The Abortion Thread
- Thread starter zabu of nΩd
- Start date
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
Dak
mentat
zabu of nΩd;10238569 said:
Well I was waiting for aug to abandon the thread, then I moved, and now m_c is trolling the thread. Makes serious discussion rather pointless in this public venue.
I really hate the idea of abortions. They're pretty terrible and I'd discourage anyone from even thinking of getting one.
That being said...
Life isn't a rosy field of clearly defined boundaries of 'right' and 'wrong'. The truth is that situations arise where it becomes necessary and practical.
When you make something illegal, you don't stop it. You just make it more dangerous and chaotic. So the option to abort should be there. It's an ugly necessity and I'll leave it at that.
That being said...
Life isn't a rosy field of clearly defined boundaries of 'right' and 'wrong'. The truth is that situations arise where it becomes necessary and practical.
When you make something illegal, you don't stop it. You just make it more dangerous and chaotic. So the option to abort should be there. It's an ugly necessity and I'll leave it at that.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
i feel that this poster in specific should read what i wrote in the other abortion thread
divine_torture
leVel
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
get out of here with your logic and your reason and your consideration for the vast complexities of life
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
Einherjar86
Active Member
Read this in yesterday's paper:
Thoughts? When do others believe that an infant achieves the moral status of an actual person? In my opinion, I think that "person" is the wrong word to use here. We should use the term "subject": when do newborns become a moral subject?
I don't believe there can be any setting of a universal standard on this; newborns become moral subjects at different points in their development. But, on a moral basis, I have to agree with the British columnists. It's true that a newborn is nothing more than a mass of biological cell formations and instinctual wirings. If it had the capability to steal food from another newborn, it would do so without concern. So many adults I know find this troubling and want to ignore it, because they believe morality to be something steadfast and predetermined rather than something instilled.
However, I don't agree that we can justify the killing of newborns on this level, because the point at which one begins the socialization/culturalization process of becoming a moral subject is truly impossible to identify exactly. I, personally, am inclined to believe it begins almost as soon as the newborn emerges from the womb. As soon as it is inoculated into the process of childcare by hospital staff, breast-feeding, and overall education by its parents (which could even be said to begin immediately, as soon as the mother holds her child) the foundation is set for it to become a moral subject, even if it isn't a functional moral subject, or whatever we want to call it. Since this process of socialization can't be said to begin prior to birth, I firmly believe that the moment of birth still stands as a viable point at which to classify the newborn as something morally different than the fetus.
Thoughts? When do others believe that an infant achieves the moral status of an actual person? In my opinion, I think that "person" is the wrong word to use here. We should use the term "subject": when do newborns become a moral subject?
I don't believe there can be any setting of a universal standard on this; newborns become moral subjects at different points in their development. But, on a moral basis, I have to agree with the British columnists. It's true that a newborn is nothing more than a mass of biological cell formations and instinctual wirings. If it had the capability to steal food from another newborn, it would do so without concern. So many adults I know find this troubling and want to ignore it, because they believe morality to be something steadfast and predetermined rather than something instilled.
However, I don't agree that we can justify the killing of newborns on this level, because the point at which one begins the socialization/culturalization process of becoming a moral subject is truly impossible to identify exactly. I, personally, am inclined to believe it begins almost as soon as the newborn emerges from the womb. As soon as it is inoculated into the process of childcare by hospital staff, breast-feeding, and overall education by its parents (which could even be said to begin immediately, as soon as the mother holds her child) the foundation is set for it to become a moral subject, even if it isn't a functional moral subject, or whatever we want to call it. Since this process of socialization can't be said to begin prior to birth, I firmly believe that the moment of birth still stands as a viable point at which to classify the newborn as something morally different than the fetus.
Dak
mentat
There are plenty of studies to indicate such "inoculation" begins in the womb, although exactly when the sensory receptors are developed enough and begin to process stimuli would be impossible to universalize.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
There is no standard because factors in utero obviously have consequences on the child's development just as it is ex utero. What you feed it in either capacity is a big example. So from a developmental standpoint, the lines there are just too vague.
I know this may sound barbaric and me being a chauvinist for classicism, but the Greeks and Romans did have a sound policy on this issue. The head of the household, the paterfamilias, had power of life or death over his children, and in fact the newborns had to go through a ritual before they were deemed worthy of LIFE (in Sparta this ritual was conducted by the state). If they were rejected, they were exposed (though, as in the Oedipus myth, they could be picked up by someone else, and without all the adoption paperwork).
What complicates things in modern day (like so many other issues) is the empowerment of women, but even then that resolves upon the choice of the mother. A Greek or Roman mother wouldn't be allowed to hold or nurse the child until it had gone successfully through the aforementioned ritual. However, once those forms of mother-child contact are established, then there is a biological and psychological connection that if severed could be traumatic for the mother. For example, the famous case of the surrogate mother reneging on her contract to give away the baby because she just couldn't give up her own child.
I know this may sound barbaric and me being a chauvinist for classicism, but the Greeks and Romans did have a sound policy on this issue. The head of the household, the paterfamilias, had power of life or death over his children, and in fact the newborns had to go through a ritual before they were deemed worthy of LIFE (in Sparta this ritual was conducted by the state). If they were rejected, they were exposed (though, as in the Oedipus myth, they could be picked up by someone else, and without all the adoption paperwork).
What complicates things in modern day (like so many other issues) is the empowerment of women, but even then that resolves upon the choice of the mother. A Greek or Roman mother wouldn't be allowed to hold or nurse the child until it had gone successfully through the aforementioned ritual. However, once those forms of mother-child contact are established, then there is a biological and psychological connection that if severed could be traumatic for the mother. For example, the famous case of the surrogate mother reneging on her contract to give away the baby because she just couldn't give up her own child.
Dak
mentat
I don't find it barbaric to suggest the family have ultimate rights over the child. The "Divine Right of Kings", now manifested in many and sundry ways under the banner of "the common good" has now placed the ultimate rights over children actually in the hands of the state, not the mother. This, my dear friends, is "barbaric".
Einherjar86
Active Member
Truly? Can you give an example of a study that suggests fetuses have the capacity to become moral agents? What you feed a child certainly has an impact on its biological development. But can we say that whether we choose to listen to Mozart or Megadeth while the child is still in the womb will contribute to its potential moral agency?
I can't foresee any such circumstances that could be said to create a moral subject prior to birth.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, biological development is a different matter; I was referring purely to moral development because that's what the article I posted above was dealing with.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
in America, there are a lot of women that are in situations where i feel that abortions should be mandatory instead of merely "an option"
if you want a more detailed explination of my thoughts on abortion read what i've already posted in the other abortion thread
if you want a more detailed explination of my thoughts on abortion read what i've already posted in the other abortion thread
Similar threads
