Re: Abortion ethics dilema

[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.