The Abortion Thread

[rms]

You do know that not every time you have unprotected sex you can get her pregnant right?

 

[damnromulans]

I don't understand how or why you (or anyone, really) care so much about whether women who aren't yours get abortions...it's not like they account for a huge amount of taxpayers' money

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm waiting for Einherjer or someone else to weigh in on this conclusion.

So we aren't discussing becoming a human then. We are discussing value.

So what determines human value? The ability for self defense?

A fetus is a decidely nonhuman entity. It hasn't been subjected to any of the ideological or cultural institutions that typically constitute what we designate as "human." If that is what crimson is referring to, then I'd say it's a legitimate point.

A fetus has no faculties for communication beyond the purely biological/instinctual. It doesn't have the ability to comprehend itself or become aware of itself (how could it, without even the necessary component of language?). We must remember that individuals possess no fetal memories; memories are often conjured by sensory perceptions, as well as semiotic associations. While still in the womb, the fetus doesn't possess the faculties capable of forming memories. In fact, scientific studies that have claimed to discover the presence of memories in fetuses are misleading; they don't possess memories, but rather "habituated responses" (i.e. instinctual, likely involuntary responses).

There have been rumors of fetal memories in autistic individuals; but it should be emphasized that these are subjects who lack the ability to function properly in culturally specific scenarios. This is not to say that autistic people aren't human, but that both fetuses and autistic individuals exist in an extraordinarily non-anthropocentric position in the world.

If we are charging that "value" should be the primary factor in determining the ethics of abortion, I think it's important to note that fetuses are entities that exist in subjectively "non-valuable" circumstances.

I think that since fetuses are specifically nonhuman entities, we can proceed to judge the circumstances in the most practical manner possible. Since birth may lead to serious trauma for the mother, even death in some scenarios, it seems entirely plausible and permissable (to me) that abortion is an ethically acceptable act.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Oh my, is this clusterfuck of a debate actually getting somewhere?

I might try jumping in soon, since fucking Cythraul has left me blue-balled for days now.

 

[Dak]

A fetus is a decidely nonhuman entity. It hasn't been subjected to any of the ideological or cultural institutions that typically constitute what we designate as "human." If that is what crimson is referring to, then I'd say it's a legitimate point.

Before I address anything else, please elaborate.

 

[Einherjar86]

Before I address anything else, please elaborate.

It isn't capable of evaluating, valorizing, or verifying its own existence in any way.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not saying that the institutions of language and culture constitute some objective quantity of value in individuals.

I'm saying that the ability to apply value is only conceivable and can only be realized within the parameters of the ideological institutions of language and culture. These are the conditions that make "value," as we know it, possible.

I'm not saying that a fetus has no value because it cannot communicate in language. By introducing the concept of value, I'm suggesting we ignore it altogether. Since a fetus cannot conceive of the concept of "value," I believe that a purely practical approach to the situation is permissable.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Okay, here's my official (value-centric) pro-abortion argument, which i have just now finally pieced together for the viewing pleasure of all:

1) The only value in existence is that which conscious humans place upon whatever it is they desire.

2) The two major reasons we consider murder to be "bad" is (a) because we value other people in our lives, and (b) because we value a social contract that keeps us safe from losing our own lives.

3) Fetuses do not factor into either of the two aforementioned justifications for prohibiting murder, since (a) no living human has any serious emotional connection to them, and (b) they are not conscious.

4) There is a negligible basis for applying a "potential to have value" argument to fetuses since their potential to have value is pretty much indistinguishable from that of sperm/eggs/embryos.

Conclusion: baby soup for all!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

2) the black kid who got shot by the hispanic guy has no value in my life but i consider his murder to be bad.

Please insert reasoning to continue.

3) so it's ok to kill someone with no family (they're all dead or s/he ran away/doesn't know them) and no friends (entirely possible in this world), as well as sleeping / passed out drunk people.

Yeah this might actually take me a while to hash out. Let's see...

I would start by saying that in order for a human life to have any significant value it must be capable of living through sleep and various other brief periods of unconsciousness. That's why it's not "okay" to kill unconscious people, and it also gives weight to our social contract to prohibit murder.

Fetuses are a different case because they have never once had the chance to be conscious, and therefore have not had the chance to add value to society. One could argue that they "deserve" that chance, but i don't see how they "deserve" it any more than sperm/eggs/embryos.

As for people with no social network at all: you make me realize that raising the issue of people valuing *other* lives may be more of a redundancy/distraction in my argument than anything else. Really the bottom line is that the value of each individual's life to him/herself is the basis for anything else that has value in our world, so people with no social networks are fine by that standard.

4) they are pretty distinguishable. a fetus has all the necessary organs in development. by the 2nd trimester they can

I was quite obviously not talking about physical differences, i was talking about differences in potential to add value to society.

 

[Einherjar86]

so do i, and yet we still seem to differ. do you support abortion during all 9 months?

Based on the parameters I just outlined, I support abortion at any time during a pregnancy. Of course, once people know they're pregnant and know they don't want it, I don't see any reason to wait around until the third trimester.

If I can be honest, you don't seem to be approaching this practically to me. You're projecting a kind of human value onto an unborn fetus. If anything, my approach projects value onto the birth mother; and since this is an entity that acknowledges its own rights and existence, I think we should award it both.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

murder is outlawed because people consider it "bad", not because they care about or personally know the victims.

What is your point? That we should base all our beliefs on what the average person thinks?

a fetus is capable of living through its unconsciousness; the only difference is the length of time which to me is irrelevant at a certain point.

I already addressed this with the "never having been conscious" point.

because a deliberate action was taken that enabled its creation (fucking), and gestation was allowed to take place (and in my reasoning i even cut the parents some slack). sperms and eggs are nothing without conception

How is this in any way relevant to the value of the fetus?

so now you're saying self-worth is what matters. well abortion is a societal institution so the "value" others attach to life in general matters. in any case, i think people with no self-worth should be allowed to kill themselves, and we have no right to do it unless s/he explicitly asks for it. same goes for fetuses. owait

Wtf are you even claiming here? Please write more coherently.

a ghetto my pals does not add value to society. i couldnt give a shit if he dropped dead but he has rights protecting him.

What is a right? What gives people rights? lrn2argue

 

[crimsonfloyd]

A fetus is a decidely nonhuman entity. It hasn't been subjected to any of the ideological or cultural institutions that typically constitute what we designate as "human." If that is what crimson is referring to, then I'd say it's a legitimate point.

A fetus has no faculties for communication beyond the purely biological/instinctual. It doesn't have the ability to comprehend itself or become aware of itself (how could it, without even the necessary component of language?). We must remember that individuals possess no fetal memories; memories are often conjured by sensory perceptions, as well as semiotic associations. While still in the womb, the fetus doesn't possess the faculties capable of forming memories. In fact, scientific studies that have claimed to discover the presence of memories in fetuses are misleading; they don't possess memories, but rather "habituated responses" (i.e. instinctual, likely involuntary responses).

There have been rumors of fetal memories in autistic individuals; but it should be emphasized that these are subjects who lack the ability to function properly in culturally specific scenarios. This is not to say that autistic people aren't human, but that both fetuses and autistic individuals exist in an extraordinarily non-anthropocentric position in the world.

If we are charging that "value" should be the primary factor in determining the ethics of abortion, I think it's important to note that fetuses are entities that exist in subjectively "non-valuable" circumstances.

I think that since fetuses are specifically nonhuman entities, we can proceed to judge the circumstances in the most practical manner possible. Since birth may lead to serious trauma for the mother, even death in some scenarios, it seems entirely plausible and permissable (to me) that abortion is an ethically acceptable act.

I agree with all your basic points, however, the way you are using "human" is problematic. Human is synonymous with homo sapien. Fetuses are homo sapiens and therefore, fetuses are humans. I don't see how you can argue that they are non-human when their DNA proves otherwise.

I think this is why many make distinction between "person" and "human". A human is a member of a biological species while a person is a being with a certain set of capacities. I'm not sure I buy the distinction, but it certainly more fruitful than saying that certain humans aren't humans.

Otherwise, I agree with your post. There are certain attributes or properties that make someone worthy of moral consideration and value. Fetuses lack those attributes/ properties. Therefore, it is not unethical to abort them.

 

[Einherjar86]

a newborn is basically the same as an 8-9 month fetus, do you support baby killing? well i will never support that you sick fuck. in fact i used to think 1st and 2nd trimester abortions are ok but now i've changed my mind to 1st semester only.

Wow, you're a fucking peach.

A newborn and a fetus are not the same. A fetus has the potential to dramatically affect the health of its birth-mother. A newborn is a separate entity, incapable of surviving on its own; but decidedly not in an involuntary, parasitic relationship with the mother. I see them as quite distinct.

people are indecisive idiots and there are thousands who do just that.

the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are not due to rape or failed contraception; they are due to 2 dumbasses who want to enjoy the pleasure of unprotected sex and don't give a shit about the consequences. these people should not be valued nor given precedence of rights/existence. my approach is practical in the sense that fetal development is measurable and limits can be set on abortion legality.

This equation whereby you try and deprive people of their rights for acting "irresponsibly" is entirely misleading and irrational. First of all, how do we monitor whether or not someone uses a condom? Do we require individuals to only copulate in private chambers, designated by some centralized institution, that are watched over by surveillance cameras manned by authorized personnel? Do we mandate access to birth control? You don't seem to support government-sponsored abortion, so do you support government-sponsored birth control? What about people who can't afford it? Should they stop having sex?

I agree with all your basic points, however, the way you are using "human" is problematic. Human is synonymous with homo sapien. Fetuses are homo sapiens and therefore, fetuses are humans. I don't see how you can argue that they are non-human when their DNA proves otherwise.

I meant human in the non-biological sense; of course its DNA designates it as a human. I'm not saying fetuses are a different species. I mean "human" in the sense of a culturally and historically constituted,conditioned, and modified individual.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

- your beliefs are your own and no one can change that (only influence) except yourself.

Translation: you're an irrational simpleton on the order of someone who insists the Bible is truth and Hell is real because "that's my belief and you can't change it". Glad to hear it, now we can stop debating.

The only worthwhile thing you appear to have said in all that nonsense you just typed is "human value is subjective". I'd like to pick up on that at some point, but i'll wait until there's someone more intelligent to do it with.

 

[Einherjar86]

you said you support abortion at all stages of pregnancy. an 8-9 month fetus -can- survive outside the womb without the placenta and umbilical cord the same way a newborn can. i see them as quite the same. you overestimate the importance of "health effects" and "parasitic relationship". usually, the mother just has to watch what she eats and not do stupid shit. the vast majority of abortions are not done for health reasons, and cases where they are can be regarded on an individual basis.

But it's not surviving on its own while it's still in the womb; it's absorbing nutrients through the umbilical. Birth results not only in dramatic trauma to the physical human body, it also can cause serious emotional problems in its aftermath. I view all these as legitimate reasons for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

government can't control everything but what it can, it should. late abortions should be illegal and violators penalized. birth control should not be required but heavily promoted and subsidized. condoms are fucking cheap but if some losers can't afford it, then they can fuck during infertile times, learn to pull out, cum in the mouth or asshole, or yes stop fucking. so many options.

Your opinions are so irrational and contradictory that I don't know what to say. Government-sponsored abortions would, in fact, save far more money than your proposed plan. The alternative is to pay for huge numbers of unwanted children. You don't want a drain on the taxpayers, but that's exactly what you're arguing for. Furthermore, your encouragement of government involvement in intimate circumstances such as those mentioned above is, at best, delusional.

why the fuck should an individual who has simply been changed by his environment and the passage of some amount of time be more human than another human?

I already explained this. You actually fall into the same category of a fetus since you seem to lack the ability to form memories.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

lol you were unable to respond and run away under the guise of insults, yeah good riddance

No, i responded to the one thing you said that illustrated how pointless it would be to respond to anything else. Why would anyone argue with someone who just says "well you can't make me change my beliefs so there" instead of being rational? Pat may not have better things to do than talk in circles with you while you deny your inability to use basic reasoning, but i sure do.

 

[skeptik]

You actually fall into the same category of a fetus since you seem to lack the ability to form memories.

Quality insult.

I'm personally still undecided on the issue of very late term abortions in which essentially the only distinguishable difference between a fetus and a newborn is the process of birth. It is clear to me that abortion is always acceptable when it legitimately threatens the life of the mother, however.

 

[Einherjar86]

but you can take it out without killing it, and it won't die just from not being in the womb, same with a newborn.

This is irrelevant. While it's still in the mother's womb, it's essentially a part of her.

dramatic trauma is (and yet again you assume it is so fucking widespread and catastrophic lol), emotional problems not. they brought it upon themselves.

I don't understand what this means.

i was not talking about taxes, but regulation of its citizens' behavior to a reasonable extent. government would not be involved in the intimate circumstances, only in the enforcement of the consequences.

Government regulation requires taxes. They won't do it for free brah.

more like you lack the ability to form acceptable explanations. but ok i updated the question

If we're looking for demarcation points, the actual moment of birth seems the best to me. It's pointless to try and pick some arbitrary point during pregnancy. At the moment of birth, we can actually distinguish between something that is physically connected to the mother and culturally separate from the rest of humanity, and something that is its own entity and beginning to be indoctrinated into society (at the earliest moments of being held its mother, yes; it's being culturally conditioned).

 

[Mort Divine]

Stop trying. You're wrong.

 

[Einherjar86]

you're saying every pregnancy in the history of mankind caused "dramatic physical and emotional trauma" so every woman in the history of mankind should have aborted if they wanted. i think is bullshit. it should be allowed if and only if the pregnancy unquestionably threatens the mother's life.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the possibility of damage gives the mother a right to terminate the pregnancy.

then they should do it. the cost of giving condom companies money to make the things cheaper and shutting down abortion clinics is worth it for regulating its citizens.

Imposing moral judgements on the will of the people via government mandate, eh?

Sounds disturbingly familiar...

fetal development can be measured. age, size, heart rate, vital organ status etc are not arbitrary. so fucking what if it's being held by its mother. it's not learning Latin or Shakespeare or some shit. being inside or outside the womb is just quibbling about logistics.

I didn't mean "Shakespeare" or "Latin" when I suggested its immediate cultural conditioning.

disagreement with my reasoning does not make it irrational

That's true; irrationality of your argument makes it irrational.

Your opinions make me nervous.