Abortion

[Zaqq]

1: I agree with what he said. Both sides of this topic have been militant and to say anything else is either misinformed or a lie.

2: Why is death such an ugly topic?
2a: There is a God. You go to heaven, or purgatory first then heaven, or hell untill god comes down to open the gates and then finally you get to heaven. Whoopdidoo, heaven sounds a hell of a lot better than earth. Is it so wrong to send a child that could not be properly cared for on earth to God?
2b: There is no god. Everybody dies and rots. Is it so wrong to alleiviate the suffering of something that never reallly lived to begin with?

How do you justify taking the choice away from parents?

So you condone infanticide?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I watched a Law and Order yesterday based on a case in which a mother killed her child, claiming that she did so because of the child's Tay Sachs (spelled right?). That probably wasnt the real reason at all, but I digress. There are few reasons that I would condone killing an innocent child, and think it would be cruel not to, but they exist. And I dont see how this is so repulsive.

[tzor]

2: Why is death such an ugly topic?
2a: There is a God. You go to heaven, or purgatory first then heaven, or hell untill god comes down to open the gates and then finally you get to heaven. Whoopdidoo, heaven sounds a hell of a lot better than earth. Is it so wrong to send a child that could not be properly cared for on earth to God?
2b: There is no god. Everybody dies and rots. Is it so wrong to alleiviate the suffering of something that never reallly lived to begin with?

Interesting questions, must have missed them the first pass through.

2: Because we all die, so in one sense it's personal.

2a: We can get into deep speculation on the nature of "heaven." We can be torn between here and there. Paul in his writings certanly was although in the end he choose the here because the there would hopefully be later. The Gospels are all about the here with reassurances about the there. That might give some indication perhaps that what is done here and now is somehow important there.

2b: There is an old saying, life sucks but it is better than the alternative. The will to live is strong in all living creatures it drives us all forward, ever oneward wanting to continue, avoiding the void of not continuing. Even the fetus will recoil away from the abortionist's instruments. Life, even when it sucks is far better than the alternative.


Yes there are always extreme cases. There are cases not so extreeme where circumstances deal us a bad hand to play. But consider this, back in the civil war a gun shot would to the arm would have caused at best amputation and at worst death. You can have your bones in your arm pulverized by bullet fire and with rapid medical response you can actually have your arm saved. Perhaps we are so focused on the topic we look at the wrong question. How do we get the best treatment to everyone? How to we improve the treatment we already have?

And finally, how can we eliminate the stigma of pain, after all, it's really all in our minds anyway. Somehow we should be able to simply not mind it. Not today, not tomorrow, but someday. Then the question will be as moot as the people who used to die from simple cuts.

[PLAYER57832]

Even the fetus will recoil away from the abortionist's instruments.

Within the first trimester, this is not true. I remember hearing and reading the debates well because I was in school at the time. Some folks looked at videos, sonograms, etc and thought that was the explanation, but mostly, it was just a result of the fluids moving within the womb.

Later, you got some automatic responses. That is, you can generate certain responses in a plant, a arm attached to nothing or a dead person. I do not remember the exact point at which true brain and nerve function are believed to begin, but it is not at the three month mark.

Yes there are always extreme cases. There are cases not so extreeme where circumstances deal us a bad hand to play. But consider this, back in the civil war a gun shot would to the arm would have caused at best amputation and at worst death. You can have your bones in your arm pulverized by bullet fire and with rapid medical response you can actually have your arm saved. Perhaps we are so focused on the topic we look at the wrong question. How do we get the best treatment to everyone? How to we improve the treatment we already have?

This is true. It is why some parents are willing to allow their children to be part of medical studies even when they know there is no real hope of a cure. BUT, while one parent might think it reasonable to have their child undergo some rather nasty chemotherapy for a 5% chance of a cure ... other parents will look at the odds and say "no, I want my child's last days and months to be as happy as possible". Some people would put the bar one place for themselves and another for their children.

And finally, how can we eliminate the stigma of pain, after all, it's really all in our minds anyway. Somehow we should be able to simply not mind it. Not today, not tomorrow, but someday. Then the question will be as moot as the people who used to die from simple cuts.

Scientology, eh?

No, seriously, many cultures incorporate this idea. But, there are also people, cultures that celebrate pain and encourage it for various reasons (proving manhood, etc.) It is an interesting topic, but well off the topic, so I will leave it there.

[Zaqq]

Tzor, who the hell knows what's better than "the alternative"? Have YOU ever died? Faith tells us, and not everybody has the same faith. If heaven rocks and innocent kids get in, then why not give them a boost? If that is not the case, maybe there is a different answer. And faith is never 100%. My question is: how do we justify taking away the right to have an abortion?

I AM NOT SAYING that all abortions are properly justified. I agree that a world in which abortion was not necessary would rock. But in the world we live in, why do so many want to take away this option?

[muy_thaiguy]

Tzor, who the hell knows what's better than "the alternative"? Have YOU ever died? Faith tells us, and not everybody has the same faith. If heaven rocks and innocent kids get in, then why not give them a boost? If that is not the case, maybe there is a different answer. And faith is never 100%. My question is: how do we justify taking away the right to have an abortion?

I AM NOT SAYING that all abortions are properly justified. I agree that a world in which abortion was not necessary would rock. But in the world we live in, why do so many want to take away this option?

Who's to say we have the right to take away life itself? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase "The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" was part of how this nation was founded. But when one takes away the very first natural right, then what is the point of having the other two? I mean, you are taking away someone's life before they ever have a chance to do something with it.

[MeDeFe]

Tzor, who the hell knows what's better than "the alternative"? Have YOU ever died? Faith tells us, and not everybody has the same faith. If heaven rocks and innocent kids get in, then why not give them a boost? If that is not the case, maybe there is a different answer. And faith is never 100%. My question is: how do we justify taking away the right to have an abortion?

I AM NOT SAYING that all abortions are properly justified. I agree that a world in which abortion was not necessary would rock. But in the world we live in, why do so many want to take away this option?

Who's to say we have the right to take away life itself? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase "The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" was part of how this nation was founded. But when one takes away the very first natural right, then what is the point of having the other two? I mean, you are taking away someone's life before they ever have a chance to do something with it.

And exactly who has those rights? The US declaration of independence is extremely shaky there, using the words "all men" and offering no reasons for why someone has those rights, it only states that those who signed it think it's "self-evident" that everyone has them. And even if you can construe the meaning to include a ban on abortions in the USA it says nothing about any other country.

[tzor]

And exactly who has those rights? The US declaration of independence is extremely shaky there, using the words "all men" and offering no reasons for why someone has those rights, it only states that those who signed it think it's "self-evident" that everyone has them. And even if you can construe the meaning to include a ban on abortions in the USA it says nothing about any other country.

The Declaration of Independence is effectively a Jeffersonian document. In his eyes life and liberty were two joined principles. (I'm currently working on singing Randall Thomson's "Testament of Freedom" based on Jefferson's writings.) He considered them fundamental and inalienable and non negotiable issues. While he leaned towards agnosticism even in the early years before the revolution, he constantly invoked God to give them a solid foundation.

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." —A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)

And yet such freedom is actually passed from one generation to the next, so that the current generation is required to hold on to it in order to give it to the next generation.

"We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to sur­render that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us." —Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms (July 6, 1775)

Both of these writings predate the writing of the declaration.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But note that this is not a statement in isolation. It really exists to argue for the creation and the abolition of governments.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The declaration is not in and of itself a "bill of rights" and should not be taken in such a context.

Thus the rights exist to all people but it is all people who must preserve those rights.

[heavycola]

So is it OK to hoover up foetuses or not?

[MeDeFe]

I don't see god as a foundation at all, of anything, is that going to be a problem?

[tzor]

I don't see god as a foundation at all, of anything, is that going to be a problem?

Not a problem at all; I did mention that Jefferson was an agnostic at best. Understanding Jefferson is a whole lot like understanding the Wizard of Oz; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The agrarian landed aristrocrat complained about "voluntary slavery" yet owned slaves, invoked "God" but didn't believe in him or in miracles (he rewrote the gospels and removed all references to them in his edition), and had a fiscal policy that was constantly landing him in debt.

When Jefferson is invoking God he is just saying "don't peek under the curtain."

[MeDeFe]

I don't see god as a foundation at all, of anything, is that going to be a problem?

Not a problem at all; I did mention that Jefferson was an agnostic at best. Understanding Jefferson is a whole lot like understanding the Wizard of Oz; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The agrarian landed aristrocrat complained about "voluntary slavery" yet owned slaves, invoked "God" but didn't believe in him or in miracles (he rewrote the gospels and removed all references to them in his edition), and had a fiscal policy that was constantly landing him in debt.

When Jefferson is invoking God he is just saying "don't peek under the curtain."

Which still leaves these rights foundationless, "they are there because I say so and as basis for them I invoke this god in which you all believe but I can't quite make up my mind about" is not a good starting point for defining "the inalienable rights of man", whatever "man" is supposed to be.

[tzor]

Which still leaves these rights foundationless,

Welcome to the 18th century.

"Political Science" What an oxymoron if ever there was one.

[joecoolfrog]

Tzor, who the hell knows what's better than "the alternative"? Have YOU ever died? Faith tells us, and not everybody has the same faith. If heaven rocks and innocent kids get in, then why not give them a boost? If that is not the case, maybe there is a different answer. And faith is never 100%. My question is: how do we justify taking away the right to have an abortion?

I AM NOT SAYING that all abortions are properly justified. I agree that a world in which abortion was not necessary would rock. But in the world we live in, why do so many want to take away this option?

Who's to say we have the right to take away life itself? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase "The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" was part of how this nation was founded. But when one takes away the very first natural right, then what is the point of having the other two? I mean, you are taking away someone's life before they ever have a chance to do something with it.

"The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness '' .....unless you are a Native !
Even the founding fathers didn't allow ethics to get in the way of profit.

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor, who the hell knows what's better than "the alternative"? Have YOU ever died? Faith tells us, and not everybody has the same faith. If heaven rocks and innocent kids get in, then why not give them a boost? If that is not the case, maybe there is a different answer. And faith is never 100%. My question is: how do we justify taking away the right to have an abortion?

I AM NOT SAYING that all abortions are properly justified. I agree that a world in which abortion was not necessary would rock. But in the world we live in, why do so many want to take away this option?

Who's to say we have the right to take away life itself? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase "The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" was part of how this nation was founded. But when one takes away the very first natural right, then what is the point of having the other two? I mean, you are taking away someone's life before they ever have a chance to do something with it.

"The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness '' .....unless you are a Native !
Even the founding fathers didn't allow ethics to get in the way of profit.

Or a woman, or a black person ... etc. Even those "free men" mostly referred to the landed man. Children, too, had only very limited rights. (sometimes there were stricter rules about animal abuse than child abuse).

But, when it comes to abortion, the question is a combination of when a child becomes a person and when is death a better alternative than life. I won't reiterate the previous debate. I will just say that neither of these really have any true, set, absolute answers. All we can do is .... the best we can do.

When it comes to moral turbidity, moral uncertainty I strongly believe that the individual is in the best position to decide, rather than the state.... even if it most certainly means some people will make choices I consider abhorrant. That is part of living in a truly free state.

And, despite all its ills and imperfections, the US is, still fundamentally a very free country. Much more free than it ever was in the 18th or 19th or even much of the 20th centuries.

[suggs]

Well, yeah, none of its good.
But its wrong if abortion is illegal.

[Napoleon Ier]

Tzor, who the hell knows what's better than "the alternative"? Have YOU ever died? Faith tells us, and not everybody has the same faith. If heaven rocks and innocent kids get in, then why not give them a boost? If that is not the case, maybe there is a different answer. And faith is never 100%. My question is: how do we justify taking away the right to have an abortion?

I AM NOT SAYING that all abortions are properly justified. I agree that a world in which abortion was not necessary would rock. But in the world we live in, why do so many want to take away this option?

Who's to say we have the right to take away life itself? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase "The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" was part of how this nation was founded. But when one takes away the very first natural right, then what is the point of having the other two? I mean, you are taking away someone's life before they ever have a chance to do something with it.

"The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness '' .....unless you are a Native !
Even the founding fathers didn't allow ethics to get in the way of profit.

Or a woman, or a black person ... etc. Even those "free men" mostly referred to the landed man. Children, too, had only very limited rights. (sometimes there were stricter rules about animal abuse than child abuse).

But, when it comes to abortion, the question is a combination of when a child becomes a person and when is death a better alternative than life. I won't reiterate the previous debate. I will just say that neither of these really have any true, set, absolute answers. All we can do is .... the best we can do.

When it comes to moral turbidity, moral uncertainty I strongly believe that the individual is in the best position to decide, rather than the state.... even if it most certainly means some people will make choices I consider abhorrant. That is part of living in a truly free state.

And, despite all its ills and imperfections, the US is, still fundamentally a very free country. Much more free than it ever was in the 18th or 19th or even much of the 20th centuries.

1/So you're saying there's
a) no absolute definition of life
b)parents should have the right to kill children/fetuses (whether this be at 8 weeks or 17 years) if they esteem this to be "better than life".
You're completely insane.

2/The Founding Fathers of your country split from the Empire because of 3% tax rates on their consumption, the South seceded over a 25% tariff over goods they were importing, and today you're taxed half your wages and do nothing,living under a deluded pretense of freedom.

[Frigidus]

1/So you're saying there's
a) no absolute definition of life
b)parents should have the right to kill children/fetuses (whether this be at 8 weeks or 17 years) if they esteem this to be "better than life".
You're completely insane.

2/The Founding Fathers of your country split from the Empire because of 3% tax rates on their consumption, the South seceded over a 25% tariff over goods they were importing, and today you're taxed half your wages and do nothing,living under a deluded pretense of freedom.

I'm all for killing annoying children, and #2 is basically spot on. A+ post.

[tzor]

And, despite all its ills and imperfections, the US is, still fundamentally a very free country. Much more free than it ever was in the 18th or 19th or even much of the 20th centuries.

In general I would have to agree. This has more to do with awareness than with rights per se; we now give freely the rights we once claimed to all to more than we once did.

The Founding Fathers of your country split from the Empire because of 3% tax rates on their consumption, the South seceded over a 25% tariff over goods they were importing, and today you're taxed half your wages and do nothing,living under a deluded pretense of freedom.

Actually that was far from the case. The problem was not the amount, but the fact that this tax was imposed on them by the English Parliment under the direction of King George. The colonists originally had this odd notion that they were "Englishmen." Yankee doodle Englishmen? Franklyn got laughed out of London. The notion of Jefferson of "voluntary slavery" is a good indication of how they saw their relation to England. Making manufactured goods except for small conditions was prohibited. The "rights" of Englishmen under the Magna Carta were denied to them.

But its wrong if abortion is illegal.

Simply making it illegal is wrong because that's like prohibition; it only drives the problem underground. However placing reasonable limitations on the procedure, parental notification (except where there reason that such notification could endanger the child in which case you have other problems with the child/parent relationship that need to be investigated), and the encouragement of alternatives should not be opposed, if they be reasonable, by an absolute right mindset.

And above all I don't want my tax dollars going towards a profit making enterprise which in turn spends its profit on professional lobbists who promote the "secrecy" of the organization's operation under the guise of a supreme court mandated right.

[heavycola]

Tzor, who the hell knows what's better than "the alternative"? Have YOU ever died? Faith tells us, and not everybody has the same faith. If heaven rocks and innocent kids get in, then why not give them a boost? If that is not the case, maybe there is a different answer. And faith is never 100%. My question is: how do we justify taking away the right to have an abortion?

I AM NOT SAYING that all abortions are properly justified. I agree that a world in which abortion was not necessary would rock. But in the world we live in, why do so many want to take away this option?

Who's to say we have the right to take away life itself? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase "The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" was part of how this nation was founded. But when one takes away the very first natural right, then what is the point of having the other two? I mean, you are taking away someone's life before they ever have a chance to do something with it.

"The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ''

I believe it's spelled 'Happyness', and involves becoming rich and owning many cars and TVs.

[Napoleon Ier]

Marking murder of people who've been born illegal forces it underground, but no-one complains about that being against the law.

[Dancing Mustard]

1/So you're saying there's
a) no absolute definition of life
b)parents should have the right to kill children/fetuses (whether this be at 8 weeks or 17 years) if they esteem this to be "better than life".

No.

That's absolutely not what anybody was saying. Please learn to read before attempting to communicate further.

[Napoleon Ier]

1/So you're saying there's
a) no absolute definition of life
b)parents should have the right to kill children/fetuses (whether this be at 8 weeks or 17 years) if they esteem this to be "better than life".

No.

That's absolutely not what anybody was saying.

the question is a combination of when a child becomes a person and when is death a better alternative than life. I won't reiterate the previous debate. I will just say that neither of these really have any true, set, absolute answers.

Please learn to read before you decide to communicate and all that, eh Mustard?

[Dancing Mustard]

the question is a combination of when a child becomes a person and when is death a better alternative than life. I won't reiterate the previous debate. I will just say that neither of these really have any true, set, absolute answers.

Please learn to read before you decide to communicate and all that, eh Mustard?

Oh dear... you failed again. How sad.

Sadder still, you attempted to be condescending while you did so. Always a poor way to compound an error.

Here, let's break it down for you: The point that was being made was that your wildly imaginative 'point b' was not stated at any point in this thread. It was you (yet again) making up points to reply to.

Yes Player said the words you quoted and (oh so unhelpfuly) underlined. But Player did not say the things which you (again unhelpfully) invented to respond to. Granted similar looking words may have been used, but (no matter how much you try to make a condescending reply) the inferences that you made after Player's post were just illogical straw-men of your own construction.

Perhaps attacking straw-men reminds you of the Action-Men figures that occupy your time away from this board, I don't know. But regardless of why you feel compelled to play with them, the fact remains that your doing so is both unhelpful and tedious.

Have fun taking your usual arrogant and pompous tone as you try to rebut this post with yet more adolescent posturing, flaming and inane pseudo-point-making. It's always so entertaining for me to watch you fume.

[Napoleon Ier]

It's simple logic, really, not a flaming matter.

Player essentially states:

P1/ --Abortion is the destroying of an embryo, or fetus.
P2/ --There is no absolute point at which we can define the former as a person, so this responsibility is delegated to the parents.
P3/ --The greater good is always achieved by maximizing happiness for the most possible people. The way to maximize utility is for "parents, clergy and medicine {sic}" to decide.

Now, the logical conclusion is that unless some metaphysical significance is given to the point of birth, there is only a continuously variable and subjective scale by which personhood can be measured, and this must be done by "parents, medicine and clergy" due to the "highly complex, personal, morally relative etc...etc..." nature of abortion. Hence the killings a 3-month-old, an 8-week fetus, or indeed a 17-year old, are (when measured against the standards of PLAYER's logic) ethically undifferentiable.

So using the 3 above premises stated by PLAYER, I drew out the simple logical inference. That's all I did. Sometimes, Mustard, you need to learn to read between the lines to get at the meat of your opponent's argument.

Now, we've already seen you're unable to understand fundamental logic and mathematics, but that's none of my concern, I'm just trying to present a case against PLAYER, if you don't understand my points, that's not my problem, spend a bit of time improving your general culture and then come back for serious discussion.

[heavycola]

It's simple logic, really, not a flaming matter.

oh do cock off.