Bad Anti-Abortion argument [Archive]

Rayn

3rd September 2003, 10:17 PM

Very true evildave, very true.

Yahweh, I guess it hinges upon our definitions of "human" and "birth," but I don't really want to get bogged down in semantical debate. I respect your opinion as you've acknowledged to respect mine, and I wouldn't take any offense if you did want to expound upon "human" and "birth" in that quote.

Personally, I'm unsure of as to exactly where one could draw the line. Essentially, it seems it should be all-or-nothing if we are going by pure ideals, but as it's societal, then we must equivocate to an extent. Freedom and the pursuit to happiness also apply to the woman, and I'm not sure that I can deny them these rights when all that stands there is a few cells, that are still fundamentally a part of the woman. Of course, once you apply the label "human" to these cells, then different values come into play, mainly a respect for an individual self apart from the woman.

I also think this debate would extend into capital punishment as well, basically insofar as the concept of "self" comes in and self-responsibility and -culpability. Basically, a question in this area would be at what point does a person's mental/emotional state invalidate such responsibility? I believe that such responsibility is inherent in being human, that in exchange for such "natural rights" we become culpable for our actions in pursuing them. But, if such responsibility is forfeit, what else connoted by "human" is lost as well?

Applying this to the topic of abortion, it seems that once we apply "human" to the few cells, we must take away the label from the woman as we take away the "natural rights" (2 of 3 at least, all 3 if it is the case where a mother's life is at stake) and so she is not responsible for her own actions by our denial of any these rights. So, in applying the label of "human" to these few cells, we also take away any sense of responsibility that the woman has in the matter. By not allowing her the choice of applying "human" to these cells, we also deny her ability to apply it to herself.

Well, those are some thoughts on the matter anyways. I would like to know what you think, Philosopher Yahweh and others.

[I guess I do want to get bogged down in semantics :rolleyes: to myself]

Yahzi

4th September 2003, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
"But the baby doesn't have a choice"
Why should anybody care about the baby's choice?

Does the baby vote? Is it a citizen? Is it even a person? No, even the pro-lifers admit it is only a potential person.

That and a 59 cents will get you a doughnut.

Yahweh
The pro-choice argument is simple. I have the right to my body. Period. At no point may the government compel me to share my blood or my internal organs with anybody. This is unquestionable. Literally, because I am a man. The only leap you need to make is to extend that same right to women.

As long as the government cannot forcibly strap you (a man) to a hospital bed for nine months to save some poor beggar's life, then how can you demand that they do that to women?

Who cares if a baby dies in the process? If a bum breaks into my house, I can have the police throw him out onto the street, even if means he'll starve to death. It's my right, and my house.

Now I agree we should live in a society that doesn't allow bums to starve to death, and I'm happy to contribute my tax dollars to the cause. But the pro-life position is akin to saying that since we need to support our bums, what we'll do is randomly select individuals to provide home and food for each bum. And not even give them any tax dollars to do it. Um. No.

When the government figures out how to save fetuses with tax dollars, they can tax me for it. But they can't sieze my internal organs under any circumstances. See the difference?

Yahzi

4th September 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Rayn
Of course, once you apply the label "human" to these cells
I disagree, as I hope my previous post shows. I don't think it matters whether the fetus is human or not. The government cannot compel me to feed and board soldiers in my house: how on earth could it compel me to feed and board citizens in my body?

There might be some ethical concern about helping out a person who needs a place to stay, but there clearly cannot be a legal concern.

Zep

4th September 2003, 01:19 AM

I see this whole issue in much simpler terms, especially if some preconceptions (sorry, no pun intended) are noted and then dropped.

First, "pro-choice" does NOT mean abortion is the first or only option, nor that it negates the requirement for education and alternatives. Instead, it is a position of ensuring that ALL RATIONAL OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE to choose from and that they are provided as genuinely supported medical solutions.

Second, "pro-life" should not be equated to "forced pregnancy" or "making abortion illegal". I see that as a fanatic's position, and thus not really rational at all. Instead, it is a position of attempting to ensure that abortion is not used as a repeated uncaring solution to the problems of poorly planned pregnancies.

Now if you look at these refined definitions, it can be seen that THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Another little factoid that MUST be kept in mind as well (and I give this with support from a direct family member). The choice here is not between abortion and pregnancy. It is between LEGAL abortion and ILLEGAL abortion. Be clear - it WILL be obtained, regardless of its legality.

That all being so, I find myself on the side of "pro-choice" simply because when an abortion is sought, and it will, it should be done by a real trained doctor in a proper hospital, not a backyard butcher with a coathanger.

I also strongly advocate much more emphasis on sexual education for the young, including total and frank honesty when it comes to contraception and pregnancy. I have no problem with the "Just Say No" campaign - it is relevant and makes sense. But I also advocate supportive counselling for women who find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy situation, not condemnation and harassment.

Nefertiti

4th September 2003, 02:22 AM

I am anti abortion, for reasons of an inconvenience, wrong sex, novelty factor wore off, or entrapment.

I am for abortion only, if it threatens the mothers life or that of the baby. If the baby has a serious disability that threatens its life, or would mean it's quality of life is non existent. A baby conceived out of rape. If the baby is stillborn. If the mother is too young, or too old. An unfit mother who has a prior catalogued and known history.

The argument that the baby did not chose or ask to be created is lame. Not one of us chose or expressed an opinion about it but we are here. In certain criteria abortions should be allowed in others no.

UnrepentantSinner

4th September 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Zep
That all being so, I find myself on the side of "pro-choice" simply because when an abortion is sought, and it will, it should be done by a real trained doctor in a proper hospital, not a backyard butcher with a coathanger.

I also strongly advocate much more emphasis on sexual education for the young, including total and frank honesty when it comes to contraception and pregnancy. I have no problem with the "Just Say No" campaign - it is relevant and makes sense. But I also advocate supportive counselling for women who find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy situation, not condemnation and harassment.

This is my position as well. It's like my opinion about guns. They shouldn't be used to solve every little disagreement in your life, but the are some desperate situations that warrent desperate measures.

The U.S. is the most screwed up place in the world when it comes to sexuality and child rearing. We have a sex saturated media that bombards children and worse - teens with sexual imagry and suggestiveness, yet we tell them "No, don't do it." :mad: What the hell do you think is one thing you can tell a kid that will virtually guarantee they'll want to do it. :mad:

We need to have comprehensive sex education starting in elementay schools with everything from the plumbing and what happens during pregnancy to the ramifications - legal, lifestyle wise, financially and what sort of impact it has on a child of a pregnancy especially to an unwed 14 year old.

:mad: Now if you'll excuse me my tongue is sore from biting it when I wanted to use cuss words...

Zep

4th September 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
:mad: Now if you'll excuse me my tongue is sore from biting it when I wanted to use cuss words... I can REALLY see you like this in your current avatar! :)

Gulliamo

4th September 2003, 06:10 AM

I am pro choice. That being said I think that we could drastically reduce the number of abortions being performed. If half of the pro-life advocates would stand up and demand male birth control then the number of abortions being performed would drop like the proverbial rock.

We have the technology but the companies that can provide it claim that "There is no demand" or that "It would be unprofitable." If the pro-lifers would focus on getting this technology distributed then the abortion issue may solve itself!

Zep

4th September 2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
We need to have comprehensive sex education starting in elementay schools with everything from the plumbing and what happens during pregnancy to the ramifications - legal, lifestyle wise, financially and what sort of impact it has on a child of a pregnancy especially to an unwed 14 year old.And a big amen to that!

NOT telling kids the truth about sex and reproduction and what goes with that is tantamount to a crime against them in my book.

MRC_Hans

4th September 2003, 06:37 AM

I think abortion is a damn bad solution. AND I think its damn inevitable. Until such day that we have virtually no unwanted pregnancies, we must put up with abortion. (I'm not talking about abortions indicated by disease in mother or fetus).

It does not matter if you count it as a killing or not. We accept killing human beings for a number of reasons, some of which are convinience:

- We accept killing people for political reasons.
- For the sake of national security.
- For the sake of a convinient transportation system.

Hans

Skeptical Greg

4th September 2003, 06:41 AM

I think the most overlooked falacy in the abortion question, is the assumption of the ' sacredness ' of human fetal life, not to mention human life itself.

I personally feel my life, and those I care about is special, but realize there is no rational/logical reason for such beliefs, beyond the instinct of self preservation.

arcticpenguin

4th September 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Rayn
Very true evildave, very true.

Yahweh, I guess it hinges upon our definitions of "human" and "birth," but I don't really want to get bogged down in semantical debate. I respect your opinion as you've acknowledged to respect mine, and I wouldn't take any offense if you did want to expound upon "human" and "birth" in that quote.

I must agree with Yahzi on this one. Of course the fetus is "human". What, a woman is going to be carrying a chimpanzee fetus? :rolleyes:

I think "person" is the right word and the right question, meaning a human entitled to the rights mentioned (If there is a more appropriate word, someone please chime in). What constitutes personhood is for society to decide, and it has.

If someone else's definition of "person" is different than mine, and their definition is based on their religious beliefs, then they have no right to apply their religious beliefs to me.

4th September 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I am pro choice. That being said I think that we could drastically reduce the number of abortions being performed. If half of the pro-life advocates would stand up and demand male birth control then the number of abortions being performed would drop like the proverbial rock.

We have a male birth control device. It is called a condom.

We have the technology but the companies that can provide it claim that "There is no demand" or that "It would be unprofitable." If the pro-lifers would focus on getting this technology distributed then the abortion issue may solve itself!

In the case you are speaking about male contraceptive pills, then we don't have them, yet. Or at least all sources that I've seen imply that the research is going on but no pill has yet passed the tests. As I recall, there are two main obstacles:

- hormonal pills tend to lower the sexual drive.
- it is just so difficult to stop every single one of the several hundreds of millions potential fertilizers.

Perhaps a year ago I noticed an announcement that called for volunteers to participate in a male pill test. They specifically asked for men in established relationships where having a baby would not be a catastrophe.

Michael Redman

4th September 2003, 07:14 AM

Like AP and others have said, it obviously doesn't matter if the fetus is "alive" or "human". Of course it is. So is my appendix, and no one cares of I get that removed. What matters is personhood. I think it should be at self-awareness, but that's an impractical measure, and I'm OK with the compromise of live birth.

By the way, why are christians so damned sure personhood starts at conception. Does the Bible support this?

4th September 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

I disagree, as I hope my previous post shows. I don't think it matters whether the fetus is human or not. The government cannot compel me to feed and board soldiers in my house: how on earth could it compel me to feed and board citizens in my body?

I feel this argument is not particularly strong. After all, you didn't create those soldiers that need boarding, but you did create the fetus that is inside you. The general principle is that everyone is responsible for the results of his or her own actions.

And to mention again my own opinion. I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. I feel that anytime an abortion happens someone has goofed and there would have been better ways to handle situation. However, I think that a woman should be able to get an abortion if she desires so.

Mendor

4th September 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by LW
I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. I feel that anytime an abortion happens someone has goofed and there would have been better ways to handle situation. However, I think that a woman should be able to get an abortion if she desires so. Amen.

arcticpenguin

4th September 2003, 07:30 AM

Gulliamo

4th September 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by LW

We have a male birth control device. It is called a condom.

The failure rate is staggering. Given the perfect conditions are met, the side of the box states that they have a 99% success rate. That leaves a 1% failure. Lets assume a 300/year trial over 10 years. That gives you a cumulative 30 days of failure! Not good!

Originally posted by LW

In the case you are speaking about male contraceptive pills, then we don't have them, yet.
I was referring to a recent Mens Health article (sorry, couldn't find it online) that basically agreed with your statement for a pill solution. But claimed there are many other "mechanical" means.

Either way, if people spent 1/2 as much time and effort finding a solution rather than protesting the result of the problem we would have a "fix" in no time.

Skeptical Greg

4th September 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Except of course in cases of rape. I suspect all but the most zealous anti-choice proponents would allow exceptions for cases of rape.

If abortion were outlawed except in cases of rape, the number of reported rapes would go way up. The only way ms. suddenly-altered future can get an abortion is to accuse her sexual partner of rape? It's going to happen.
Do you think most of the movers and shakers in the Catholic Church would be consisered " zealous anti-choice proponents "..

More Catholics behaving badly (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14514)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl, who was four months pregnant after being raped, has had an abortion in a private clinic.

...

Church representatives urged against an abortion...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skeptical Greg

4th September 2003, 08:13 AM

Yahzi

4th September 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by LW
I feel this argument is not particularly strong. After all, you didn't create those soldiers that need boarding, but you did create the fetus that is inside you. The general principle is that everyone is responsible for the results of his or her own actions.

This objection seems to make sense, but on careful inspection it fails. What you are trying to do is argue that having sex automatically equates to choosing pregnancy, or at least the possiblity of pregnancy. This is not true.

Consider: if you go out in the rain, without a raincoat or an umbrella, you will very likely catch a cold. Will the doctor refuse to treat you because you brought your condition on yourself? No, of course not. It was not your intention to catch a cold. Your "punishment" for your actions is merely having to undergo the cure.

Equally, a woman who uses birth control has clearly indicated her intentions. If the birth control fails, that is a failure of technology, which is properly corrected by the application of more technology.

Once you understand this, then you realize it doesn't matter if she uses birth control or not. It doesn't even matter if her intent was to get pregnant. What matters is what choice she wants to make now. Her rights to decide how to dispose of her body are not diminished by time, any more than the doctor could tell you that he won't treat your flu because you didn't come in when you had a cold.

The notion that "sex = risk of pregnancy" is like saying that "walking in the rain = risk of death from the flu." Both of those are true physically, but for some reason only one of them seems to be held as morally true. I think that's nuts, and I think the whole point of technology is to allow us to escape natural consequences (like death at an early age, painful toothaches, etc. etc. etc.). Our intent trumps nature, at least when we can make it stick. Nobody objects to this in any other venue than abortion. (Except the JH'rs and their blood fetish).

Finally, I don't consider the fetus to be human. My argument shows that it doesn't matter if it is, but I don't think of that way. I think of it as a potential person, but my wife kills one of them every month. I used to think that abortions were somehow undesirable, but then I realized that was only a sentimental position. I am against abortions because they are expensive and traumatic for the patient. Make them cheap and harmless, like, say, the morning after pill, and I can't pretend to care whether you prevent that egg from sticking to the uterine wall before or after it's already done so. But - since the cost to society of a child being raised by someone who doesn't want to raise a child is so high - the cost of abortions seems cheap. I say, open up the clinics and give them away for free.

While I realize that some people might make choices I wouldn't, I also realize that is the essence, and price, of freedom. I trust most my fellow citizens to make the right choice, and the ones that make the wrong choice, well, they probably shouldn't be raising kids anyway.

Jude

4th September 2003, 11:15 AM

As long as the government cannot forcibly strap you (a man) to a hospital bed for nine months to save some poor beggar's life, then how can you demand that they do that to women?
They can't, you're right. But how often are women forced into pregnancy? You don't see virgins getting pregnant out of the blue one day. If they don't want to face up to the consequences of their actions, then they should use contraceptives.

Jude

4th September 2003, 11:47 AM

The pro-choice argument is simple. I have the right to my body. Period. At no point may the government compel me to share my blood or my internal organs with anybody. This is unquestionable. Literally, because I am a man. The only leap you need to make is to extend that same right to women.
As opposed to the government compelling me to pay a substantial portion of my income for child support if the woman exercises her choice to endure the pregnancy? After all, choosing sex isn't the same as choosing to pay child support.

Skeptical Greg

4th September 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Jude

As opposed to the government compelling me to pay a substantial portion of my income for child support if the woman exercises her choice to endure the pregnancy? After all, choosing sex isn't the same as choosing to pay child support.

..... or the same as choosing to be a responsible citizen of the society you choose to live in...

Hmmm.. Let me see.. My only options.. make the b**ch get an abortion or run the risk of paying child support..
Works for me..

Yahweh

4th September 2003, 02:02 PM

I've taken the easy way out...

My gender is identified as "dude". Because I am a "dude", I decide not to have nor exercise an opinion.

I'm a minimalist, can ya tell...

arcticpenguin

4th September 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Jude

They can't, you're right. But how often are women forced into pregnancy? You don't see virgins getting pregnant out of the blue one day. If they don't want to face up to the consequences of their actions, then they should use contraceptives.
May I presume that when a woman is forcibly raped and becomes pregnant as a result, that you would consider abortion reasonable in that instance?

Rayn

4th September 2003, 05:03 PM

arcticpenguin posted: I must agree with Yahzi on this one. Of course the fetus is "human". What, a woman is going to be carrying a chimpanzee fetus?

I think "person" is the right word and the right question, meaning a human entitled to the rights mentioned (If there is a more appropriate word, someone please chime in). What constitutes personhood is for society to decide, and it has.

If someone else's definition of "person" is different than mine, and their definition is based on their religious beliefs, then they have no right to apply their religious beliefs to me.

I suppose I misspoke when I posted penguin, but that is because I assume "human"-hood to also mean "person"-hood. No need to be nasty about it by attributing to me some claim that I obviously would not endorse. Give me some benefit of the doubt, please.

UnrepentantSinner

4th September 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Consider: if you go out in the rain, without a raincoat or an umbrella, you will very likely catch a cold.

Mom? Is that you posting with Yahzi's login? ;)

Your analogy would be correct assuming one encountered someone with rhinovirus while you were outside in the rain.

gnome

4th September 2003, 05:54 PM

I am also of the opinion that the cutoff line should be "personhood" and agree this is hard to define...

I would say that a newly-concieved fetus is not a person--but when does it happen? I would want to study brain development and response to make up my mind fully. Until then I say the earlier in the pregnancy the better.

triadboy

4th September 2003, 06:20 PM

It should be considered well into the teens.

sorgoth

4th September 2003, 06:39 PM

I think abortion should be legal within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. I think it's fairly sure that the baby does not think yet, or cares if it lives or not. I mean, we should give the women the chance, but if she throws that chance away......well, it's her problem. (I guess I'd be a little more ...elastic considering cases of rape or cases where the baby would have a bad standard of life (Mental retardation, mishappen, risk of death for mother,ect)

Zep

4th September 2003, 06:59 PM

I would suggest that "pro-choice" does not automatically entail a "yeah, whatever" attitude either. As in, "Damn, I forgot to take the pill last night. Oh well. If I wait a week or so I can have an abortion instead."

I would recommend that counselling for pregnant women seeking abortions must be done on a case-by-case basis. The raped young teen who is pregnant much against her will and is definitely in a state of shock is NOT ANYWHERE in the same universe as the $50 trollop from the red-light district who is in for her fifth D&C. Who they talk to and the courses of action to be taken will also vary significantly. Abortion is only an OPTION, not a mandatory solution.

However, if it does get down to the decision that an abortion is the right course of action, for whatever reason, it still should be done in a real hospital by a proper doctor. And that means it must be available as a legal medical treatment. Which the rabid pro-life camp is campaigning to not allow. And I oppose their position accordingly.

Roadtoad

4th September 2003, 07:15 PM

Part of the problem I have in reading this board is that I encounter answers to arguments that I've had years before, and here I find the right answer to some idiot's comeback which would have ended the whole thing like right now quick... D'oh!

Personally, I don't know how I'd define myself anymore. I find I agree with Nefertiti on much of this. (I have a hard time justifying a mother who's "too old." How do you define that?) I have four sons, my mother demanding that we abort for certain the youngest two. (Long story there.)

Personally, I was the guy who fathered them, the least I could do was raise them. If it came down to it, I'd do it alone, but thankfully, I wound up with a wonderful wife in all of this as well. (Gee, I guess you CAN do the right thing and come out ahead...) If she'd chosen to abort, there was little I could have done about it.

At the same time, as has been mentioned, if she'd had them, told me to go to hell, and gone to the courts, I would have been paying child support for them. (Actually, that's what happened with the older two. Yes, we were married. No, I didn't duck out on my responsibility. And yes, I still send them money when they need it.) Men have most of the responsibility, but few of the rights. Part of this is our own fault, for allowing deadbeats to run loose.

But, to get back to the main point of this, (finally... Yes, I know...), these are not the only bad anti-abortion arguments. God only knows we saw one of the worst in the case of Nancy Klein, and we'll no doubt see more. Yahweh, as seems to be his wont, (or would that be MO), seems to have come up with one of the best arguments against abortion.

Pity that most people who oppose abortion would discount it because he's "not one of us..."

Jude

4th September 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

May I presume that when a woman is forcibly raped and becomes pregnant as a result, that you would consider abortion reasonable in that instance?
Well, I'm pro-choice so I don't think there's an unreasonable instance. I'm just trying to make sure our arguments are water-tight.

5th September 2003, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Except of course in cases of rape. I suspect all but the most zealous anti-choice proponents would allow exceptions for cases of rape.

I don't know about other countries, but at least here you can get receipe-free "day after" contraceptive pills that prevent pregnancy if taken within 24 hours of intercourse and may work 48 hours afterwards. I think that those pills are in most cases better solution than waiting to see whether a pregnancy started or not. Those pills are not a panacea, though, and some women react quite strongly and may be sick for a day after taking one.

UnrepentantSinner

5th September 2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by LW
I don't know about other countries, but at least here you can get receipe-free "day after" contraceptive pills that prevent pregnancy if taken within 24 hours of intercourse and may work 48 hours afterwards. I think that those pills are in most cases better solution than waiting to see whether a pregnancy started or not. Those pills are not a panacea, though, and some women react quite strongly and may be sick for a day after taking one.

Morning after pills are availible in the U.S. and there is some effort on the part of physicians (the most high profile being Dr. Drew Pinksy of Loveline and ABC news fame.

Many in the religious community oppose them, despite the fact that they don't cause an abortion. The pills prevent implantation of the egg so a pregnancy never actually occurs, ergo no abortion is caused.

In the minds of some religious types, the moment the sperm penetrates the egg wall - it's a Baby, period. I guess there's no need to let science get in the of your beliefs.

(Please note, the morning after pills are just concentrated doses of regular birth control pills, they're not RU 486 or other such chemical abortofactants.)

5th September 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

This objection seems to make sense, but on careful inspection it fails. What you are trying to do is argue that having sex automatically equates to choosing pregnancy, or at least the possiblity of pregnancy. This is not true.

Having sex does not equate for choosing pregnancy, but it does equate for choosing the possibility of pregnancy.

Finally, I don't consider the fetus to be human. My argument shows that it doesn't matter if it is, but I don't think of that way.

And I still think that your argument is invalid. The government already forces people to take care of other people. If you throw out your already born child, you will end up in a prison pretty quickly. It is a rather small step to extend this to cover unborn children. In that case it is very relevant to decide when a fetus becomes human.

I used to think that abortions were somehow undesirable, but then I realized that was only a sentimental position.

I don't have any medical training so I don't know whether the "common knowledge" is true or not, but I've read from quite many sources that having many abortions may cause infertility later on.

Skeptical Greg

5th September 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by LW

I don't have any medical training so I don't know whether the "common knowledge" is true or not, but I've read from quite many sources that having many abortions may cause infertility later on.

Sounds like a fitting reward, albeit a rather awkward way to achieve this goal..

Skeptical Greg

5th September 2003, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Jude

I'm just trying to make sure our arguments are water-tight.

Make sure you keep us informed of all your current and future ' water-tight ' arguments.. They are in short supply around here..

Candace

5th September 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
I've taken the easy way out...

My gender is identified as "dude". Because I am a "dude", I decide not to have nor exercise an opinion.

I'm a minimalist, can ya tell...

Good job! It's more rare than you think for 'dude' types to realize that the question is abstract for them, and to vote accordingly.

And yes, I know that 50% of the subject is in the realm of the 'dude' but the situation is completely different from the vantage points of the two participants.

My mate is completely supportive of decisions I had to make in the past, but at no time did he pressure me to make one choice or the other. I did what I did due to several factors (failure of birth control implants on the one hand, severe genetic deformity on the other) and his position was very much the same as yours. (And it's not always the easy way out to refrain from making choices or decisions.)

But then again, to some people, just because I decided NOT to have a child I could have sold to the freak show, I'm a baby killer.

:v:

Kevin_Lowe

5th September 2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Make sure you keep us informed of all your current and future ' water-tight ' arguments.. They are in short supply around here..

No, really, the pro-choice argument for most abortions *is* watertight.

We are willing to kill human appendices. We are willing to kill rats. Therefore, we are inconsistent if we aren't willing to kill fetuses that are as human as a human appendices, and dumber than rats, because there is no principled reason to discriminate between them.

Arguments against that position are either bad superstitious arguments ("Feti are special just because") and variations thereof) or bad emotional arguments ("Shouldn't we love everyone, including people who don't exist?").

It's only when you get to very late term abortions that you have to invoke arguments like JJ Thomson's, that a woman has a right to disconnnect a fetus from her body whether or not it has bad consequences for the fetus.

Myself, I don't count critters as being part of the human club until they can make up a fourth for Bridge. Until then they go in the rat club or the chimp club, as beings with moral value that don't have the neat attributes that make humans special.

calladus

5th September 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

In the minds of some religious types, the moment the sperm penetrates the egg wall - it's a Baby, period. I guess there's no need to let science get in the of your beliefs.

Yea, I see this too. I'm also not a doctor (Can't STAND the sight of blood <shudder!> ) But I've read that frequently a woman's fertilized egg will naturally be flushed out - sometimes it doesn't have the chance to stick around.

If this is true (I dunno for sure - Is there a Doctor on the Forum?) then logically a religious person should be doing all he/she can to make sure that EVERY fertalization will result in a viable birth.

calladus

5th September 2003, 06:52 AM

I don't know much about Humans, but I DO know a little bit about rabbits. One interesting thing about a pregnant rabbit is that if it is running low on food, or if it's in a high stress environment, it can reabsorb its fetuses. If there are not enough resources to raise a family - then it just stops.

This, to me, seems a sensible biological solution. I only wish that humans had this as a biological ability. Don't want to be pregnant? Cut back on your calories for a couple of weeks and the 'problem' goes away.

Skeptical Greg

5th September 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

No, really, the pro-choice argument for most abortions *is* watertight.

We are willing to kill human appendices. We are willing to kill rats. Therefore, we are inconsistent if we aren't willing to kill fetuses that are as human as a human appendices, and dumber than rats, because there is no principled reason to discriminate between them.

Arguments against that position are either bad superstitious arguments ("Feti are special just because") and variations thereof) or bad emotional arguments ("Shouldn't we love everyone, including people who don't exist?").

It's only when you get to very late term abortions that you have to invoke arguments like JJ Thomson's, that a woman has a right to disconnnect a fetus from her body whether or not it has bad consequences for the fetus.

Myself, I don't count critters as being part of the human club until they can make up a fourth for Bridge. Until then they go in the rat club or the chimp club, as beings with moral value that don't have the neat attributes that make humans special.

This would be an elaboration on some thoughts I expressed earlier, regarding the asumption by humans regarding the specialness of human life. Of course this assumption is very loosely applied, depending on how and when you feel the need to kill someone.

UnrepentantSinner

5th September 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Candace
But then again, to some people, just because I decided NOT to have a child I could have sold to the freak show, I'm a baby killer.

Sorry to snip most of your very powerful post, but I just wanted to highlight the part I wished to reply to. Two women in my life have faced this issue and I'm glad that the choice of having an abortion was there for them.

In 1980 (and I'm basing this on very nebulous recollections, we didn't talk about it much) my mother, who was 42 at the time thought she was pregnant. It turned out she wasn't, but I remember some discussion between my parents that they were glad the option of abortion was there.

In 2000 a woman I know who I thought was on the outs with her boyfriend got pregnant. She had an abortion. When she told me about it, to be honest, since I was hoping she'd dump him and be availible, I felt more consternation about her still having sex with him than I did about her having the abortion. She wasn't ready to have the baby, nor was she emotionally prepared for the birthing/adoption process. I"m glad the option of abortion was there.

Two different scenarios with two different sets of circumstances and two different outcomes - in both cases, I'm glad the option of legal abortion was availible.

I'll end this before going on a rant about "abortion support" groups that "support" (guilt trip) women who have been allowed to make the choice of carrying and bearing a child. :mad:

Candace

5th September 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Sorry to snip most of your very powerful post, but I just wanted to highlight the part I wished to reply to.

Not at all a problem and thanks for your words.

In 1980 (and I'm basing this on very nebulous recollections, we didn't talk about it much) my mother, who was 42 at the time thought she was pregnant. It turned out she wasn't, but I remember some discussion between my parents that they were glad the option of abortion was there.[/B]

My mother also found herself pregnant at age 42 - in 1965. The illegal abortion she got ensured that would never be a problem for her again. She warned me about those kinds of doctors as soon as I started my cycles.

I'll end this before going on a rant about "abortion support" groups that "support" (guilt trip) women who have been allowed to make the choice of carrying and bearing a child. :mad: [/B]

I will second that rant - I think that's why almost every discussion of abortion never seems to draw anyone who will admit having one - even though studies are that one in three women will have one in their lives.

And that's why I decided to pop in with my opinion - I'll tell anybody anything. Everybody knows just where they stand with me. And just what my opinions and experiences are.

Yahzi

5th September 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Jude
If they don't want to face up to the consequences of their actions, then they should use contraceptives.
Once again, you are equating sex with pregnancy. This is absurd. We might as well equate eating steak with heart disease, and refuse to treat people who have heart attacks, because after all they chose to get heart disease by eating steak.

Or crossing the street. No one forces you to cross the street, so if you get hit by a car while doing so, we won't treat you, because you should have to face up to the consequences of your actions.

Look: concentrate on the bum analogy. Suppose you invite a bum into your house and feed him for a day. Are you legally required to provide for him for the next 18 years? Have you surrendered your right to eject him from your house at will? Even more to the point: suppose you install a door on your house. Is the mere presence of a door, and the fact that you use it, an invitation to bums to move in?

You have linked sex with pregnancy in your own mind. There is no legal, moral, or logical reason to assume that the one is necessarily associated with the other. Heck, people can get pregnant today without having sex. This linkage is a cultural one, not a rational one.

As opposed to the government compelling me to pay a substantial portion of my income for child support if the woman exercises her choice to endure the pregnancy? After all, choosing sex isn't the same as choosing to pay child support.
I've posted elsewhere about how unfair this issue is. In fact, several pro-choicers were so incensed by my noticing that the situation is unfair that they decided I was anti-choice. Go figure.

Yes, it's unfair. But if you want to assert that the only way we can preserve men's rights is by trampling women's rights, you're going to be making an argument for Socialism.

Originally posted by LW
Having sex does not equate for choosing pregnancy, but it does equate for choosing the possibility of pregnancy.
No, it does not. Ask yourself this: does jumping out of an airplane equate to choosing the possiblity of death by falling? If you answer yes, then when a person's parachute fails to open, should we call it a suicide? No, of course not - it was just an an accident.

There is no question that jumping out of airplanes exposes you to a risk of death, but that is not the same thing as choosing. Pregnancy is not the moral consequence of sex, it is merely the physical consequence, and the whole point of technology is to allow us to avoid physical consequences we don't like.

Let's repeat that: Pregnancy is not the moral consequence of sex, it is merely the physical consequence. These are not the same thing.

If you throw out your already born child, you will end up in a prison pretty quickly.
Actually, it depends on how you do it. You can't just dump them on the street, anymore than you can dump trash on the street. Throwing out trash will get you into prison, too, if you do it wrong.

However, you can surrender your children to the government. You can call CPS and tell them you can't stand your kids, that you've got a knife in your hand and the devil is whispering in your ear, and they'll come out and relieve you of your children.

True, they might want to bill you financially, but we've already agreed about how unfair that practice is.

Yahzi

5th September 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

I'll end this before going on a rant about "abortion support" groups that "support" (guilt trip) women who have been allowed to make the choice of carrying and bearing a child. :mad:
The ones that get me are the ones who had an abortion, and now want to prevent others from excersizing their freedom - oops, I meant, from making the same mistake. :rolleyes:

Nothing like waiting till you've had your fill before you close the trough.

5th September 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

No, it does not. Ask yourself this: does jumping out of an airplane equate to choosing the possiblity of death by falling?

Yes. Every parachuter knows that there is a possibility that something goes really wrong and they fall to their deaths. Voluntarily jumping out of an airplane is a choise to accept this risk.

If you answer yes, then when a person's parachute fails to open, should we call it a suicide?

Of course it is not a suicide.

There is no question that jumping out of airplanes exposes you to a risk of death, but that is not the same thing as choosing.

Apparently we do not use the word "choose" in the same way.

Pregnancy is not the moral consequence of sex, it is merely the physical consequence

And volunteering to participate in any activity that involves semen somewhere near naked women is a choise for possibility of pregnancy. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't recognize that should not be having sex.

As I've said before, I think abortions should be legal. But your bum analogy is not valid since there are already situations where you can be forced to be responsible for other human beings.

whitefork

5th September 2003, 01:09 PM

I'd start an "LW appreciation thread" if I was the kind of person who did such things. But since I'm not, I'll just temporarily derail this one.

I appreciate your well-reasoned and well-stated contributions to this board.

Thank you.

evildave

5th September 2003, 03:49 PM

Here's another bad argument for/against abortion:

Alternative Abortion Method Gone Wrong
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2081206

RICHMOND -- A Missouri City woman was given a five-year prison sentence Wednesday for putting her newborn daughter into a debris-filled garbage bag and leaving her in a trash bin last year.

The child escaped death when a construction worker found her after he dropped a load of rotten wood into the trash bin and heard a noise that he thought was a cat.

...

Having found a kitten in the Dumpster a week earlier, he climbed inside and pulled out a white kitchen garbage bag. The bag was tied shut and he ripped it open and found the child packed inside with bloody paper towels and an empty soap bottle.

Police estimate the child was in the trash bin anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes when she was discovered.

Yahzi

5th September 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by LW

Apparently we do not use the word "choose" in the same way.

What is called when someone kills themselves? Suicide.

What is it called when someone does something dangerous, and dies? Stupidity.

What is it called when someone does something dangerous, takes all reasonable precautions, and still dies? An accident.

You assert that jumping out of a plane and dying should be called an accident, but for reasons you have not elucidated, having sex and getting pregnant is a matter of choice.

What does the word choice mean if it does not include the concept of intention? If you have sex without the intention of getting pregnant, how is that any more of a choice than if you jump out of a plane without the intention of dying?

By your analogy, the parachutist who merely breaks both legs should not be allowed medical assistance, because he chose his condition.

But your bum analogy is not valid since there are already situations where you can be forced to be responsible for other human beings.
No there aren't. This is simply false, given what the word responsible must mean in this particular case.

It is true that you can be held financially responsible for other humans. But it is not true that you can be forced to surrender your internal organs for them. You cannot be compelled to donate organs, to share organs, or even to donate blood.

Asserting that the precedent of requriing financial support allows the government to take your internal organs requires an argument, to say the least.

And volunteering to participate in any activity that involves semen somewhere near naked women is a choise for possibility of pregnancy. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't recognize that should not be having sex.
Well, I agree. But what is wise and what is legal are entirely different things. I think cheating on your spouse is far more harmful to individuals and society than abortion, but I don't think the government ought to be involved in the solution.

6th September 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

You assert that jumping out of a plane and dying should be called an accident, but for reasons you have not elucidated, having sex and getting pregnant is a matter of choice.

I have elucidated. Anytime, anytime you are having sex there is a possibility that the woman gets pregnant (supposing that both participants are fertile). This is a biological fact. If you choose to have sex, you choose to have a possibility of pregnancy.

Note that I haven't at any point written anything about choosing pregnancy, only about possibility of pregnancy. And I've not written anything about what happens after pregnancy has started .

Also, when deciding to have sex a man chooses the possibility of becoming a father since the society has decided (rightly, in my opinion) that the woman has the final say on the subject of. abortion. If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, the man becomes a father. The only way for man to prevent this with 100% certainty is complete absistence.

For the woman the choice is limited to the possibility of pregnancy since, if pregnancy occurs, she has the possibility to choose abortion.

What does the word choice mean if it does not include the concept of intention?

In this case you can't separate the possible result from the action. The risk of pregnancy is inherent in sex. You can't have sex without it. In a same way, if I choose to jump from the roof I at the same time choose to fall down. I can't choose to jump but not to fall.

By your analogy, the parachutist who merely breaks both legs should not be allowed medical assistance, because he chose his condition.

I fail to see how this is the case.

It is true that you can be held financially responsible for other humans. But it is not true that you can be forced to surrender your internal organs for them. You cannot be compelled to donate organs, to share organs, or even to donate blood.

I don't know about the situation in the US, but here the parents' responsibility for their children is not limited to financial responsibility, but also for their general well-being. I doubt that the situation is different where you live. It is conceptually rather small step to extend this to cover unborn children. It is possible to transfer this responsibility to another person, for example, via adoption but at all times someone is responsible for the kid.

For analogy to work, it has to be accepted as valid. For that, it has to reflect the case accurately. I don't think that your bum one meets this requirement. The differences of it to a pregnancy are too great. Have you ever managed to convince any anti-abortionist to choose his or her position by using that argument?

It might be interesting to mention a historical note that quite a large number of primitive people have used child abandoment as a legal method of birth control. In Northern Europe this was practiced until Christianity forbade it. For example, here in Finland a baby had to be accepted to the family before it became a person. The unwanted children were taken to a marsh and left there to die. There is some (though very little since there are no written records of the time, only some verbal folk-tradition) evidence that this happened mostly in cases where the paternity of the child was in suspect or illegimite.

6th September 2003, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Gulliamo

The failure rate is staggering. Given the perfect conditions are met, the side of the box states that they have a 99% success rate. That leaves a 1% failure. Lets assume a 300/year trial over 10 years. That gives you a cumulative 30 days of failure! Not good!

Sorry, I forgot to comment this yesterday. First. I might note that the 300/year figure is on rather high side. I have vague recollections of seeing results of a survey poll that put the Europe-wide average somewhere along 100/year, and since it was a poll it is more probably an over- than underestimate. Also, a woman can get pregnant for about a week in a month, so each one those 30 days has only a 25% change to occur during dangerous time. And not every intercourse during fertile time leads to a pregnancy.

I've heard a person quote a study that was done by Finnish Bureau of Medicine about the reliability of different contraceptive devices (so take the exact figures with a grain of salt, too many steps from original data). For a condom, it was somewhere around 90%. The figure means that out of 100 women relying solely on condoms for birth control, 10 gets pregnant during a period of year.

In vast majority of the cases the failure of condom could be attributed to user error: careless handling resulting in a broken condom, running out of condoms and deciding to trust luck, careless handling of used condoms, etc.

It is not possible to compute the risk of pregnancy in a single intercourse when condoms are used. There are simply too many free variables.

I can't remember the exact probabilities for other contraceptive devices. Pill was the bes being somewhere around 98% secure, rhyth method was worst with a 60% reliability rate.

If you want to be very sure that no unwanted pregnancy happens, then you can combine more than one method. Condom and pill together is extremely secure.

Michael Redman

6th September 2003, 09:28 AM

I was unaware that having sex was a choice akin to skydiving.(Haven't the Catholics pretty well put to rest the myth that any but a rare few can successfully choose a life of celebacy?) Sex is a biological imperative, ranking in importance below air and food, but above sleep and comfort. It's silly to base an argument on "if you choose to have sex", in my opinion. Everyone is going to have sex. That should be an assumption.

calladus

6th September 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I was unaware that having sex was a choice akin to skydiving.(Haven't the Catholics pretty well put to rest the myth that any but a rare few can successfully choose a life of celebacy?) Sex is a biological imperative, ranking in importance below air and food, but above sleep and comfort. It's silly to base an argument on "if you choose to have sex", in my opinion. Everyone is going to have sex. That should be an assumption. Heh - good point.

I've successfully managed to abstain from skydiving my entire life - not so with sex.

Yahzi

6th September 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by LW
I have elucidated. Anytime, anytime you are having sex there is a possibility that the woman gets pregnant (supposing that both participants are fertile). This is a biological fact. If you choose to have sex, you choose to have a possibility of pregnancy.
Anytime you jump out of a plane there is a possibility that you will die. This is a physical fact. If you choose to jump our of a plane, you choose to have a possibility of dying.

When someone chooses to die, it's called suicide. So why aren't people who jump out of planes and die called suicides?

This may surprise you, but I am well aware of the physical consequences of sex. The point you have not addressed is why the possible physical consequences should be morally unavoidable in one case, but not in the other.

The only way for man to prevent this with 100% certainty is complete absistence.
Michael Redman addressed this. Asserting that absistence is an option is like asserting that suicide is an option.

I can't choose to jump but not to fall.
I understand this. Really, I do. But it's not the point. The point is that when people jump out of planes and die, you do not apply the same word to them as you do to people who jump out of planes without parachutes and die. You recognize the presence or absence of intent.

Why doesn't have sex without the intent of getting pregnant insulate you from the moral consequences, in exactly the same way that jumping out of a plane without the intention of dying insulates you from the moral consequence of suicide?

It is conceptually rather small step to extend this to cover unborn children.
Absolutely not. Consider this: if your infant child needs a kidney to survive, can the government compel you to donate yours? If your newborn infant needs a blood transfusion, and you are the only person capable of giving it in time, can the government compel you too? The answer is no. Even in lunatic Argentina, where 9 year olds are expected to carry the consequences of their rape to term, the government cannot compel people to donate their internal body parts.

Consequently, your rather small step turns out to be wholly unprecedented and generally recognized as a violation of freedom. The idea that you can be held responsible for a fetus is not problematic: the idea that you surrender sovreignity over your body to do so is.

Have you ever managed to convince any anti-abortionist to choose his or her position by using that argument?

I have never actually met a pro- or anti- abortionist who was willing to be swayed by facts.

It might be interesting to mention a historical note that quite a large number of primitive people have used child abandoment as a legal method of birth control.
Proving once again that China has a long history of civilization. They actively suffocate their unwanted births, which I think is far more responsible and humane than just abandoning them.

Your point seems to be that societies have in fact always disposed of children for various reasons, and therefore abortion (since it strikes at merely potential children and not actual children) is vastly more humane. I completely agree. Really, we pretty much agree. The only difference is that I think a woman who uses birth control, has sex, gets pregnant, and seeks an abortion, should not feel guilty in any way, shape, or form.

SRW

6th September 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Proving once again that China has a long history of civilization. They actively suffocate their unwanted births, which I think is far more responsible and humane than just abandoning them.

[/B]

Suffocation is not a pleasant way to die. Often those children are killed because of their sex.

I used to be 100% pro-abortion, however after hearing about people having abortions as a method of choosing the sex of their offspring, I had to reconsider. I cannot in my own mind justify abortion for such a trivial reason. Once I crossed that threshold, of thinking one type of abortion was wrong, it's hard for me to justify abortions that are not for health reasons or rape. So I currently look at abortion as an evil necessity.

My feeling is abortions should be legally available to women who need them for any reason. And that someday those societies, that believe women are not worth as much as men, will change.

Yahzi

7th September 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by SRW

Suffocation is not a pleasant way to die.
Are there any pleasant ways to die?

I merely observed that suffocation was less odious than death by exposure, dehydration, and starvation.

I cannot in my own mind justify abortion for such a trivial reason..
Do you know what it's called when we start making these kinds of decisions for other people? It's not called "freedom." Enforcing your particular moral or cultural standards for no better reason than your personal feelings is called "fascism." Has it ever occurred to you that you might do a lot of things for reasons other people consider trivial? Do you think you should have to justify those decisions to a government tribunal, or do you think that as long as it doesn't affect other people, they should mind their own business?

I agree with you that aborting a child to select for sex is morally repugnant. But then, why in God's name would we want people like that to raise children in the first place? Least of all, why would we want them to raise a child they didn't want? What is this insane idea that we should protect the child, and punish the parents, by inflicting an unwanted child onto unwilling parents? Why are people so ready to sacrifice a child to a life of rejection and torment, just to punish their parents for having sex?

For all you know, it might not be a trivial issue to them. I can't imagine why, but in a free country, people don't have to justify their personal choices to their nieghbors, unless their nieghbors can show how their choices are harming them.

But then, I'm actually committed to this crazy ideal of freedom.

Akots

7th September 2003, 02:23 AM

er... pardon me a moment...

*snip snip*

Originally posted by Yahzi
Anytime you jump out of a plane there is a possibility that you will die. This is a physical fact. If you choose to jump our of a plane, you choose to have a possibility of dying.

When someone chooses to die, it's called suicide. So why aren't people who jump out of planes and die called suicides?

Someone who chooses suicide is not choosing the mere possability of dying; death is, itself, the end result they desire. When they jump out of a plane with a faulty parachute, the end result they seek is not death, but they still cannot deny that they accepted the possible risk of death.

Jumping out of planes is not an act of suicide. Sex undeniably is an act of reproduction. Any other benefits to sex are side effects, intended to encourage the reproductive aspect.

This seems like an extremely elementary concept to have to point out... if I'm in error, I would sincerely appreciate being set straight; This thread is an incredibly fascinating read.

*lurks*

UnrepentantSinner

7th September 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Candace
Not at all a problem and thanks for your words.

My mother also found herself pregnant at age 42 - in 1965. The illegal abortion she got ensured that would never be a problem for her again. She warned me about those kinds of doctors as soon as I started my cycles.

I will second that rant - I think that's why almost every discussion of abortion never seems to draw anyone who will admit having one - even though studies are that one in three women will have one in their lives.

And that's why I decided to pop in with my opinion - I'll tell anybody anything. Everybody knows just where they stand with me. And just what my opinions and experiences are.

Good! It makes me happy to realize I share my opinions on the subject with people who are basing their opinions on actual living breathing women who have had to make this choice and not some theorectical fetus.

To others on this thread, I would neve encourage the women in my life to do anything from take the morning after pill to a D&C unless they felt it was the right choice to make. I'm less in favor of the proceedure than I am in favor of a woman's ability to determine what is right for her and her own body.

UnrepentantSinner

7th September 2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I was unaware that having sex was a choice akin to skydiving.(Haven't the Catholics pretty well put to rest the myth that any but a rare few can successfully choose a life of celebacy?) Sex is a biological imperative, ranking in importance below air and food, but above sleep and comfort. It's silly to base an argument on "if you choose to have sex", in my opinion. Everyone is going to have sex. That should be an assumption.

No, some of us atheists can choose it as well, but without being underduress. ;)

Kevin_Lowe

7th September 2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Akots

Jumping out of planes is not an act of suicide. Sex undeniably is an act of reproduction. Any other benefits to sex are side effects, intended to encourage the reproductive aspect.

This seems like an extremely elementary concept to have to point out... if I'm in error, I would sincerely appreciate being set straight; This thread is an incredibly fascinating read.

*lurks*

There's an evolutionary sense in which that's true to some extent. Although it's also false to some extent because many species, including our own, use those fun "side effects" of sex for things like social bonding.

Just as a trivial example, pregnant women usually keep on having sex with their partners. Why do they do this? From a reproductive point of view they should just save their calories until the pregnancy has run its course. It must be for some reason other than reproduction qua reproduction.

So it's just not factually true to say that fertilisation is the goal, and intimacy is the side effect. It's a multifunction package deal.

However even if your original claim was true, it would still be beside the point.

It's a philosophical maxim that "is" does not imply "ought". The mere fact that X is the case does not imply any moral obligation to put up with X. In fact, no claim about the physical world has any moral implications at all until you link that claim with some kind of coherent moral theory.

At the risk of putting words in to your mouth, you seem to be articulating an argument like this:

1. It is a fact that sex is a biological imperative which has evolved to facilitate fertilisation.

2. Jumping out of planes is not an evolved imperative to facilitate going squish.

3. Because of this, different moral rules apply to the unwanted consequences of skydiving and the unwanted consequences of sex.

I just don't see why accepting parts 1 and 2 as true would lead you to accept part 3 as being true. But maybe you or LW can elucidate your thinking on this matter.

Yahzi

7th September 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Akots
Sex undeniably is an act of reproduction. Any other benefits to sex are side effects, intended to encourage the reproductive aspect.

You are in error. The social effects of sexuality are non-trivial. Consider the bonobo chimpanzee, one of our closer cousins. Sex is used amongst them as a social glue. Also consider the significant effects of sex on the human psyche, and how that affects our health, including the immune system. Plenty of studies show that people who have sex regularly are just plain healthier than people that don't. There is more to sex than simple reproduction. This is a biological fact. Like all biological systems, it is used and reused in all sorts of ways.

Even if we concede (which we don't, but if we did) that sex without reproduction were unnatural... so what? Literacy is unnatural. We possess the technology to separate sex from its physical consequent. By what argument should we not do this? Mere unnatruality is inadequate: show me how harm results from using this technology, and enabling this choice.

Jumping out of an airplane is a death sentence, if it weren't for parachutes. Having sex is a pregnancy sentence, if it weren't for birth control. Now if your parachute fails to open, you are not assigned intent; but if you become pregnant, suddenly you are. Huh?

Edit: I see that Kevin's already said all this. Doh.

SRW

7th September 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Are there any pleasant ways to die?

I merely observed that suffocation was less odious than death by exposure, dehydration, and starvation.

Do you know what it's called when we start making these kinds of decisions for other people? It's not called "freedom." Enforcing your particular moral or cultural standards for no better reason than your personal feelings is called "fascism." Has it ever occurred to you that you might do a lot of things for reasons other people consider trivial? Do you think you should have to justify those decisions to a government tribunal, or do you think that as long as it doesn't affect other people, they should mind their own business?

Like I said abortion should be legal for , any reason if that sounds to you that I am attempting to make this decision for some one you will have to explain that to me. I am not advocating the abolition of abortion, however I do advocate the lifting of women above the status of second class citizens in all cultures.

Akots

7th September 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

There's an evolutionary sense in which that's true to some extent. Although it's also false to some extent because many species, including our own, use those fun "side effects" of sex for things like social bonding.

Just as a trivial example, pregnant women usually keep on having sex with their partners. Why do they do this? From a reproductive point of view they should just save their calories until the pregnancy has run its course. It must be for some reason other than reproduction qua reproduction.

So it's just not factually true to say that fertilisation is the goal, and intimacy is the side effect. It's a multifunction package deal.

Hm. I've had this argument used on me before, and I think I just figured out why it leaves such a bad impression on me... yes, sex can be a tool to strengthen emotional and social bonds. In this regard, it is but one tool of many. I do not have to have sex with my parents or siblings to show them I love them; and yet I love them all deeply, and feel emotionally bonded with them. A person who is raped does not automatically feel compelled to bond with their rapist, just as someone who hugs me at random does not automatically compel me to bond with them.

There is a difference between sexual intercourse, and physical intimacy. One can have one without the other. Yes, it's a multipackaged deal... but Sex /= Love.

Added: Something else also occured to me; if one of the purposes of the reproductive urge is to produce a stable and healthy parent base for the coming child, then emotional bonding could be considered a vital part of the act of procreation. Is bonding the result of pregnancy? Or is Pregnancy the result of bonding? Have we outstripped our animal instincts, if we're willing to pursue the emotional and physical sensation, while seeing the act of procreation itself as undesirable or inconvenient? Hm. This goes at loggerheads with my personal belief that the great accomplishment of the human race is it's ability to overcome animal instinct.

However even if your original claim was true, it would still be beside the point.

It's a philosophical maxim that "is" does not imply "ought". The mere fact that X is the case does not imply any moral obligation to put up with X. In fact, no claim about the physical world has any moral implications at all until you link that claim with some kind of coherent moral theory.

My claim is that jumping out of a plane with a parachute that may fault is not the same as jumping into a bed with a condom that may fault. It's simply not a valid argument.

Also, on another detail, the moral question comes AFTER the deed is done; Abortion becomes an option only after the condom fails, and pregnancy is detected. The question then becomes "Do I, or don't I?" I see no such moral dilemma for the skydiver.

1) A person can have intercourse with a faulty condom and then escape pregnancy
1) A person can not skydive with a faulty parachute and escape anhiallation

To use a contrived plot device, what if the devil appears and offers to save him before he hits, if he'll only sign this little, inconsequential contract...? Then it's a moral dilemma. Of course, even for that example, we assume that the alternative is inherantly evil. "Get an EVIL abortion, or endure pregnancy" would then be compared to "Make a deal with the EVIL devil, or go smush." Is your statement an assertion that pregnancy is not a reasonable outcome of sexual intercourse?

I disagree with Yahze so vehemently because this is all I see in his argument; "sex without pregnancy is a luxury that may be permissably achieved at the expense of personal responsability."

I know that view of his argument may be quite inaccurate; but it's what I keep seeing. If only I were a better debater. :(

At the risk of putting words in to your mouth, you seem to be articulating an argument like this:

1. It is a fact that sex is a biological imperative which has evolved to facilitate fertilisation.

2. Jumping out of planes is not an evolved imperative to facilitate going squish.

3. Because of this, different moral rules apply to the unwanted consequences of skydiving and the unwanted consequences of sex.

I just don't see why accepting parts 1 and 2 as true would lead you to accept part 3 as being true. But maybe you or LW can elucidate your thinking on this matter.

This sort of isn't the argument I wanted to end up in; I was simply trying to invalidate yahzi's skydiving metaphore.

In the above list, items 1 and 2 (regardless of their individual truth or falsity) do not justify 3. And also, while Pregnancy and Going Squish are indeed unwanted consequences, they are still accepted as quite possible by both sky divers and lovemakers. Respectively, I mean.

...

Great... now all I can think about is becoming physically intimate with someone while skydiving. :eek:

Thanks a lot, yahzi... :p

Roadtoad

7th September 2003, 03:23 PM

My feeling is the parachute analogy has significant faults. 'Nuff said on that. (I could be wrong.)

Years ago, my bride and I decided we'd wait a bit before the next kinder came along. So, we used contraceptive foam (messy), condoms (inconvenient), and a spermacidal suppository (weird).

End result? We named him Matthew. (Meaning: "The gift of the Lord.")

Matt is now nearly 17. Being a parent, I sat down with my boys and told all four that sex using a condom is no guarantee of preventing pregnancy, or for that matter, disease. Matt understands that if he gets jiggy with it, there could well be undesireable consequences of his actions. This is part of life.

His oldest brother went through the misery of a pregnant girlfriend who decided to abort. There wasn't a damn thing I could do to stop it. My wife and I did offer to take the child, but we were told that in this young woman's family, (they're originally from somewhere else), a pregnancy outside of wedlock was considered a disgrace, and she'd have been disowned. (Which, I suppose would have been far better than the stoning or worse she might have gotten if she'd lived in the nation of her parents' birth.)

We have made many assumptions in a vacuum in this nation as concerns abortion. We forget that there's a very hard, cruel world out there, and that abortion, sad to say, may be the more merciful, humane response.

If you want to change that, you have to start with yourself, and with a very hard, cold, realistic analysis of who you are, where you stand on this, and why, and ultimately, what you are willing to do to change things for what you believe is the better. Paul Hill made no such analysis. He's now paid the price for that barbaric stupidity, as he damn well ought to. But there's millions of others who make the same mistake, though not to the same hellish extreme.

And the end result is we all pay the price for that one.

Kevin_Lowe

7th September 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Akots

Hm. I've had this argument used on me before, and I think I just figured out why it leaves such a bad impression on me... yes, sex can be a tool to strengthen emotional and social bonds. In this regard, it is but one tool of many. I do not have to have sex with my parents or siblings to show them I love them; and yet I love them all deeply, and feel emotionally bonded with them. A person who is raped does not automatically feel compelled to bond with their rapist, just as someone who hugs me at random does not automatically compel me to bond with them.

There is a difference between sexual intercourse, and physical intimacy. One can have one without the other. Yes, it's a multipackaged deal... but Sex /= Love.

That's all true, but you're arguing with a straw man here.

No one that I know of was claiming that sex equals love, or that sex is necessary for love.

The problem was that someone else made the opposite claim, that sex had nothing to do with love. That's just factually untrue. Humans have sex for reasons other than fertilisation. The trivial case I mentioned before is that women still have sex when they're pregnant.

Added: Something else also occured to me; if one of the purposes of the reproductive urge is to produce a stable and healthy parent base for the coming child, then emotional bonding could be considered a vital part of the act of procreation. Is bonding the result of pregnancy? Or is Pregnancy the result of bonding? Have we outstripped our animal instincts, if we're willing to pursue the emotional and physical sensation, while seeing the act of procreation itself as undesirable or inconvenient? Hm. This goes at loggerheads with my personal belief that the great accomplishment of the human race is it's ability to overcome animal instinct.

Like I said before, it's a multifunction package deal. It's pointless to search for the chicken or the egg that came first, because there is no such entity to find.

My claim is that jumping out of a plane with a parachute that may fault is not the same as jumping into a bed with a condom that may fault. It's simply not a valid argument.

You do realise that this is just a bald assertion? We now know what your claim is, but we are no wiser as to why we should agree with you.

Also, on another detail, the moral question comes AFTER the deed is done; Abortion becomes an option only after the condom fails, and pregnancy is detected. The question then becomes "Do I, or don't I?" I see no such moral dilemma for the skydiver.

1) A person can have intercourse with a faulty condom and then escape pregnancy
1) A person can not skydive with a faulty parachute and escape anhiallation

This is kind of missing the point, I think.

Suppose our parachute doesn't open. The question under discussion is not "Can we survive?", but "Should we survive?". Is it moral to open that backup parachute, or are we morally obliged to go squish?

To use a contrived plot device, what if the devil appears and offers to save him before he hits, if he'll only sign this little, inconsequential contract...? Then it's a moral dilemma. Of course, even for that example, we assume that the alternative is inherantly evil. "Get an EVIL abortion, or endure pregnancy" would then be compared to "Make a deal with the EVIL devil, or go smush." Is your statement an assertion that pregnancy is not a reasonable outcome of sexual intercourse?

I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at here. Yes, if you assume that abortion is evil you can get to the conclusion that abortion is evil, but that is not an argument likely to convince someone who does not already agree with you.

I'm not sure what moral value you are placing on a "reasonable outcome". Is it a reasonable outcome of military service that you get your leg shot off? If so, should we deny soldiers medical care? If not, in what sense is fertilisation a reasonable outcome of sex but death or injury not a reasonable outcome of other risky pursuits?

I disagree with Yahze so vehemently because this is all I see in his argument; "sex without pregnancy is a luxury that may be permissably achieved at the expense of personal responsability."

I'm taking it from your quote above that you do not hold that it's permissable to have sex without pregnancy, and that you think it's a "luxury" and that it's "irresponsible".

That's consistent with catholic dogma, but it's not a widely held view outside certain highly conservative churches.

You haven't yet given us any good reason to see why women should "take responsibility" for getting their eggs fertilised and decline medical help, while skydivers do not have to "take responsibility" for getting their legs broken and decline medical help.

This sort of isn't the argument I wanted to end up in; I was simply trying to invalidate yahzi's skydiving metaphore.

To do that, you'll have to give reasons. Just baldly stating that you disagree with something does not invalidate it.

Yahzi

7th September 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by SRW
I do advocate the lifting of women above the status of second class citizens in all cultures.
What makes you think I don't?
:confused:

Yahzi

7th September 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Akots
I disagree with Yahze so vehemently because this is all I see in his argument; "sex without pregnancy is a luxury that may be permissably achieved at the expense of personal responsability."

Well, that's basically my argument. I think that sex without pregnancy is a perfectly permissable activity. What's wrong with that view?

As I said in the beginning, the argument is that sex is morally linked to pregnancy. Now if someone would just explain why? All I get is arguments showing that sex is physically linked to pregnancy. I know that. The sole point of my skydiver analogy is to show that we are certainly capable of separating the physical consequences from the moral: so the question is, why shouldn't we do so in this case?

For the other points, Kevin answered them as I would have.

SRW

7th September 2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

What makes you think I don't?
:confused:

Well your criticism of me for taking that position was a pretty big hint.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yahzi

Do you know what it's called when we start making these kinds of decisions for other people? It's not called "freedom." Enforcing your particular moral or cultural standards for no better reason than your personal feelings is called "fascism." Has it ever occurred to you that you might do a lot of things for reasons other people consider trivial? Do you think you should have to justify those decisions to a government tribunal, or do you think that as long as it doesn't affect other people, they should mind their own business?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You view that we should respect others views no matter how abhorrent we find them is a great recipe for anarchy but not my idea of freedom. You seem to think the infanticide of girls is nothing more than a cultural quirk and none of anyone's business but the practitioners. Well killing babies because they are female is wrong, and sayiing that its not ,because they have done it for centuries is not a valid argument.

If women are miss-treated by a culture then is it fasist to try to change that?

DialecticMaterialist

8th September 2003, 03:31 PM

Well whenever I encounter a pro-lifer I usually ask them these three sometimes 4, questions:

1) Is abortion murder?

2) Do murderers deserve the death penalty?

3) Do abortion doctors and women who have an abortion deserve the death penalty?

(Sometimes if number 2 is a "no" I ask about life imprisonment instead, and make the appropriate replacement for 3.)

That quickly establishes them as either inconsistent or extremist.

I personally think murderers should get the death penalty but I could likewise not see myself as giving a doctor or woman the death penalty for having or committing abortion.

Thus I deep down obviously don't see abortion as murder, and neither does the majority of the pro-life movement imo.

Also this makes the whole idea of pro-lifers being confused over the issue of extremists who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors quite puzzling.

--They say abortion is murder.

--They say murderers deserve the death penalty.

--Many even say vigalante justice is acceptable on such strong matters.

--And the murder of innocence should be prevented with force.

But they wonder why some of their members bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors when given the above statements.

The question is a matter of value-judgement.

Basically that of:

Life of the Fetus.

Having a future citizen.

vs.

Woman's freedom.

Woman's privacy.

Woman's future.

Sexual freedom in general.

Preserving established and efficient standards of personhood.

Having less unwanted/unplanned for children in our society.

The latter obviously outweighs the former and thus the whole pro-life argument falls apart.

Akots

8th September 2003, 03:46 PM

Kevin has certainly given me a tremendous amount of material to chew on; thank you for your well thought, well spoken response.

It seems I've given you the impression that women are obligated to fertilize their eggs; I'm absolutely horrified that anything I've said sugests that I believe women should "stay in the kitchen and make babies." Nothing could be further than the truth. I do not believe that abortion should be used as a convenient form of birth control. I think it should be the last option anyone should resort to, but I also believe it should be a viable option. I think this mostly agrees with what everyone else has said.

In any case, I think I owe Yahzi an apology for being so annoying. It seems to be an unconcious talent of mine... :o

Roadtoad

8th September 2003, 06:07 PM

And then, there's this...

http://www.fetosoap.com/

Gulliamo

8th September 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Akots

1) A person can not skydive with a faulty parachute and escape anhiallation

Foolish is the jumper who leaps without a backup. I think that we can all agree that if there were a better backup for sex (a better backup to female birth control and condoms) then the abortion argument would diminish to a near non-issue.

Yahzi

8th September 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by SRW

You seem to think the infanticide of girls is nothing more than a cultural quirk and none of anyone's business but the practitioners.
Nowhere did I ever suggest such a thing. In particular, you might note that in my post I said "for no better reason than your personal feelings." I also made it clear that once you showed harm, you were entitled to intervene. How did you miss these points?

Nor did I at any point endorse infanticide. I merely observed that there bad ways and worse ways to accomplish it.

I don't think this qualifies as a strawman. I think it's simply a case of poor literacy skills. Perhaps you should try reading all of the words in my posts before responding.

Needless to say, regulars of this board will be amused at Yahzi being labled a cultural relativist.

Yahzi

8th September 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Akots
In any case, I think I owe Yahzi an apology for being so annoying.
I didn't find you annoying. Believe me, when I do, you'll know. :D

The only thing that annoys me is deliberate obtuseness.

Yahzi

8th September 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
And then, there's this...
Ewwww...

SRW

8th September 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Yagi

Nowhere did I ever suggest such a thing. In particular, you might note that in my post I said "for no better reason than your personal feelings." I also made it clear that once you showed harm, you were entitled to intervene. How did you miss these points?

Nor did I at any point endorse infanticide. I merely observed that there bad ways and worse ways to accomplish it.

I don't think this qualifies as a straw man. I think it's simply a case of poor literacy skills. Perhaps you should try reading all of the words in my posts before responding.

Needless to say, regulars of this board will be amused at Yagi being labeled a cultural relativist.

Rather you should go back and read my entire post, which you obviously did not. Then Explain the reasoning for calling me a fascist. I made two points in my post one the I hoped that women would be treated as well as men in all societies and secondly that Abortion should always be legal for all reasons. for this you ranted on about Fascism and making decisions for others.

Read my full post... Then explain what you are talking about. Like I asked and you also ignored. Speaking of poor literacy skill do you know how to read?

9th September 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
It's silly to base an argument on "if you choose to have sex", in my opinion. Everyone is going to have sex. That should be an assumption.

I think I've now reached the limit of my explanation skills. I try to explain my thoughts as well as I can and I hope that the following will come out intelligible.

There is a difference between choosing to have sex in general, as opposed to life in celibacy and chastity, and between choosing to have sex on one particular instance.

I agree that persons who can live without any sex at all are very rare. I wouldn't go as far as to say that everyone has sex some time or another, but exceptions are few and far between.

On the other hand, any person who has a more-or-less active sex life encounters numerous situations where he or she has to make decision to have sex with a particular partner or not. One thing (among numerous others) that everyone should consider before making that decision is that how likely it is to result in a pregnancy and if that happens, how it should be responded to. Of course, the trouble here is that sexual arousal has often rather severe effects on rational thinking, particularly when intoxicated, and this results far too often (especially among teens) with casual sex without any precautions.

I feel that it is possible to choose to have a "responsible" sexual life where the probabilities of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are minimized. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to reduce either probability to zero.

From the pregnancy viewpoint there are two forms of sex that result in pregnancy only in freak occurrences, namely solo and homosexual. A year or a few ago I read from some "News of the Weird" column one such event that happened in Hong Kong: A man was sentenced to pay paternity support to a woman that he hadn't ever known in the Biblical sense. The woman had broken into his apartment, stolen a used condom from a trash bin, and impregnated herself using it. Even though she confessed that at the court, the man still had to pay the support.