|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 21, 2004 17:39:00 GMT -5
I was finished but I'll point it out for you.
My point is that you argue that we should not return to the "crude" purpose we have: the biological imperitive to reproduce. You also openly stated that abstinence is the only 100% effective birth control, but you would not abstain from having sex. To me the "crude" purpose of continually reproducing is included in the purpose to have sex whether resluting in reproduction or not. So in turn your argument states that until you decide to have children you should abstain from having sex. And therefore, you would have no problem making abortion illegal would you?
Goin out on a limb, maybe but I'm done here anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 23, 2004 19:14:05 GMT -5
Oh, I knew what you were going for, but thought I'd give you an opportunity to address the apparently extraneous info you unnecessarily quoted at the bottom instead of the top of your post.
No mind.
Actually, more precisely stated, my point is that we should control our reproduction instead of letting it happen willy-nilly like animals do, that sex can and should come to function as something more than just a way to pass on genetic material, and that valuing "LIFE" because it is in the form of a human being over the well-being of the person who carries it is to value the passing of genetic material MORE than what is, in my opinion, the most valuable thing about life: the free conscience and consciousness of those who actually have them.
How unfortunate for you- both that you do not imagine sex for purposes other than reproduction, and that your cute little argument here hinges entirely on the assumption that I'll accept reproduction as anything but ONE of the purposes of having sex.
In my case, as my partner has an illness that will likely kill him before his children could grow up, sex is ENTIRELY separated from its reproductive purpose.
You're done here because your arguments are WEAK.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 24, 2004 19:03:55 GMT -5
I explained this under other threads. My position on abortion is that until a birth control method exists that is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, women should be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy. I argue that the right to this choice should extend through the first two trimesters for two reasons: because a woman can be pregnant for nearly a month before she has any reason to suspect her birth control failed, and because even at that point the technology and methods for determining the actual gestational age are so inaccurate as to make it impossible to limit it precisely to the first trimester. Once it becomes feasible and trivial to detect and terminate pregnancies within the first trimester, I will have no problem with the right to terminate being limited to the first trimester as well.
In short, women should not have to choose between abstinence and forced childbirth. Sex should'nt be something fraught with risk, i.e. people (men included) should be able to have sexual relations with someone they love without fear of an unplanned and unwanted child.
I reject adoption as an option because abortion is meant not only to prevent pregnancy, but to prevent a child from being born. Giving a child up for adoption is something that many women regret AS MUCH as those who regret their abortions.
Which brings me back to your original question.
When one kills a cow, one ends the LIFE of a sentient, innocent being. The only difference between killing a cow and killing an unwanted, unborn child is that the unborn child is, of course, human. The fact that it is human is determinative for some people (Mo, raja, Pat Robertson). That the fact that it is human is the deciding factor for these people is made abundantly clear by the fact that they have zero qualms about killing cows, i.e. if not for a human identity, Mo, raja and Pat apparently have little problem with killing sentient, innocent living beings.
Conclusion #1: Most humans agree that innocence and sentience are insufficient to confer a right to life.
In general, humankind has accepted that some kinds of killing is o.k., e.g. killing to eat and killing in self-defense. Some subsets of humankind (the Sudan, the U.S., and the Yanomami, for instance) have even decided that killing humans is o.k. even when it's not necessary for survival, i.e. resorting to war when diplomatic means have not been exhausted and the use of capital punishment.
Conclusion #2: Apparently, being human, even an innocent one, is insufficient to confer an absolute or inviolate right to life.
I have quite reasonably concluded, based on my survey of human nature, that the only consistent guide for what humans will decide is o.k. to kill vs. what is not is whether the life in question is valued/wanted by the person who has to support and maintain it.
No, women who do not want their babies should abort. If they can not abort because of their belief system, it really means that, on some level, they want the kid to live. They may not be able to keep the kid, but they want it enough to carry it and give it away.
Isn't it nice that we have choices, regardless of what our belief system may be? ;D
I did not state the purpose of life as "just to live." And my argument is firmly rooted in the observed behavior of human beings. If you had done a little more reading, you'd see that my actual argument is that abortion should remain legal until the rest of the world focuses on the importance of "LIFE." That is most certainly NOT the focus of the current world, and no one should be surprised that women have fallen in line with contemporary mores.
Largely because in the absence of a secular argument, freedom to choose is a matter of freedom of religion.
Oh really. Do tell . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Ube on Mar 24, 2004 20:02:35 GMT -5
I reject adoption as an option because abortion is meant not only to prevent pregnancy, but to prevent a child from being born
Abortion does not prevent pregnancy
When one kills a cow, one ends the LIFE of a sentient, innocent being. The only difference between killing a cow and killing an unwanted, unborn child is that the unborn child is, of course, human. The fact that it is human is determinative for some people (Mo, raja, Pat Robertson). That the fact that it is human is the deciding factor for these people is made abundantly clear by the fact that they have zero qualms about killing cows, i.e. if not for a human identity, Mo, raja and Pat apparently have little problem with killing sentient, innocent living beings.
... life in question is valued/wanted by the person who has to support and maintain it.
Am I hearing this right? You're saying it is acceptable for someone to take the life of another individual as long as that individual is no longer valued/wanted by the person who has to support and maintain it. You agree that a developing zygote is a life. But you say that this life only has value if the mother perceives it to have value. You also believe the mother is given this right because she will be the one who is responsible for providing support for that life and thus it is her decision as to whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.
You may have just solved our growing homeless problem. Once an individual is considered an adult, they are no longer intrusted to the care of his or her parents (ie. you are no longer a dependent). However, in a democratic society, individual lives are supported and maintained by the government. And in order for our capitalistic societ to function, individuals must fuel the economy. Now, homeless people can't do this and one could make the rational assumption that a society fuelled by an economy does not 'value/want' individuals who do not contribute to that economy. So by your logic our government would be perfectly justified if they were to cut funding to all welfare programs and go out and kill every single homeless person.
You've left out a lot of key points in your survey of human nature. For instance, human beings are a social species. No one is completely independent and thus will always depend on the support of other individuals, be it their mother or society as a whole. You didn't grow the food you ate today, you are typing because someone taught you how to read and write in school, you didn't kill your own cow. By your reasoning, because I pay taxes which support and maintain you, I am justified in deciding whether or not your life has any value. Now if someone were to commit first degree murder would this argument really hold up in the court of law?
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 25, 2004 18:44:43 GMT -5
I know. I shortened it from "to prevent the pregnant state from continuing," to "to prevent pregnancy" in an attempt to make the sentence less awkward.
Your point being?
Not sure yet.
Don't personalize things. I am saying that that appears to be the commonly accepted standard for whether or not it's o.k. to kill someone. You disagree?
I believe the homeless are both primarily responsible for maintaining their lives AND have the desire to keep them.
By my argument, government could cut welfare programs. The homeless people could kill themselves or not in response. There is no analogy where a unwillingly pregnant woman is concerned.
As an aside, they are also a murderous species.
If everyone depended on everyone else as much as an unborn child depends on its mother, I can guarantee you that there'd be a whole lot more murder going on.
For the sake of argument: not! I support and maintain myself by working and paying taxes back into the system. So long as I am paying back the debt I owe to society, the value of my life is unquestionable. I am an essential cog in the machine.
Why don't you explain why the exceptions to the argued absolute value of life I discussed above are totally kosher but a mother killing her unwanted, unborn child is not. It's either o.k. to kill or not o.k. If you permit justifications in certain situations, but wish to refuse one in a different situation, you must distinguish the impermissible from the permissible. Your task is to explain why killing animals, war, and capital punishment are permissible while abortion is not.
Eh? Your standard for what's morally acceptable is a court of law? Then abortion is totally morally acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Mar 25, 2004 20:02:22 GMT -5
OOOOO, can i!? CAN I!? I think I will (i'm not one for just intruding in other's debates, but i haven't posted on this one in a while).
First, why kill animals? For food, as harsh and girssly as that might sound, I'm sorry, that is why it is ok. Meat and animal products (like eggs, milk, butter) are good sources of nutrients and protein (in moderation). True, this protein may be taken from plants, but in MUCH larger quantities. As an engineer, i know there isn't enough good soil to grow all the protein needed from plant life for humans to eat (on Earth). Terra-forming land, like the experiemental production in Egypt, takes ALOT of effort and money and time to occur.
Second, and a weaker arguement, but still important, animals that are eaten now (the most general being cows, pigs, chickens, sheep) have now been domesticated, they simply cant be "let go" - they wont survive in a wild habitat. Some are grown for their meat and any other product they can produce (eggs, milk, wool etc.) This is there purpose now - if that sounds harsh, oh well.
Do not get me wrong, I am not some torturer of animals, i know the love a human being can feel their pet (not THAT kind of love) and i believe animal cruelty is a horrendous crime (the largest pet i've ever had was a hamster, but if anyone ever harmed him, come hell or high water, they should pay for whatever they've done).
Also, i dont support wearing fur and i dont use products used on animals, raising an animal (humanely) and then killing it (humanely) is one thing, raising an animal to sell it's fur to a economic market or to make make-up and other products safer for me, is unnacceptable.
On to war - it sucks. In the rarest case, it has to be done (WW2 is a classic example, i dont know about you, but i'm glad i'm not a nazi german right now). Putting aside the bad examples (the crusades, the "war on terror" aka the want for oil, etc) in the rarest times, it has to be done - to stop an evil (and when i say evil, i mean easily identified evil, no iffy crap). But again, i would never go to war, ever. I cannot kill a human being by shooting blindly into a field, hoping my bullets reach the target. But in some cases, some VERY EXTREME cases, it's unavoidable, but still completely wrong - a horrible thing, that unfortunately is (should be) a final result.
Death Penaulty - i dont support it. I can see why some do, esp family members of victims, but their opinion is biased, just like mine would be if i was ever a family member to a victim.
Now for abortion. The question of it being right or wrong, is too vague and too bland. The question is the "right" to choose; is it a right?. Women, Men, children, all have the right to choose - choose to go to school, choose the path to their lives, choose their religion (or not) choose what kind of clothing to wear. Notice how every choice guaranteed people under their charter (or constitution) is a singular choice. It effects ONLY ONE being, you.
I will not get into that topic of "is the fetus a human being" all i'll say on that matter is that, the fetus, unborn, zygote, whatever, has the potential to life, it will follow naturally what its cells are programmed to do, and that is divide and grow. Who are we to stop this process?
This doesn't mean i am some anti-abortionist, willing to blow up a clinic - by no means. All i am saying, is that women's liberation, has NOTHING to do with the right to choose. The right to vote, to own property, the right to equal pay, the right to say NO, these are rights i associate with women's liberation.
The "right" to choose, isn't a right at all. It is an unnecassary case, that must be addressed. We cannot take away abortion completely, it is needed in dire circumstances, if the woman's life is in danger (ectopic pregnancies) for example. This is a case where an abortion, unfortunately is a must.
Pregnancies that are the product of rape, although rare, still need to be addressed. I am not a woman, i cannot phathom the idea of what rape will do to a woman, nor would i want to. That child growing inside her, is a constant reminder of what a monster has done to her. Kudos to her if she can survive another 9 months and deliver the child, KUDOS to her, if she can survive the rest of her life, regardless of what she does, after being raped. An abortion in this case is understandable and "needed" in the sense of the women's well-being. But like ectopic pregnancies, if she chooses to abort, i still find it not-so-much wrong, but unfortunately something that must be done.
This is the mentality that i believe abortion should be seen as, not some wonderful right given to women to celebrate, it's an unfortunate thing, a last resort, the final and only decision.
Any other case of a pregnancy, doesn't fit into these rare cases, an unwanted pregnancy through consentual intercourse, is no reason to stop the potential for life. If the woman cannot raise the child, then a barren couple, most certainly can.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 25, 2004 22:15:35 GMT -5
So the fact that the cow is innocent and "LIFE," does not matter. I assume you won't be using the same argument for unwanted, unborn babies then.
Not that I'm an vegetarian or anything, but this is simply not the case. And even if it were so, it is a convenience argument, so I suppose you don't object to convenience as an argument for abortion?
If all of the grain that is currently used to feed the animals we eat were used as food for humans instead, no one on this planet would ever need go hungry.
So dependence is a partial justification for killing innocent life? Need I say more?
Why? Raising them in captivity to serve as our totally unnecessary food source is o.k. but killing them to serve as a totally unnecessary clothing item isn't. Sorry, but I don't see the logical distinction.
And more importantly, kills innocent HUMAN LIFE.
Let's keep that in mind. Note that there have been far more "elective wars" than necessary ones.
But you'd still be ALIVE. And so would all the innocent civilians who died during the war. I thought life was above all other things in importance. If you're willing to sacrifice innocent human life for the sake of not having to be a nazi, then why can't a woman abort for the sake of having to avoid pregnancy and giving her child up for adoption or a life of poverty with the child?
Oh, that's convenient. Would that it were so easy. A survey of history demonstrates that humans will go to war without provocation or absolute need. This much is undeniable, despite your attempts to explain it away.
If war is a justifiable evil, then so is abortion.
Actually, the question IS whether it's right or wrong. If it is wrong with a capital "W," then it cannot be included in a right to privacy. If it is not wrong, then it's none of the governments business if women decide to terminate.
No choice that anyone ever makes affects only one being. For example: not the choice of a woman to smoke during pregnancy, not the choice of a man to smoke ever. Both can damage the children produced by each.
Namely, a person who has to incubate the darned thing for nine months, thereby undergoing radical and unwanted changes to our bodies and lives, not to mention the emotional impact of an unwanted child, whether kept or given away.
Are you a woman?
How magnanimous of you.
Aren't you glad we are free to have our own beliefs? In writing your response, you have demonstrated just how many opinions and beliefs go into a person's opinion on abortion. What makes you think you should be the one to decide for everybody else?
You make no distinction between killing a third trimester v. a first trimester baby? If not, why not outlaw birth control while we're at it, as apparently it sometimes prohibits the implantation of a fertilized egg?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Mar 25, 2004 23:32:40 GMT -5
- it doesn't matter if it's innnocent or not, it was breed to die, done and done. It is not sentient, it does not understand the fact that it's alive (i speak of the cow now). It will never utter the words "I dont wish to die" to me. If cows around the world started saying this, we'd have no choice, but NOT to kill them. But they dont, so we do.
- many of my friends are vegetarian, or trying to be. And it is the case, i'm afraid. The only place protein can be found other then meat, is nuts (such as almonds), beans, root veggies, and eggs (these are the largest sources of protein from a secondary source). Alot more of these foods need to be consumed, in order to get the same intake from meat.
It's not convenience, as it is practically. There is not enough land (therefore nutrients) to grow that much food from the soil, on the planet earth, to feed 6 billion. PLUS, have animals eat their share of food as well - it simply cannot be done.
- that's a wonderful arguement said by many vegetarians, but it's bogus. If we were to eat the grain made to feed animals, what would the animals eat? So if we're not gonna eat them, we should just let them starve to death? They need to eat as well. So now you have to plant 3/2 to twice as much crop to NOT eat animals. Which would slowly kill the planet, as it wouldn' t be able to bounce back from this nutrient drain.
- innocent, non-sentient life, that will never become sentient, yes it is. and no you dont need to.
- uhh you should, cuz it's right in front of your eyes.
It's not unnecessary, as i've explained the planet cannot be used for our food source AND theirs; if we were to let all farm animals live. This is why i used the word "humanely" i dont enjoy watching animals suffer - i'm not sadistic. To kill an animal humanely, so that it may feed us, the animal has served it's purpose. Every part of that animal will be used. A cow for example, breed for milk, it dies, and now you have meat. It's bones, will be grind up to form gelatin. It's skin can be cured into leather. There is a world of difference from THIS to shooting an endangered tiger in a jungle to rip it's skin off and leave the rest of it to rot. More importantly, the animal is endangered!
- i'm not stating otherwise. That's why i stressed the point that in the most extreme cases war must be done. To argue about the futility of certain wars over others, that's a politically debate and should be posted appropiately in the political threads.
-
first and foremost, i would rather be dead, then a racist. Those civilians would be living in a world of hate and spewing said hate from their lips. I thought life was above all other things in importance. - it is, that is why we honor those that have died so that we are not hate mongers right now. As for the abortion comparison, you are linking things that are too far-strecthed.
I'm not willing to sacrifice it, that is what i said i would never go to war. I could sacrifice my own, i couldn't murder someone i dont know. Which oddly enough fits into your unwanted pregnancy comparison.
- oh gimme a break! Comparing humanity to a time where it believed the sun revolved around the earth to now, is ridiculous. Yes we are still pretty stupid - but we're not THAT stupid, give us some credit. I ignore those wars, because they weren't fighting for an "absolute" good, as we did in WW2, to stop the germans from destroying many ways of life and to stop the mass killing of many minorities. (yes again, i know there is more to it then that, but if ww2 didn't occur, you'd be an aryian princess bride now).
EXTREME, LAST CASE SCENARIO, LAST SOLUTION, LAST POSSIBLE 'THING' TO ATTEMPT. this is not justifiable, its a last resort. a horrible mean, to a miserable end. USING THIS COMPARISON, that is what i try to relate to abortion - it, UNFORTUNATELY, must be done, in some cases.
- well why do you think it was so hard to gain this "right" in the first place? because the gov't is bias, the whole damn system is bias. You asking whether abortion is right or wrong, is the same as me asking you if you see the same shade of blue in the sky, as i do. we cannot know this. Right and Wrong, are answers that are too vague.
- good point. Those i never thought of. BUT, with all choices, all consequences must be taken into account as well. If a parent is irresponsible enough to smoke around a child, they shouldn't be a parent, now should they?
- so then by your logic, anyone whose had their stomach stappled, and undergone a radical change can go and kill their surgeon? anyone who needs to go on a diet, can go and kill their doctor? THAT is a weak arguement.
- i dont need to be to understand what many women have fought for. Nor do i need to be to state my opinion on a matter that deals with women. Wasn't that sorta the point of the woman's right movement? Speaking one's mind.
- it's my opinion, i haven't mocked yours, dont mock mine. More so, i haven't mocked your arguements, given that there are MANY flaws in them. Let's keep it civil.
- first, who said i should? and secondly, why did you automatically assume i took on the role of demanding or telling people "how it should be". This is my opinion as to HOW I see abortion and the "need" for it, in western society. You can either agree or disagree, or not care. Stop assuming i'm out to change the world to my way of thinking, this isn't 1984 (the book, not the year). I sure as hell dont want to be Big Brother.
- yes i have. There is none. Both have the same potential for life, both are still growing, doing what their cells are programmed to do - live. They are different stages of growth, that doesn't matter. Both, at the end of the third trimester, will be exactly the same (assuming both are healthy and biologically speaking of course).
- those aren't birth control methods now are they? Those are abortificients.
Birth CONTROL pills do just that, control the process of birth, the limits of control being - you either get pregnant or you dont. Another wonderful choice you, me, everyone (should) have. How can you stop a potetial for life, if it hasn't started yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ube on Mar 26, 2004 2:17:27 GMT -5
Don't personalize things. I am saying that that appears to be the commonly accepted standard for whether or not it's o.k. to kill someone. You disagree?
That wasn't personalized at all. I simply stated your point. Should I have said "your post is saying..." instead of "your're saying..."?
I believe the homeless are both primarily responsible for maintaining their lives AND have the desire to keep them.
What makes you believe this? I'm not disputing you and saying that they don't value their lives. I simply want to know what makes you believe this. If you can't go out and ask every single person if he or she values one's life, then what observable traits about these indivuals provides the foundation for you belief?
I support and maintain myself by working and paying taxes back into the system. So long as I am paying back the debt I owe to society, the value of my life is unquestionable. I am an essential cog in the machine
So because a zygote cannot repay its debt to its mother and society it is not granted the same equity as you or I. Children do not pay taxes and are competely dependent on their guardian(s) for support well into their teens, be it food, shelter, etc. Does this mean that until this time where they are completely self sufficient and contributing to society, their lives are questionable? This would mean that there would be nothing wrong with parents who kill their children, no matter what age, as long as their children are not working or paying taxes. And shouldn't parents be killing their living dependent children a lot more since, "If everyone depended on everyone else as much as an unborn child depends on its mother, I can guarantee you that there'd be a whole lot more murder going on"?
Plus, you've just pretty much proved my homeless person analogy. You may be a cog in the machine but they are not.
But we can't kill them because they value their lives, right? Do children value their own lives? What about a baby that is one minute old? If so, how can we tell. It must be based on more than personal belief. People believed that the Earth was flat, didn't make it true. Ok, so homeless people value their lives. Homeless people were at one time babies, which were at one time zygotes. If zygotes do not value their lives, what event in their development into babies and then into homeless tiggered the development of a sense of value for their lives? Is it birth? Why what happens then?
But now you're going to say that the fact that a zygote or baby values its life is irrelevent because it is the mother who is encharged with the responsibility of supporting and maintaining its life. And then I'm going to say that children are still completely dependent on their parents, so why can't we kill them? And then you're going to say that they value their own lives just like homeless people and the argument is going to start all over again.
You have stated the fact that people see some killing as ok but others as not. This is not a null hypothesis for why abortion can be justified. The above fact is true; however just because we see some kinds of killing as ok and others as not doesn't mean that abortion automatically falls in the category of the "ok". You have asked what the difference is between killing a cow and having an abortion, and used this one of your main arguments. You havn't asked what the difference is between killing a stranger in the street and having an abortion. The fact that some killing is ok and others are not does not support your argument nor dismiss it.
You have agreed that a zygote is a LIFE. So abortion would result in killing a life. The possible reasons why this is justified, in you opinion, are shown below:
Either:
1. A seperate party responsible for maintaining and supporting that life does not value/want it
OR
2. The living being itself does not value its own life
(I say OR and not AND because I have shown that one argument will eventually contradict the other and we will be going in circles)
So firstly, which is it, 1 or 2?
Secondly, you have asked me to give objective reasons for why killing in general can be ok (killing a cow, war, etc). So I must ask if your reasons for why abortion is ok is relevent to that argument. Either the reasons for why abortion is ok (shown above) are:
a) objective - in which case anyone has the right to kill a dependent or someone they do not value, be it a cow, a zygote, an enemy soldier, a criminal, their five year old child, or a stranger in the street. If this is the case you have not proved abortion to be 'ok'
OR
b) subjective - in which case the reasons why cow killing, war, or capital punishment are tolerated are irrelevent. If you give subjective reasons as to why abortion is ok, then I only have to give subjective reasons as to why abortion and only abortion is 'not ok' as rebuttal.
I need some clarification. So please, are you saying 1a, 1b, 2a, or 2b?
|
|
xana
Beagle
Posts: 6
|
Post by xana on Mar 26, 2004 12:16:55 GMT -5
I am a guest and new to this rant, so maybe this is unwelcome, but i'll go ahead anyway.
I find the main arguments in this discussion to be very antagonistic (it is a rant i suppose so that's warranted) but i hope that in responding to both sides of the argument i am being less antagonistic because i just want to put my thoughts out there.
on the idea of life that is not valued being expendible, i do agree that on whole that is how human beings have declared killing as permissable. (this does not mean that i believe this is the grounds on which we should remain or aspire to) however, so much killing isn't pre-determined by the devaluing of life, it is in fact carried out by the devaluing of life. homeless rates of sickness and life expectancy prove this point. no, we shouldn't execute the homeless, but yes, we are already killing them via continual devaluing (i do this every day by trying not to look into the face or eyes of someone begging me for money or by feeling disgust at their appearance or odor, i feel anxiety about this of course, i am aware that i do it and this bothers me, but this is how nothing happens about homelessness as an issue).
we MUST devalue life it seems in order to justify killing, we devalued the lives of commies, imagined them as sub-human in order to justify vietnam, and then we realized we'd made a mistake. we devalue minorities in order to save ourselves the pain of facing the state that "our" racism or discrimination puts them in. i won't go further into political discussion here. we clearly devalue the life of animals so that we can maintain our sources of food etc. my point here is that in all these cases the devaluing is amost more the issue than the killing. for instance i think that there is a way to still eat meat and value more its life, the sacrifice of it, and its production. if we didnt' use devaluation as a tactic to go to war we might still go to war but find ourselves doing so more justly, perhaps for the sake of preserving life (and not oil etc.)
what I think is interesting about this discussion of valuing life re:abortion is that in this case we are debating an issue where life cannot and is not devalued. do you see what i mean? here i think the issue is that we have to make a choice about the taking of life where we can't rely on devaluing that life. (granted people do this, penut might be doing this here, and i guess some abortionists do as well- but I think they shouldn't).
but i see this as a great divide that antagonizes the parties on either side of the debate. i personally cannot say that due to the fact that we systematically devalue life to the point of murder in many cases, should we do that here. i know many people who are pro-choice and they do not maintain their viewpoint by devaluing the life or potential life of the unborn child. so it is possible to think that way. and i think that when the debate centers around this issue that we must not devalue the unborn life, it goes nowhere.
i also had the opportunity to study the caretaking systems of women in various societies throughout history. you recognize that during less modern times women faced the death of their children daily. dangers of disease, fire, malnutrition, and other environmental conditions took children at every turn. i read about cliff dwellers whose babies crawled off cliffs. some of those writing about this issue wanted to claim that these populations valued life less. which was not actually the case. life was valued in these instances even if the mothers combatted the high infant mortality by having as many children as possible.
today we keep alive children who historically would not have survived, those with diseases and birth defects, some who would not live beyond a few months if a drug was not developed in the time since their birth specifically to mee their need. i think humans given the chance to save lives, where propaganda to devalue them does not intercede, take these opportunities.
if we are goign to use historical argument i don't think it should be a way to say, look we've alwasy been murderous, why stop now?
rather i say, look at how we have advanced, and recognize that we have further to go.
the truth is that babies have always died (their lives being more precarious and more dependent on others) and for sorry reasons. in cases where a mother chooses to give up the life of her child, it is usually for sorry reasons as well. (and if you say that many women use it as a form of birth control, i'd say i'll debate that later but that it is still most often a sorry circumstance)
maybe you'll attack me for saying that we shouldn't debate abortion on the idea of valuing life. i say that we can't make that presumption that all abortionists or those who abort do so. i also say that while it may be difficult to come up with other ways to debate this moral issue, we should rise to the challenge because i think that otherwise the debate is unproductive. we may still decide to go to war by devaluing lives of our enemies, but it is not a proper or a common strategy for a woman who will abort a child to devalue its life. this woman is the most aware of that value and for that reason the very major sacrifice she may undergo! this is not about the ethics of equity, about the equal rights of the child and the mother to life, but about the ethics of care and responsbility. to whom do we have a responsibility in society, to whome does the mother have a responsbility? the ethics of "value" and "equity" can only go so far, and I think abortion is the exact location of a debate that has a lot more to tackle than has already been said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ube on Mar 26, 2004 15:16:56 GMT -5
You make some good points but they don't really address either side of the debate in this thread. The thread is called "Woman's right to choose...". "...dangers of disease, fire, malnutrition, and other environmental conditions" have nothing to do with an individual's choice.
You then bring up the point that life that is lost can still be valued even if choice is involved in the death of that life. This is the reason we have war memorials, cemetaries, etc. But you also say that this value for lost life steams from the feeling of being genuinely sorry that that life has ended, or from appreciation of that life's sacrifice.
We are debating whether or not there is justification in a woman's choice to end her child's life.
Whether or not a woman feels sorry or not about ending that life is not valid to this argument. It doesn't support either side of the debate. One side says that the choice is a right and thus, a woman shouldn't have to feel sorry about it. No one should feel sorry about expressing their rights; that's what makes them rights. The other side argues that the choice is not a right at all and abortion shouldn't happen in the first place. Regret or appreciation in the aftermath of a wrong action, doesn't change the fact that the action is wrong.
It seems like you are saying it is alright for a woman to have an abortion as long as she lives the rest of her life with the memory of that death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ube on Mar 26, 2004 15:18:07 GMT -5
But before we go any further, I still have to know something: 1a 1b 2a 2b  |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 26, 2004 19:22:31 GMT -5
Peanut:
You could say the same of a cow.
So we can kill BORN deaf children who haven't happened to learn sign language yet? Ridiculous! Either there is definable intrinsic value to life that warrants protection, or there is not. You're doing a piss poor job of distinguishing the unborn child from the cow.
What is your definition of protein? Keep in mind that you're talking to a biologist . . .
oh, yeah, and that you're wrong.
But go ahead anyway.
What animals? There would be no more production of domesticated animals, so the only animals that would have to find food are the ones already doing it just fine without our help: wild ones.
This is what we in science call pop-science - and of the worst variety.
Incidentally, you should also remember that I have absolutely no problem with killing cows. I also just happen to know that there is no salient difference between the consciousness of a cow and an unborn child, their desire to live, their ability to feel pain, or their innocence. If it's o.k. to kill one out of fabricated necessity, then it's o.k. to kill the other.
Why does that make a difference? Serious question.
You're going to have to do better than that.
We do not need to let all the farm animals live, see supra. And as a biologist, I argue that there is ZERO evidence that we could not feed ourself with alternatives to meat.
What is the purpose of human beings?
This IS the appropriate thread. You admit that most wars have not been AS NECESSARY as they should have been to justify the loss of innocent life. If this is the case, then do you not see just a little hypocrisy in Bush's claim to want to create a "culture of life" when he has caused thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths in Iraq under the pretext of self-defense? And I'm not even going to start on the fact that Bush hails from a state that appears to get a PARTICULAR kick out of executing minors and retarded folk. If I really believe him when he talks about being motivated by the "value of life," I'd be perplexed by Bush's warmongering and penchant for the death penalty.
Who are you to decide that for others???
So if one honors ones aborted child, that makes it o.k. to deprive it of its life without checking to make sure it wouldn't be o.k. with being the offspring of a mother that doesn't want it, or of its mother's rapist?
Why? You can't go around making unsupported declarations and expect me to take you seriously. You have to ARGUE, man.
And as soon as we ban all elective wars, I'll be fine with abortion being illegal.
What about WWI, the civil war, vietnam, korea, the balkans, Iraq, afghanistan. None of these wars were necessary with a capital "N," nor did they accomplish what they were supposed to.
There is absolutely no way for you to know this.
When does a war become so necessary that it justifies the expenditure of innocent human life?
The privacy right? It wasn't hard at all. It was outlined when the supreme court ruled that the government couldn't dictate who you could marry or whether you could use condoms. Abortion has been practiced without any bluster since prehistoric times. Men didn't give two flying farts less until women also wanted to leave the home and become financially independent, i.e. until the women's movement started in earnest.
Oh really. Tell that to the pro-lifers. Tell that to Mo and raja. And then explain to me, if "right" and "wrong" cannot be clearly delineated, what business it is of yours to tell me how to live.
I'm talking about men smoking at all, EVER. Yes, that's right, even before they have children. If a man smokes even one cigarette in his youth, he risks causing irreparable harm to the genetic material in his germ cells (i.e. his future kids). And while we're at it, what about all those companies that have dumped mercury into the water supply to the extent that 1 in 13 women (through no choice of their own) have levels of mercury in their bloodstream that can cause birth defects in any future children they have?
Does the word "consent" mean nothing?
The point of the women's movement was to free women from the crappy status they are forced into when they can no longer control their reproduction. PERIOD.
It's my opinion that you're being awfully blithe about matters which you may or may not know anything about. Which brings me back to my original question: are you a woman?
Why bother? I have nothing but contempt for you, given what you've expressed thus far.
Oh, so then I can safely assume that you are against the criminalization of abortion? Then we have nothing left to talk about. Because you see, dear friend, the overarching issue for me is whether or not someone else should be able to impose their values on me. As long as you have no intention of trying to make that so, I could care less what you think. As long as it makes you happy and you keep it out of my life, you can think whatever the heck you want.
You appear to contradict yourself here. Birth control pills o.k.? or not o.k.?
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 26, 2004 19:23:36 GMT -5
xana:
That was not my argument. My argument is that if you want to force women to follow a moral code that "values life" you should force EVERYBODY to follow the same code, in regards to EVERYTHING.
As I've stated elsewhere, I would have absolutely no problem with abortion being illegal as long as war and capital punishment are no longer practiced, and as soon as people put their money where their mouth is and stop supporting policies that penalize mothers for bearing and rearing children or that otherwise unnecessarily burden families.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 26, 2004 19:47:33 GMT -5
Ube:
Don't get your panties in a knot. Some people have a life that's focused elsewhere than this messageboard.
No, what you should have said is: "You're saying it is [commonly accepted practice] for someone to take the life of another individual as long as that individual is no longer valued/wanted by the person who has to support and maintain it."
BIG, BIG difference.
I don't "believe this," I know it to be true. If they, as the people primarily responsible for maintaining their lives did not value their existences, they WOULD, in fact, end them.
Not unless its mother wants it.
No, because their parents are not compelled to support them. They can give them up for adoption. Most of what follows in your post becomes irrelevant once you pay attention to this GLARING logical flaw in your argument.
I agree. One must compare and contrast the "o.k." killings with the "not o.k." killings and decide, based on those categories, where abortion lies. And I am arguing that there is no current standard for "not o.k." killings that applies to abortion but does not apply either to cows, capital criminals, or civilian casualties of war, i.e. the "o.k. killings."
I have been asked that question and answered it: apparently, based on commonly accepted standards, murdering the stranger in the street is wrong because he is a person who will be missed and who values his life, while abortion is fine because the unborn, unwanted child is not such a person.
I deny that you have done any such thing. See above.
Usually both, but at the very least, 2.
It is objective to me (tee hee) but that's only because I'm 100% confident I'm right. For others, I would argue subjective and not subject to assay for truthfulness. Therefore, it merely becomes a question of consistency of application. If you want to make a rule requiring that life be valued, apply it to everyone, all the time. Don't specifically target women.
|
|
