[Samseau]

(06-19-2013 02:08 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:50 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If it's not a human being, then why do you need to abort it?

To prevent it from becoming a human being. A human being is a thing of value that needs to be respected, cared for, and parented. A human being can't be aborted but a clump of cells can.

And as for your other question, let's assume an unconscious man isn't sentient. He's still a human being capable of sentience, a 2 week clump of cells isn't.

These two statements contradict each other. If capability of sentience is all that matters, then a 2 week clump of cells must be respected because you just said you need to "prevent" it from becoming a human being, which implies that the 2 week clump of cells are capable of becoming sentient.

The 2 week clump of cells will never become sentient. What is being aborted at that stage isn't sentient and in and of itself will never develop sentience.

If it will never develop sentience, then why do you need to abort it?

Quote:

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).

My argument thus far is you cannot give a legitimate moral difference between X (fetus) and Y (baby).

[TheKantian]

(06-19-2013 12:47 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

The "its a human being" arguments don't change my mind. I can concede that it is a human being that is growing in a woman's womb and still support abortion.

A lot of abortion opponents want to equivocate on the term "human being". It's understandable why because a lot of people jump back and forth between "human being" and "person". Even in popular culture movies or shows those terms are more or less used interchangeably.

I mean, let's use a popular culture example. Is a zombie a person or a human being or both?

[Wadsworth]

(06-19-2013 02:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:08 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:50 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If it's not a human being, then why do you need to abort it?

To prevent it from becoming a human being. A human being is a thing of value that needs to be respected, cared for, and parented. A human being can't be aborted but a clump of cells can.

And as for your other question, let's assume an unconscious man isn't sentient. He's still a human being capable of sentience, a 2 week clump of cells isn't.

These two statements contradict each other. If capability of sentience is all that matters, then a 2 week clump of cells must be respected because you just said you need to "prevent" it from becoming a human being, which implies that the 2 week clump of cells are capable of becoming sentient.

The 2 week clump of cells will never become sentient. What is being aborted at that stage isn't sentient and in and of itself will never develop sentience.

If it will never develop sentience, then why do you need to abort it?

Quote:

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).

My argument thus far is you cannot give a legitimate moral difference between X (fetus) and Y (baby).

Just for clarity's sake, I'm not really making a moral boundary between late stage fetus and baby, since I'm against late term abortion.

Let's define X (2 week clump of cells) and Y (baby, or even late stage fetus).

The moral judgement I'm making is that X has to be treated only as X, and not treated as Y because it has the potential to become Y. The moral judgement I'm making is to evaluate inherent value, not future value.

This is probably the judgement which is under contention.

My argument is similar to the fact that I wouldn't evaluate 1 million dollars as having the value of 10 million dollars just because I can invest the 1 million and it can develop into 10 million.

I'm not saying humanity is equivalent to money, I'm just using a metaphor.

[kbell]

I remember reading a trolls point of view on abortion. Thought it was hilarious. He said

"I'm on the fence on abortion; on one hand I don't like babies. On the other hand I don't like women having a choice."

[Tex Pro]

(06-19-2013 02:17 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:47 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

The "its a human being" arguments don't change my mind. I can concede that it is a human being that is growing in a woman's womb and still support abortion.

A lot of abortion opponents want to equivocate on the term "human being". It's understandable why because a lot of people jump back and forth between "human being" and "person". Even in popular culture movies or shows those terms are more or less used interchangeably.

I mean, let's use a popular culture example. Is a zombie a person or a human being or both?

Zombies don't really exist, bro.

[xsplat]

I don't believe in souls, and I don't believe in the afterlife. The intrinsic bad caused from killing a potential future life happens naturally all the time when the fertilized embryo gets washed away with the menses, or through un-noticed miscarriages. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to be blunt I don't believe in right and wrong anyway. I believe in causing suffering to others or not. Killing isn't exactly causing suffering. A bullet to the head to a depressed person is actually alleviating suffering.

There are many reasons why people have the feelings they do, and perform the actions they do. If the baby is not wanted, and people get rid of it, then what difference does commentary about it make? Do it or don't do it.

I've caused more pregnancy terminations than I have fingers on both hands. Most in countries where abortion is illegal, so what you say or think about it or what laws you pass have little effect. I'm sure in the future I'll be the cause of many more pregnancies and terminated pregnancies. Sometimes I feel emotions about it - that's natural. Shit happens, and I make shit happen too. A few tears are natural.

We are not starving for new babies on this planet. Abortions can be better for everyone who is already here in a world of scarce resources. On the other hand, with a good woman and good sources set up, creating a life could have benefit. I plan to do that too. But that will be my plan, not my accident.

I don't have qualms about killing cockroaches, and have killed troublesome mice. A fetus ought to have less awareness than an adult mouse. I'm fine with fetus murder. I'd eat a bowl of deep fried fetuses, if the recipe was from Colonel Sanders.

Hmmm, now I'm getting hungry for Filipino Balut.

[TheKantian]

(06-19-2013 02:25 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Zombies don't really exist, bro.

Of course, zombies do not exist. It's a hypothetical situation, which is meant to illustrate a point.

[scorpion]

I think that arguing based on the sentience of the fetus is the wrong debate entirely. It's essentially a semantics argument about what constitutes a human being that can never reach a consensus due to a disagreement of terms. This is not helpful.

The argument should simply be: is it to the greater benefit or detriment of society to allow women the full freedom to voluntarily abort their children?

In this light, the debate obviously shifts to one of favoring either the rights of the living mother versus the rights of her potential unborn child.

Now I ask: what sort of legal and moral framework must one be operating under to grant a woman the right to extinguish the life of her child based on whim and convenience? What kind of morality can equate a mother's right to not be inconvenienced with her unborn baby's right to life? Could you imagine a law that allowed a mother to starve her children to death because she could not be inconvenienced to take the time to prepare them food each day?

A culture that allows and encourages women to terminate their pregnancies is inescapably a culture of death. It is a culture that elevates the whore over the mother. It is a culture that prizes convenience and the pleasures of irresponsible living over life itself. It is, unquestionably, a culture that is sowing the seeds of its own destruction.

[Excelsior]

(06-19-2013 02:08 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).

X and Y both have something in common: each represents a stage of the human life cycle. Both, therefore, constitute human life.

Human life is inherently valuable. Therefore X, as an example of human life, is valuable in and of itself.

[xsplat]

Also, if your argument is that abortion is a social harm, then look at how crime statistics track abortion. The more abortion, the less crime.

[Wadsworth]

(06-19-2013 02:30 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I think that arguing based on the sentience of the fetus is the wrong debate entirely. It's essentially a semantics argument about what constitutes a human being that can never reach a consensus due to a disagreement of terms. This is not helpful.

The argument should simply be: is it to the greater benefit or detriment of society to allow women the full freedom to voluntarily abort their children?

In this light, the debate obviously shifts to one of favoring either the rights of the living mother versus the rights of her potential unborn child.

Now I ask: what sort of legal and moral framework must one be operating under to grant a woman the right to extinguish the life of her child based on whim and convenience? What kind of morality can equate a mother's right to not be inconvenienced with her unborn baby's right to life? Could you imagine a law that allowed a mother to starve her children to death because she could not be inconvenienced to take the time to prepare them food each day?

A culture that allows and encourages women to terminate their pregnancies is inescapably a culture of death. It is a culture that elevates the whore over the mother. It is a culture that prizes convenience and the pleasures of irresponsible living over life itself. It is, unquestionably, a culture that is sowing the seeds of its own destruction.

I'm not so sure I'm convinced by this line of reasoning, and the source of the problem in my opinion lies in the single emboldened word.

You're using the word unborn to define X as Y. You're not defining it as X, you're defining it as an unborn Y. In effect you're conflating future value with present value.

[xsplat]

(06-19-2013 02:41 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:08 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).

X and Y both have something in common: each represents a stage of the human life cycle. Both, therefore, constitute human life.

Human life is inherently valuable. Therefore X, as an example of human life, is valuable in and of itself.

Sure, but so what.

You know, I could farm cattle. Without me, they'd never be alive in the first place. With me, they live for a while. Then I murder them and sell their flesh and bones for profit.

Even if they were humans, there is no right or wrong in it. Without me, they would never have even been there to begin with.

Same with a fetus. I'm not killing someone elses baby that they want. It was alive for a bit. If that's an inherent good, then that's a brief inherent good. Better than nothing, right?

Or should I just get snipped?

If I got snipped then there is never any better than nothing.

[Samseau]

(06-19-2013 02:23 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Let's define X (2 week clump of cells) and Y (baby, or even late stage fetus).

Again, what is the difference between these two entities that gives the rights of a human and not the other?

[Wadsworth]

(06-19-2013 02:41 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:08 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).

X and Y both have something in common: each represents a stage of the human life cycle. Both, therefore, constitute human life.

Human life is inherently valuable. Therefore X, as an example of human life, is valuable in and of itself.

I agree with this reasoning 100%. I said a couple posts ago that I wasn't trying to argue that a 2 week old fetus doesn't have value, I think that it does.

Now let's introduce Z, the self determination of an adult female. In order to value Z, we need to make a distinction between X and Y, and hold one up as being more valuable than the other.

I value: Y>Z>X

[Wadsworth]

(06-19-2013 02:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:23 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Let's define X (2 week clump of cells) and Y (baby, or even late stage fetus).

Again, what is the difference between these two entities that gives the rights of a human and not the other?

Value.

I don't think a 2 week clump of cells is of equal value to a late stage fetus or a baby. If the self determination of a woman wasn't a factor I'd say both have value and I'd leave it at that.

It's because the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman is a factor that I make a distinction. Both are valuable, but only one is valuable enough to trump the right of a woman to self determination.

[iknowexactly]

(06-18-2013 05:42 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

I talked a girlfriend into it once. ......

The older I get, the more strongly I feel about this and the more I see the practice as barbaric, immoral, and bizarre.

I sympathize with your pain in the situation. I don't think you should beat yourself up about it forever, it won't change anything.

But the fact you did it to make your own life more like you wanted it pretty much completely undermines any credibility you have as a pro-life guy.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

It reminds me of people who have kids who tell you never to have kids.
THEY did it, and actions speak far, far louder than words.

Like dealing with chicks, dealing with moralists I only look at their actions, not their words.

[iknowexactly]

(06-19-2013 02:41 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:08 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).

X and Y both have something in common: each represents a stage of the human life cycle. Both, therefore, constitute human life.

Human life is inherently valuable. Therefore X, as an example of human life, is valuable in and of itself.

I agree an embryo has some value. BUt as far as restricting the rights of others, I disagree that that value is sufficient to allow you to control others right to choice.

Claiming the right to dictate pregnancy to them would be based on a falsely coarse dichotomy about human life vs. not human life, and that an non-sentient embryo has the same value as a independently functioning person.
I side with the "sentience" argument.

You could extend the false dichotomy to sperm being sacred etc.

Even if you personally think unconscious embryo is a human being, it's ANOTHER jump to assert the right to force someone to remain pregnant.

And then on top of THAT, even if you are successful in stigmatizing/making abortion illegal, pragmatically you then are responsible for the evasion that this inevitably causes: deaths from backstreet abortions.

As current legal status states, win goes to pro-choice, on

1) ontological facts vs.
2) individual rights
3) pragmatics.

Of course, this is not China, it's not that anyone is forcing you or your girlfriend to have abortions, that would be absolutely horrific. The trite saying, "If you don't like abortion, don't get one" actually makes sense in terms of individual rights taking precedence over your personal opinions of an embryo which can't survive without its mother.

[Excelsior]

(06-19-2013 02:47 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Now let's introduce Z, the self determination of an adult female. In order to value Z, we need to make a distinction between X and Y, and hold one up as being more valuable than the other.

I value: Y>Z>X

I think it is more complicated than this.

As I've already mentioned, X is, like Y, an example of human life. Human life is inherently valuable and, some would argue, invaluable (worth enough that no price/tangible valuation can be put on it).

What we are weighing here is the worth of a human life in comparison with female 'self determination'. In order to get an answer here, we need to determine the source of that 'self-determination'.

For example:

Source 1-Threat of maternal death: In this instance the woman's self-determination (which is leading her toward an abortion) is derived from a desire to protect her own life, which is threatened by the presence of X. As a result, this instance pits the worth of one human life vs. another.

In this case, I think many would accept the Y>Z>X hierarchy, even those on the more conservative/pro-life end of the spectrum.

Source 2-Convenience. In this instance, the woman's self-determination is derived from a desire to avoid the discomfort associated with motherhood. This can range from a more frivolous intent (some examples given in this thread where women seek abortions on a whim for no substantive reasons) to a more substantive one (interruption of career/education). In this case, the value of a human life is being weighed against the value of a female's convenience/lifestyle.

In that case, I would argue that Y>X>Z. I would argue that the value of human life generally supersedes the value of convenience and/or lifestyle concerns.

Those are just two very simple examples. I'm sure one could think of many more. Self-determination is important, but at issue here is a determination of how much currency that self-determination can carry when put up against something as invaluable as a human life. My answer is that it varies depending on the reasons for the determination.

[Excelsior]

(06-19-2013 03:19 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I agree an embryo has some value. BUt as far as restricting the rights of others, I disagree that that value is sufficient to allow you to control others right to choice.

I disagree. We restrict individual choice for the sake of human life all the time. A simple glance at our legal code can show you that. This is little different: an embryo is an example of human life.

That being said, my writings at ROK reveal my general conclusion here. My allegiances lean to the pro-life side of the aisle, as you can see. That being said, I am also a practical person. I recognize the problems associated with limiting abortion (ex: back alley procedures). I recognize that banning the procedure simply isn't realistic or practical.

My final view is simple: if some people are unable to value human life enough to understand why an embryo may be worth protecting, then they just shouldn't have offspring. Some people just should not have children, and for those people the choice of abortion is, to some limited extent, for the greater good. It is unfortunate, but not necessarily the worst outcome possible.

Abortion is merely positive natural selection in this instance-as it becomes more widespread, an increasing number of the world's children will be born to families that really and truly want them and value their existence from start to finish. That's the silver lining there for me.

[Vicious]

I find it somewhat ironic that many person's in this thread are trying to base arguments on a moral/ethical stance. This entire forum is based on principles that the general public would deem as immoral/unethical.

Doesn't mean the general public is right but moral relativism is stronger today than ever.

[Wadsworth]

(06-19-2013 03:32 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:47 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Now let's introduce Z, the self determination of an adult female. In order to value Z, we need to make a distinction between X and Y, and hold one up as being more valuable than the other.

I value: Y>Z>X

I think it is more complicated than this.

As I've already mentioned, X is, like Y, an example of human life. Human life is inherently valuable and, some would argue, invaluable (worth enough that no price/tangible valuation can be put on it).

What we are weighing here is the worth of a human life in comparison with female 'self determination'. In order to get an answer here, we need to determine the source of that 'self-determination'.

For example:

Source 1-Threat of maternal death: In this instance the woman's self-determination (which is leading her toward an abortion) is derived from a desire to protect her own life, which is threatened by the presence of X. As a result, this instance pits the worth of one human life vs. another.

In this case, I think many would accept the Y>Z>X hierarchy, even those on the more conservative/pro-life end of the spectrum.

Source 2-Convenience. In this instance, the woman's self-determination is derived from a desire to avoid the discomfort associated with motherhood. This can range from a more frivolous intent (some examples given in this thread where women seek abortions on a whim for no substantive reasons) to a more substantive one (interruption of career/education). In this case, the value of a human life is being weighed against the value of a female's convenience/lifestyle.

In that case, I would argue that Y>X>Z. I would argue that the value of human life generally supersedes the value of convenience and/or lifestyle concerns.

Those are just two very simple examples. I'm sure one could think of many more. Self-determination is important, but at issue here is a determination of how much currency that self-determination can carry when put up against something as invaluable as a human life. My answer is that it varies depending on the reasons for the determination.

Good argument, but frankly if we're being honest, the vast majority of abortions are abortions of convenience. Most of them are because contraception failed and she doesn't want to be a parent. To me this is reproductive self determination and I don't particularly have a problem with it at an early stage in the pregnancy.

You're absolutely right that there are other factors at play.

Your article on ROK for example covers a number of post child birth problems involving poverty etc. These are significant considerations.

Was she being responsible and using contraception? Or was she being irresponsible and using abortion as a form of contraception?

Abortion is also a significant health risk for women. It interrupts a cycle of cellular division and proliferation before differentiation is fully completed, introducing a significant risk of breast cancer later in life. This is something that will influence society at large even if society isn't paying the health costs.

And then there's the issue of the reproductive self determination of the male. Is that of any value?

We could construct more elaborate hierarchies, but very generally Y>Z>X is not something I personally find morally offensive.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-19-2013 03:04 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 05:42 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

I talked a girlfriend into it once. ......

The older I get, the more strongly I feel about this and the more I see the practice as barbaric, immoral, and bizarre.

I sympathize with your pain in the situation. I don't think you should beat yourself up about it forever, it won't change anything.

To be fair, I don't stay up nights over it or beat up on myself about it. If I give it much thought, however, I just feel it was an immoral thing to do. If I dwelled on it, I would experience feelings of guilt, but I typically choose not to dwell.

As you said, you can't change the past.

Quote:

But the fact you did it to make your own life more like you wanted it pretty much completely undermines any credibility you have as a pro-life guy.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

It reminds me of people who have kids who tell you never to have kids.
THEY did it, and actions speak far, far louder than words.

Like dealing with chicks, dealing with moralists I only look at their actions, not their words.

Look, I understand the sentiment. But I also think it's a bit shortsighted.

So, if someone makes a mistake once while they're younger, they're never to be taken seriously about thinking that was a mistake or experiencing a paradigm shift? This was 13 years ago, and I regretted it before I even walked out of the room. Given that, it's hardly a case of my beliefs not matching my actions.

Hypocrisy would be to keep running around aborting fetuses or saving it as a last-minute option for when shit hits the fan - completely eliminating it as a possibility based on a new understanding of what it represents, on the other hand, is personal evolution.

As an extreme, consider a guy who spends time in prison and then uses his experiences to teach younger people to avoid a life of crime. Is his advocacy invalid because he did the opposite of what he preaches, back before he knew better?

Not that I'm aiming to become an advocate, but I hardly think that every person who has made the decision to abort at some point in their life should be held to that instance and not allowed to decide it's the wrong thing to do later on. In fact, with any aspect of a society that needs change, it's specifically the people who once thought it was okay that need to have a change of heart...

People change their beliefs all the time. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I'm of the opinion that whether or not you can stomach the act is largely based on what you believe morally and spiritually. Because for someone who believes it's a spiritually or morally-reprehensible act, no logic in the world will convince them of otherwise.

And spirituality is very much something that can change with time and life experience.

But yes, I do realize I'm hardly going to be the chosen poster-boy for pro-life advocacy any time soon.

[Wadsworth]

relevant: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive...on/276990/

I realize some of us here have some minor disagreement over early term abortion (everyone seems to be opposed to late term abortion), but for the most part we attempt to discuss the issue rationally and constructively.

Notice how a mangina tackles the issue. He tells a story about his feminist mom and how he was supportive of his girlfriend whom he knocked up. He then talks about what men's role in supporting women's rights should be before slipping in an attack on father's rights groups and saying men don't belong in the abortion debate.

[Samseau]

(06-19-2013 02:54 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:23 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Let's define X (2 week clump of cells) and Y (baby, or even late stage fetus).

Again, what is the difference between these two entities that gives the rights of a human and not the other?

Value.

I don't think a 2 week clump of cells is of equal value to a late stage fetus or a baby. If the self determination of a woman wasn't a factor I'd say both have value and I'd leave it at that.

So does a rich man have the right to murder a poor man, because the rich man is more valuable?

[ghostdog]

I'm a hereditarian so to me a clump of cells has all of the information about a human being, their personality, intelligence, looks, body, even what age they'll get cancer at.
I'm mostly against. I think 26 year old career women who get abortions because it will stand in the way of a promotion should have their tubes forcibly tied up after so they can never have kids again.

I'm still torn about cases like defects, Downs Syndrome. Leaning towards pro-abortion for that because I don't think anyone should be pushed into an existence that is a game over before it has even started. So that there is my hypocrisy