Re: Abortion ethics dilema

[iago]

It's still a fine way to rationalize not killing babies

I think that's where the whole debate hinges -- people who are pro-abortion (not going to call them "pro-choice", that terminology is retarded) don't believe that they ARE babies.

[iago]

if you kill babies you kill baby jesus!

You realize that a baby isn't called a "baby" until it's born, right? Before that, it's a foetus. Using the word "baby" only confuses the issue.

[CrAz3D]

if you kill babies you kill baby jesus!

You realize that a baby isn't called a "baby" until it's born, right? Before that, it's a foetus. Using the word "baby" only confuses the issue.

fetus?

I done and figure once a lady done and pregnant that she be carryin' 'round her little babe.  You ever hear a mom say "feel the fetus kick"?  No you havent.  Its a baby.

[iago]

fetus?

Words that originated on latin that contain "oe" or "œ" are frequently shortened to "e" in English, the same way that æ (as in "æsthetics") is often shortened to just "a" or just "e" ("asthetics" or "esthetics"). Completely irrelevent, obviously.

I done and figure once a lady done and pregnant that she be carryin' 'round her little babe.  You ever hear a mom say "feel the fetus kick"?  No you havent.  Its a baby.

You'd figure wrong.

I'll agree with you when you agree with me that soldiers "murder" each other in war.

[CrAz3D]

I'll agree with you when you agree with me that soldiers "murder" each other in war.

They kill each other.  Murder is a malicious crime.  SOME soldiers do murder, but war isnt murder.

[iago]

I'll agree with you when you agree with me that soldiers "murder" each other in war.

They kill each other.  Murder is a malicious crime.  SOME soldiers do murder, but war isnt murder.

And offspring in the womb are foetuses, not babies.

[CrAz3D]

I'll agree with you when you agree with me that soldiers "murder" each other in war.

They kill each other.  Murder is a malicious crime.  SOME soldiers do murder, but war isnt murder.

And offspring in the womb are foetuses, not babies.

Calling a fetus a baby is widely accepted.  Calling war murder isn't accepted by any sort of large portion of the population.

[Joe]

and boom, topic locked~

[iago]

I'll agree with you when you agree with me that soldiers "murder" each other in war.

They kill each other.  Murder is a malicious crime.  SOME soldiers do murder, but war isnt murder.

And offspring in the womb are foetuses, not babies.

Calling a fetus a baby is widely accepted.  Calling war murder isn't accepted by any sort of large portion of the population.

The two are equally accepted, as far as I'm concerned.

Locking this topic sucks, especially when there is active (and nearly on topic!) discussion happening!

[Joe]

Feel entirely free to split it, I don't mind. I just don't want to get the original topic started into something it shouldn't be.

[iago]

Feel entirely free to split it, I don't mind. I just don't want to get the original topic started into something it shouldn't be.

You mean that the discussion you started about the ethics of abortion became a discussion about the ethics of abortion? God forbid!

[Camel]

people who are pro-abortion (not going to call them "pro-choice", that terminology is retarded) don't believe that they ARE babies.

How do you figure? I'm not pro-abortion, in that I think it's wrong, but I'm pro-choice because I think it's even more wrong to impose my beliefs on others. This might make more sense when you consider that I'm a Libertarian. The exception to this rule is when the killing part puts society at risk - that is, it's wrong to let someone murder members of society. Whether or not you wish to consider abortion murder is irrelevant to my position, because I draw the line at a danger to society, which a fetus is most certainly not a member of.

Part of the reason that I'm a Libertarian is because it makes it much easier to say in black and white terms what I believe. I can't tell you whether or not a fetus is a baby, and subsequently whether killing one is an act of murder, but I can tell you that a fetus is not an integrated member of society. Therefore, I don't see any reason why I should have the right to tell someone they can't have an abortion, even if I was the father.

This might seem like a barbaric view of the situation - for example, a child that was born yesterday is not really a member of society either. Well, that's still in the gray area between definitely okay to abort and definitely not okay to abort. As I said, I'm personally against abortion, but I still wouldn't call that murder.

[Rule]

Part of the reason that I'm a Libertarian is because it makes it much easier to say in black and white terms what I believe.

So you (partly) choose your positions based on whether they are easy to explain?

[CrAz3D]

I'll agree with you when you agree with me that soldiers "murder" each other in war.

They kill each other.  Murder is a malicious crime.  SOME soldiers do murder, but war isnt murder.

And offspring in the womb are foetuses, not babies.

Calling a fetus a baby is widely accepted.  Calling war murder isn't accepted by any sort of large portion of the population.

The two are equally accepted, as far as I'm concerned.

Take an unbiased poll.  I'd bet good money that the majority of people you ask will say women carry babies and that soldiers do not murder.

[iago]

Take an unbiased poll.  I'd bet good money that the majority of people you ask will say women carry babies and that soldiers do not murder.

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant -- they're both loaded terms used to change the meaning of an argument.

[iago]

How do you figure? I'm not pro-abortion, in that I think it's wrong, but I'm pro-choice because I think it's even more wrong to impose my beliefs on others. This might make more sense when you consider that I'm a Libertarian. The exception to this rule is when the killing part puts society at risk - that is, it's wrong to let someone murder members of society. Whether or not you wish to consider abortion murder is irrelevant to my position, because I draw the line at a danger to society, which a fetus is most certainly not a member of.

Part of the reason that I'm a Libertarian is because it makes it much easier to say in black and white terms what I believe. I can't tell you whether or not a fetus is a baby, and subsequently whether killing one is an act of murder, but I can tell you that a fetus is not an integrated member of society. Therefore, I don't see any reason why I should have the right to tell someone they can't have an abortion, even if I was the father.

This might seem like a barbaric view of the situation - for example, a child that was born yesterday is not really a member of society either. Well, that's still in the gray area between definitely okay to abort and definitely not okay to abort. As I said, I'm personally against abortion, but I still wouldn't call that murder.

Doing everything for the good of society, eh? That's definitely an interesting view, but most people, when they realize that their view requires murdering babies, will realize that their view is wrong. I guess you went the other way on that, and I suppose I can't really argue it.

[Joe]

I'm not sure on a stance I want to take with this one, but I want to put out there that (except for drafts), soldiers choose to go to war. Babies, or fetuses, never signed up to be aborted.

And obviously, you can counter that with "when does a fetus become a baby". Just something I didn't see anyone bring up yet.

[rabbit]

I'm not sure on a stance I want to take with this one, but I want to put out there that (except for drafts), soldiers choose to go to war. Babies, or fetuses, never signed up to be aborted.

And obviously, you can counter that with "when does a fetus become a baby". Just something I didn't see anyone bring up yet.

They also never signed up to be conceived, so there goes THAT argument.

[Camel]

Colloquially, it's acceptable to call a fetus a baby. Technically, it's not. Neither conclusion supports either of your cases, end of discussion; get back to the real topic.

Part of the reason that I'm a Libertarian is because it makes it much easier to say in black and white terms what I believe.

So you (partly) choose your positions based on whether they are easy to explain?

That's a really shitty/satirical characterization of what I said, even if you do account for having taken it out of context. The fact that no one has (so far) even attempted to take a stab at what I said is a testament to my point, which is that if you break everything down in to black-and-white issues, it becomes irrefutable. It's my opinion that the majority of petty arguments like the one iago/CrAz3D were engaged in a few posts ago occur not because of insufficiently supported opinions, but because the topic isn't sufficiently divided in to issues. I've broken the generalized 'abortion' topic in to its main issues, as they pertain to this thread:
* Killing a fetus is okay/not
* Telling someone they can't have an abortion is okay/not

Then, there is the issue that's totally irrelevant to this thread:
* A fetus is/not a baby

Doing everything for the good of society, eh? That's definitely an interesting view, but most people, when they realize that their view requires murdering babies, will realize that their view is wrong. I guess you went the other way on that, and I suppose I can't really argue it.

Right and wrong are the wrong terms. You're characterizing me as being pro-baby murder. I'm definitely anti-fetus killing, but as I explained, I don't think I have any place imposing the opinion that killing a fetus is baby murder upon anyone. If someone honestly believes that killing a fetus is not baby homicide, I don't think it should be a crime.

[Joe]

I'm not sure on a stance I want to take with this one, but I want to put out there that (except for drafts), soldiers choose to go to war. Babies, or fetuses, never signed up to be aborted.

And obviously, you can counter that with "when does a fetus become a baby". Just something I didn't see anyone bring up yet.

They also never signed up to be conceived, so there goes THAT argument.

Neither did the soldiers.

[Camel]

To clarify, Libertarians generally believe that it's not the responsibility of the government define through legislature what is right and wrong, except in cases where society has reached a consensus and has insufficient power to bring its opinion to fruition; an example is that society can't simply will a serial killer to stop killing, and it's therefore necessary to escalate the issue to legislature.

Sometimes, people try to generalize this (and it's not all that inaccurate) by saying that Libertarians separate social issues by whom they affect: if the issue is detremental to society, it's bad; if it doesn't affect society, it's a non-issue. That is to say, it's the responsibility of individuals to form their own (hopefully informed) opinions on issues that affect only themselves - abortions and marijuana are the classic examples.

I certainly believe abortion is wrong, but I also believe that everyone's born with a brain, and can make up their own mind about it.

[CrAz3D]

Take an unbiased poll.  I'd bet good money that the majority of people you ask will say women carry babies and that soldiers do not murder.

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant -- they're both loaded terms used to change the meaning of an argument.

They're not used to change the meaning of anything, they're common occurrence words.

[iago]

...an example is that society can't simply will a serial killer to stop killing, and it's therefore necessary to escalate the issue to legislature.

... issues that affect only themselves - abortions and marijuana are the classic examples.

The thing is, those conflict if the foetus is a living human. In that case, the doctors performing abortions are the serial killers. Thus, the argument comes back to what I said originally, that it's totally based on when a human becomes a human.

[Hitmen]

coat hanger imo

[Warrior]

coat hanger imo

im very disappointed in your lack of seriousness

[Blaze]

coat hanger imo

A++++++++++++++++++ Quality post.  Would read again.

coat hanger imo

im very disappointed in your lack of seriousness

Troll.

[Camel]

The thing is, those conflict if the foetus is a living human. In that case, the doctors performing abortions are the serial killers. Thus, the argument comes back to what I said originally, that it's totally based on when a human becomes a human.

Murder is defined as a predetermined, unlawful, and malicious act of killing. Those examples were given, by design, in the explicit context that the law should only protect members of society that can not protect themselves. As a fetus is not a member of society, it should not be protected by law. Therefore, in this context, abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law.

Your clever erasure of the context doesn't validate your argument. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, simply that your argument is baseless. Actually, on a personal level, I do agree with what you're saying - there's no chance I could ever even consider working in a place like that. The point I'm trying to make is that I believe that legislature should stop where the gray area begins, not where it ends. The reason that the area is gray is because it's debatable, and for that reason, it should be open to exploration and interpretation.

Why is it so hard to understand that I don't choose to abort fetuses, but I'm okay with letting other people make the (wrong) decision to abort? I'd even venture as far as to say that, in the majority of cases, it's for the genetic well being of our species, anyways.


[edit] New idea: abortion control. Think gun control, except with abortions where the guns are. Discuss.

[Warrior]

coat hanger imo

A++++++++++++++++++ Quality post.  Would read again.

coat hanger imo

im very disappointed in your lack of seriousness

Troll.

stop namecalling

[Rule]

Colloquially, it's acceptable to call a fetus a baby. Technically, it's not. Neither conclusion supports either of your cases, end of discussion; get back to the real topic.

Part of the reason that I'm a Libertarian is because it makes it much easier to say in black and white terms what I believe.

So you (partly) choose your positions based on whether they are easy to explain?

That's a really shitty/satirical characterization of what I said, even if you do account for having taken it out of context. The fact that no one has (so far) even attempted to take a stab at what I said is a testament to my point, which is that if you break everything down in to black-and-white issues, it becomes irrefutable. It's my opinion that the majority of petty arguments like the one iago/CrAz3D were engaged in a few posts ago occur not because of insufficiently supported opinions, but because the topic isn't sufficiently divided in to issues. I've broken the generalized 'abortion' topic in to its main issues, as they pertain to this thread:
* Killing a fetus is okay/not
* Telling someone they can't have an abortion is okay/not

Then, there is the issue that's totally irrelevant to this thread:
* A fetus is/not a baby

I don't see how breaking an argument down into smaller sub-arguments has anything to do with being libertarian, and I basically paraphrased what you had said: "Part of the reason that I'm a Libertarian is because it makes it much easier to say in black and white terms what I believe".  Why don't you further explain what you mean by that, if it doesn't mean you are choosing positions based on whether or not they are easy to explain, or subscribing to a doctrine because it makes it easier to decide on things.

As far as the content of the rest of your post goes, I didn't have much to say.  Like I said, you're rather subjectively pulling out a few sub-arguments from a larger argument, and then subjectively deciding which side you agree with based on your own idea of ethics, and libertarian dogma.  I don't see how this practice is libertarian, and I don't see how this is a good case for becoming libertarian.

[CrAz3D]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

[Rule]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

[iago]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

It makes sense, as long as there isn't another life at stake. ie, the "baby"'s

I've said it before -- every argument is contingent on just the one, specifically, whether or not the foetus counts as a person/human/baby/etc., which I still think is a religious argument.

[Rule]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

It makes sense, as long as there isn't another life at stake. ie, the "baby"'s

I've said it before -- every argument is contingent on just the one, specifically, whether or not the foetus counts as a person/human/baby/etc., which I still think is a religious argument.

It's very obvious to me why a religious person is more likely to be against abortion than a non-religious person.  At first, it might seem to have no connection as to whether one sees the fetus as a child or not.  As I've observed before, this distinction is almost certainly a rationalisation.  It is in the best interests of the church for a fertilized egg to eventually become a child and be born -- if it is the Church that is deciding for people whether or not to have an abortion, then it almost certain that the child will be indoctrinated with whatever that Church believes.  Religions are generally pro giving birth.  If you're listening at all to what the church is saying, chances are you are a follower.  And chances are your children will also be followers.  They encourage procreation within marriage.  They want as many followers as possible.

[CrAz3D]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

Well, then a man should have a choice whether to support the bastard child or not.

[Rule]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

Well, then a man should have a choice whether to support the bastard child or not.

The bastard child? That would only be in the case that the parents weren't married. I'm not sure where I stand on that. But I can see a fair case for no father child support, if the woman makes a unilateral decision to raise an accidental child when she could have had an early stage abortion (preventing a child from ever existing) or given it up for adoption.

[Camel]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

Why is that a BS argument? Is anyone handing you a coat hanger and forcing you to abort the baby?

If you're suggesting that life is intrinsically valuable, regardless of its state, then are you also a vegetarian for the same reason?

every argument is contingent on just the one, specifically, whether or not the foetus counts as a person/human/baby/etc., which I still think is a religious argument.

Whether the fetus counts as a person is indeed relevant to whether abortion is morally/ethically wrong.

Where I differ is that I don't see how one can justify making it a criminal act to do something that is arguably not morally/ethically wrong, especially when the argument is a very good one. You can debate it all day, but that won't change the fact that it's a gray area.

If it's okay to make it illegal to exercise a moral opinion, is it also okay to make it illegal to exercise a political opinion? This does not relate to the example that's currently bubbling up to your fingertips because, among other reasons, the jews you're thinking of were not in the gray area between conception and birth; they were most certainly alive, and that was most certainly murder.

[CrAz3D]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

Well, then a man should have a choice whether to support the bastard child or not.

The bastard child? That would only be in the case that the parents weren't married. I'm not sure where I stand on that. But I can see a fair case for no father child support, if the woman makes a unilateral decision to raise an accidental child when she could have had an early stage abortion (preventing a child from ever existing) or given it up for adoption.

Those are usually the abortions I see around here.




Camel, I'm suggesting that humans have a right to experience life ... make their own choices and whatnot

[MyndFyre]

fetus?

Words that originated on latin that contain "oe" or "œ" are frequently shortened to "e" in English, the same way that æ (as in "æsthetics") is often shortened to just "a" or just "e" ("asthetics" or "esthetics"). Completely irrelevent, obviously.

I've never seen aesthetics spelled any way other than "aesthetics."  I've also never seen the name Oedipus shortened to "Edipus" - that just looks stupid.

if you kill babies you kill baby jesus!

You realize that a baby isn't called a "baby" until it's born, right? Before that, it's a foetus. Using the word "baby" only confuses the issue.

CrAz3D is a retard, but I think that what iago says here is the crux of the issue.  Does an unborn child have the right to life?  Whether it's a fetus or baby is really irrelevant; it's whether that being, if you can call it a being, has the right to life, and does that being's right to life trump the mother's right to determine what happens within her body?

I'm only jumping in here because I think the topic is interesting and I also think this really is the only part of the debate that matters.  The fact that Crazed is still posting means that the topic probably hasn't gone anywhere worthwhile yet.

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

I agree.  However, there are also consequences to what a woman chooses to do with her body.

If a woman has sex, be it protected, on birth control, whatever - she assumes the risk of becoming pregnant.

Now, I don't think it's unreasonable to deprive her of the right to control what her body does when it becomes pregnant to protect another life.  But that's really -- like I said in my previous post -- the crux of the issue (whether the unborn child/fetus/baby/whatever-you-want-to-label-it has the right to life).

Incidentally, while I'd prefer the option is not taken, I support the right to an abortion in cases of rape.

[edit]Combined double-post

[CrAz3D]

Myndy, what do you think about "right to choose" re: the father's child support payments?

[Camel]

Incidentally, while I'd prefer the option is not taken, I support the right to an abortion in cases of rape.

Mynd, I'd like to hear your response to:

people who are pro-abortion (not going to call them "pro-choice", that terminology is retarded) don't believe that they ARE babies.

[MyndFyre]

Incidentally, while I'd prefer the option is not taken, I support the right to an abortion in cases of rape.

Mynd, I'd like to hear your response to:

people who are pro-abortion (not going to call them "pro-choice", that terminology is retarded) don't believe that they ARE babies.

I believe that whatever-you-call-them are living and have the right to continue to do so.  I don't believe that being alive necessarily qualifies the right to continue to do so, though (to preempt Rule's undoubtedly-coming question "So anything that's alive has the right to remain that way?").  I believe these questions need to be answered per-person, and that there's no global way everyone will ever agree.

I think that, if you want to attempt to inject reason into it, the valid question to ask is: is the potential within a whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?  For instance, if parenthood is going to result in the mother's inconvenience, such as having to drop out of college, I don't believe that the mother's inconvenience outweighs the cost of potential life in any scenario.  However, if parenthood is going to result in the mother's life being lost (during childbirth, for instance), I think that it's much less clear.  I forgot to mention, I'm also supportive of (although would prefer the option be not exercised without both parents' involvement) abortion in situations in which the mother's life is in jeopardy.

The bottom line (for me) is this: when a woman has sex, she assumes the risk of pregnancy.  When she is raped, she does not.  She's at risk for pregnancy if she is raped, but she doesn't assume the risk.  Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.  I think that the potential for death is extraordinary enough that it warrants an exception to that rule as well, as it is fairly uncommon.

[Rule]

The bottom line (for me) is this: when a woman has sex, she assumes the risk of pregnancy. 

So what?  When a person with a peanut allergy consumes certain types of food he risks an allergic reaction.  Should he be denied treatment?

What you're doing is all rationalisation.  You wouldn't have these beliefs if you grew up with a different background. 

[is] whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?

Yes, that's the question.  It just happens that all of the value given to the whatever-you-call-it is derived from selfish religious motivations and their rationalisations. 

You really are denying potential life by not impregnating your girlfriend at the soonest opportunity.  Worried about consent?  At least try to convince her, that way you are doing the best you can to make sure potential human life is realized.

Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.

So you think the government should legislate on very subjective issues without a clear majority agreement? Isn't that very undemocratic?

I believe that whatever-you-call-them are living and have the right to continue to do so.

Then why aren't you vegetarian.  Please explain in rational terms what makes a fertilized human egg more valuable than intelligent animal life.

[CrAz3D]

If the fucker ate a peanut KNOWING it would fuck him up ... then yes.  He should die and we should applaud

[while1]

I personally don't support abortion- there are better options out there.  i.e. adoption, for I have first hand experience as a child of adoption and I'm grateful for being given a chance to 1)  Live 2) A better life than if my mother had not aborted and kept me.  Now pregnancies as a result of rape is a different story.

However, while I do not support abortion, I do feel that it is not my right nor the government's right to make this decision for someone else concerning their health and reproductive affairs.  Same thing goes with gay marriage- which comes down to one thing, who you fuck.

[deadly7]

I personally don't support abortion- there are better options out there.  i.e. adoption, for I have first hand experience as a child of adoption and I'm grateful for being given a chance to 1)  Live 2) A better life than if my mother had not aborted and kept me.  Now pregnancies as a result of rape is a different story.

However, while I do not support abortion, I do feel that it is not my right nor the government's right to make this decision for someone else concerning their health and reproductive affairs.

That would be great, except for the adoption and foster care systems in the United States are so ridicuously overworked as it is, unless you're the cutest baby in the world, you'll probably be waiting a LONG time. And there's a very good chance that your interaction with drugs and crime will go up the longer you're kept waiting.

[while1]

I personally don't support abortion- there are better options out there.  i.e. adoption, for I have first hand experience as a child of adoption and I'm grateful for being given a chance to 1)  Live 2) A better life than if my mother had not aborted and kept me.  Now pregnancies as a result of rape is a different story.

However, while I do not support abortion, I do feel that it is not my right nor the government's right to make this decision for someone else concerning their health and reproductive affairs.

That would be great, except for the adoption and foster care systems in the United States are so ridicuously overworked as it is, unless you're the cutest baby in the world, you'll probably be waiting a LONG time. And there's a very good chance that your interaction with drugs and crime will go up the longer you're kept waiting.

  I don't know the statistics, but our adoption/foster care system is so messed up because people don't abort and decide to have the baby, then willingly put them adoption or are forced to years down the road when they are no longer a baby.  If they had put the baby up for adoption from the git go, then it would not be a problem since the rate of adoption increases significantly if the child being put up for adoption is a baby/infant.  Being the "cutest baby" has very little effect on getting adopted compared to AGE.

Do you know why my adoptive parents resorted to adopting my sister and I from Korea instead of the U.S.?  Because they could more easily adopt a child that was less than a year old from another country than from the U.S.

Anyways, it's best to make the decision and to sign the adoption papers before you have the baby- so that it's legally binding.  It takes a strong willed woman to do it after seeing their baby.

[Rule]

If the fucker ate a peanut KNOWING it would fuck him up ... then yes.  He should die and we should applaud

A product that says "may contain traces of peanuts" -- so pretty much anything that comes out of most restaurants, or bakeries, also most chocolate bars, most candies, etc.  By the way, that was a really stupid comment.

So he eats a product knowing there is a risk of peanut contamination.

[CrAz3D]

If he knew, oh well

[Rule]

If he knew, oh well

You're serious? You think someone who has a peanut allergy should die rather than be treated, because he decided to try a cake knowing there is a risk of peanut contamination?

[CrAz3D]

Possible trace amounts doesnt amount to knowing ... like if the dude ate a peanut straight on, eh well

[Rule]

Possible trace amounts doesnt amount to knowing ... like if the dude ate a peanut straight on, eh well

Well, that's like intentionally committing suicide, that's totally different.  I still don't agree -- someone should be able to eat a peanut and then inject himself with adrenaline -- but that's a totally different discussion.

My analogy is quite similar to the "risk of getting pregnant" situation.  If you have a peanut allergy, and you are told that the food you are about to eat "may contain traces of peanuts", and you still eat it, you are assuming a risk.  Do you think that person should be able to treat himself, e.g. inject himself with adrenaline, given that he was aware of the risk and it turned out the product did contain peanuts?  When you have sex with a girl, especially if it's protected sex, there is likewise a very small risk that the girl will become pregnant.

[MyndFyre]

Well, that's like intentionally committing suicide, that's totally different.  I still don't agree -- someone should be able to eat a peanut and then inject himself with adrenaline -- but that's a totally different discussion.

My analogy is quite similar to the "risk of getting pregnant" situation.  If you have a peanut allergy, and you are told that the food you are about to eat "may contain traces of peanuts", and you still eat it, you are assuming a risk.  Do you think that person should be able to treat himself, e.g. inject himself with adrenaline, given that he was aware of the risk and it turned out the product did contain peanuts?  When you have sex with a girl, especially if it's protected sex, there is likewise a very small risk that the girl will become pregnant.

Your analogy is a red herring.  When someone with a peanut allergy, as you're suggesting, consumes something with peanuts, the treatment doesn't deprive another being of life.

Now, you can argue that an unborn child/fetus/whatever is not a being or not alive, and therefore not deprived, and that's fine.  But that's a hidden assumption in your argument, and one that I am not persuaded is adequately defended.

[is] whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?

Yes, that's the question.  It just happens that all of the value given to the whatever-you-call-it is derived from selfish religious motivations and their rationalisations. 

Your statement here is ad hominem.  It doesn't deal with the substantive value of what I say; you simply say that its derivation is motivated poorly.  You could be correct, but it doesn't actually deal with the argument.  I could say the same of you: had you been raised differently, you might have different hidden assumptions.

Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.

So you think the government should legislate on very subjective issues without a clear majority agreement? Isn't that very undemocratic?

I think that, when there isn't a clear majority agreement, it's best to err on the side of caution. 

[iago]

I've never seen aesthetics spelled any way other than "aesthetics."  I've also never seen the name Oedipus shortened to "Edipus" - that just looks stupid.

A year or so ago, I saw a hair cutting place called "Esthetics". It looked funny, so I looked up the word and read all about ligatures.

And incidentally, a word looking stupid hardly makes it invalid.

[MyndFyre]

I've never seen aesthetics spelled any way other than "aesthetics."  I've also never seen the name Oedipus shortened to "Edipus" - that just looks stupid.

A year or so ago, I saw a hair cutting place called "Esthetics". It looked funny, so I looked up the word and read all about ligatures.

And incidentally, a word looking stupid hardly makes it invalid.

Why not? It usually makes people invalid.

[Ender]

if you kill babies you kill baby jesus!

You realize that a baby isn't called a "baby" until it's born, right? Before that, it's a foetus. Using the word "baby" only confuses the issue.

CrAz3D is a retard, but I think that what iago says here is the crux of the issue. 

[is] whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?

Yes, that's the question.  It just happens that all of the value given to the whatever-you-call-it is derived from selfish religious motivations and their rationalisations. 

Your statement here is ad hominem. 

Your statement here is hypocritical.

[is] whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?

Yes, that's the question.  It just happens that all of the value given to the whatever-you-call-it is derived from selfish religious motivations and their rationalisations. 

Your statement here is ad hominem.  It doesn't deal with the substantive value of what I say; you simply say that its derivation is motivated poorly.  You could be correct, but it doesn't actually deal with the argument.  I could say the same of you: had you been raised differently, you might have different hidden assumptions.

What you call ad hominem you describe as a red herring. That's like saying "I love bananas. I love how they're so purple, blue, spherical, and granular."  Also, it's simply not ad hominem. He never said "all of the value YOU give to the whatever-you-call it", he generalized it to pro-abortion people. Ad hominem means that you're attacking the person you're debating against, not some random demographic. You may say, "by attacking the demographic, you attack me individually," but this is incorrect, since an attack against the individual is irrelevant to the argument, whereas an attack on the demographic, on the stance itself, can be relevant. And furthermore, the claim "religion is selfish" has been made in some serious texts, such as Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality. So if that were ad hominem, so would be such texts.

Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.

So you think the government should legislate on very subjective issues without a clear majority agreement? Isn't that very undemocratic?

I think that, when there isn't a clear majority agreement, it's best to err on the side of caution. 

This is a vacuous statement, since how one could/should "err on the side of caution" is undefined, it's the debate itself actually. It's like saying, in response to the question of who will win the presidential election, "I think the person who wins, will win."

Incidentally, while I'd prefer the option is not taken, I support the right to an abortion in cases of rape.

Mynd, I'd like to hear your response to:

people who are pro-abortion (not going to call them "pro-choice", that terminology is retarded) don't believe that they ARE babies.

I think that, if you want to attempt to inject reason into it, the valid question to ask is: is the potential within a whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?  For instance, if parenthood is going to result in the mother's inconvenience, such as having to drop out of college, I don't believe that the mother's inconvenience outweighs the cost of potential life in any scenario.  However, if parenthood is going to result in the mother's life being lost (during childbirth, for instance), I think that it's much less clear.  I forgot to mention, I'm also supportive of (although would prefer the option be not exercised without both parents' involvement) abortion in situations in which the mother's life is in jeopardy.

The bottom line (for me) is this: when a woman has sex, she assumes the risk of pregnancy.  When she is raped, she does not.  She's at risk for pregnancy if she is raped, but she doesn't assume the risk.  Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.  I think that the potential for death is extraordinary enough that it warrants an exception to that rule as well, as it is fairly uncommon.

You speak of potential, i.e. we shouldn't allow abortion because the fetus has potential. Rule made a good point though; every time a man and woman meet on the street, there's a potential fetus in the making. What's the difference between a potential fetus and an actual fetus, if the actual fetus is not sentient and cannot feel pain et cetera? There's just as much potential in each of them. By your argument, it's wrong for a woman to live her life without giving birth to a baby.

[MyndFyre]

You speak of potential. We shouldn't allow abortion because the fetus has potential. Rule made a good point though; every time a man and woman meet on the street, there's a potential fetus in the making. What's the difference between a potential fetus and an actual fetus, if the actual fetus is not sentient and cannot feel pain et cetera? There's just as much potential in each of them. By your argument, it's wrong for a woman to live her life without giving birth to a baby.

I meant to address this point and forgot.

Potential of two heterosexual people randomly meeting on the street and hooking up: probably pretty slim.
Potential for any given sperm in your nads spontaneously becoming a fetus/baby without the hookup: 0.
Potential for any given ovum in a girl's ovaries spontaneously becoming a fetus/baby without the hookup: 0.
Potential for any given embryo to develop into a birthed baby: 66-75%.

In an effective comparison, we have to evaluate the likelihood of an outcome as well as the value of the outcome.  The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

if you kill babies you kill baby jesus!

You realize that a baby isn't called a "baby" until it's born, right? Before that, it's a foetus. Using the word "baby" only confuses the issue.

CrAz3D is a retard, but I think that what iago says here is the crux of the issue. 

[is] whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?

Yes, that's the question.  It just happens that all of the value given to the whatever-you-call-it is derived from selfish religious motivations and their rationalisations. 

Your statement here is ad hominem.

Your statement here is hypocritical.

No.  I was clearly not engaging CrAz3D's arguments.  I was simply calling him stupid, as an aside.  There's a difference.  (I didn't reply to a factual claim).

Hm? What you call ad hominem you describe as a red herring. That's like saying "I love bananas. I love how they're so purple, blue, spherical, and granular."  Also, it's simply not ad hominem. He never said "all of the value YOU give to the whatever-you-call it", he generalized it to pro-abortion people. Ad hominem means that you're attacking the person you're debating against, not some random demographic. You may say, "by attacking the demographic, you attack me individually," but this is incorrect, since an attack against the individual is irrelevant to the argument, whereas an attack on the demographic, on the stance itself, can be relevant. And furthermore, the claim "religion is selfish" has been made in some serious texts, such as Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality. So if that were ad hominem, so would be such texts.

I think you misunderstand the difference between an ad hominem attack and a red herring fallacy.

A red herring is somewhat like a sleight of hand.  It diverts the argument away from the original argument.  Here, Rule's faulty analogy did not address the original argument.

An ad hominem attack is when you attack a characteristic or belief instead of an argument's factual claim.  Rule made the claim that I believe what I believe because of "selfish religious motivations and their rationalizations."  He did not address the question I provided, which was the value of the unborn vs. the value of the desired abortion.

Finally:

I think that, when there isn't a clear majority agreement, it's best to err on the side of caution. 

This is a vacuous statement, since how one could/should "err on the side of caution" is undefined, it's the debate itself actually. It's like saying, in response to the question of who will win the presidential election, "I think the person who wins, will win."

No; I made a valuation of the unborn child/fetus/whatever being greater in most circumstances than the reasons for wanting an abortion.  Consequently, erring on the side of caution would be consistent with the greatest likelihood/greatest value, which IMO, is non-abortion.

[CrAz3D]

Anyway, it's the black guy's fault ... he knocked up the pretty white lady, take it out on him.

[Ender]

Potential of two heterosexual people randomly meeting on the street and hooking up: probably pretty slim.

No, it's a choice. If these people were acting according to your argument, then the probability they would hook up is 100%. We assume a world governed by your argument, and then find contradictions. And that's a contradiction.

No.  I was clearly not engaging CrAz3D's arguments.  I was simply calling him stupid, as an aside.  There's a difference.  (I didn't reply to a factual claim).

CrAz3d made the claim that religious people are against abortion because they believe they are interfering in God's plan. He just put it in an extreme and sarcastic way. So you were responding to a claim, and you dismissed it by attacking his person.

I think you misunderstand the difference between an ad hominem attack and a red herring fallacy.

A red herring is somewhat like a sleight of hand.  It diverts the argument away from the original argument.  Here, Rule's faulty analogy did not address the original argument.

An ad hominem attack is when you attack a characteristic or belief instead of an argument's factual claim.  Rule made the claim that I believe what I believe because of "selfish religious motivations and their rationalizations."  He did not address the question I provided, which was the value of the unborn vs. the value of the desired abortion.

You proved my point. First of all: "Rule made the claim that I believe..." Wrong! My whole point was that he never used the word you, instead he addressed the pro-abortion demographic, so it couldn't have been ad hominem since ad hominem needs to use the word you.

Furthermore, if you read my post (and your post!) carefully, you will see that every reason you gave after the ad hominem claim supports not your ad hominem claim, but a red herring claim. And as Aristotle once said, all logical fallacies boil down to red herrings. You argued that X is Y, and thus X is Z, where Z is a special case of Y. I didn't misunderstand the difference, I just pointed out this logical fallacy.

No; I made a valuation of the unborn child/fetus/whatever being greater in most circumstances than the reasons for wanting an abortion.  Consequently, erring on the side of caution would be consistent with the greatest likelihood/greatest value, which IMO, is non-abortion.

But your statement is misleading. Your statement gives the impression: "because it is best to err on the side of caution, we must do X." But what you're really saying is "because X, it is best to err on the side of caution, thus X." Your statement is a tautology.

[Rule]

You speak of potential. We shouldn't allow abortion because the fetus has potential. Rule made a good point though; every time a man and woman meet on the street, there's a potential fetus in the making. What's the difference between a potential fetus and an actual fetus, if the actual fetus is not sentient and cannot feel pain et cetera? There's just as much potential in each of them. By your argument, it's wrong for a woman to live her life without giving birth to a baby.

I meant to address this point and forgot.

Potential of two heterosexual people randomly meeting on the street and hooking up: probably pretty slim.
Potential for any given sperm in your nads spontaneously becoming a fetus/baby without the hookup: 0.
Potential for any given ovum in a girl's ovaries spontaneously becoming a fetus/baby without the hookup: 0.
Potential for any given embryo to develop into a birthed baby: 66-75%.

In an effective comparison, we have to evaluate the likelihood of an outcome as well as the value of the outcome.  The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

Suppose we have a heterosexual couple.  The man wants to have a baby, and the woman doesn't.  If they keep attempting to have a baby, there is a near 100% chance that it will happen.  How can it be OK for the woman to choose not to have the baby in that circumstance, where the potential is high, and not OK for the woman to choose to continue supporting a fertilized egg, where the potential is comparable or less.  I know you will be searching for differences, because you have to rationalise your position -- there is no chance your mental energy will be directed towards reconsidering it.  But by your argument, there is no good reason for the woman to choose not to have a baby in that circumstance.  According to you, inconvenience is not a good reason. 

Rule made the claim that I believe what I believe because of "selfish religious motivations and their rationalizations."  He did not address the question I provided, which was the value of the unborn vs. the value of the desired abortion.

How am I supposed to definitively answer the question, it's subjective.  I'm attacking the credibility of the arguments, because they are clearly a pretense for a selfish irrational desire.  I don't care if you call it ad hominem.  There were many rationialisations to segregate blacks and whites in education systems.  It's relevant that they were poorly motivated.  It's relevant that the fundamental reason people choose a particular side of an argument is poorly motivated.  For one, it suggests that a logical discussion could be unproductive; if your reasons are shown to be weak or even contradictory, you will either not give them up, or you will just keep looking for new reasons to support the position.

So you think the government should legislate on very subjective issues without a clear majority agreement? Isn't that very undemocratic?

I think that, when there isn't a clear majority agreement, it's best to err on the side of caution. 

This is a vacuous statement, since how one could/should "err on the side of caution" is undefined, it's the debate itself actually. It's like saying, in response to the question of who will win the presidential election, "I think the person who wins, will win."

No; I made a valuation of the unborn child/fetus/whatever being greater in most circumstances than the reasons for wanting an abortion.  Consequently, erring on the side of caution would be consistent with the greatest likelihood/greatest value, which IMO, is non-abortion.

Your statement is empty! Those who do not believe in abortion, believe that "erring on the side of caution" means not having abortion.  Those who do not want to see abortion legislation disagree.  So you are saying that we should legislate on an extremely subjective issue where a clear majority do not agree on which action would best be "erring on the side of caution".  That is undemocratic.  Both sides believe they are erring on the side of caution.

(Edit: Post was written before I saw Ender's reply)

[CrAz3D]

CrAz3d made the claim that religious people are against abortion because they believe they are interfering in God's plan.

When did I say that?  I havent said much of anything religious here.

[Camel]

However, while I do not support abortion, I do feel that it is not my right nor the government's right to make this decision for someone else concerning their health and reproductive affairs.  Same thing goes with gay marriage- which comes down to one thing, who you fuck.

It's about who you marry, actually. Premarital sex is rampant, even among gays.

Now, you can argue that an unborn child/fetus/whatever is not a being or not alive, and therefore not deprived, and that's fine.

No, you can't. From the moment of conception, a fetus is alive. That's not debatable, nor a matter of opinion; it's a scientific definition.

As I've said before in this thread, I draw the line conservatively at intelligent social interaction.

Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.

So you think the government should legislate on very subjective issues without a clear majority agreement? Isn't that very undemocratic?

I think that, when there isn't a clear majority agreement, it's best to err on the side of caution. 

Caution and legislature are not synonymous!

I love bananas. I love how they're so purple, blue, spherical, and granular.

QFT

[Ender]

Now, you can argue that an unborn child/fetus/whatever is not a being or not alive, and therefore not deprived, and that's fine.

No, you can't. From the moment of conception, a fetus is alive. That's not debatable, nor a matter of opinion; it's a scientific definition.

As I've said before in this thread, I draw the line conservatively at intelligent social interaction.

Yeah, a fetus at the moment of conception is technically living. But (as Myndfyre anticipated) a tree is also living, and we cut down trees all the time. The fact that it's living doesn't invalidate the idea of abortion.

The argument (introduced in Rule's post, and extended in my post) is that aborting a pre-sentient fetus is morally analogous to a woman not giving birth to a child in her lifetime, because the potential for life in both cases is the same. Since it is fine for a woman to live her life without giving birth, it must be fine to abort a pre-sentient fetus.

In other words, and in terms of moral value, we equate the single-celled fetus to the ovaries of a virgin woman. There is no reason to attach more moral value to the single-celled fetus.

[Rule]

'life' is not well-defined, and it's definition is extremely debatable.  This is discussed in almost every introductory biology class.  Either way, giving something a name doesn't affect its value.  It doesn't introduce anything into this argument; it's rather irrelevant.

[iago]

'life' is not well-defined, and it's definition is extremely debatable.  This is discussed in almost every introductory biology class.  Either way, giving something a name doesn't affect its value.  It doesn't introduce anything into this argument; it's rather irrelevant.

I haven't really been following, but this is why I say "human", not "life".

[CrAz3D]

Now, you can argue that an unborn child/fetus/whatever is not a being or not alive, and therefore not deprived, and that's fine.

No, you can't. From the moment of conception, a fetus is alive. That's not debatable, nor a matter of opinion; it's a scientific definition.

As I've said before in this thread, I draw the line conservatively at intelligent social interaction.

Yeah, a fetus at the moment of conception is technically living. But (as Myndfyre anticipated) a tree is also living, and we cut down trees all the time. The fact that it's living doesn't invalidate the idea of abortion.

The argument (introduced in Rule's post, and extended in my post) is that aborting a pre-sentient fetus is morally analogous to a woman not giving birth to a child in her lifetime, because the potential for life in both cases is the same. Since it is fine for a woman to live her life without giving birth, it must be fine to abort a pre-sentient fetus.

In other words, and in terms of moral value, we equate the single-celled fetus to the ovaries of a virgin woman. There is no reason to attach more moral value to the single-celled fetus.

Tree seeds aren't going to become humans.  Fetuses are.

Ovaries produce things, they aren't eventual people walking the streets ... fetus are eventual people walking the streets.  We should DEFINITELY hold a fetus in higher regard than an ovary

[Rule]

I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the posts Ender and I made in response to Myndfyre.  It seems whenever a good point is made, it is ignored or not acknowledged by the other side, and then the discussion is derailed with irrelevant nonsense by people like Crazed, and then the other side picks up on the irrelevant nonsense and resumes posting.

[CrAz3D]

'life' is not well-defined, and it's definition is extremely debatable.  This is discussed in almost every introductory biology class.  Either way, giving something a name doesn't affect its value.  It doesn't introduce anything into this argument; it's rather irrelevant.

That reply to Myndy?

Or are you still crying about your "rationaliZation" crap?
Statement: Abortion is bad
Explanation/rationaliZation/whatever: Potential humans are valuable

Rationalizing something isn't bad, it's just a logical explanation of why ___ is bad/good.  Putting reason behind a statement doesn't devalue it, much to your dismay I'm sure.

[Rule]

'life' is not well-defined, and it's definition is extremely debatable.  This is discussed in almost every introductory biology class.  Either way, giving something a name doesn't affect its value.  It doesn't introduce anything into this argument; it's rather irrelevant.

That reply to Myndy?

Or are you still crying about your "rationaliZation" crap?
Statement: Abortion is bad
Explanation/rationaliZation/whatever: Potential humans are valuable

Rationalizing something isn't bad, it's just a logical explanation of why ___ is bad/good.  Putting reason behind a statement doesn't devalue it, much to your dismay I'm sure.

Please specifically respond to these posts, quoting each point you disagree with and clearly explain why:
http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,12662.msg157320.html#msg157320  http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,12662.msg157321.html#msg157321

The discussion isn't ready to move on until the contents of these posts are specifically addressed.

[CrAz3D]

But your statement is misleading. Your statement gives the impression: "because it is best to err on the side of caution, we must do X." But what you're really saying is "because X, it is best to err on the side of caution, thus X." Your statement is a tautology.

Myndy: There is no clear majority (supposedly) re: abortion/life, err on the side of caution ... etc.

I disagree with that.  We shouldn't err on the side of caution, we should protect innocent eventual humans ... there is no seemingly grey area there.

Suppose we have a heterosexual couple.  The man wants to have a baby, and the woman doesn't.  If they keep attempting to have a baby, there is a near 100% chance that it will happen.  How can it be OK for the woman to choose not to have the baby in that circumstance, where the potential is high, and not OK for the woman to choose to continue supporting a fertilized egg, where the potential is comparable or less.  I know you will be searching for differences, because you have to rationalise your position -- there is no chance your mental energy will be directed towards reconsidering it.  But by your argument, there is no good reason for the woman to choose not to have a baby in that circumstance.  According to you, inconvenience is not a good reason.

"Inconvenience" is obviously not a good reason.  Sometimes it is inconvenient for sober people to drive, should we let them anyway?  No, because there are others to think about (be it pedestrians or fetuses).

[Rule]

But your statement is misleading. Your statement gives the impression: "because it is best to err on the side of caution, we must do X." But what you're really saying is "because X, it is best to err on the side of caution, thus X." Your statement is a tautology.

Myndy: There is no clear majority (supposedly) re: abortion/life, err on the side of caution ... etc.

I disagree with that.  We shouldn't err on the side of caution, we should protect innocent eventual humans ... there is no seemingly grey area there.

Suppose we have a heterosexual couple.  The man wants to have a baby, and the woman doesn't.  If they keep attempting to have a baby, there is a near 100% chance that it will happen.  How can it be OK for the woman to choose not to have the baby in that circumstance, where the potential is high, and not OK for the woman to choose to continue supporting a fertilized egg, where the potential is comparable or less.  I know you will be searching for differences, because you have to rationalise your position -- there is no chance your mental energy will be directed towards reconsidering it.  But by your argument, there is no good reason for the woman to choose not to have a baby in that circumstance.  According to you, inconvenience is not a good reason.

"Inconvenience" is obviously not a good reason.  Sometimes it is inconvenient for sober people to drive, should we let them anyway?  No, because there are others to think about (be it pedestrians or fetuses).

Your response shows a complete lack of understanding of the arguments in this thread, and I'm sure Myndfyre agrees.

[CrAz3D]

re: Ender, I didnt have anything to reply to, that was just crap he had going with Myndy, mostly the same for you.  I disagree about the "err on the side of caution" so I have nothing to respond to.

The only note worthy item saw you post was the 'inconvenience' issue.

[Rule]

The only note worthy item saw you post was the 'inconvenience' issue.

Your response to my quote supports my position.  Please carefully read what I wrote again, paying particular attention to the question I ask:

How can it be OK for the woman to choose not to have the baby in that circumstance, where the potential is high, and not OK for the woman to choose to continue supporting a fertilized egg, where the potential is comparable or less

You are saying inconvenience doesn't matter.  My response?  See the following sentences in the post you quoted:

By your argument, there is no good reason for the woman to choose not to have a baby in that circumstance [the one where the heterosexual couple are attempting to have a baby].  [In part, since] according to you, inconvenience is not a good reason.

It's clear you just don't comprehend these arguments.  I always have to explain them again and again until you get it, and thereafter there is just silence.  In the process of explaining, other things come up, and the other side escapes from having to specifically address the initial post.  Your response to Ender's comment falls into the very same trap he was criticising.

[CrAz3D]

I didnt read all of the quotes that your post was based on.

You're comparing two non-reproducing/casual sexing strangers to an already existing fetus, correct? 

[Rule]

I didnt read all of the quotes that your post was based on.

You're comparing two non-reproducing/casual sexing strangers to an already existing fetus, correct? 

It's all explained in the post you quoted.  Man and woman are married. Man wants to make a baby with the woman.  If they attempt to reproduce, it is almost certain that the woman will become pregnant, eventually giving birth to the baby.  Why should the woman have the right to choose in this situation? The potential for birth is close to 100%, much higher than the 66-75% for a fertilized egg.  It directly follows from Myndfyre's argument that she should not have the right to choose in either situation.  You may have different ideas than Myndfyre, but I was responding to MF. 

[CrAz3D]

My thoughts don't hinge on different situations.

If there is a baby, it's there, it should be given a chance.

[Rule]

My thoughts don't hinge on different situations.

So you are saying the married woman does not have the right to prevent her husband from impregnating her, preventing a potential baby from being born.

After all of my effort to re-explain things to you, I still don't think you understand the situation or the question.

[MyndFyre]

I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the posts Ender and I made in response to Myndfyre.  It seems whenever a good point is made, it is ignored or not acknowledged by the other side, and then the discussion is derailed with irrelevant nonsense by people like Crazed, and then the other side picks up on the irrelevant nonsense and resumes posting.

I have a job and I can't always post a thoughtful, thorough reply.  This is one of those instances.  When I can post one, you'll see it.

[CrAz3D]

My thoughts don't hinge on different situations.

So you are saying the married woman does not have the right to prevent her husband from impregnating her, preventing a potential baby from being born.

After all of my effort to re-explain things to you, I still don't think you understand the situation or the question.

I understand it.  But your situation is about the woman having the choice to have SEX, not a child.  If she doesnt want a baby dont have sex.  If he still has sex with her it is rape.

Fairly simple.

[Ender]

CrAz3d, wtf? You're batting 0.000 right now.

The point is:

The argument (introduced in Rule's post, and extended in my post) is that aborting a pre-sentient fetus is morally analogous to a woman not giving birth to a child in her lifetime, because the potential for life in both cases is the same. Since it is fine for a woman to live her life without giving birth, it must be fine to abort a pre-sentient fetus.

You have to approach an argument like a mathematical proof. You can't just spew your stream-of-conscious emotions all over the thread. I will delineate the above argument in step form:

Proof by contradiction:
1. We suppose for the sake of contradiction that abortion is morally wrong.
2. By its nature, a pre-sentient fetus (e.g. a single-celled fetus) cannot think, or feel pain, or feel emotion, or be aware of its surroundings, etc. Thus a pre-sentient fetus is no more human than a woman's unfertilized eggs.
3. By their nature, a woman's unfertilized eggs have the same potential for giving birth to a human as a pre-sentient fetus.
4. By (2) and (3), a pre-sentient fetus (e.g. a single-celled fetus) is isomorphic to unfertilized eggs (same humanity, same potential for humanity).
5. By our hypothesis, and our result from (4), it follows that is morally wrong for a woman to live her life without giving child.
6. (5) is a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), hence abortion is not morally wrong.

Which of these steps is wrong? Why? I am addressing this question to everyone, not just CrAz3d.

N.B. I made a conscious decision to use "ovaries" instead of "egg" in my other post because the former avoids confusion (namely the assumption that eggs are necessarily fertile). But CrAz3d, to my chagrin, caused me to have to type the annoying phrase "unfertilized egg".

[CrAz3D]

The fetus, if allowed to take it's natural course and have nothing altered, will be a walking talking person.

The same IS NOT TRUE for eggs.  Eggs need to be fertilized.  There is a HUGE difference.

A fetus is an already developing PERSON.  The egg's status is stagnant or dying without being fertilized.

[Ender]

The fetus, if allowed to take it's natural course and have nothing altered, will be a walking talking person.

The same IS NOT TRUE for eggs.  Eggs need to be fertilized.  There is a HUGE difference.

A fetus is an already developing PERSON.  The egg's status is stagnant or dying without being fertilized.

Wrong. You are ignoring the fact that there are only two relevant properties: (1) sentience and (2) potential for sentience. The egg and pre-sentient fetus have the same sentience (that being a lack of) and the same potential for sentience. While the single-celled fetus (forgive me if it is never single-celled, you get my point) is already fertilized, it still has to be born, just like the egg has to be fertilized. They each require processes to take them to sentience, it doesn't matter what the processes are. They are isomorphic.

The way I'm explaining this probably sounds weird, but that's just because this is such an intuitive concept that it warrants no explanation, yet you are forcing it upon me. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore, as you keep ignoring my points.

[Rule]

Myndfyre: I see you are unable to summon the humility to acknowledge when you make a mistake. 

[CrAz3D]

The fetus, if allowed to take it's natural course and have nothing altered, will be a walking talking person.

The same IS NOT TRUE for eggs.  Eggs need to be fertilized.  There is a HUGE difference.

A fetus is an already developing PERSON.  The egg's status is stagnant or dying without being fertilized.

Wrong. You are ignoring the fact that there are only two relevant properties: (1) sentience and (2) potential for sentience. The egg and pre-sentient fetus have the same sentience (that being a lack of) and the same potential for sentience. While the single-celled fetus (forgive me if it is never single-celled, you get my point) is already fertilized, it still has to be born, just like the egg has to be fertilized. They each require processes to take them to sentience, it doesn't matter what the processes are. They are isomorphic.

The way I'm explaining this probably sounds weird, but that's just because this is such an intuitive concept that it warrants no explanation, yet you are forcing it upon me. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore, as you keep ignoring my points.

sometime i replied that your opinion is your opinion which is irrelevant....but some how it was deleted.

since your opinion doesnt mat6ter in a real discussion .... who cares.

[rabbit]

Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.

[CrAz3D]

opinions is all that matters?




You done and got some good engrish there you sumbich

Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.

[rabbit]

opinions is all that matters?




You done and got some good engrish there you sumbich

Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.

That post made no sense at all.  Are you helping Trust "quit" or something?

[CrAz3D]

quit what?

[rabbit]

opinions is all that matters?




You done and got some good engrish there you sumbich

Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.

I'm still trying to figure out what's going on here.  You use the wrong form of "is" (should be "are"), and then you tell me I have "good engrish" and call me a "sumbich".

[CrAz3D]

shhhhhhh, just take it.    when i read it the first time I read "opinions is" ... but you dont have an s there now

[while1]

I eat babies for breakfast.  Babies, the real white meat.

[topaz~]

   One of the greatest debates in history is abortion. This is because, whether you speak to a secular humanist or a religious zealot, or anybody else, life is sacred. There are two sides to this debate; pro-choice and pro-life. The first refers to the mother's control over her own body, and having the ability to either abort or have the child – the second refers to having the child to be born regardless of circumstance or ability to care.

   So, there are really only two scenarios that exist here – it is wrong to kill babies (for in allowing the mother to choose you are giving her the choice as to kill or not to kill the baby), and it is wrong to deprive women of their freedom of choice and force them to bear a painful pregnancy. Taking the middle ground is to admit that one or both of these acts are happening.

   In today's society, abortion is permitted in some cases and disallowed in others. When it is denied, you are forcing a mother to have and potentially care for an unwanted child, and when you allow it, you are killing an infant who has done nothing to deserve it. If, say, you end a desired pregnancy through drunk driving, it is considered manslaughter under the legal system.

   This irregularity leads to only one conclusion – a fetus is human if, and only if, a mother wants it. Let us project this into our own lives; am I human only because those close to me love and continue to love me? Would it be objectionable for me to be killed if this were not the case? I hope not.

   I personally believe that abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law. It should not matter that the biological father was a rapist, or that the child's conception was a mistake – it should be allowed to live, to experience life, to make mistakes and to help others. If you were unable to care for the child, it ought be placed under the care of others through adoption or relatives, not be killed for the sake of convenience or some belief that it would cause the mother some amount of hardship.

   There are many ways to justify an abortion, used primarily to absolve the mother of guilt. The one used most often claims that the fetus is not alive until some point in time (the concept of trimesters), and therefore it is acceptable to kill it. As I see it, you can not redefine life through such debates because, by principle, you are denying your own existence and essentially, your own right to live.

   There is really no middle ground when talking about what life is and what is not. The matter of abortion should be carefully thought through by every one of us, because it is not merely a case of choice or infanticide; it goes to the very core of our own lives. The “politically correct” middle ground people so often desire to travel may be the safest route, but like many great debates, it is usually the only one that can be proved to be definitively wrong.

[Rule]

Who wrote that?  The air of objectivity in the introduction is so obviously a pretense -- so filled with faulty premises and subjective opinions stated as fact -- that the author's declaration that he believes "abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law" comes as no surprise.

This is because, whether you speak to a secular humanist or a religious zealot, or anybody else, life is sacred

No

when you allow it, you are killing an infant who has done nothing to deserve it

No

So, there are really only two scenarios that exist here

No

This irregularity leads to only one conclusion – a fetus is human if, and only if, a mother wants it

No.  Also human does not mean 'alive'.

There are many ways to justify an abortion, used primarily to absolve the mother of guilt.

No.  Some people just don't think a fertilized egg is important compared to other things.

[CrAz3D]

And some people don't think black people are as important as cheap labor....

[iago]

Who wrote that?  The air of objectivity in the introduction is so obviously a pretense -- so filled with faulty premises and subjective opinions stated as fact -- that the author's declaration that he believes "abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law" comes as no surprise.

Heh, I was thinking the exact same thing. He seems to be attempting to seem (or maybe genuinely trying, but poorly, to be) neutral, but is very clearly anti-abortion with everything he says.

[MyndFyre]

Who wrote that?  The air of objectivity in the introduction is so obviously a pretense -- so filled with faulty premises and subjective opinions stated as fact -- that the author's declaration that he believes "abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law" comes as no surprise.

Heh, I was thinking the exact same thing. He seems to be attempting to seem (or maybe genuinely trying, but poorly, to be) neutral, but is very clearly anti-abortion with everything he says.

Mostly I found it ironic that Rule was pointing out that someone else was being pretentious and using faulty assumptions.

I personally don't know anyone who isn't on one side or the other about the debate.  I suspect that it would be very difficult to find someone neutral on the subject.  The truth is, though, that it shouldn't be about whether someone is "neutral" in the debate or not.  If someone is making the effort to understand the claims of one side of an argument, and incorporating that information into her or his argument, shouldn't we just take it at face value?

You can very well disagree with what the person says, but what does it matter whether the person is being pretentious?

Now, if she is not fact-based, that's certainly something that is worthwhile to pursue.  But can that be it?  Repeatedly, against others and frequently myself, I see arguments that attack the person.  It's okay to call someone out when they're not being fact-based.  But there's a delicate line of balance at which it becomes disrespectful; and the truth is that, in civilized (or civilised, for those who prefer it) debate, we will get nowhere without respect.

[Rule]

Mostly I found it ironic that Rule was pointing out that someone else was being pretentious and using faulty assumptions.
etc

Outrageous Myndfyre.  You are yet to respond to this post and the one that precedes it: http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12662.msg157321.html#msg157321
You should recognize that your position is inconsistent, and perhaps reconsider it.  (Little chance of either happening in my opinion, no matter how obviously contradictory your arguments are.  I don't think you're interested in doing the 'right thing' in this case -- just in defending deep seeded beliefs).

[Newby]

Outrageous Myndfyre.  You are yet to respond to this post and the one that precedes it: http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12662.msg157321.html#msg157321

Outrageous indeed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention:

The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

I too have a response:

FUCK
YOU

[iago]

I personally don't know anyone who isn't on one side or the other about the debate.  I suspect that it would be very difficult to find someone neutral on the subject. 

Well, I consider myself to be relatively neutral on the subject. I honestly have no strong opinion either way, and, further, I don't think a strong opinion on either side is even possible (appropriate?) with the facts as we know. So, if you want a neutral party, I'm your man!

The truth is, though, that it shouldn't be about whether someone is "neutral" in the debate or not.  If someone is making the effort to understand the claims of one side of an argument, and incorporating that information into her or his argument, shouldn't we just take it at face value?

Sure, it's fine for somebody with an agenda to make an argument, as long as:
a) They're honest about their agenda,
and b) They don't use the same old techniques always used (loaded terms, appeal to emotion, etc.)

I don't think that person did either.

in civilized (or civilised, for those who prefer it)

You got it right the second time.

[MyndFyre]

Outrageous Myndfyre.  You are yet to respond to this post and the one that precedes it: http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12662.msg157321.html#msg157321

Outrageous indeed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention:

The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

I too have a response:

FUCK
YOU

<3 Newby 

[Ender]

The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

Yes but your argument only works for Newby, who is sterile, and maybe also Towelie. (Personally I think it was all the "exploring" they did together, which did them in.)

But if we consider less unfortunate people, in light of your argument, why is it not immoral for a woman to live her life without giving birth to a child?