Re: Abortion ethics dilema

[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.