|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 2:20:54 GMT -5
yes, all of those things are different
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Feb 7, 2017 2:23:45 GMT -5
but you can't abort an 80 year old. which is the point I was making.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 2:29:03 GMT -5
you cant abort an eight month old infant either. you can abort a fetus though. ??
|
|
|
Post by Grace on Feb 7, 2017 4:46:06 GMT -5
Could the reason that you're against abortion (that is, women deciding whether they are able/want to bring the fetus in their body into the world as a human being with autonomy and then raise the baby) be because you see yourself as the potential aborted fetus in this scenario? You're certainly not the woman, and a lot of us were accidents / potentially could have been aborted. That's pretty much the human condition. Tons of pregnancies are accidental. In that case, remove yourself from the argument and realize that unwanted babies and the things they unknowingly bring (inept foster care systems, tons of social problems from neglected children to substance abuse) are a direct result of babies being forced into the world. What? I'm pretty sure everybody in the world is a potential aborted fetus. My point is to make a distinction between kids that are born after months of "we're trying" and comes from desperation to be parents as opposed to kids who are conceived without intent and furthermore don't have parents with resources and/or desire to take care of them. Nicole makes the same point more eloquently above about how the foster care/adoptive system fails us (incidentally, fails the Baudelaires also). Quisby- not trying to come for you, and I can't state strongly enough that I really hope you don't take any of what I say personally (also just a good way to live life). My aim is to suggest pro-choice arguments that we haven't heard yet, particularly ones that support women. Also really wish you wouldn't suggest that I'm calling you racist because I bring up historical prejudice against women of color. I bring the topic up not because of anything to do with you but because I'm a woman of color. The topic is relevant to me. In the same way, the reason every woman on this thread feels as strongly as she does is because it is personal for us. It hasn't been theoretical since we got our first periods. I don't fantasize that you'll understand after reading the perspectives of all these women, because you seem very intent on your beliefs, but your beliefs have direct, negative consequences to every woman of childbearing age and often their families too. As for unwanted babies - yes, being born creates problems and inconveniences yourself and others. That is life, and some people have it way, way harder than others, but I have never agreed with the idea that death, be it suicide or murder, is the way out. Refer to the first post- you cannot be killed if you're not born yet. "Problems and inconveniences" is euphemistic language and doesn't respect the plight of the most underserved people forced into having children without resources. Again, we are extremely lucky if we are able to talk about these adverse circumstances borne (lol) of unwanted pregnancies in a strictly theoretical way.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Feb 7, 2017 4:54:17 GMT -5
I'd have to disagree with the statement that you cannot be killed if you're not born yet. Killing is not something that is limited to humans. You can kill cells cells in the body through radiotherapy or other cancer treatments. If you can kill cells, you can kill a fetus.
|
|
|
Post by penne on Feb 7, 2017 6:21:56 GMT -5
Hoo boy, a lot happened when I wasn't looking. I already talked about identifying fundamentals in a debate, and it seemed some people didn't really "get" fundamentals - the whole point of a fundamental is to find the basic, basic matter where you disagree with someone else, and realize that it is not obvious who is right. If a solution or truth was obvious based on a couple facts, and we assumed everyone was logical, then there would be no disagreement. Now, if you are assuming the person you disagreed with is illogical... then, what? Why are you logically debating? To go through the process, just picking people out at random, let's go with bär and Terry Craig, and their "fundamental disagreement." can you scientifically prove that there is a difference between an undeveloped mass of cells and a human? yes Because you can use the scientific method to test whether any one of Quisby's three hypotheses is true? Bullsalsa. Science doesn't deal with things like defining personhood; that's the realm of philosophy. bär and Terry Craig both believe that "people" are different from "objects" around them. This is a fundamental agreement, essential for the debate. In this particular case, bär's fundamental belief is that there is a scientifically testable difference between a fetus and a human which makes the fetus not a human. This requires the differentiating feature of a "human" to be something physically measurable; in bär's case, it is "viability outside the womb." Terry Craig's fundamental belief is that there is no scientific method for differentiating between a person and anything else, but that they still are different. This would require the differentiating feature of a "human" to be something that cannot be measured physically; possibly a soul, or a supernatural "consciousness," etc., though Terry Craig does not express an opinion about one or any of these. (I use the word "supernatural," which lately has a wishy washy connotation, but is a solid word defining a specific thing - "that which is not part of the universe." Lately, with fantasy shows throwing it about, it's meaning has been muddled, but literally it defines something which is not a part of the universe or it's observable rules. Anyway.)bär and Terry Craig's fundamental disagreement, then, is about how to determine whether a person is a person or not. However, it is unreasonable for each to assume the other is just "not listening" or "ignoring facts." If bär is right, and there is a scientific method for determining personhood, he must pick a determining factor, which he has: viability outside the womb. However, someone else could choose a different determining factor - for instance, "containing dna from a mother and father," or "having gone through the process of childbirth." Each of these two determining factors are scientifically testable, but would return wildly different results. If Terry Craig is right, and there is nothing that makes a person different from their surroundings except for some supernatural element, that raises its own problems, which is that people exist within the observable universe and so cannot prove within the bounds of this universe whether there is anything outside of it, or not. Scientific analysis relies on observation; if anything "supernatural" existed it would be, by definition, traditionally unobservable. So, a problem arises. Both of these fundamental beliefs are untestable. bär can scientifically prove whether or not a fetus can survive outside the womb, but he cannot scientifically prove that "being able to survive outside the womb" is what really makes a person different from just a collection of cells. Terry Craig asserts that a person is, physically, just a collection of cells, and that the difference is not physical, but runs into the problem of physically proving something that is non-physical. If I hope anybody has gained anything from this (extremely long winded) post, it would be this: you both seem like intelligent people. I would love for you both, and everyone else about someone on an opposing side of a debate, to realize this. Both of you have a solid position, based on two different assumptions that in the end, are assumptions. bär has assumed that a person starts when they can survive outside the womb, and Terry Craig has assumed that a person starts when (to make an assumption/simplification of my own) they have a soul. Neither of these assumptions are traditionally "testable" or "provable." (Final notes: bär, if your definition isn't exactly "a person starts when they can survive outside the womb," I'm sorry I misunderstood; but, if you position is something pretty similar, I hope you see how the same points I brought up still apply. And, notice the difference between "I'm going to test whether a fetus can survive outside the womb" and "I'm going to test whether or not 'viability outside the womb' is what separates a person from what they grow from." One of these sentences is scientifically sound. One is untestable.)quisby i can't even be bothered reading the entirety of a single post you make to know if we agree or disagree, but i'll be DAMNED if you're not the most condescending motherpotato er i've ever seen on this forum and that's saying something
|
|
|
Post by penne on Feb 7, 2017 6:35:08 GMT -5
also the discussion on whether abortions should be legal goes so far beyond whether the ~fetuses are babies~ or whatever, why is everyone so hung up on that?
you can only ban safe abortions
if you value life, you should also value those of all the women out there dying due to unsafe abortions
|
|
|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on Feb 7, 2017 10:20:55 GMT -5
Eh
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Feb 7, 2017 12:13:36 GMT -5
To answer BULL!'s question, I believe life (a soul, but life is a fine word) begins at conception. Right at the interaction between the two nonhuman elements you mentioned, in other words. As you say, we cannot prove when a "soul" enters the body using scientific analysis, as that of course depends upon direct physical observation. However, if souls exist, and there was a certain moment when the soul entered the body, it makes sense that it might have some indirect physical evidence pointing toward that specific point. If I was to link my belief in life upon conception to some kind of physical phenomena, I would say that it is because that is the moment when the two separate parts, still technically just "parts" of two different people, come together and create something that is no longer only part of the man or only part of the woman. It now contains physical elements of both in a completely unique synthesis, making it a new "person." wait so this isn't about abortion
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 14:33:44 GMT -5
2. I understand what you say about personal experiences and compassion - preventing suffering of others is beautiful. By another turn - I suppose I am a bit more of an optimist in this regard. In my experience, I have known people who have gone through tragedies and losses far, far worse than I might ever know, and yet they choose to be happy, or find ways to be. That is beautiful. In my opinion, the opportunity to make your own happiness out of despair far outweighs anything you could go through. By saying that it's merciful to save someone the suffering, you are making the statement "the possibility of happiness is not worth the surety of tragedy." I have seen otherwise from those in my life, and so I disagree. Yeah, yeah, silver linings and the glass is half full and whatever. I'm actually an optimist too, but only because I have no other choice. I'm hoping things will turn out differently this time as that's the only thing I can do. But its much more likely that a kid born into a salsaty world will become a product of that world and pass on that behavior to their children. At some point hope can become naivety. You don't believe in abortion, I get that. But, obviously, you don't know everything, just because you believe it's wrong doesn't mean there are cases where it isn't, and it really isn't your business to be the judge of that. again from your point of view. i know you get this but you're asking me to assume that a fetus is a baby in your arguments and i don't have to do that. yes, i see what you mean. i get how it would be wrong if a fetus were a baby but as you already said this is a point we fundamentally disagree on so why keep trying to look at it from this way? i dont know man. i think that the extreme pro-life people really hold onto this because they know it can't be proved. like we know all these things about fetuses that show they aren't alive and human the way we are yet, so anyone pro-life can kinda arbitrarily say "well life begins at conception, so now you're talking about murder." i'm not saying that its not a deeply held belief, its just kind of convenient. maybe thats me being cynical or condescending but i feel like this is normally a great way to stop discussion because someone believes life begins at conception, that's it. you dont really have to hear arguments to the contrary because they all equate to murder and then you get to be shocked and scandalized that someone else would suggest murdering a child. also if life begins at conception, does IFV not count as conception? is only sex conception? i know people that are pro-life but still want abortions to be offered to ensure that people don't die trying to get them. whats your stance? i believe in god. so like, what this boils down to seems like: because god exists and gives fetuses a soul, abortion is wrong. what i think is more like "there is something outside our universe, but that's all we really know". kind of. really, i think god is a lot more forgiving than most people give a higher power credit for. i know, that's awfully convenient because then we can just do whatever we want and god will forgive us! which is not really what i think. but i do know, in that way everyone who has faith knows what they know, that god loves everyone and is on everyone's side. i think humans give themselves too much credit when they think there's anything they could do to make god not love them and to condemn them. i think god forgives most things, though i don't know what the process for forgiveness looks like. i know that the catholic church only recently started forgiving women who had abortions. basically, i don't think abortion is the biggest sin the world that god can't forgive, which is kinda how it was treated. i don't really know, i think we live, we do our best, and its not my business to say if someone else should have an abortion or not. maybe souls are given when a baby is born, not before. when one has an unwanted pregnancy, maybe this is actually a blessing as it gives medicine a chance to save lives with stem cells. i don't really know how to lay my thoughts out on this next one so, uh, reincarnation. like i don't know, some people think abortion ends the one chance a soul has to live, but that's not really true with reincarnation. i say pretend because i don't think that's the only matter even if you believe a fetus is a human. if a fetus is equal to a pregnant person, you can't kill it. i ~surely~ don't see that's the end. that's the halfway point, maybe. trying to protect life isn't done, or really even started, if the endgame is only ensuring a baby lives. you have the pregnant person, you have the baby. you have all the issues that led to a person wanting an abortion. those things don't go away. how do we respect both the life of a mother and a baby before and after birth? how do we prevent abortions in a way that works and respects people of multiple cultures, religions? how do we deal with the sexism and racism involved? how do we deal reproductive issues across the globe? oh okay, we can't kill a human. case closed. not even remotely helpful. if that one was so easy, get to work on the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 14:41:07 GMT -5
wait so this isn't about abortion ...That's not very nice to say, especially since you know I think it has everything to do with it. killing people should never be allowed, under any circumstances um. like are you generalizing? because there are definitely circumstances where it is allowed. you know, authorities, self defense, soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 14:45:49 GMT -5
um. like are you generalizing? Nope. That's what I believe, with the possible exception of self-defense against a malicious attacker. i actually believed that too once. it's self indulgent garbage. im lucky enough that i'll likely never be in the position to kill, but im not going to pass judgement on those trying to protect others or themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 14:47:34 GMT -5
um. like are you generalizing? Nope. That's what I believe, with the possible exception of self-defense or defense of others against a malicious attacker. so yes, you were generalizing. those who are in relatively safe positions shouldn't be allowed to say whats right or wrong for those who aren't. which also applies to abortion. you believe its wrong. others don't. let them make their own choices.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 15:01:43 GMT -5
you have the pregnant person, you have the baby. you have all the issues that led to a person wanting an abortion. those things don't go away. how do we respect both the life of a mother and a baby before and after birth? how do we prevent abortions in a way that works and respects people of multiple cultures, religions? how do we deal with the sexism and racism involved? how do we deal reproductive issues across the globe? I completely agree with the last response you made. All of those are very real issues connected with abortion, and you're right - if I believe the fetus is a human, then it's the halfway point, because trying to protect life would also include the pregnant person. In a perfect world, we would be able to solve all of those problems in such a way that all the causes of abortion are eliminated and it simply never becomes an issue again. Here's to hoping, and to trying to solve them. dude, you can wax on endlessly about protecting the soul of a fetus and fundamental disagreements and then it comes time to think about what happens next, and you're all "yeah i hope it works out." thats the problem. i don't love abortions or anything. im of the mind that its the best option some people have now. its really hard to find alternatives when the other side seems to just be NO ABORTIONS ARE BAD and really vocal about that but not really giving a damn about the other stuff. though i agree with fredy, i think we can reduce the number of abortions but should always have legally and accessible abortions available. okay going with abortion kills a human life. okay. that doesn't mean the person having an abortion believes this. but maybe they do and for whatever reason they still want an abortion. either way, if someone wants an abortion, then this becomes the situation if abortions aren't safe and legal: a. person has the baby. b. person gets an abortion anyway. person survives, baby doesn't. c. person gets an abortion anyway, both die. there will always be people who are not going to take option a. by still saying "nope, can't allow abortion", all that does is make c the more likely to happen. so in essence, it's killing two lives instead of one. thats why some people don't support abortion but recognize it shouldn't be banned. it doesnt mean supporting or endorsing murder, its not even putting one life over the other, but at least saving one person is better than both dying.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Feb 7, 2017 15:17:52 GMT -5
If you think someone is doing something wrong, for good reasons, I think that is a good situation to tell someone else that what they are doing is wrong. You are doing it to me, right now, actually, by telling me that it is wrong to tell someone else that what they are doing is wrong. challenging your beliefs isn't me making a value judgement on them. so what, i think you're wrong, you think i'm wrong. you can certainly tell someone that. but why is it so necessary to tell someone theyre wrong if they want to have an abortion? i get that if they listen you save a life. but im just saying. consider theyve heard that already. consider they're going to do it anyway. is the best course of action really to make your moral reservations known or to offer help and support? maybe do both? i remember reading an article where a woman talked about how she helped more women give birth in an abortion clinic than anyone screaming outside did. because she offered support for all possibilities. and she wasn't even a doctor or anything. she just sat with women and held their hand and gave them the freedom to decide for themselves. i'm not trying to get you to think abortion is great, i dont think abortion is great. im just saying stuff. i don't know, i don't think the best way to reduce abortions or the need for them is by banning abortion or shaming those who consider/have them or by only considering the fetus.
|
|