The Abortion Thread

[CiG]

"What's that Billy, you got a C-? Sorry, but you needed at least a B+ to live."

Shit, what's this from again? Family Guy?

 

[The Butt]

I changed it around, but yeah, classic Family Guy.

"Sorry Timmy, but you need thirteen tickets to live."
*trapdoor*

 

[CiG]

Hospital bills here can be insane, and paying for time in a hospital during pregnancy is no small matter. It's something potential families have to think about and plan for. An unwanted/unplanned pregnancy likely has even fewer resources.

Fair enough, but of course you'd oppose murdering a 6 year old because schooling and other child-related expenses are no small matter?

I think it's up to the person, honestly. That's the person who's enduring the uncertainty, and the person who's footing the bill. I don't think pulling the plug is an easy decision, and I don't think it's necessarily always the wrong one.

If they have a high chance of remaining in a coma until they die, sure. Especially if the person has some kind of pre-signed document giving permission. But my scenario was to draw a comparison to pregnancy and I said they will be practically guaranteed to wake up in 9 months at the latest.

For me that drastically changes the context, because it means the person in a coma is in a transitional state between alive non-socialized and alive socialized. Not sure how that would translate into law but for me certainly it philosophically means ending their life while in a coma is akin to ending their life while they're up and about.

It has less to do with how I differentiate between an unborn baby versus one outside the womb, and more to do with the fact that the woman will have to endure pregnancy. I place more value on the kinetic subject who's been socialized and individuated than I do on the potential subject that hasn't developed any sense of selfhood.

I don't place more or less value on either the fetus nor the woman, which is why I think neither should be killed (#equality). I also have the caveat that if a pregnancy means the mother will die, but if the fetus is aborted she will live, abort the fetus and save the woman. Justifying that is more complicated for me to explain, but if you want I can (you probably don't and I wouldn't blame you).

I do however prioritize protection for those who aren't in positions of power and privilege. A viable fetus is at the mercy of those around them. The woman is in a complete position of power in this context, the ultimate deciding factor in whether a living thing lives or dies and so I have no sympathy for them in discussions about second and third trimester abortion. Even if abortion is denied to her, she can abort the fetus by other means.

That is total power not really akin to anything else, and so it needs to be equalized by the law and I think any fetus that could survive outside of a womb shouldn't be killed inside of one, because the entity is the same sans geographical location and I see no reason why that negates their human right to not be killed.

Again, it has to do with pregnancy.

If a responsible person seeks an abortion as soon as she finds out she's pregnant, I see no logical reason to prohibit it. I realize that the procedure becomes more complicated (and more expensive) as the pregnancy goes on, but I'm unwilling to make any definitive, blanket statement about it because there are contingencies to every situation.

Non-standard situations should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Not an argument against creating laws protecting viable fetuses.

 

[Phylactery]

What a shitstorm, but that was to be expected given the controversial nature of the topic.

Anyway, I mainly agree with CIG on this. First trimester I see no issue with it, even without extenuating circumstances, it should be an option open to all women. Second trimester is where it gets trickier and harder to justify. Third trimester abortion I consider to be pretty much barbaric, outside of very specific circumstances like it being life threatening to the mother to carry on to full term.

 

[CiG]

What a twist, we agree on something not about music.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

if the babies heart is beating and you get an abortion, than you are nothing more than a murderer. Sure, you can convince yourself of all kinds of nonsense to feel better and go to sleep at night, but facts will remain facts.

 

[rms]

sometimes committing murder is the right decision though

 

[Einherjar86]

Fair enough, but of course you'd oppose murdering a 6 year old because schooling and other child-related expenses are no small matter?

A six year old is a socialized, individuated subject. They've been brought into the world and raised in it, they've developed a personality and sense of self. The ethics of that situation are far more complicated than aborting an unborn baby.

If we're going to get strictly legal (although I admit that legality doesn't equal morality), a person isn't a person until they're born--no birth certificate, no personhood. There's a reason for that; prior to being born, a human being has no legal standing. It's an arbitrary distinction; but then, I never said my position wasn't arbitrary.

If they have a high chance of remaining in a coma until they die, sure. Especially if the person has some kind of pre-signed document giving permission. But my scenario was to draw a comparison to pregnancy and I said they will be practically guaranteed to wake up in 9 months at the latest.

For me that drastically changes the context, because it means the person in a coma is in a transitional state between alive non-socialized and alive socialized. Not sure how that would translate into law but for me certainly it philosophically means ending their life while in a coma is akin to ending their life while they're up and about.

I don't place more or less value on either the fetus nor the woman, which is why I think neither should be killed (#equality). I also have the caveat that if a pregnancy means the mother will die, but if the fetus is aborted she will live, abort the fetus and save the woman. Justifying that is more complicated for me to explain, but if you want I can (you probably don't and I wouldn't blame you).

I do however prioritize protection for those who aren't in positions of power and privilege. A viable fetus is at the mercy of those around them. The woman is in a complete position of power in this context, the ultimate deciding factor in whether a living thing lives or dies and so I have no sympathy for them in discussions about second and third trimester abortion. Even if abortion is denied to her, she can abort the fetus by other means.

That is total power not really akin to anything else, and so it needs to be equalized by the law and I think any fetus that could survive outside of a womb shouldn't be killed inside of one, because the entity is the same sans geographical location and I see no reason why that negates their human right to not be killed.

Non-standard situations should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Not an argument against creating laws protecting viable fetuses.

A coma patient has a social existence and identity. In most cases, it's very hard for a family to take a loved one off life support, so I don't see it as a huge issue. If the chances are good that the person will wake up, then I'm willing to bet the family will have no problem keeping them on life support.

I don't see viability alone as justification for giving birth, however. A coma patient's future station and livelihood are more than likely secured if not guaranteed. An unborn child is a very different story. The best justification for giving birth is whether the mother wants to. If the mother is fine giving the baby up for adoption, then great. If the mother doesn't want to endure childbirth or produce another child on an already overpopulated planet, then that's worth something in my opinion.

I really don't think it's rational to bring more children into the world simply because they have the potential for life (whether good or shitty) when the woman doesn't want to have the child. That doesn't translate into a strict belief on what I think should occur in any given situation, but I have no deep compassion for the protection of unborn children.

For what it's worth, there's actually a philosophy known as anti-natalism that opposes having children. It presents a quite compelling argument, albeit not a very attractive one.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

sometimes committing murder is the right decision though

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

For what it's worth, there's actually a philosophy known as anti-natalism that opposes having children. It presents a quite compelling argument, albeit not a very attractive one.

yea, for delusional bastards like yourself

 

[CiG]

The trimesters are slowly becoming outdated IMO because I do have sympathy with the people who draw the line at when the heart beat starts (between 6 and 8 weeks which is pretty much the halfway mark of the first trimester) and I think as embryology and pregnancy detection technology gets better and better it will become easier to narrow down the development of a fetus and avoid abortions that overlap with when the heart beat starts, I don't think we're there yet though.

Ideally people should get an ultrasound before an abortion, especially if laws are introduced setting limits related to when the heart beat starts, that way they can or cannot get an abortion depending on the presence of a heart beat.

A six year old is a socialized, individuated subject. They've been brought into the world and raised in it, they've developed a personality and sense of self. The ethics of that situation are far more complicated than aborting an unborn baby.

As is a coma patient. They were brought into the world, socialized in it and is an individualized subject - who happens to now be in a coma. Your philosophy here just isn't consistent in my opinion. Also when did the womb become not part of the world?

A coma patient has a social existence and identity. In most cases, it's very hard for a family to take a loved one off life support, so I don't see it as a huge issue. If the chances are good that the person will wake up, then I'm willing to bet the family will have no problem keeping them on life support.

Whether a comatose person is killed or kept alive shouldn't rely on the assumed good intentions of the people pulling the plug. That's naive and ridiculous and totally leaves comatose people open to malicious "loved ones" actions.

If we're going to get strictly legal (although I admit that legality doesn't equal morality), a person isn't a person until they're born--no birth certificate, no personhood. There's a reason for that; prior to being born, a human being has no legal standing. It's an arbitrary distinction; but then, I never said my position wasn't arbitrary.

Oh okay so if a person was born in the woods they can be killed because no birth certificate means no personhood? Also that's not even true, there are many laws protecting not yet born infants.

I don't see viability alone as justification for giving birth, however.

Why?

A coma patient's future station and livelihood are more than likely secured if not guaranteed. An unborn child is a very different story. The best justification for giving birth is whether the mother wants to. If the mother is fine giving the baby up for adoption, then great. If the mother doesn't want to endure childbirth or produce another child on an already overpopulated planet, then that's worth something in my opinion.

I really don't think it's rational to bring more children into the world simply because they have the potential for life (whether good or shitty) when the woman doesn't want to have the child. That doesn't translate into a strict belief on what I think should occur in any given situation, but I have no deep compassion for the protection of unborn children.

For what it's worth, there's actually a philosophy known as anti-natalism that opposes having children. It presents a quite compelling argument, albeit not a very attractive one.

Again, why? Why do you place so much privilege and power on the whims of the mother?

"Overpopulation" is a Malthusian meme and a shit justification for killing a living human, it's no wonder you find the anti-natalist claptrap convincing. It's just apocalyptic drivel.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Dak actually tries to have conversations. You, on the other hand, are incapable of communication. Your linguistic skills consist of insults and evasions. You don't respond to comments, you just demean others. You exhibit no significant signs of intelligence, critical thinking, or willingness to parry on issues. As soon as someone makes a critical point, you retreat behind emojis and ad hominems, preferring solipsistic security to questions, considerations, or speculations. You're not interested in changing your mind, and it appears you're not interested in changing anyone else's because you don't actually discuss anything. If someone disagrees with you, you call them names. If someone challenges you, you accuse them of being stupid. You conceal the fact that you have nothing interesting to say behind a veil of vitriol, and usually conclude by making personal threats that attest to your physical strength despite the fact that the people you're talking to probably never want to meet you--not because they're scared that you might hurt them, but that the conversation would be dreadfully, unbearably boring.

I didn't quote you because I really see no point in talking to you.

wow
just wow

 

[Einherjar86]

As is a coma patient. They were brought into the world, socialized in it and is an individualized subject - who happens to now be in a coma. Your philosophy here just isn't consistent in my opinion. Also when did the womb become not part of the world?

I wouldn't call it a philosophy. I'm just answering your questions. I don't claim to have some kind of pro-choice philosophy.

The inside of a womb isn't part of the social world.

Whether a comatose person is killed or kept alive shouldn't rely on the assumed good intentions of the people pulling the plug. That's naive and ridiculous and totally leaves comatose people open to malicious "loved ones" actions.

It's in the doctors' hands until they transfer responsibility to the family.

Oh okay so if a person was born in the woods they can be killed because no birth certificate means no personhood? Also that's not even true, there are many laws protecting not yet born infants.

I take your point, but would just clarify what I meant.

A person born and raised in the woods has a personality, just not a social one. I think it's important to treat all living things ethically; but in the case of unborn children, ethics intersects with the personal freedom of the mother. So the issue of childbirth can't not be one of individual liberty on the part of the mother.

I don't believe anyone has natural rights. The mere experience of existence doesn't magically bestow rights on someone. The amorphous experience of an unborn child definitely doesn't bestow rights on them. Legally speaking, unborn children had no rights until the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was some fifteen odd years ago. Not a long-standing precedent by any means.

Why?

What can I say? We have no shortage of children. I'm not swayed by appeals to the potential, yet highly unlikely, brilliance of unborn babies. Ultimately, it saddens me that any living thing comes to harm. But in the case of abortion, I have more compassion for the woman who can communicate to me than I do the unborn child that can't communicate because it's not a communicative being.

Likewise, I have more compassion for dogs, cats, etc. than I do for unborn children. I'm sorry, I just do. I don't have some metaphysical explanation for why I feel this way; it's just what I think is most ethically pressing.

In the interest of fairness, why do you place so much emphasis on the potential for life? What about life is so important? Try and explain it without appealing to platitudes.

"Overpopulation" is a Malthusian meme and a shit justification for killing a living human, it's no wonder you find the anti-natalist claptrap convincing. It's just apocalyptic drivel.

I'm sorry, but why? What's so offensive to you about viewing birth as bringing humans into a world of pain, sadness, and anxiety? That's how anti-natalists view reproduction.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I think it's important to treat all living things ethically

no, you clearly don't.

I'm sorry, but why? What's so offensive to you about viewing birth as bringing humans into a world of pain, sadness, and anxiety? That's how anti-natalists view reproduction.

this can only be the viewpoint of sick(fucked in the head) individuals. Anyone with this thought process should be castrated so they wouldn't have to murder unborn children because of their irresponsibility and/or the afflictions they are suffering from.

 

[CiG]

If anti-natalists felt that strongly about it, they'd kill themselves thus removing themselves from such a terrible world. But no, instead they just do activism and engage in stupidity. I'm not a pro-natalist though, just a normal person opposed to killing infants.

 

[Einherjar86]

If anti-natalists felt that strongly about it, they'd kill themselves thus removing themselves from such a terrible world. But no, instead they just do activism and engage in stupidity.

Why? It's not a philosophy about whether or not to end one's own existence, but whether or not it's ethical to bring others into existence.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

.. what a sad individual you are. Step outside and get some fresh air brother.

 

[CiG]

A person born and raised in the woods has a personality, just not a social one. I think it's important to treat all living things ethically; but in the case of unborn children, ethics intersects with the personal freedom of the mother. So the issue of childbirth can't not be one of individual liberty on the part of the mother.

I don't accept that intersection. In no other example is it part of your individual liberty to kill another living human being who isn't guilty of a crime of some kind. You're giving a woman a totally imbalanced set of rights and you're directly going against what you say when you claim you think treating all living things ethically is important.

One living thing gets to live or die and the other living things gets to make that choice. That's not even close to equal treatment. That's a slave and master relationship applied to a different situation.

I don't believe anyone has natural rights. The mere experience of existence doesn't magically bestow rights on someone. The amorphous experience of an unborn child definitely doesn't bestow rights on them. Legally speaking, unborn children had no rights until the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was some fifteen odd years ago. Not a long-standing precedent by any means.

I wouldn't call it magic, I would say natural rights spring from the idea that the body is sovereign, self-defense being justified springs from that and all other rights grow from there.

And a year after Emancipation Proclamation isn't a long standing precedent either. What's important is the argument/philosophy/ethics/morals that lead to setting the standard and I personally believe that with the development of science in the area, it becomes harder and harder to hold views like yours and more instinctual to hold views like mine. Or I suppose I should say, hold views like those who support abortions for post-first trimester pregnancies since you don't seem to be expressing any of your views and are just playing Devil's Advocate with me because... reasons?

Most parents who have a ultrasound exam will attest to the instinct I mentioned, even if they can't express it intellectually.

What can I say? We have no shortage of children. I'm not swayed by appeals to the potential, yet highly unlikely, brilliance of unborn babies. Ultimately, it saddens me that any living thing comes to harm. But in the case of abortion, I have more compassion for the woman who can communicate to me than I do the unborn child that can't communicate because it's not a communicative being.

I'm not swayed by the potential of an eventual genius being snuffed out by an abortion either, but you brought up the idea that we are better off aborting unwanted fetuses which is something I have no idea how you could even claim and so I rebutted with an equally hard to demonstrate claim. Example: what if the man or woman who would eventually cure some strand of cancer in 20 years is aborted tomorrow?

It's a counter-thought experiment.

Likewise, I have more compassion for dogs, cats, etc. than I do for unborn children. I'm sorry, I just do. I don't have some metaphysical explanation for why I feel this way; it's just what I think is most ethically pressing.

Please never breed.

In the interest of fairness, why do you place so much emphasis on the potential for life? What about life is so important? Try and explain it without appealing to platitudes.

I simply place more emphasis on life than death, when you drill down to it. This is why I am also opposed to the death penalty. It's not so much that I think life is important but rather that individuals should be able to decide that for themselves if it is or isn't.

Killing another living human being is deciding for them that their life isn't important and I don't recognize that as a right someone has in any context.

I'm sorry, but why? What's so offensive to you about viewing birth as bringing humans into a world of pain, sadness, and anxiety? That's how anti-natalists view reproduction.

Because it's a half-view. The world is one of pain, sadness and anxiety but it's not just that. It's also a place of happiness, love, satisfaction, discovery, adventure, science, curiosity, lust, contentment and so on. Any worldview so steeped in pessimism isn't one I'm going to take seriously when it comes to killing or not killing the innocent and defenseless.

Not that such a view offends me, I just think it's pathetic and irrelevant.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

i think it's safe to say that he will not be breeding anytime soon. He has no clue how this world actually functions outside of his little bubble. Same can be said for most of these mort-minded types. It truly is a disease that has plagued mankind.

 

[dwellerINTHEdark]

Are all you pro-lifers vegan? Just curious.