivity, or relationships, a fetus excercises none of these things
Neither does a newborn child. Does that mean babies that are born healthy at term are not human? What about preemies, are they human?
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I mean, should we value the lives of more productive people more than less productive people? Better decision makers over worse ones? Or do you see it as binary (either you can or you can't)?
Mmmmyep, more or less binary. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and even the mentally retarded/ill possess the attributes I mentioned to some degree. Even infants show some signs of these capabilities, most notably in the forming of a relationship with the parents.
And Belle, yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. Fetuses and newborns, while human in the biological sense, aren't possessing of humanity in any sense of the way we generally mean it. I did however, acknowledge that potential that exists and the need to protect it.
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: As for good coming from abortion, I don't dispute that. But it's all short-term and superficial. In the long-term, it just encourages a society in which it's always someone elses problem or fault. Why take responsibility when you can sue the restaurant in which you got drunk before you got in an accident and killed your family? Why use all methods of birth control when you can get by on one or two and kill the innocent fetus if those 1/100 (1000, 10,000) odds catch you?
I disagree. I think legal abortion is part of being a responsinble society as a whole. This is because - and you may have heard this before - I think that overpopulation and overconsumption of resources are two of the biggest problems in the world. Put simply it's bad now, and it's going to get worse, unless we start taking bigger steps to combat this problem. And aside from all the other arguments in it's favor, and against it, legal abortion is one of those steps. Frisco, when it comes to personal responsibility, I'm right there with you. I'm sick of hearing about some jackass suing McDonald's because he burned himself on his hot coffee. And I'm certainly in favor of encouraging contraceptives before abortion. But sometimes, people make mistakes, have lapses in judgement, and accidents happen. Abortion as a safety net is important, and dispite the fact that, yes, some people will abuse it, a reasonable measure. Social security is often called a safety net, but I've never heard the argument that it should be done away with because it makes the elderly lazy. Does it? Sure, in a few cases it probably does, but that's insufficient to warrant it's removal. Put very frankly, "Oops, I f****d up" is one of the worst reasons I can think of for bringing a child into the world.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A coma patient is not a person? It's been said here, but what of the many coma patients that wake up? And there are many degrees of coma, of course.
Furthermore, judging humans by the standards of awareness, productivity, decision-making, relationships, invites a slippery slope. It would invite that even if you hadn't mentioned coma patients losing their humanity.
Perhaps I mispoke. I think I intended to mean a persistant vegetative state. There certainly are degrees of coma, and I was thinking about victims who have the lower chances of recovery (as above, a degree of potentiality is worth protecting). And as I mentioned above in this post, it's not that I think we should judge people in how much they exemplify these traits, but by the sum presence or absense of said traits. A person who is disabled from the neck down can still make amazing intellectual contributions, a monumentally schizophrenic person is still aware of their surroundings and makes decisions based upon that awareness, however misperceived it is, and even the biggest introvert likes to talk to someone else once in a while.
Basically, every living person exhibits these traits to some degree. That's why I can hold this viewpoint and not feel like I'm on the edge of a slippery slope.
And If a person I loved very much was suddenly reduced to a state where they exhibited none of these traits, and they had next-to-no hope for recovery, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug. I wouldn't be killing them, I'd be mourning that they were already gone.
I hope they'd do the same for me.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You wouldn't hesitate? I just don't understand that degree of certainty when it comes to murky issues such as these which change all the time. What was a hopeless coma twenty years ago is not necessarily the same today, for example.
quote:Fetuses and newborns, while human in the biological sense, aren't possessing of humanity in any sense of the way we generally mean it. I did however, acknowledge that potential that exists and the need to protect it.
Which is it? An infant is either a human, or it isn't. By the standards you listed, an infant most definitely isn't. It appears to me as though you're now putting some haziness in the issue that wasn't really there in what you said before, because you don't want to be saying, "Infants aren't human beings, they only have the 'potential' to be human beings."
We don't protect infants because they have the 'potential' to be human beings, man. It's in our guts. We protect them because they're a helpless human life that is completely at the mercy of the world. When someone molests a child or hurts them in any way, we aren't furious because of some potential that's lost. Or rather we're not furious because of that first.
The fact is you are standing on a precipice, whether or not you want to acknowledge it. Because once you start determining the value of a human life in terms of its usefulness, well then the question becomes, "What to do with valueless human life?" I assure you, there are many people for whom it can truly be said that when it comes to contributing to the world, they're making withdrawls and not deposits.
That is not a respect for life, it's a respect for useful life. And that's something quite different and demands another question: who are you to set the value on a human life? What gives you the right to say that this human life is worth protection, but this one less so?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in a country where there are plenty of people who determine the value of a human life in a far more mercenary and less compassionate fashion. There are lobbyists who actively lobby that children and old people who become the victims of industrial malfeasance are of less monetary value than adults.
Frankly, that bothers me a heck of a lot more than someone who, say, says "If I have a child now, when I'm not equipped to properly take care of it, I'm likely to do irreperable harm to both our lives. But if I wait until I'm further in my education, have more experience, have taken the time to learn what I need to properly care for a child, and have the social structures in place to properly care for that child, we'll both be far better off."
(And just so there's no confusion- yes, I'm aware that someone who chooses to have an abortion is not going to have the same child later on.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. I think legal abortion is part of being a responsinble society as a whole. This is because - and you may have heard this before - I think that overpopulation and overconsumption of resources are two of the biggest problems in the world. Put simply it's bad now, and it's going to get worse, unless we start taking bigger steps to combat this problem. And aside from all the other arguments in it's favor, and against it, legal abortion is one of those steps.
If we're killing people as a means of population control, why don't we get rid of people who deserve it? Seriously, if abortion weren't legal, I think the number of non-ideal pregnancies would taper off as people either take contraceptives seriously or undergo reversible sterilization. Or just wait to have sex until they're willing to accept its natural consequences.
There has to be a more moral method of population control out there.
quote:Social security is often called a safety net, but I've never heard the argument that it should be done away with because it makes the elderly lazy. Does it? Sure, in a few cases it probably does, but that's insufficient to warrant it's removal.
There are plenty of people who disagree with Social Security as it is now. For a number of reasons.
quote:Put very frankly, "Oops, I f****d up" is one of the worst reasons I can think of for bringing a child into the world.
And to me, "Oops, I f****d up" is one of the worst reasons to end its life. There are very few people in this world who couldn't raise a child if they put their mind to it.
And adoption is even easier and cheaper than that.
quote:Frankly, that bothers me a heck of a lot more than someone who, say, says "If I have a child now, when I'm not equipped to properly take care of it, I'm likely to do irreperable harm to both our lives.
That bothers me a lot because it's not true. It's an excuse. Life will be different, certainly. It's only irreparibly harmed if you make it so. All four of the girls I've convinced not to have an abortion are wonderful parents. And a couple, if not all, are actually better off and more responsible than they were. It's entirely possible to have an unexpected child and not ruin your life.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, if abortion weren't legal, I think the number of non-ideal pregnancies would taper off as people either take contraceptives seriously or undergo reversible sterilization. Or just wait to have sex until they're willing to accept its natural consequences.
There isn't a gentle learning curve here. This is learning to tightrope walk without a net. There are still plenty of people who don't have ready access to contraception and information about contraception. Just saying "they'll learn" isn't a solution.
quote:That bothers me a lot because it's not true. It's an excuse. Life will be different, certainly. It's only irreparibly harmed if you make it so. All four of the girls I've convinced not to have an abortion are wonderful parents. And a couple, if not all, are actually better off and more responsible than they were. It's entirely possible to have an unexpected child and not ruin your life.
That's your opinion. I've known a fair number of teenage mothers, and most of them were unquestionably brave people. But I can't think of one of them who wouldn't have said she and her child wouldn't have better off if she had an opportunity to get a decent education and some job experience. One of them was making less than minimum wage cleaning houses.
The girls you've convinced not to abort are wonderful parents, as far as you can see. I hope they continue to be, truly. But neither of us can forecast their path for the full eighteen years they're responsible for that child.
You make the decision to turn a blind eye and just say "no", you aren't just saying "no" to the ones who will make great mothers. You're also saying "no" for the ones who will be terrible mothers. For the ones who will bring children into a world of need, neglect, and abuse. For the ones who will leave their children in dumpsters.
There's a lot that can be done to make the decision to have a child rather than abort a tenable one. Working to ensure day care is available in institutions for higher learning, for example. If you just slam a gate down without recognizing the consequences, you're doing a lot of people a disservice.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I can't think of one of them who wouldn't have said she and her child wouldn't have better off if she had an opportunity to get a decent education and some job experience.
Her child wouldn't have been better - her child wouldn't have existed.
Yes, I know you say you realize that. But I'm not sure you realize how much it blunts your point. That child would not be better off had she been aborted.
quote:You make the decision to turn a blind eye and just say "no", you aren't just saying "no" to the ones who will make great mothers. You're also saying "no" for the onew who will be terrible mothers. For the ones who will bring children into a world of need, neglect, and abuse. For the ones who will leave their children in dumpsters.
Yes. We're telling those mothers that we won't allow them to kill their unborn child.
quote:There's a lot that can be done to make the decision to have a child rather than abort a tenable one. Working to ensure day care is available in institutions for higher learning, for example.
Yep.
quote:If you just slam a gate down without recognizing the consequences, you're doing a lot of people a disservice.
Seems to me the one not facing consequences is you. How many people who have faced neglect or abuse wish they hadn't been born? I bet some do. But I bet most don't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think we're both aware that we don't agree on the point that a fetus becomes a child, and without that agreement, much of what you say becomes moot.
And again, the awareness that you're glad to be alive is something that comes with hindsight, usually adult hindsight. We're not talking about "Boy I'm glad to be alive" vs. "Why, why aren't I alive?" We're talking about it versus never being conscious of the possibility.
Consider the recent stir about "Freakonmics". If I'm remembering correctly, in summary, Card's interpretation was that because of abortion, gang activity, which seemed posed to take over much of American life in big cities and spread beyond them, failed to do so.
I'm not going to suggest for a second that that's a big win for the cause of abortion. The marginalized flocking to abort isn't a win for anyone. But if there's one thing that made the gang problem of the 90s so terrifying, it was the recognition that gang members frequently held a mindset that life- theirs or anyone elses- was of very little value.
And frankly, marginally preferring life to death isn't enough. If someone has a child before they're ready, and that child experiences neglect and abuse, they're more likely to also have a child too early, who is also more likely to be the subject of neglect and abuse, and so on.
We're already one of the few modern industrialized nations that still practices the death penalty. If we ban abortion, we're in very uncomfortable company.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I think we're both aware that we don't agree on the point that a fetus becomes a child, and without that agreement, much of what you say becomes moot.
Then how moot does it make every single thing you said in response to Frisco's last post? Frisco apparently does believe the fetus is a human being, based on "one of the worst reasons to end its life."
I'll give you a hint: entirely moot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it depends on if the intent was to say there are plenty of people who don't have ready access to information about contraception or who don't have plenty of information about contraception, period.
Because there are still lots of people without information about contraception.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And frankly, marginally preferring life to death isn't enough.
Why, exactly? Just because it doesn't outweigh the "usefulness" of getting rid of all those unwanted and useless lives isn't a good enough reason.
quote:If we ban abortion, we're in very uncomfortable company.
Oh, yes. If we banned abortion we'd be just as bad as Third World nations which systematically oppress and degrade women. Right.
Wait a minute, that's not actually true at all. See, because in the nations you're talking about but aren't actually naming, it's frequently illegal for women to do things like vote, drive, have sex outside of marriage, be seen with men other than their husbands, purchase contraceptives, etc., etc.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You're definitely right about that. There are millions of Americans who are desperately uninformed about effective birth control.
Outside of illiterate Americans, however, there is no American who does not have the opportunity to utilize and learn about contraception.
Obviously the end result of these two different things is, well, identical. Therefore much better education about safe sex should be required and distributed. Another reason I'm not a registered Republican, despite my leaning much closer to their stance on abortion than the Democratic party's.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then how moot does it make every single thing you said in response to Frisco's last post? Frisco apparently does believe the fetus is a human being, based on "one of the worst reasons to end its life."
I'll give you a hint: entirely moot.
No, actually. It's not.
If you claim that a fetus is a life, and those who disagree with you don't accept that claim, you can repeat it until your blue in the face, but it does you very little good. I can recognize that you believe this, and that that viewpoint is the rationale under which your assertions are made, but if you don't recognize that that premise is not one that I accept, then your repeating the same statements to me has very little effect.
If you want to argue that about the cultural effects of available abortion, or the effects on human sexuality, or population dynamics, or anything else, maybe you would make some headway.
Snarling "they're killing children" at me over and over again proves exactly one thing to me: that you enjoy chiding people. And, frankly, I already knew that. But it doesn't affect my thinking, it doesn't make me cringe in shame, it doesn't change my mind. Whether you say it one time or a hundred, whisper it or yell it. And I presume, rightly or wrongly, that since you're responding to me, you do actually want to change my view. As this repetition does not alter my view, I have to say that, as a response, it is moot. To be clear, that is as in "deprived of practical significance." This is literal, and is not intended as an insult.
Now, correspondingly, I'm stating that the lives of women who have children before they are ready are likely to be altered, significantly, for the worse. Arguably, the lives of any children they have later are as well. This point is may be "moot" in the sense "open to discussion or debatable." It is arguable that the change is not, from a perspective, negative, or that I exaggerate the negative aspects, and so on. To your view, presumably, any negative aspects are countermanded by the fact of saving a child's life. I recognize this. But then, I don't presume you're out to convince yourself and those who agree with you. I'm presuming that you aren't "preaching to the choir."
quote:Oh, yes. If we banned abortion we'd be just as bad as Third World nations which systematically oppress and degrade women. Right.
Wait a minute, that's not actually true at all. See, because in the nations you're talking about but aren't actually naming, it's frequently illegal for women to do things like vote, drive, have sex outside of marriage, be seen with men other than their husbands, purchase contraceptives, etc., etc.
Well, I could name them. Or you could do a little research yourself. But obviously it's more fun to set up your own version of what I've said so you can mock it, and it's far less work. Enjoy that.
But if you really prefer the five-mile-long, no-effort-on-my-part-please style of post, here ya go.
Afghanistan Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belize Botswana Burundi Cameroon Chad China (People's Republic) Comoros Congo (Democratic Republic) Cuba Dominica Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Ghana Guatemala Guinea Guyana India Indonesia Iran Iraq Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Malawi Malaysia Mongolia Nigeria Oman Pakistan Palestinian Authority Philippines Qatar Rwanda St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Somalia Sudan Swaziland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Arab Emirates United States Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
Now, cross reference that with countries that restrict abortion.
Do _you_ like that list? Perhaps it's enough for you to believe that your country is in the right. But others are going to judge us on it. And their opinions do, in fact, matter.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, correspondingly, I'm stating that the lives of women who have children before they are ready are likely to be altered, significantly, for the worse. Arguably, the lives of any children they have later are as well. This point is may be "moot" in the sense "open to discussion or debatable." It is arguable that the change is not, from a perspective, negative, or that I exaggerate the negative aspects, and so on. To your view, presumably, any negative aspects are countermanded by the fact of saving a child's life. I recognize this. But then, I don't presume you're out to convince yourself and those who agree with you. I'm presuming that you aren't "preaching to the choir."
To your view, presumably, the total of these negative effects on women is sufficient reason to ban abortion because there is no corresponding harm to another person to outweigh it.
One would presume you aren't preaching to the choir, either, especially because the person you were preaching at was Frisco, who pretty much straight out stated that he believed abortion results in the death of a child.
Responding to Frisco's reasons to ban abortion with an analysis that simply ignores his most basic premise makes your analysis moot.
And my response to you was simply pointing out and illustrating that you are, in fact, simply ignoring the foundational premise of Frisco's position. It wasn't so much to convince you as it was demonstrate why your argument is ineffective as a response to Frisco's.
Snarling "you're harming women and causing children to be brought into the world who will suffer more than their half-siblings brought into the world years later would suffer" at me over and over again proves exactly one thing to me: that you enjoy chiding people. But I already knew that. But it doesn't affect my thinking, it doesn't make me cringe in shame, it doesn't change my mind. Whether you say it one time or a hundred, whisper it or yell it. And I presume, rightly or wrongly, that since you're responding to Frisco, you do actually want to change his view. As this repetition is unlikely to alter his view, I have to say that, as a response, it is moot. To be clear, that is as in "deprived of practical significance." This is literal, and is not intended as an insult.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Snarling "they're killing children" at me over and over again proves exactly one thing to me
No one has snarled at you. In fact, the snarling that's been done here came from your side of this particular discussion.
quote:Well, I could name them. Or you could do a little research yourself. But obviously it's more fun to set up your own version of what I've said so you can mock it, and it's far less work. Enjoy that.
I don't think there was much research involved in making that list. Doing such things certainly isn't difficult. And as for versions of what you said?
Well, I know what you said. You asked, "Do we really want to be in the same company as nations which practice executions and prohibit abortions?" The obvious implication is that those guys are scumbags, and we don't wanna be scumbags.
My point which you paid no attention to is that as far as women's rights are concerned, the USA has a vanishingly small amount of things in common with any nations which prohibit abortion and permit execution.
See, the nations which you were implying we don't want to be lumped in with are nations that do the things I mentioned: restrict women's rights on a host of things beyond correcting stupid mistakes on the part of themselves or their partners. Voting, driving, education, profession, free speech, dress, medical treatment, protection from crime, and on and on and on.
To imply that we don't want to be seen as the same as such nations is nonsense, because if we did prohibit abortion in all but a few instances, that would be only a tiny fraction of similarity.
You can say all you want that women's rights are severly infinged upon by restricting access to elective abortion, but to suggest that we would be too much like those other nations you're talking about by doing so is stupid. In those nation, women rarely have a choice about getting pregnant or having sex at all.
And as for their opinions mattering...well of course they matter. But, if pro-lifers are right and it is true human lives getting thrown away for expedience, then frankly their opinions don't mean a damn thing in the face of that sort of profligate slaughter.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and furthermore, to assert that my objection was based on the idea, "My country, right or wrontg!" is transparent and ineffective.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
