ISFjs, your opinion on abortion, equal opportunity laws, etc

[Gilly]

You're joking....right? You are....oh you're a funny one....

Nope.

[Khamelion]

Nope.

You watch too much House. You are never to be in charge of anyone's babies. It's decided.

preach.

/facepalm

[crazedrat]

if it was my baby i would be nice to it, and i wouldn't want it aborted either.

No one likes you.

actually i think joy likes me

[discojoe]

actually i think joy likes me

Maybe, but she also feels sorry for you and says you're broken.

[crazedrat]

i think gilly made every point which needed to be made here.

[discojoe]

You're perverted, overly angsty, and disgusting.

[crazedrat]

but at least i am smarter than you are. thank god for that.

[Khamelion]

if it was my baby i would be nice to it, and i wouldn't want it aborted either.

interesting....that boggles my mind....it is thoroughly boggled right at this moment.

[crazedrat]

truth is when it came down to it, i wouldn't be able to abort a baby. but on a large scale political level, i have to support it. i like how gilly compared it to war. i wouldn't want to go to war, and i couldn't kill another person. i would be the first to run, admit i was a coward, call the whole thing stupid, and run. yet war is necessary and unavoidable. the alternatives to war are often worse.. i.e., letting some warlords regime run rampant. abortion is the same. but yeah, my kid wont be aborted.. on that note, i am willing to take care of the kid. if a mother is considering abortion, clearly she isn't qualified. so who am i to intervene there? all this mentioned in gillys post up there.

[Gilly]

You watch too much House. You are never to be in charge of anyone's babies. It's decided.

Actually a few of my friends have gone out of their way to tell me that I would make a great father. I think so, too.

[discojoe]

Abortions probably shouldn't be given in labor, but for the most part, as long as that baby is inside a vagina and hooked up to an umbilical chord, it's a fetus.

Obviously, there has to be some cut-off point between when the fetus is "just a fetus" and when the fetus has human rights. However, I think that the existence of an intact umbilical cord is a horrible point on which to make this distinction.

When you cut the cord, nothing about the fetus/baby changes; it's just no longer consuming food via the cord (though I'm not sure when that process actually ends).

Is a breastfeeding baby a fetus since it's leeching food away from its mother? What if it's not the mother, but a wet nurse?

To me, once the baby starts to--on some subjective scale--possess the appearance and mental faculties of what you are calling an actual baby, then it should be considered a person, fetus or not. It seems like the third trimester is a more humane way of setting this boundary than the umbilical cord.

Would you ever go to war if you got to see it first hand? No. But it's necessary sometimes. Maybe you will win and there will be fewer abortions when we all start hearing about the horror of 3rd-trimester brain-vacuuming in the New York Times Magazine.

Yes, I would go to war if it were for a good reason, even multiple times. Courage is a skill that can be taught, and I'm confident that I could learn to put my self in the line of fire if I thought the cause was just. I probably would have enlisted in WW2.

My stance is if a mother doesn't want a child, can afford an abortion, is not going to raise the child properly or cannot afford to, and is not ready for the responsibility, then fuck, let her get an abortion.

OK.

If the mother cares little enough about her CHILD, her BABY'S LIFE, to consider getting an abortion, she should not be allowed to be responsible for a human life; better to spare the kid.

And force her to get her tubes tied, right?

But what I fail to understand is whether or not you view the fetus in this situation as a human being with rights. If it's "just a fetus" that can be killed, why do you care if the mother doesn't care about it? Why do you care about sparing it? But if it's an actual human child, why let people kill it without good reason (e.g., rape, incest, etc., which are my own reasons for allowing a woman to get one pre-third trimester)?

if we want to get into their OBJECTIVE value, we can talk about overpopulation and welfare and all of those great things, but you probably don't want to

Sure I do. The solution to welfare isn't to let women have abortions, it's to stop paying them for having children they cannot afford. The solution to welfare is to stop welfare, basically.

As to overpopulation, the market is pretty efficient at dealing with this. As goods become more scarce relative to population, they also become more expensive, making it more costly to raise a family and resulting in less people having children until equilibrium is reached. The panic over population growth is nonsense.

we can only take into account the baby's potential future experience of life as a measure of its worth.

You have no realistic way of taking this into account, though. Yeah, there are statistical studies, but it still amounts to making a bet on whether or not the kid would have some ambiguous, "worthwhile" level of happiness. You'd basically just be taking a big gamble and saying, "Gee, I sure hope this kid wouldn't have beaten the odds and gone on to lead a fulfilling life."

If the baby is obviously going to have a shitty life, and probably will if the mother doesn't give a shit, then what's the point in letting a mostly unconscious being have rights?

You start to go astray from reality when you use the word "obviously" in reference to future choices made by human beings.

There are many poor children in dysfunctional families who grow up and go to college. Are they still leading "shitty lives," as you call them? What about rich people who are miserable? What if a study showed that most wealthy people are unhappy. Should they be killed before birth?

We let parents make these kinds of decisions for children all the time; why should we give unborn fetuses a carte-blanche right to life that they might not even get anything out of when someone right in front of us stands to gain by their non-existence?

Why is it OK to kill an innocent person in order to make life more convenient for its parents, who could easily give the baby up if they wanted?

We have the power to give abortions; what are the good reasons for stopping? What dangerous precedent do we set, what laws of nature do we violate, what do we really do that's bad? That's what I want to know.

The bad precedent we set is that it's OK to do things to people that we wouldn't want done to ourselves by telling ourselves that it's not really people we're affecting. Enslaving blacks? Well, they're not really people. Killing Jews? They're subhuman.

We'll never really know the full price we're paying, because the people aborted aren't able to contribute anything. Sure, some of them could have grown up to be tyrants, but people on average contribute more than they take away, I believe.

Of course, you've experienced abortion first hand, so your views are more significant than philosophical musings, and you're certainly not just saying what you "feel" like is the "good" thing to do. Sorry for assuming that you just want to confront a tough issue with a total lack of thinking.

No, I just think I'm far more realistic and levelheaded than you. You've got a lot of potential, but you need to ditch the fanatical ends-justify-means Beta bullshit.

I don't mean this in a condescending way (I obviously have an Ne PoLR--perhaps the most comical PoLR in the Socion), but I think this could be an Si PoLR thing, where you're making these sweeping proclamations about right and wrong while ignoring the horrible Si elements (Sucking a baby's brains out while it's being born? Try to vividly imagine what that would be like). It's easy for me to say shit like "Islam should be banned, and all religion is evil," but when I pause and l tell myself to come up with reasons for why the exact opposite could be true (and this is really hard for me to do), I often find myself taking a more sober-minded stance.

*NOT MAKING A SERIOUS MORAL COMPARISON BETWEEN YOU AND *******

I'm sure you've learned about this, but when ****** insisted that the German troops continue on through the Russian winter despite being ill equipped for such an operation, he was completely ignoring the Si experiences of his troops in favor of swiftly crushing Russia, which he saw as the just thing to do. As a result of this fanaticism, German soldiers experienced horrible frostbite and were often found frozen to death after having fallen asleep accidentally. Si is important when taking into account the value of human life, just as Ne is like a convex mirror that can give you a better view of what's going on around you when driving.

[discojoe]

but at least i am smarter than you are. thank god for that.

Nah, I think you lie about your results on those tests. It seems like something you're really insecure about, regardless.

But anyway, I really don't care if your IQ or anyone else's is higher than mine, and you're still a foul insectoid version of a human being.

[crazedrat]

Nah, I think you lie about your results on those tests. .

lol, i'm flattered.

[discojoe]

[discojoe]

lol, i'm flattered.

Yeah, I could be wrong, but it just seems like something that bothers you more than it does most other people, so I wouldn't put it past you to lie about your results.

[crazedrat]

are you and joy having problems? for the record, i wasn't even thinking about the tests when i called you stupid.

[Gilly]

Obviously, there has to be some cut-off point between when the fetus is "just a fetus" and when the fetus has human rights. However, I think that the existence of an intact umbilical cord is a horrible point on which to make this distinction.

When you cut the cord, nothing about the fetus/baby changes; it's just no longer consuming food via the cord (though I'm not sure when that process actually ends).

A fetus's entire development is slow; there are no nice, neat little moments in fetal growth we can use as cut-off points, at least until we know more about the human brain. But we have to use something, right?

Is a breastfeeding baby a fetus since it's leeching food away from its mother? What if it's not the mother, but a wet nurse?

Pointless distinction.

To me, once the baby starts to--on some subjective scale--possess the appearance and mental faculties of what you are calling an actual baby, then it should be considered a person, fetus or not. It seems like the third trimester is a more humane way of setting this boundary than the umbilical cord.

Perhaps. And I'll agree that it's pretty pathetic if a woman, with the input of all relevant parties, hasn't made up her mind after 6 months. I also agree that more women should put up unwanted babies for adoption, but then you run into even more developmental problems, issues for the parents, etc. There are no easy answers.

Yes, I would go to war if it were for a good reason, even multiple times. Courage is a skill that can be taught, and I'm confident that I could learn to put my self in the line of fire if I thought the cause was just. I probably would have enlisted in WW2.

Me too. Now flip it around: abortion doctors learn to steel themselves to the process, so why should our subjective reactions to the situation influence our broader perspective?

And force her to get her tubes tied, right?

People change, etc.

But what I fail to understand is whether or not you view the fetus in this situation as a human being with rights. If it's "just a fetus" that can be killed, why do you care if the mother doesn't care about it? Why do you care about sparing it? But if it's an actual human child, why let people kill it without good reason (e.g., rape, incest, etc., which are my own reasons for allowing a woman to get one pre-third trimester)?

I don't think it's a human, though. Is it counted in the census? Using the third trimester as a practical marker for abortion is fair, but a fetus isn't a human child until it comes out of the vagina; it's a human fetus.

Sure I do. The solution to welfare isn't to let women have abortions, it's to stop paying them for having children they cannot afford. The solution to welfare is to stop welfare, basically.

And we both know that isn't going to happen, so we may as well approach THIS issue from a practical standpoint, no?

As to overpopulation, the market is pretty efficient at dealing with this. As goods become more scarce relative to population, they also become more expensive, making it more costly to raise a family and resulting in less people having children until equilibrium is reached. The panic over population growth is nonsense.

So you think people will just stop having kids? Yeah, that worked real well in China.

You have no realistic way of taking this into account, though. Yeah, there are statistical studies, but it still amounts to making a bet on whether or not the kid would have some ambiguous, "worthwhile" level of happiness. You'd basically just be taking a big gamble and saying, "Gee, I sure hope this kid wouldn't have beaten the odds and gone on to lead a fulfilling life."

You start to go astray from reality when you use the word "obviously" in reference to future choices made by human beings.

There are many poor children in dysfunctional families who grow up and go to college. Are they still leading "shitty lives," as you call them? What about rich people who are miserable? What if a study showed that most wealthy people are unhappy. Should they be killed before birth?

I'm not saying it's a good solution; I'm saying there's no better one that properly considers the interests and relative privileges of all parties involved.

Why is it OK to kill an innocent person in order to make life more convenient for its parents, who could easily give the baby up if they wanted?

The bad precedent we set is that it's OK to do things to people that we wouldn't want done to ourselves by telling ourselves that it's not really people we're affecting. Enslaving blacks? Well, they're not really people. Killing Jews? They're subhuman.

Horribly fallacious comparison; need I even introduce the historical perspective to show you why this is retarded? This goes in as one of the most willfully ignorant slippery slope fallacies I've ever seen.

We'll never really know the full price we're paying, because the people aborted aren't able to contribute anything. Sure, some of them could have grown up to be tyrants, but people on average contribute more than they take away, I believe.

And I might have been a famous physicist, but I chose to take philosophy in college. My buddy from high school might have been the next Nelson Mandella if he grew up in South Africa. You could've been the next Salvador Dali if your parents had had the cash to put you through arts school. Shit happens.

No, I just think I'm far more realistic and levelheaded than you. You've got a lot of potential, but you need to ditch the fanatical ends-justify-means Beta bullshit.

I'm just trying to look at the situation from a long-term perspective and not let superficial attachments or gut reactions get in the way of making a solid judgment.

I don't mean this in a condescending way (I obviously have an Ne PoLR--perhaps the most comical PoLR in the Socion), but I think this could be an Si PoLR thing, where you're making these sweeping proclamations about right and wrong while ignoring the horrible Si elements (Sucking a baby's brains out while it's being born? Try to vividly imagine what that would be like). It's easy for me to say shit like "Islam should be banned, and all religion is evil," but when I pause and l tell myself to come up with reasons for why the exact opposite could be true (and this is really hard for me to do), I often find myself taking a more sober-minded stance.

*NOT MAKING A SERIOUS MORAL COMPARISON BETWEEN YOU AND *******

I'm sure you've learned about this, but when ****** insisted that the German troops continue on through the Russian winter despite being ill equipped for such an operation, he was completely ignoring the Si experiences of his troops in favor of swiftly crushing Russia, which he saw as the just thing to do. As a result of this fanaticism, German soldiers experienced horrible frostbite and were often found frozen to death after having fallen asleep accidentally. Si is important when taking into account the value of human life, just as Ne is like a convex mirror that can give you a better view of what's going on around you when driving.

Cute, and I see where you're coming from, but I'd rather you just debate me.

For the record, I also think that, ideally, religion should be abolished totally.

[Gilly]

[discojoe]

A fetus's entire development is slow; there are no nice, neat little moments in fetal growth we can use as cut-off points, at least until we know more about the human brain. But we have to use something, right?

Yeah, and specific cut-off points are always arbitrary, but the umbilical cord position seems ludicrous to me. The fucking thing's obviously a full baby capable of surviving on its own after birth, regardless of cord status.

Pointless distinction.

Yep.

Me too. Now flip it around: abortion doctors learn to steel themselves to the process, so why should our subjective reactions to the situation influence our broader perspective?

In WW2, I'd be protecting innocent lives. Abortion doctors are doing the opposite. I see no moral gray area.

People change, etc.

But going on your argument about probability, is she likely to change? If not, then shouldn't we force her to get her tubes tied?

Using the third trimester as a practical marker for abortion is fair, but a fetus isn't a human child until it comes out of the vagina; it's a human fetus.

These are just names. Air Force One is only Air Force One when the President is flying on it. A meteor is only a meteor when it enters Earth's atmosphere. A human child is only a baby when it fucks its mother with its entire body, but it's still a human child, regardless of whether or not it's a fetus. It's still the same damn thing.

And we both know that isn't going to happen, so we may as well approach THIS issue from a practical standpoint, no?

I think welfare will eventually come to an end as it becomes more and more costly. I think it will get replaced by a negative income tax. When that happens, you'll see a lot less unplanned pregnancies. Irresponsible behavior stops once the safety net allowing it to happen gets taken away.

So you think people will just stop having kids? Yeah, that worked real well in China.

Bad example. The Chinese had a shitty standard of living, making it more attractive to have lots of kids. That, combined with its oppressive government that stifled growth, made it into a bad situation that was bankrupting the government. Not that that excuses it.

I'm not saying it's a good solution; I'm saying there's no better one that properly considers the interests and relative privileges of all parties involved.

Sure there is: Let the kid have a chance to be happy. The pursuit of happiness is a right, not something doled out based on pragmatic analysis of probability.

Horribly fallacious comparison; need I even introduce the historical perspective to show you why this is retarded? This goes in as one of the most willfully ignorant slippery slope fallacies I've ever seen.

I don't think I've committed a fallacy, but go ahead and explain.

And I might have been a famous physicist, but I chose to take philosophy in college. My buddy from high school might have been the next Nelson Mandella if he grew up in South Africa. You could've been the next Salvador Dali if your parents had had the cash to put you through arts school. Shit happens.

So it's OK for one person to have the choice to take away another person's freedom of choice because shit happens? Everyone has limiting life situations, but babies are the ones with literally no choices.

I'm just trying to look at the situation from a long-term perspective and not let superficial attachments or gut reactions get in the way of making a solid judgment.

I don't think there's anything superficial about being protective of the rights of helpless individuals.

For the record, I also think that, ideally, religion should be abolished totally.

I think abolishing it would be horribly destructive. I think it will just fade away as science continually improves people's lives.

[Khamelion]

Actually a few of my friends have gone out of their way to tell me that I would make a great father. I think so, too.

STAY AWAY FROM MY BABEHS!!!!

[ArchonAlarion]

I think abortions should be extended up to puberty.

[Gilly]

STAY AWAY FROM MY BABEHS!!!!

Sure. Until they're born.

[Gilly]

Yeah, and specific cut-off points are always arbitrary, but the umbilical cord position seems ludicrous to me. The fucking thing's obviously a full baby capable of surviving on its own after birth, regardless of cord status.

Ok, sure; I was being satirical as much as anything.

In WW2, I'd be protecting innocent lives. Abortion doctors are doing the opposite. I see no moral gray area.

They're providing a service, for which they are paid (not to mention often saving lives). The nobility, or lack thereof, of their cause does not rescind the need of desensitization to perform their job. Since they can do it, why shouldn't we, if it's beneficial? Our instincts don't necessarily tell us what's good for us.

But going on your argument about probability, is she likely to change? If not, then shouldn't we force her to get her tubes tied?

Don't be childish.

These are just names. Air Force One is only Air Force One when the President is flying on it. A meteor is only a meteor when it enters Earth's atmosphere. A human child is only a baby when it fucks its mother with its entire body, but it's still a human child, regardless of whether or not it's a fetus. It's still the same damn thing.

Only it's not.

I think welfare will eventually come to an end as it becomes more and more costly. I think it will get replaced by a negative income tax. When that happens, you'll see a lot less unplanned pregnancies. Irresponsible behavior stops once the safety net allowing it to happen gets taken away.

I tend to disagree, but regardless, if we're making an informed decision about how the law should run, it should be with regards to our present circumstances and not dependent upon the outcome of wishful thinking for its relevance.

Bad example. The Chinese had a shitty standard of living, making it more attractive to have lots of kids. That, combined with its oppressive government that stifled growth, made it into a bad situation that was bankrupting the government. Not that that excuses it.

But the human perspective remains the same: people don't just stop having kids. They're still going to fuck. Further overpopulation won't necessarily propel them to start using a condom.

Sure there is: Let the kid have a chance to be happy. The pursuit of happiness is a right, not something doled out based on pragmatic analysis of probability.

...a right that people who aren't counted in the census don't have.

I don't think I've committed a fallacy, but go ahead and explain.

Ever hear of the slippery slope? It's not even a good usage; we aren't going to start killing Jews again just because fetuses don't get rights.

So it's OK for one person to have the choice to take away another person's freedom of choice because shit happens? Everyone has limiting life situations, but babies are the ones with literally no choices.

First of all, not a person.

Second of all, with regards to this specific situation, yes. Shit happens.

I don't think there's anything superficial about being protective of the rights of helpless individuals.

...who aren't "individual" in any way until they've been separated from their mothers.

I think abolishing it would be horribly destructive. I think it will just fade away as science continually improves people's lives.

This is the rational conclusion and final refinement of that impulse, yes. At least so we can hope.

[Khamelion]

Sure. Until they're born.

I dunno....we'll see....

[Gilly]

[discojoe]

They're providing a service, for which they are paid (not to mention often saving lives). The nobility, or lack thereof, of their cause does not rescind the need of desensitization to perform their job. Since they can do it, why shouldn't we, if it's beneficial? Our instincts don't necessarily tell us what's good for us.

The issue is that they are killing babies. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are providing a service. Their mental fortitude is irrelevant.

Don't be childish.

I wasn't being childish. If a woman who doesn't give a shit about (in your words) her own child, then why can't we use your probability logic on her as well? If she is likely to continue to become pregnant with children whom we should "spare" the suffering of being raised by her, then why shouldn't we force her to get her tubes tied?

Only it's not.

Um, yeah Whore-Hay. It is.

I tend to disagree, but regardless, if we're making an informed decision about how the law should run, it should be with regards to our present circumstances and not dependent upon the outcome of wishful thinking for its relevance.

I agree, which is why I don't use wishful thinking in my arguments.

But the human perspective remains the same: people don't just stop having kids. They're still going to fuck. Further overpopulation won't necessarily propel them to start using a condom.

The issue is not whether or not they are going to fuck, but how much. It is an historical fact that the economic conditions of a country play a massive role in reproduction.

...a right that people who aren't counted in the census don't have.

The pursuit of happiness is inalienable. The census is irrelevant.

Ever hear of the slippery slope? It's not even a good usage; we aren't going to start killing Jews again just because fetuses don't get rights.

I used Jews and blacks as historical examples of the kind of thinking I was talking about. When humans become "something else," it becomes easier to justify abusing or killing them. In the case of abortion, the most direct consequence is that it leads to more abortion. Women who have one abortion are much more likely to have another abortion than a woman who hasn't had one.

First of all, not a person.

A third trimester baby that could survive outside of the whom isn't a person? Hmm, that's a stupid thing to say. Why did you say it?

Second of all, with regards to this specific situation, yes. Shit happens.

"Shit happens" is a meaningless statement about reality that isn't helpful in any way. The issue (and I'm noticing here that you have a tendency to miss the point and focus on semantics and non-central logical details) isn't whether or not shit happens, but whether or not the shit that is happening is bad and, if so, whether or not anything can be done to stop it from happening.

In this case, the shit that occurs is that infants are being killed--not by unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances, but by adults who do not want to have the responsibility of raising them, even though they are the ones responsible for their conception.

Can we reduce the instance of this particular shit? Yes, by sending doctors to jail for performing the operation.

[Kim]

Can we reduce the instance of this particular shit? Yes, by sending doctors to jail for performing the operation.

I remember reading that outlawing abortion does not reduce its occurrence.

[Gilly]

The issue is that they are killing babies. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are providing a service. Their mental fortitude is irrelevant.

No, it's not. It proves that your visceral negative reaction to the idea of killing a child can be overcome, and I say if there's practical benefit to be had, why not put your feelings aside? What are the real dangers? This is all I ask.

I wasn't being childish. If a woman who doesn't give a shit about (in your words) her own child, then why can't we use your probability logic on her as well? If she is likely to continue to become pregnant with children whom we should "spare" the suffering of being raised by her, then why shouldn't we force her to get her tubes tied?

There are lots of circumstances that would make it hard for a woman to raise a child; I'm not going to pretend to know all of them or cite their legitimacy, but suffice to say that none of them are wholly indicative of permanent character flaws.

I agree, which is why I don't use wishful thinking in my arguments.

So you submit that having more people on welfare is bad?

The issue is not whether or not they are going to fuck, but how much. It is an historical fact that the economic conditions of a country play a massive role in reproduction.

Yeah, a good economy breeds more kids; a bad one doesn't necessarily make people stop, though.

The pursuit of happiness is inalienable. The census is irrelevant.

So you would deprive the mother of her extant rights to give a fetus it's hypothetical ones? Trashy.

I used Jews and blacks as historical examples of the kind of thinking I was talking about. When humans become "something else," it becomes easier to justify abusing or killing them. In the case of abortion, the most direct consequence is that it leads to more abortion. Women who have one abortion are much more likely to have another abortion than a woman who hasn't had one.

So? Let her have another abortion. She's not doing some inalienable evil by having an abortion any more than you are by producing and ejaculating sperm, or a woman by ovulating; the only difference is mere circumstance.

A third trimester baby that could survive outside of the whom isn't a person? Hmm, that's a stupid thing to say. Why did you say it?

Because there's no point in bickering over whether or not fetuses are alive if there is no moral imperative to consider them alive and obvious practical benefit to be had from not.

Oh, did I mention they aren't counted in the census, and thus don't have rights?

"Shit happens" is a meaningless statement about reality that isn't helpful in any way. The issue (and I'm noticing here that you have a tendency to miss the point and focus on semantics and non-central logical details) isn't whether or not shit happens, but whether or not the shit that is happening is bad and, if so, whether or not anything can be done to stop it from happening.

In this case, the shit that occurs is that infants are being killed--not by unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances, but by adults who do not want to have the responsibility of raising them, even though they are the ones responsible for their conception.

Honestly on the level of pure morality I agree with you to a certain extent, but unfortunately law does not determine morality; it determines practical necessity. So yes, shit happens to the government, too.

Can we reduce the instance of this particular shit? Yes, by sending doctors to jail for performing the operation.

Illegal clinics, etc.

[crazedrat]

I'm so fucked up that I'm not sure I could even love my own kids. I'd always know that I only love them because it is necessary biologically. I'd probably resent them privately.

.

[Gilly]

lmao

[Prince Andrei]

I remember reading that outlawing abortion does not reduce its occurrence.

That doesn't change the morality of it.

[Prince Andrei]

Human life begins at conception. This cannot be disputed intellectually or spiritually (irrespective of your religious beliefs). A fetus is not devoid of humanity in its essence even though it does not have the sensory faculties of a baby. And I find it completely presumptuous to value a human life as worthless just because a mother doesn't wish to have her baby. We do not have a crystal ball to assert that, so we should not presume to value any human life as worthless. At junctures in history, we denied humans (whether they be native americans/jews or other minorities) this absolute right to life so we should not stand by and allow these crimes to be committed against unborn babies.

I believe women have the right to control their bodies. I just don't believe this is an absolute right where a human life is concerned.

[strrrng]

Good post. Their right to control their bodies entails making informed decisions on whether or not to have unprotected sex, and with whom. Granted, rape is an exception; and in that case, you cannot place the same value judgment on the fetus, given that it didn't arise from genuine conception.

[Gilly]

Good post. Their right to control their bodies entails making informed decisions on whether or not to have unprotected sex, and with whom. Granted, rape is an exception; and in that case, you cannot place the same value judgment on the fetus, given that it didn't arise from genuine conception.

Wait, so you're agreeing that human life inherently begins at conception UNLESS it's a rape? How does that change anything?

As far as the LAW is concerned, which is really all that matters if we're talking about whether or not abortion should be LEGAL in whatever form, a life begins at birth. That's when we count them in the census, so until then, according to the LAW, they don't exist as people. That part is fairly black and white, in my view.

If you really want to talk about it as a MORAL issue, which personally I think is trite and presumptuous, because nobody knows enough about that decision to tell the mother ANYTHING of worth or relevance to the situation unless they've had an abortion, then you can't just make huge exceptions to belief in the existence of a human life based on the method or circumstances of conception. That's pathetically concomitant and betrays a total lack of actual belief in what you are saying, except as a convenient so-called "moral" stance.

[Gilly]

Human life begins at conception. This cannot be disputed intellectually or spiritually (irrespective of your religious beliefs). A fetus is not devoid of humanity in its essence even though it does not have the sensory faculties of a baby. And I find it completely presumptuous to value a human life as worthless just because a mother doesn't wish to have her baby. We do not have a crystal ball to assert that, so we should not presume to value any human life as worthless. At junctures in history, we denied humans (whether they be native americans/jews or other minorities) this absolute right to life so we should not stand by and allow these crimes to be committed against unborn babies.

I believe women have the right to control their bodies. I just don't believe this is an absolute right where a human life is concerned.

How can you even PRESUME to say when human life begins? Nobody knows whether that fetus is conscious, whether or not it has feelings or a "soul" (if you even want to go there...), if it has any value to humanity, if it has any definite characteristics that make it more "human" than the circumstantial collision of a sperm and an egg. Pretending you do is totally empty and baseless.

When you know nothing, you have to go on what you do know; you can't just lament not knowing something for sure and take the safest way out as an escape route. You have to make the best decision you can, considering the best interests of the lives and circumstances you DO know as important.

[Khamelion]

Good post. Their right to control their bodies entails making informed decisions on whether or not to have unprotected sex, and with whom. Granted, rape is an exception; and in that case, you cannot place the same value judgment on the fetus, given that it didn't arise from genuine conception.

im not sure genuine is the right word

if we were anything but human, it would be a completely normal conception. if you think about it in the primitive, animalistic sense.

[Gilly]

im not sure genuine is the right word

if we were anything but human, it would be a completely normal conception. if you think about it in the primitive, animalistic sense.

Wait, why would it be normal is we were NOT human? o_O Reread what you wrote, homegirl

[strrrng]

Wait, so you're agreeing that human life inherently begins at conception UNLESS it's a rape? How does that change anything?

No. Life still begins at conception in a rape; it's just that the act of conception isn't "genuine" because it only exists by virtue of a personal violation. The value judgment partially depends on this, because while one can argue that life itself is inherently valuable, there is still an important aspect that comes from the consensual desire of two people to create it.

As far as the LAW is concerned, which is really all that matters if we're talking about whether or not abortion should be LEGAL in whatever form, a life begins at birth. That's when we count them in the census, so until then, according to the LAW, they don't exist as people. That part is fairly black and white, in my view.

The law is not all that matters in determining whether an abortion is right or not, and using it as the primary measure of such, is pathetically short-sighted.

If you really want to talk about it as a MORAL issue, which personally I think is trite and presumptuous, because nobody knows enough about that decision to tell the mother ANYTHING of worth or relevance to the situation unless they've had an abortion, then you can't just make huge exceptions to belief in the existence of a human life based on the method or circumstances of conception. That's pathetically concomitant and betrays a total lack of actual belief in what you are saying, except as a convenient so-called "moral" stance.

I'm not making exceptions to the existence of human life; I'm making an exception to the means of creating human life. Rape is an unquestionably legitimate justification for a female to get an abortion imo, because she never made the choice to become pregnant in the first place.

im not sure genuine is the right word

if we were anything but human, it would be a completely normal conception. if you think about it in the primitive, animalistic sense.

I just used it to allude to mutually-desired conception.

[Prince Andrei]

Nobody knows whether that fetus is conscious, whether or not it has feelings or a "soul" (if you even want to go there...),

A fetus has to be human because he or she cannot be anything else. He or she is not alien. A fetus is of value to humanity simply because he or she is human and is accorded the inalienable rights each human is entitled to because they are human. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to life and does not qualify it.

[Prince Andrei]

Good post. Their right to control their bodies entails making informed decisions on whether or not to have unprotected sex, and with whom. Granted, rape is an exception; and in that case, you cannot place the same value judgment on the fetus, given that it didn't arise from genuine conception.

Yes, we have free will. Rape is the submission of our free will. If a woman has been raped it is not morally obligatory for her to carry the baby. It is morally supererogatory. It is above the call of duty and she should be applauded. The blood from the abortion is on the hands of the rapist.