posted
Primarily, I was alerting you to the fact that some mothers can view their child as a tumor or worse, contrary to your post in the previous page.
And yes, I believe that if a discussion had been held with Mrs Schlosser at the time of her discovering her pregnancy, it may have revealed that deep down she couldn't handle having another baby but was terrified of admitting it because that would mean defying her husband, defying God (who obviously was responsible for her getting pregnant by letting a sperm slip through) and plain being selfish.
I don't know her case history or how balanced their marriage was, I'm talking hypothetically.
Oh, and I am definitely suggesting that religion used as a substitute for modern psychology and crisis aversion is wrong. What, you don't think we have Jehovah's Witnesses here in Sweden? Sure, a few of them die every year as a result of withheld blood transfusion. We've even gotten Kabbalah Center posters at my university this year. Granted, it's more of a high-pressure sales sect than religion, but the foundation is in Judaism, how ever warped and perverted into a money scheme it may be.
quote:Are you suggesting that religion is bad because some people believe mental illness is caused by demonic possession?
Yes, that situation would qualify as bad. A parish doesn't have the means to cure bipolar disorder or psychosis, its peer pressure can only worsen a case like that. But forget mental illness, I've met people in my life who would believe mere jealousy was a flaming mark of Satan, which could be promptly fixed with intense prayer and repentance, instead of touching on real life issues, like adultery.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
If anything you made the case that in Dena Schlosser's case, she wasn't fit to be pregnant or a mother. And you show that despite a system that means well, people can slip through the cracks.
Yet, it is an extreme example. So extreme it limits its relevance to the discussion.
Again, I simply do not fathom how anyone can reasonable imagine that a growing unborn child is NOT a human being.
Would you care to address this?
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
For much of human history, people could own slaves and thought of them more like animals than other human beings.
Whether through religious declarations or twisted logic, much warfare and persecution was justified by the argument that the victim was not really human.
Even now, people can have massive variations on what defines a human being, whether its our sentience, our DNA, our cultural morals, or even the way one acts.
Ask ten different people on the street what a human is and you'll likely get ten different answers linking back to biology, or religion, or morality, or philosophy.
And you can't fathom why someone else might have a different point of view on whether an unborn child is human?
And even accepting that discrepancy, you won't even find a common consensus on whether killing *humans* is moral or not, religious-based or not.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: ... I'm saying it's not being presented well. Every argument of abortionists has a response by the opposite side, but when it's brought up, the abortionist seems to just change to another subject instead of continuing the debate on that point...[/QB]
This is true, Jason in particular seems to be rather jumpy and incoherent. That doesn't really mean anything for abortionists in general, even if we want to use that term.
In any case, the problem that you're probably seeing is that there are both a) more people in favour of abortion on this board b) more arguments from different schools of thought in favour of abortion.
Thus, the arguments against abortion appear more coherent, because there is only one way of approaching it while for the other side, its impossible to co-ordinate so many people and differents POVs.
For example:
My stance for abortion is based on several underlying points which are pretty controversial and probably would not be fully agreed on by anyone on this board.
e.g.
* I don't particularly, believe in the sanctity of human life. Believing in evolution, I don't particularly see anything so different between say Homo sapiens and Homo eretus that makes our lives so wonderfully self-important. * I don't particularly see abortion as being any worse than killing say a gorilla or a family pet. Yes, its tragic, in the future it might have been self-aware...but its not yet, so whatever. * Rape, incest...yes these are tragic but probably not statistically relevant, so I don't particularly lose much sleep over these special cases. * The big thing is that the way I see it, denying an abortion is bringing into the world a child that is not wanted (which is not good for either the parents or the child), possibily causing other people to have to care for that baby if its put up for adoption or goes dysfunctional in other ways, could very well hurt their parents careers and thus society as a whole, and in the end is only allowing people that don't want to reproduce to reproduce. The world is crowded enough already, with us not being able to convince enough people to use birth control or not to have so many children, we don't need to make things worse by denying the choice to people who have been convinced. * The clincher for me is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Who wins from an abortion? Both parents, society as a whole, possibly the child. Who loses from an abortion? Random third parties and possibly the child. You're trading off concrete stresses, sacrifices, and oppression towards the couple for a self-satisfied feeling of "I forced other people to do what I want" for the third parties.
Now how does this apply to the argument? I bet there are many people on my side that would be horrified by my lack of morality in this regard. So I can't coordinate with them.
However, anyone that is pro-life (usually...I suppose there could be exceptions) comes from a religious or moral background which is easy to reconcile. Lock them in a room and ask them to debate whether Jesus was really a prophet, whether the pope is God's representive on Earth, and they'll fight. But on the simple point, the "pro-life" argument is basically: "Murder is wrong (unless God wants it, or its a case of capital punishment, or we're at war), so don't kill unborn babies." This is relatively easy to co-ordinate.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Where's your scientific evidence that my hitting someone in the face is wrong? Or murder? There is no scientific evidence for any moral theory."
One, I didn't say there was, and two, I wasn't talking about morality at all, just calling into question the claim that aborting an embryo is murder.
"What scientific evidence can you offer that proves that murder is not being committed?"
Murder is one human being causing the death of another. An embryo merely has the potential to become a human being, lacking a functional central nervous system and a brain (which are two rather essential parts however you choose to define "human being"), therefore, murder is not being committed.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
The American legal definition of what qualifies for murder concerns intent. There must be the intention to cause death before the act itself. Interesting then, that in some cases, shooting a pregnant woman who then dies with her unborn child can result in two murder charges.
That said, one part of the American law code attaches that personhood to an unborn child, while another part (that which allows abortion) does not. Can anyone else see a day of reckoning between those two views soon?
You provide no documentation for your definition of embryo and human being. Therefore, it can only be considered anecdotal, not scientific proof.
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
First, I trust you have enough intelligence to recognize that people don't always spell out everything they say in infinite detail (ie. my omitting the word "intentionally"), and are able to fill in the blanks without leaping to the conclusion their points must be invalid.
Second, I didn't provide a definition for "human being", only for "embryo", which isn't just my own, but also that of the National Academy Of Sciences.
Third, it's unclear from your link whether that law extends across the entire pregnancy or if it only covers the fetal stage, so a more direct one would be appreciated.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: My stance for abortion is based on several underlying points which are pretty controversial and probably would not be fully agreed on by anyone on this board.
For what it is worth, you've got my backing. Thanks for putting it more eloquently than I probably could.
Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh boy, I can't believe I'm about to step right into the thick of this, but fuck it, right?
The primary argument taking place here is about whether or not abortion is right or wrong.� This argument will never go anywhere.� It's a matter of opinion and, with a few exceptions, everyone has already made up his/her mind about which side he/she agrees (more or less) with.� No one is going to convince Omega or Irishman that abortion is really okay, and likewise nobody is going to convince Jason that it is a morally reprehensible act.� In this sense, the argument is futile and pointless.
You can talk about the morality or immorality of something until you're as blue in the face as Shran, but the argument only functions so long as everyone is grounded in the same moral beliefs.� Which, obviously, we're not.� Differing people have differing morals.� In an objective sense abortion is neither "right" nor "wrong" because those concepts do not exist. Moral arguments are irrelevent.
Sooner or later, one must recognize and accept that not everyone will lead their lives according to one's own moral standards. Whether one feels it acceptable to try to force others to live by those morals or not is irrelevent, becuase most of the time this is impossible anyway. As many people here and elsewhere have pointed out, law or no law, people will act in accordance with what THEY perceive as the best course of action for them. In this case, that means women will have abortions whether it's legal or not. This is a FACT and it cannot be sidestepped. So it becomes a question of--forgive the expression--choosing the lesser of two evils. Would you rather have this act, which you consider to be morally wrong but which will inevitably occur, legally monitored and regulated/performed by licensed physicians or would you rather have it being done by desperate young women in public restrooms? ��
Socio-anthropologically speaking, laws are always a compromise of some kind put forth in an effort to allow as many people as possible to live peacefully together in a society. All the laws that restrict people's freedom of action must exist solely for the (ironic word usage ahead) convenience of society at large. They must somehow further its functioning. Murder, rape, and theft are illegal not because they are immoral acts but because they are acts that inhibit the normal functions of a society. Trying to legislate morality is a stupid idea, because it is not a constant among the population or even, at times, among individuals. A law which exists to enforce a moral viewepoint but is not necessary to the overall functioning of society will not work. As someone else also mentioned, Prohibition was a prime example of this in the U.S., as are (IMHO) the current federal laws regarding marijuana.
Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is not rendering any necessary benefit either to them as individuals or to society at large. As a matter of fact, it is rather the opposite. It puts greater burden on the mother and her family as well as on the resources of the functioning whole. The world is already overpopulated; there are already thousands if not millions of children all over the world who do not have sufficient social or physical care and sustenance. THIS is the inhibition to society's functioning that needs to be overcome. THIS is what I think people should be crusading against. (Not to imply that there is no one already doing so, of course.)
Since, as I said, laws are by their very nature compromises to allow varying people and ideas to coexist, Roe v. Wade seems to present a quite reasonable soultion to this disagreement, in spirit if not in its particular provisions. You can have an abortion up to a certain point; after that point, you can't. This is a compromise designed to give something to both sides. If people want to re-evaluate what that specific point should be, then that's fine, but you can't take an all-or-nothing moral absolutist stance on an issue like this, even if that is your first inclination. You can't just say "abortion is wrong and should be outlawed" and think that this is a complete or sufficient argument.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Even now, people can have massive variations on what defines a human being, whether its our sentience, our DNA, our cultural morals, or even the way one acts.
Ask ten different people on the street what a human is and you'll likely get ten different answers linking back to biology, or religion, or morality, or philosophy.
That's why the criminizalization (or legalization) of abortion should be decided through elected representatives rather than through judges. Do I morally believe that abortion (in most cases) is wrong? Yes, I do. Am I a religious person? Yes, I am. Do I believe that, because abortion is wrong, the Supreme Court should declare it as such, make it illegal, and preclude any state from ever legalizing it? No. I believe that the Supreme Court should never have gotten involved in the case. The U.S. Constitution neither grants nor denies the right to an abortion, making the decision a Legislative one. If the California legislature were to legalize abortion, I would vehemently disagree with what I see as an immoral decision, but the people (through their duly elected representatives) decided in favor of it. If South Dakota criminalizes abortion (again, through their duly elected representatives), then I applaud their decision and support the people's right to decide in such a way.
I've also noticed a strong anti-religious sentiment running through this argument, with constant ad-hominem attacks describing religous people as yahoos and lunatics being used to marginalize the arguments of those who happen to be religious. Although many unfortunate acts have been committed in the name of religion, let me remind some people that the worst atrocities in history were committed by officially secular states, specifically the Holocaust under Nazism, the gulags, purges, and starvation of 10 million peasants under Stalinism, the slaughter in communist Cambodia under Pol Pot, and the brutality of the Chinese Cultural Revolution and massacres such as the one in Tienamen Square. Any ideology has the potential for abuse.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Differing people have differing morals. In an objective sense abortion is neither "right" nor "wrong" because those concepts do not exist.
Only in your moral system.
quote:All the laws that restrict people's freedom of action must exist solely for the (ironic word usage ahead) convenience of society at large.
Like, say, slavery.
There isn't a political solution to this. Legalize abortion, and you have a million human beings killed every year for convenience. Outlaw it, and you have a whole different set of issues, which, while I would say don't justify that many deaths, are still terrible and would still have to be dealt with.
The Christian community is defined by our end purpose, furthering the reign of God on earth. The laws of the government simply define the environment in which we try to do that. If that many women in our society feel the need to have abortions, if they feel like they don't have other options, then THAT is the problem we need to address, regardless of the laws. And at that, we need to do far better.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
This is a bit of a long one, but I'd ask you to bear with me on this, rather than skim.
I've seen a lot of good points and a lot of non-points raised by just about everyone in here. My only real beef at the moment is being referred to as "pro-abortion". I'm not. I'm pro-choice. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, pro-death, or anti-life the way pro-life usually means anti-choice. I personally want children, as does my gilfriend -- just not quite yet (but sometime within the next five years or so). She is pro-choice, but doesn't ever want to get an abortion -- except to save her life, or if she's raped. I wouldn't want her to ever have to make that choice, so we're being quite careful.
I have at least two friends that I know of (female, mind you) who definitely don't want children, and I don't know what they'd do if they ever found themselves confronted with very-definitely unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. But I want them to have the choice.
The thing everyone on here seems at least partially oblivious to is that there are no absolutes in this issue. Not anywhere. Circumstances of conception are no guarantee of anything. There are some kickass single parents out there. My mom did a great job with me, but it was still a tremendously hard period for both of us, and I'm still in therapy at age 31 to sort it all out. My friend Marissa is doing a great job with her son, after her husband (at the time) turned out to be a psycho control freak asshole. But she still had to move back in with her parents if she wanted to be able to continue going to school and support herself and her son.
I also know people who were born to solid homes, whose parents utterly screwed them up. Some have committed suicide, some are drug addicts, some accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and stopped thinking for themselves, some are in prison... My girlfriend might have gone one or more of those routes herself (indeed, was starting to) had I not come into her life when I did.
It all comes down to the quality of the parents (yes, it takes two people to make a life). If junior is likely to end up being trailer trash with an IQ of 12, probably better off having never been born, but that's not my call. Nor should it be anyone else's but the parents'. An example I like to hold up is the Columbine mess. I started gaming in seventh grade (when they were in diapers), got a trenchcoat in eleventh grade (when they were in Kindergarten), have various implements of death and destruction -- as well as disturbing and/or violent music and imagery around me, but I had good parents. I know I will never tkae a human life, but in extreme cases of self-defence. And I will never intentionally take an animal life, but to feed or clothe myself if neccessity demands. My parents tought me the sanctity of life, and the importance of personal accountability and responsibility. If all parents would do that, I think the issue of abortions would be far less huge -- along with rape, murder, robbery...
What it boils down to is that all the religious, econmic, psychological, marital, and other miscellaneous concerns are invalid as blanket statements. Remember, this is a big planet we live on, and one man's morality is another's belly-laugh. Before anything --anything -- else, we have to ralise that no one has the inherent right to impose their morality on another in the same society. Culture is a different matter. America, for example, is one society, but many, many cultures. I would have no problem if Catholics or Evangelical Christians -- say -- made abortion tabu in their cultures, and anyone who wanted to be accepted as a member of that culture would have to abide by that proscription. Works just fine, since you don't have to be a Catholic to be an American. Keeps it out of the politial arena altogether -- except maybe by keeping abortion legal for those cultures/groups/religions/whatever who don't neccessarily ascribe so much importance to unborn humans.
Otherwise, how long before we're all the way to the point of Iraq or Northern Ireland -- where the two (or more) camps just can't seem to live and let live. They have to stick their bombs into other people's business.
Not that I think there's anything particularly special about humans in the first place. I've been tempted more than once to move to Texas, so I can employ the "he needed killin'" defence if I decide someone's proven themselves too stupid to be allowed to keep breathing my air.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Differing people have differing morals. In an objective sense abortion is neither "right" nor "wrong" because those concepts do not exist.
Only in your moral system.
Omega, you ninny. You completely missed the point! Ther is no absolute morality, only individual interpretations. Cannibalism is a horrific thing to you (and, indeed, most sane Westerners), but perfectly normal behaviour to certain tribes in New Guinea. Who's right? Latter-Day Saints churchmembers eschew -- among other things -- alcohol and caffeine. I -- and the rest of the Episcopal church -- have no problem with caffeine or alcohol. Who's right? Atheists believe there is no God. Christians (for example) believe there is. Who's right? There are over six (American) billion opinions on the planet right now. Who's right...?
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega, any "moral system" is, by definition, not objective. I doubt very much that you can know anything much at all about my personal morals from anything I've posted in this thread. I was not discussing my personal beliefs on abortion, but rather looking at the issue in a broader, socio-anthropological context.
Regarding slavery, it is a perfect example of my point. It didn't end until it posed a threat to the functioning of American society as a cohesive whole. The Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was not fought to free the slaves, but rather to preserve the Union. Lincoln took a personal position that was anti-slavery, but even said himself that he would never have gone to war over the issue. Instead, he did so to keep the South from seceeding.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic