Re: Abortion ethics dilema

[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.