|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 1, 2007 1:17:02 GMT -5
When it comes to real health risks, for baby or mother, go for it. Seriously, my being anti birth control by death is just that. Incest, rape, they don't fall under that. I wouldn't even say that it needs to be as low as a 1% chance of survival to make sense. I'm not the person who should be able to decide that though, as I'm not qualified to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 1, 2007 1:22:13 GMT -5
It looks like we're at least somewhat on the same page
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 1, 2007 16:29:25 GMT -5
The only thing I would really disagree with you on, Hackfest, is the law. You see, my paper "The Week" just reported a study in which countries where abortion is illegal have just as much abortion as countries where it is legal. I believe we have to do a LOT more than the law to get people to stop having abortions, and I believe that scare tactics don't work.
I really don't think we can change what people do by demonizing their behavior. My belief is that if we can encourage doing the right thing, rather than demonize people who do the wrong thing, we can see a lot bigger changes in statistics in terms of how many abortions are occuring each year.
We need to educate, teach how to use contraceptives, bring the poor UP to the middle class, and make adoptions easier (and hold people at a high esteem for giving their child up for adoptions, and for people who adopt). We need a cultural shift. Rather than point the finger at the people who want the choice, we need to hold those who keep their children, or those who give their babies up for adoption in the highest esteem. They need to feel like by doing so, they are contributing to the good of the world! If we make people feel good about doing the right thing, we are much more likely to get them to do it.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 1, 2007 19:18:03 GMT -5
Those images do look bad, but the looks of it don't really make it wrong. Most abortions, first off, take place in the first and early second trimester, long before there is any higher level brain functionality in the fetus. They look human, because they are human, but they aren't thinking people with selves. It's not the same as killing an adult or even a 5 year old child. Higher level brain waves are what's most important. At least with the quarter picture, that's not even a stage at which the fetus can feel pain. when it feels pain, it gets some moral consideration. It gets more consideration when it has higher level thought.
I don't see a problem with abortion if doctor in discussion with the mother decide to do it. When it's able to feel pain, then at least you should think about why you are doing it, but most probably do not do it willy nilly.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 1, 2007 21:56:12 GMT -5
jq: What's the scare tactic? I hope you don't mean the pics I put up. I even said in my post why I put those up. Are you referring to the anti-abortion people when you mention "demonizing" and "finger-pointing"? I agree with a large part of your post. Good angles.
technocrat: Looks don't make it wrong, nor were they intended to, as the post says. It's killing a person for convenience that makes it wrong. As far as not mattering as much due to your opinions about brain functionality justifying "consideration", that is irrelevant to me. Besides, brain functionality happens far earlier than the 2nd trimester. If it's not "high enough" to matter to you, then that's on you.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 1, 2007 23:20:53 GMT -5
That depends on your definition of "person." Not all humans need to be persons, and not all persons need to be human. It's a moral concept in philosophy independent of species membership. I don't see abortion as killing a person, since the fetus doesn't meet any reasonable standard of what we mean by "person." A person is a being with higher level cognition, self-awareness. What a fetus is is like a dog--it's alive, but not a person. A chimpanzee has more intrinsic moral value than any human fetus because it can suffer more, has far higher cognition and self-awareness, yet we kill those. In society, we generally give moral consideration based on intelligence, capacity to suffer, level of cognition, etc. It's one reason why it's not as tragic to lose a severely retarded infant as it is to lose a normal kid. One is worth less and is losing less. It's less serious. Likewise, a fetus with very little cognition is worth less moral consideration than you would give to a 10 yea rold.
In fact, we kill many animals for very minor reasons when those animals have significantly greater mental maturity and cognition than any fetus that people seem to want to protect at all costs regardless of it's status. I don't get it.
You are right that a fetus has "brain functions" but they don't stem from the portions of the brain responsible for higher thought. The first trimester fetus cannot think, and it's level of awareness is very low. We can keep people like terry shivo "alive" with their brain technically still working for a long time, but the higher level functionality is gone, so the person has already died. In the cause of fetuses without in the first place, it makes sense to say the person never existed. A body, did, yes.
When I speak of "consideration," I am referring to moral consideration. I don't see a reason to give all humans, by virtue of species membership, equal moral consideration. Some simply aren't worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 1, 2007 23:32:32 GMT -5
The "moral consideration" and "higher brain patterns" are your reasons for abortion being fine, not mine. I don't need to compare humans with monkeys on an intellectual level to determine moral choices about abortion.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 1, 2007 23:54:43 GMT -5
Abortion is wrong, but what can we allow that would allow us to be able to live with ourselves? The way we treat cattle is amazing in its inhumaneness, but people need to eat--does that make it right, no, but it means that we're willing to do certain awful things, and allow others to do certain awful things, if the eventual outcome is positive. A retarded kid being raised by someone abusive is not going to have a positive outcome--killing that retarded baby before it even has a chance of self-awareness would be more humane than him/her being raised by someone who doesn't care and will abuse him/her. But THAT isn't the reason why the majority of people get abortions--it's not because the kid will be retarded, it's not because the mother would be abusive, it's because the mother doesn't want to be bothered.
I would rather hear stories about the constant picketing of abortion clinics than to hear about coat hanger tragedies.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 1, 2007 23:56:21 GMT -5
jq: What's the scare tactic? I hope you don't mean the pics I put up. I even said in my post why I put those up. Are you referring to the anti-abortion people when you mention "demonizing" and "finger-pointing"? I agree with a large part of your post. Good angles. Not referring to your pictures specifically. Talking about the people who stand outside planned parenthood offices with those pictures, (or even without.) I am also talking about the politics of abortion-- there is a lot of demonizing and polarizing from both sides (pro choice, pro life) politically that DOES NOT bring any positive conclusion. Basically, it is like this-- The republicans don't want abortions to happen any more. Most liberals I know say that don't like it when abortion happens either, but they think it should be a choice. What I am saying is that too much time is spent on the CHOICE part, and not enough in agreement that abortions need to stop happening. I believe there is too much political polarization. I believe if we really both want the same thing (less abortions,) there should be a way to work together and make this happen. But yeah, I don't think that pointing the finger (like people in politics do,) and using scare tactics (intimidating women as they walk into their clinics) are effective at all. I think we need to focus on the positive side, that is, reducing abortion, rather than point the finger at those who are having it, or those who want to keep it as a legal choice. The law isn't going to fix it. We need to go beyond the law.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 2, 2007 0:03:12 GMT -5
jq - That post was flawless. Kizzume - It's so true. I have a brother who I don't even know. My mother drank herself to passing out every night while pregnant. His dad was EXTREMELY abusive because the kid was horribly retarded, and he couldn't be bothered to work through it.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 2, 2007 0:04:17 GMT -5
Just a question, but why are a bunch of men setting around discussing this topic? I mean I think that everyone can agree that we should have less abortions, but until the Republicans concede the necessity of comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives we aren't going to have less abortions. Until society upholds it's responsibility of properly educating people how can society enforce the responsibility of others? Facts are simple as that. It's not like women call each other up and say "lets go get an abortion!". It's a difficult decision, but as long as we as a society are going to promote death through capital punishment, inadequate health care, poor education, and poverty, how can we judge these women and on what grounds can we deny them the choice?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 2, 2007 2:07:44 GMT -5
We "could" deny them the choice based on the fact that they're blatantly killing someone, but because of the circumstances, and because of all the potential reasons for one wanting to get an abortion in the first place, it wouldn't be a good idea to deny them that choice.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 2, 2007 13:22:26 GMT -5
There's no presented logic, rationale for why a fetus is considered a person or why you give it moral consideration as such. You reject my criteria, but that leaves you without any substantial philosophical basis. If you do not use cognitive status, only species membership, you are being entirely arbitrary and not extending moral consideration based on actual, like characteristics. Saying "it's wrong because it is, and killing humans is bad" is not an adequate reason for claiming abortion moral. If we used that reasoning, it would follow that killing anacephalic infants or euthanising the brain dead is wrong. They are both technically alive, both human, yet their higher brain functions are gone. That's why cognition gradation is a sensible method of assigning moral consideration. It allows you to distinguish instead of falling into absurd scenarios wherein you are keeping a no-brained baby alive because it's human, regardless of it's actual characteristics.
[uote]The "moral consideration" and "higher brain patterns" are your reasons for abortion being fine, not mine. I don't need to compare humans with monkeys on an intellectual level to determine moral choices about abortion.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 3, 2007 2:15:23 GMT -5
I never claimed any kind of morale. My morals were never called into question. I don't need to present logic rationale to have a belief. If I did, then ANY religious reasoning wouldn't be enough reason to have standards about anything. That's of course, not the case though, as evidenced by many, many people.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 3, 2007 3:30:05 GMT -5
Having beliefs without a firm objective, consistent, rational basis effectively allows a FFA where anything goes, since it makes discourse impossible. It's like playing tennis when the opponent takes the net down when it's his turn. It's pointless. You don't need a logical rationale to have the belief, no, but to justify it and have it taken seriously, you do or else you are allowing anyone to say anything for any reason.
You claim a fetus is a person, but you don't say why or explain how. You claim abortion is wrong, yet you don't say why or explain. Are you saying that you don't need to defend or justify a position with reason, it being ok simply because you and many people believe something? Typically, using logic to analyze beliefs helps flush out how strong those ideas are. There are many problems with considering all humans persons with equal rights.
|
|