The Abortion Thread

[skeptik]

Shouldn't we debate on whether abortion itself in any scenario is even morally acceptable before we deal with fringe cases, legality, and governmental involvement?

 

[MasterOLightning]

I'm much more interested in policy issues than moral ones.

 

[Dak]

Shouldn't we debate on whether abortion itself in any scenario is even morally acceptable befor we deal with fringe cases, legality, and governmental involvement?

I guess I am extremely surprised to see GMD this concerned about it.

Due to the grey areas around "what constitutes life", which no one as a collective will agree on due to personal bias, and since it is a personal matter, at least between the two people responsible for creating the subject in question, and nearly impossible to effectively regulate against, and shouldn't be publicly funded in either direction, I see little point in where this discussion will go.

Sorry for the run on.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I can't imagine many of us are all that interested in reciting the moral talking points on each side. But I do want to know why it shouldn't be funded. Funding decisions are regularly based on morality, and the government pays for things that many people find morally reprehensible already, like the death penalty, the drug war, and bullshit overseas wars.

 

[Dak]

I can't imagine many of us are all that interested in reciting the moral talking points on each side. But I do want to know why it shouldn't be funded. Funding decisions are regularly based on morality, and the government pays for things that many people find morally reprehensible already, like the death penalty, the drug war, and bullshit overseas wars.

Government funding for anything is immoral. Boom, problem solved.

 

[MasterOLightning]

:eyeroll:

 

[Dak]

:eyeroll:

The money doesn't come from thin air (well, when it's printed it sort of does but that's another topic). It's extracted on the threat of violence for non-submission.

That's called theft.

Therefore, all expenditures of the loot are immoral, since it's stolen goods.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think there is an obvious distinction between possible outcomes and an outcome already realized. If mere sperm or egg were capable of life seperately, then the potential life argument may be extrapolated. But without uniting and implanting in the uterine wall, there is no actual potential, any more than a stack of wood alone is a potential house. It's also potential mulch. It takes more than that.

Now, I think this is a good assessment of the situation. Ova sans sperm, or vice versa, means no chance of fertilization; thus, no fetus. I accept this as a rebuttal to my argument.

I still, of course, support a woman's right to abortion. If we accept that this "right-to-life" argument has some validity, then I would take another approach, that being the desire of the woman to cancel the growth of what is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite inside her body.

This might seem like a ridiculous way to talk about it; but a fetus is something that feeds on the nutrients and sustenance provided by the woman. If a woman didn't intend, and does not wish, to be the carrier for such an organism, she has the right to abort it. Furthermore, a woman might argue that pregnancy/birth involves necessary risks and even the possibility of death. For this reason, she has the right to take preemptive measures and protect herself.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This thread is an abortion.

 

[Onder]

I wish I was aborted.

 

[Dak]

Now, I think this is a good assessment of the situation. Ova sans sperm, or vice versa, means no chance of fertilization; thus, no fetus. I accept this as a rebuttal to my argument.

I still, of course, support a woman's right to abortion. If we accept that this "right-to-life" argument has some validity, then I would take another approach, that being the desire of the woman to cancel the growth of what is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite inside her body.

This might seem like a ridiculous way to talk about it; but a fetus is something that feeds on the nutrients and sustenance provided by the woman. If a woman didn't intend, and does not wish, to be the carrier for such an organism, she has the right to abort it. Furthermore, a woman might argue that pregnancy/birth involves necessary risks and even the possibility of death. For this reason, she has the right to take preemptive measures and protect herself.

I don't agree with this line of thinking but I can accept it, from a legal perspective. There's no reasonable method to attempt to prevent abortions, legally speaking. They just shouldn't be government subsidized.

However, that doesn't mean there is no room for pro life/choice movements. They merely need to turn their efforts and funds to voluntary cooperative means.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I don't support making abortions illegal. Just don't publicly fund them. Making abortion illegal just drives it underground like drug use. But don't subsidize it either.

How is it that I agree with this completely but you consider yourself pro-life and I consider myself pro-choice? I guess those terms are just political red herrings.

edit: I generally don't approve of 3rd trimester abortions, but what if a morbidly obese woman is raped and impregnated, and doesn't discover she's pregnant until the 8th month or so (which is not uncommon for extremely fat women)? I think women should be guaranteed the right to abort a pregnancy caused by rape, but as aug has said, a 3rd trimester abortion is tantamount to murder.

 

[Dak]

How is it that I agree with this completely but you consider yourself pro-life and I consider myself pro-choice? I guess those terms are just political red herrings.

Because I don't believe in trying and project my moral opinions onto everyone else at gunpoint.

 

[Einherjar86]

This thread is an abortion.

Did you start it just so you could say that?

she loses that right by being a stupid bitch. she knew full well that by allowing her loser boyfriend to ejaculate inside her that she could acquire this "parasite". also, by definition, a right is nullified when it infringes on the rights of another.

What about the rights of the fetus impinging on the rights of the woman? Why can't it go that way; because she's a "stupid bitch"?

Her choices regarding sex are irrelevant in this matter. It doesn't matter whether it was consensual, or a woman was raped. It's her choice. Pregnancies shouldn't become punishments now for women because they were "stupid bitches." That, in my opinion, is a pretty stupid proposition.

 

[Einherjar86]

What the hell are you arguing about? I'm trying to discuss the ethical implications of the actual act of abortion. I'm not concerned with government funding or legality. As far as I'm concerned, a government isn't obliged to pay for women's abortions until I see an argument that convinces me otherwise. I simply want to understand the moral/ethical position against abortion.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

she loses that right by being a stupid bitch. she knew full well that by allowing her loser boyfriend to ejaculate inside her that she could acquire this "parasite". also, by definition, a right is nullified when it infringes on the rights of another.

in a normal pregnancy with modern medicine there is very little "risk of death". in cases where there is one and the option to save both has been thoroughly explored but is impossible, then yes a woman should be given the choice to save herself or the baby.

What a massive straw man. Nice misogyny too. You're obviously someone who has spent lots of time thoughtfully researching and reflecting on this topic

If you can't stop presenting ignorant, uninformed arguments, you should just stop bringing down the thread.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I think there is an obvious distinction between possible outcomes and an outcome already realized. If mere sperm or egg were capable of life seperately, then the potential life argument may be extrapolated. But without uniting and implanting in the uterine wall, there is no actual potential, any more than a stack of wood alone is a potential house. It's also potential mulch. It takes more than that.

You might be able to work something out with the outcome/outcome realized argument; however someone can counteract that the outcome a fully developed human or a conscious being or a being that can experience pain does not exist when the sperm and egg join. Further outcomes are still needed, which are contingent on the mother not aborting.

So again, the criterion returns to the question of moral value. What is the condition of being a moral patient and why?

Some possible candidates:
-Being a human being
-Being capable of experiencing pain
-Being conscious
-A being whose life has meaning for itself (i.e. its own life matters for it).

The wood analogy doesn't work with sperm/egg. The sperm and egg's one and only natural end is to become a living organism. The wood's natural end is not be a house. So we could say that the sperm/ egg's primary possibility is to become a new organism, while the wood's ability to become a house is a secondary possibility (its primary possibilities would have been in relation to its being part of a tree).

 

[Dak]

You might be able to work something out with the outcome/outcome realized argument; however someone can counteract that the outcome a fully developed human or a conscious being or a being that can experience pain does not exist when the sperm and egg join. Further outcomes are still needed, which are contingent on the mother not aborting.

So again, the criterion returns to the question of moral value. What is the condition of being a moral patient and why?

Some possible candidates:
-Being a human being
-Being capable of experiencing pain
-Being conscious
-A being whose life has meaning for itself (i.e. its own life matters for it).

So the ability to experience pain is a prerequisite? Edit: Or value it's own life? You can be taught to not value your life. Does this then make human sacrifice ok?

The wood analogy doesn't work with sperm/egg. The sperm and egg's one and only natural end is to become a living organism. The wood's natural end is not be a house. So we could say that the sperm/ egg's primary possibility is to become a new organism, while the wood's ability to become a house is a secondary possibility (its primary possibilities would have been in relation to its being part of a tree).

Sperm and egg, respectively, have no natural end to life. The natural end for an unfertilized egg is too be flushed in a bloody mess once a month, and the natural end for a sperm is knucklebabies, or some other method of release/disposal.

If this was not the case, every period is involuntary manslaughter.

Once joined however, they become a new thing.

 

[CF87]

I wish I was aborted.

Same here.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This might seem like a ridiculous way to talk about it; but a fetus is something that feeds on the nutrients and sustenance provided by the woman. If a woman didn't intend, and does not wish, to be the carrier for such an organism, she has the right to abort it. Furthermore, a woman might argue that pregnancy/birth involves necessary risks and even the possibility of death. For this reason, she has the right to take preemptive measures and protect herself.

I kind of see it like renter's rights. If the renters are new and are immediately causing shit, evict. If they've followed their contract to the letter for several months, however, you can't just throw them to the curb and say "Private property bitch!" By the third trimester she has had plenty of time to exercise her right to self-defence.