TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Aborting our way to pefect kids?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat The idea that men can be held responsible for a child, but have no say in if the child is kept, appalls me.

Don't you love double standards?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, you therefore do not discriminate between suicide, euthanasia & murder then?

none of the above have an effect on whether the 'victim' is a human being or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade With the phrase "conscious lump" I really fear that you're venturing into abstract philosophical territory. I have no ready answer for that...

oh but you do:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm running with: Human DNA (therefore it is "human") Biological independence (therefore it is a "being") I'd say that just about covers everything?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T none of the above have an effect on whether the 'victim' is a human being or not.

but the part of his argument i was concerned with was

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human.

meaning, that he is arguing that there shouldnt be any difference regarding who carries out the 'outside attack' in terms of whether the act itself is classified as right or not.

edit: ie, its about consent. whats the difference between rape & sex? or euthanasia/abortion & murder? consent.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic. If you are going to say that in one instance, the forced termination of pregnancy constitutes homicide (the murder of a human) I can't see how who commits that forced termination has any relevance on the legality of the outcome. I don't understand the logic behind saying that in the aftermath of an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human. I just don't see how you can logically define the "human" status of a fetus by who kills it.

i dont think james means that in the case of an assault of a pregenent woman which causes a miscarriage the attacker should be charged with homicide necessarily, but that it should be a worse offense than if it was against a non pregnent woman, on the grounds that the attacker took away the woman's right to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but the part of his argument i was concerned with was meaning, that he is arguing that there shouldnt be any difference regarding who carries out the 'outside attack' in terms of whether the act itself is classified as right or not. edit: ie, its about consent. whats the difference between rape & sex? or euthanasia/abortion & murder? consent.

your point would stand if NeoPhono would not have stated that he is concerned with the logical aspect of it rather than the moral:

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic

but i dont see how it IS a failure of logic

if a sick person chooses to end their own life, it is euthanasia. if that life is taken from them, it is murder.

if a woman chooses to abort her child, it is an abortion. if someone kills that foetus against her will, it is murder.

wheres the logic flaw?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but i dont see how it IS a failure of logic if a sick person chooses to end their own life, it is euthanasia. if that life is taken from them, it is murder. if a woman chooses to abort her child, it is an abortion. if someone kills that foetus against her will, it is murder. wheres the logic flaw?

try changing 'euthanasia' & 'abortion' to mean 'not murder':

if a sick person chooses to end his life, it's not murder, if that life is taken from him, it is.

if a woman chooses to abort her child, it is not murder. if someone kills that foetus against her will, it is murder.


the discrepency is that in one situation, killing a fetus is looked upon as taking a life, and in another - it isn't.

i understand what youre saying, i still dont see the problem however.

the same \'discrepancy\' as you call it, exists between euthanasia & murder. if you decide to cut off your own finger, you can. if someone cuts it off against your will, its grievous bodily harm. a finger is a part of you, just like a foetus.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Don't you love double standards?

+ 1

ok...must be bed time...shaolin_Z is starting to agree with me...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i understand what youre saying, i still dont see the problem however. the same 'discrepancy' as you call it, exists between euthanasia & murder. if you decide to cut off your own finger, you can. if someone cuts it off against your will, its grievous bodily harm. a finger is a part of you, just like a foetus.

if you agree that cutting off your own finger is just as much grievous bodily harm as having someone else cut off your finger, you also agree that it's not the same discrepancy i described above.

now, i know you didn't mean your last sentence literally, but i'll use it as if you did: a finger is a part of you, just like a foetus, hence having either an abortion or a miscarriage due to assault equates to grievous bodily harm. why should it become a murder charge when - and only when - the miscarriage is due to assault?

aborting our way to perfect kids?

more like pigeonholing our DNA into oblivion and ruining all potential for evolutionary progress.

To clarify, my point was that I do not find the logic in determining the "human-ness" of a fetus by who kills it.

I don't see how a mother killing a fetus makes it non-human, whereas an outside individual killing a fetus makes it human.

I think that the "cutting off of the finger" analogy is a little different. When aborting a fetus you are terminating the life of a "thing." That "thing" is different, at least genetically, from the mother. If you cut off your finger, you are cutting off a piece of yourself, but you are not ending the existance of a genetically different "being."

Maybe a closer analogy would be suicide, which is illegal. However, referring to my first point, regardless of suicide or murder, it is still considered the death of a human, independent of who does the killing. Unlike the fetus.

In science class--when you dissected a pig fetus--was it not a pig?

I'm sorry, but I view a fetus as an unborn human (still a human). An embryo or zygote is a different story as it is undeveloped. This seems to be an argument about the "degree" to which development constitutes humanness. I have to agree with Neo on the statement about the hypocrisy--if a pregnant woman is killed (generally regardless of "how" pregnant she is, society views it MUCH differently than if she were not pregnant. However, if she chooses to kill the future baby herself via abortion or throwing herself down the stairs or whatever, then it is OK).

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Actually, I'd imagine this happens pretty frequently. In the case of siamese twins, the doctors / parents often have to chose which twin lives and which twin dies when there aren't enough fully formed organs to sustain them both. In these sorts of cases, the rights of the twin with the greatest likelihood of surviving the surgery are given precedence over the rights of the twin least likely to survive. It may sound harsh, but unfortunately if one of them isn't fatally severed from the other then the odds are that they will both die. So, to answer your question, there is nothing necessarily wrong or immoral about killng a "conscious lump" if it saves the life of the other twin.

A situation where the life of one is threatened is understandable, and I am not against abortion when it's needed. But what if they both seem healthy? Or, even better, what if they'll split up in a couple of months? Or even better yet, what if one of the twins actually chose to have a lump grow on him? The actual killing of the twin scenario has more rationale behind itself than a pregnant female scenario.

quote:

In principle, I'd agree with you: it would be great if a man could somehow have equal rights over the fetus he helped to create, but - practically - how could such principles be implemented? It would be unthinkably immoral to either force a woman to have an abortion or to unwillingly go through 9 months of labour, so what other options are there? How could these theoretical "rights" be implemented in practice?

It would be immoral if the woman had no choice over it. As long as she had a choice over it, I don't see what's immoral about it. People should be responsible for their actions. It's like taking a loan and then realizing you don't have enough money to pay it back without selling your house. Should the bank forgive the loan? Or is it your fault for not thinking?

Besides, what makes a newborn child so much different from a fetus? Is it conscious? Not really. Can it survive on its own? Nope. It's just laying on the bed and occasionally crying. Basically it is not much different from a fetus at all.

Oooo abortion, what an important issue. It is obviously so very key to the way our society and government flows. I mean, without abortion our society would crumble. What are we to do without abortion?

Jeeze. I guess if we stopped talking about abortion, we'd have to spend time, money, and effort on reforming education.

But jeeze! That's hard!

I think I'll keep talking about abortion.










































fucking retarded.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka In science class--when you dissected a pig fetus--was it not a pig? I'm sorry, but I view a fetus as an unborn human (still a human). An embryo or zygote is a different story as it is undeveloped. This seems to be an argument about the "degree" to which development constitutes humanness. I have to agree with Neo on the statement about the hypocrisy--if a pregnant woman is killed (generally regardless of "how" pregnant she is, society views it MUCH differently than if she were not pregnant. However, if she chooses to kill the future baby herself via abortion or throwing herself down the stairs or whatever, then it is OK).

+1 Shakka, good way you put it.

who cares

quote:

Originally posted by DJFreaq who cares

You don't, so don't post. You're adding nothing to the discussion.

Sorry, this isn't the CORe.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono You don't, so don't post. You're adding nothing to the discussion. Sorry, this isn't the CORe.

Lol. Then you didn't read my previous post did you.

Maybe I'll quote myself to help you out a bit:

quote:

Originally posted by wrzonance Oooo abortion, what an important issue. It is obviously so very key to the way our society and government flows. I mean, without abortion our society would crumble. What are we to do without abortion? Jeeze. I guess if we stopped talking about abortion, we'd have to spend time, money, and effort on reforming education. But jeeze! That's hard! I think I'll keep talking about abortion.

Although. I was in a bad mood. So. *sigh* forgive me for just blurting "who cares."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm sorry, but I view a fetus as an unborn human (still a human). An embryo or zygote is a different story as it is undeveloped. This seems to be an argument about the "degree" to which development constitutes humanness. I have to agree with Neo on the statement about the hypocrisy--if a pregnant woman is killed (generally regardless of "how" pregnant she is, society views it MUCH differently than if she were not pregnant. However, if she chooses to kill the future baby herself via abortion or throwing herself down the stairs or whatever, then it is OK).

That's not very relevant, since even if the fetus possessed human rights, rights are different than entitlements, and so it only has a right to live insofar as it can sustain it's own life. It bears mention that this interpretation of rights used to be an important conservative principle back when, you know, principles actually meant something to conservatives.

So even if a fetus did have a right to life, it still wouldn't supersede a woman's rights to privacy and personal sovereignty to such an extent that she could be forced, against her will, to carry the fetus to term while supplying it with the various things it needs to survive. And if we are prepared to attribute the same rights to a fetus, then we must also bestow upon the fetus the same responsibilities, which includes the responsibility to respect and act in accordance with the inherent rights of other human beings. Which means, unfortunately, that if asked to leave a woman's body the fetus is reponsible to comply, and if it is unwilling or unable to comply, then it is the woman's right to have the fetus removed, even at risk the the health and safety of the fetus (in this case, it is actually the fetus' abdication of it's responsibilities which is endangering it.)

I'm sure the absurdity of asking a fetus to leave the womb is quite apparent, but it is only a reflection of the absurdity of attributing rights to a fetus in the first place, since this absurd type of scenario is the logical conclusion of rights being assigned to a fetus which, by it's very nature, cannot comprehend much less shoulder the commensurate responsibilities.

I would also point out that the above scenario demonstrates the compatibility of current abortion laws with laws providing for additional punishment in the case of the murder of a woman carrying a fetus, since in the case of the abortion as a means by which to enforce a woman's rights against an uncooperative fetus, it is the fetus that is ultimately responsible for any ill-fate which befalls it, whereas the sole responsibility for the death of the fetus must fall upon the killer of the woman carrying it in the case of a murder.

This is not to suggest that the aforementioned scenario is the best way to resolve this issue (although it may be the way most compatible with current law.) The best way, in fact, is to assign the fetus no rights and responsibilities in the first place, and to refrain from viewing it as an independent entity (since it is by it's very nature dependent). Hence, abortion only involves one person, and therefore the government has no right to involve itself in the decision. And consequently a murderer should not be able to be tried for the death of a fetus (since the fetus is not an independent entity, it's death cannot be taken independently.) This is the most coherent and logical solution to the questions posed by this issue, and the most compatible with any sound philosophy of rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That's not very relevant, since even if the fetus possessed human rights, rights are different than entitlements, and so it only has a right to live insofar as it can sustain it's own life. It bears mention that this interpretation of rights used to be an important conservative principle back when, you know, principles actually meant something to conservatives. So even if a fetus did have a right to life, it still wouldn't supersede a woman's rights to privacy and personal sovereignty to such an extent that she could be forced, against her will, to carry the fetus to term while supplying it with the various things it needs to survive. And if we are prepared to attribute the same rights to a fetus, then we must also bestow upon the fetus the same responsibilities, which includes the responsibility to respect and act in accordance with the inherent rights of other human beings. Which means, unfortunately, that if asked to leave a woman's body the fetus is reponsible to comply, and if it is unwilling or unable to comply, then it is the woman's right to have the fetus removed, even at risk the the health and safety of the fetus (in this case, it is actually the fetus' abdication of it's responsibilities which is endangering it.) I'm sure the absurdity of asking a fetus to leave the womb is quite apparent, but it is only a reflection of the absurdity of attributing rights to a fetus in the first place, since this absurd type of scenario is the logical conclusion of rights being assigned to a fetus which, by it's very nature, cannot comprehend much less shoulder the commensurate responsibilities. I would also point out that the above scenario demonstrates the compatibility of current abortion laws with laws providing for additional punishment in the case of the murder of a woman carrying a fetus, since in the case of the abortion as a means by which to enforce a woman's rights against an uncooperative fetus, it is the fetus that is ultimately responsible for any ill-fate which befalls it, whereas the sole responsibility for the death of the fetus must fall upon the killer of the woman carrying it in the case of a murder. This is not to suggest that the aforementioned scenario is the best way to resolve this issue (although it may be the way most compatible with current law.) The best way, in fact, is to assign the fetus no rights and responsibilities in the first place, and to refrain from viewing it as an independent entity (since it is by it's very nature dependent). Hence, abortion only involves one person, and therefore the government has no right to involve itself in the decision. And consequently a murderer should not be able to be tried for the death of a fetus (since the fetus is not an independent entity, it's death cannot be taken independently.) This is the most coherent and logical solution to the questions posed by this issue, and the most compatible with any sound philosophy of rights.

Couldn't you say that newborns, the severely mentally and physically retarded and those in a comatose or severely injured/diseased state are also "dependent?" Does that make those people not human? Can a parent of a severly disabled child simply abandon or kill that child because s/he is infrining on thier rights to privacy or personal freedom?

Also, except in the case of rape (one of the few cases I do support abortion, although see below), the woman knows full well the possible consequences of her actions. By willingly submitting to sex, she (in my opinion) gives up these rights to "privacy and personal soverignty" that you are arguing for. Biologically speaking, the sole purpose of sex is reproduction. If the woman can somehow prove that she did not realize sex could lead to pregnancy, then maybe I can see a motive for abortion. However, I find it very unlikely that even an incredibly small proportion of women having sex don't realize that it may lead to pregnancy.

From my background I have two criteria that must be met before a developing child is considered to be "human." The first is syngamy and the second is implantation. If both these events occur, then the overwhelming majority of the time a baby will be carried full-term. Yes, there are still times when this will not occur, but I'm looking at statistics and for the most obvious and scientifically identifiable cut-off point.

Now if you want to prevent either of these two criteria from occuring, I have no problem. Conventional birth control or so-called "morning after pills" do the exactly that. However, when an abortion is used as a late-stage means of "contraception" I do believe it crosses the line. And, as I said before, if the woman willingly has sex, she must also realize that in some cases every means of contraception will fail and she may become pregnant.

Lastly, I note on rape. Yes, I do support the right to an abortion in these cases. However, only a small percentage of rape victims become pregnant, and their numbers are insignificant when looked at in context with the number of abortions performed annually.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Couldn't you say that newborns, the severely mentally and physically retarded and those in a comatose or severely injured/diseased state are also "dependent?" Does that make those people not human? Can a parent of a severly disabled child simply abandon or kill that child because s/he is infrining on thier rights to privacy or personal freedom?

No parent is ever forced to raise a newborn or severely disabled child, nor is anyone enslaved to fulfill the needs of the mentally or physically retarded, comatose, or severely injured/diseased. Although an individual can be required to pursue means of seperating themselves from such a situation which endanger the dependant as little as possible, in none of the aforementioned situations can a person's right to privacy or personal freedom be usurped by a right to life.

In the case of a fetus, there is no other way to preserve the rights of the mother than removing it.

quote:

Also, except in the case of rape (one of the few cases I do support abortion, although see below), the woman knows full well the possible consequences of her actions. By willingly submitting to sex, she (in my opinion) gives up these rights to "privacy and personal soverignty" that you are arguing for. Biologically speaking, the sole purpose of sex is reproduction. If the woman can somehow prove that she did not realize sex could lead to pregnancy, then maybe I can see a motive for abortion. However, I find it very unlikely that even an incredibly small proportion of women having sex don't realize that it may lead to pregnancy.

That is a red herring and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Yes, sexual intercourse can potentially lead to pregnancy, but it simply does not follow, that to engage in it indicates an abdication of any of one's rights. That is a specious point of view, akin to suggesting that the right to life is abdicated the moment one chooses to engage in an activity that poses a potential risk to one's life.

Furthermore, you state that it is merely "your opinion" that a woman's choice to have sex somehow nullifies her right to privacy. What if people don't happen to share that particular opinion of yours? Should they, too, be prohibited from having an abortion on the basis of what you acknowledge to be nothing more than your personal opinion?

Your egocentric and philosophically vacuous position on this issue makes me shudder, and I wouldn't show off your lack of proper consideration any further by suggesting that anyone other than yourself ought to refrain from having an abortion on the basis of your own very personal and rather dubiously formed "opinion."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Lastly, I note on rape. Yes, I do support the right to an abortion in these cases. However, only a small percentage of rape victims become pregnant, and their numbers are insignificant when looked at in context with the number of abortions performed annually.

Also, if you were raped, why not give the baby for adoption?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.