Author
|
Topic: Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice? (Read 2506 times) |
|
Sasquatch
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 12
Reputation: 3.36
Rate Sasquatch
Doing what you can't...
 
|
 |
Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« on: 2007-10-19 18:35:18 » |
 |
Hello CoV (sorry for being so new here yet so inactive).
I’m very intrigued to figure out the opinions of the members here (and the churches ethical stance)) on this situation. Are you for abortions, or not? Explanations are greatly appreciated. I will put in my opinion; I would just like to get some feedback first. All views are welcome.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #1 on: 2007-10-19 20:14:17 » |
|
Welcome to the CoV
Abortions are as meaningless as having a hangnail removed unless you actually want to have a child and need not to have one for whatever reason.
More Monday
Hermit.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #2 on: 2007-10-20 20:11:47 » |
|
We don't have an official stance yet, but that is an excellent idea for a Meridion vote. How would you phrase the issue? Just choose one side or the other?
|
|
|
|
|
Fox
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.04
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #3 on: 2007-10-27 20:44:45 » |
|
Despite how one may like to dress it up, abortion is murder – the intentional taking away of a life that is not ones own. The zygote and embryo are living human beings. We know that they are alive else they wouldn’t grow/develop/mature into fully-fledged offspring (babies). And we know that they are human beings by sheer virtue of the genes and genome they gain. Just because they don’t have an anthropomorphic shape doesn’t make them any less human, just less developed.
What’s more, considering that they quickly acquire their own genetic formation consisting of both parents (after ovum and sperm fuse), they are unique individuals, not body parts belonging to either the mother or father. They become their own distinctive self (albeit in a very basic sense).
Why does this individual human being deserve to die and be completely deprived of ever having a choice?
A choice that it cannot yet make but which is forced upon it none the less. I’m all for suicide and people doing what they like with their own bodies if that is what they truly want, but a zygote/embryo/foetus is not a female body part.
Pro-choice indicates: advocating a woman’s right to control her own body, but a zygote/embryo/foetus doesn’t fall into that category. So instead they become hypocrites and completely deprive another human beings choice from it.
Adoption agencies exist for a reason.
For someone who considers choice to be the first rule of ethics, I am against abortion. The female does not have the right to dictate the life or death of another: although she should be financially supported if she doesn’t plan on keeping it. I think that would be the fairest option.
Though, if the pregnancy puts her life at risk, and this can be medically confirmed, I think she has a right to protect her own life and thus be given the option of abortion.
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #4 on: 2007-10-27 22:09:27 » |
|
Quote from: Fox on 2007-10-27 20:44:45
Despite how one may like to dress it up, abortion is murder – the intentional taking away of a life that is not ones own. |
Hi Fox, it appears that you are begging the question, i.e. assuming the conclusion of your argument in a premise. Whether or not abortion is murder is precisely the matter in question. Besides, intentionally taking another's life isn't necessarily murder.
Quote:| The zygote and embryo are living human beings. |
That is actually irrelevant. What matters is whether the unborn human is legally a person and what rights the parents and the state have in controlling the pregnancy. The answers to these questions are not scientific facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #5 on: 2007-10-27 23:46:55 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2007-10-27 22:09:27
That is actually irrelevant. What matters is whether the unborn human is legally a person and what rights the parents and the state have in controlling the pregnancy. The answers to these questions are not scientific facts.
|
[Blunderov] An interesting scientific fact is that the behaviour of a foetus is indistinguishable from that of a parasite.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #6 on: 2007-10-28 10:26:50 » |
|
Fox's assertions (not argument) lead to the point where:
- a cadavar is indistinguishable from a human (even after fossilization, it probably still contains human genetic material (in the teeth));
- The difference between viable and non-viable human genetic material can be so small as to be effectively invisible to us, thus the assertion that human genetic material has value only by virtue of being human genetic material must fail - unless Fox would answer that even non-viable human genetic material is as valuable as a human. Which would lead to other contradictions;
- as carrying a zygote to term and giving birth are much more hazardous than abortion, the life of a mother is regarded as being of far less worth than that attributed to a zygote or fetus;
- a defective embryo has to be taken to term, and thereafter cared for for so long as it survives irrespective of the defect;
- a raped woman not only has to deal with the consequences of rape but also potentially having to bear the rapists child and potentially a duty of care towards it;
a mother's life may be put at risk in order to preserve the asserted "life" of a fetus and a medical practitioner would risk license and possible civil and, or, criminal sanctions if preserving the mothers life involved eliminating the fetus;
- a contraceptive failure would sentence mother - and arguably the rest of her family - to the inconvenience, unpleasantness, pain and even with subsidies (paid byu the uninvolved!) probably some expenses of carrying a fetus to term - and potentially having to raise it (arguing that adoption is available does not mean that all birth mothers will feel able to dispose of something that they have already hosted for 9 months);
- a dramatic increase in the number of mouths to feed on an already massively overloaded planet with a consequent threat to the wellbeing and potentially survival of all other creatures.
The above are partly consequent on Fox having ignored the fact that what defines human life is not genetics, nor even cardiovascular action, but cognition as determined by analysis of cerebral activity to determine whether higher thought is possible. It should be noted that this definition is also arguable, because by this definition a child only becomes a human at about 8 months post partum, as this is when myelination of the frontal lobes occurs. Prior to that time neonate activity is driven by the brainstem.
In addition, Fox ignores the fact that over 60% of all pregnancies terminate spontaneously in abortion, and by his assertion, rather than flushing the result, we should perhaps be engaging in heroic efforts to preserve this (potential) "human" and heroic efforts having failed, perhaps a funeral? Or are these "living humans" less worthy of being mourned?
Further, Fox's assertion that "potential life" is "life," if treated appropriately (i.e. not aborted but nutured), conveniently ignores the fact that this has a cost which has to be born by somebody; and not examining what either life or appropriateness means. For example, failing to recognize the difference between potential and actual ignores the fact that it is already possible to autofertilize an ovum (in other words sperm is not required to form a fetus) and thus every one of the millions of eggs in the ovaries of a female fetus - most of which will die before she reaches menarche and potential motherhood - could achieve some level of "life" if appropriately nurtured. As such, Fox's assertion that "potential life" is "life" presumably means these ova should be harvested (preferably before birth, as they begin dying before the fetus reaches term), fertilized and brought to term (ignoring the problem of exactly who he would force to act as host). Also, given that even at this early stage in the manipulation of human genetic material, the genetic material of a sperm or even a mucous swab from the interior of somebody's mouth, should also suffice for reproduction if implanted in an egg cell stripped of genetic material and handled appropriately, suggests that masturbation and spitting should also be regarded as murder.
Perhaps Fox would care to discuss these consequences of his assertions, or even, in their light, reconsider his opinions?
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fox
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.04
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #7 on: 2007-10-28 12:20:02 » |
|
Greetings Lucifer.
[David Lucifer] Hi Fox, it appears that you are begging the question, i.e. assuming the conclusion of your argument in a premise.
[Fox] Hmm. The argument to murder wasn’t really intended to be the conclusion of my argument. The conclusion rested more on completely denying human beings of a choice in the matter of their life and death: although perhaps I did rush some of my words.
[David Lucifer] Whether or not abortion is murder is precisely the matter in question. Besides, intentionally taking another's life isn't necessarily murder.
[Fox] Perhaps it would just make more sense to define murder as being carried out with intent and homicide without intent and have varying degrees of justification based on the circumstances. But anyway…
[Fox] Rather then simply being a question of murder I see this issue as being more a question of conflicting, lawful, choices, i.e. between the mothers right over her own body and the offspring’s right to live. Considering that the offspring is it’s own individual self, and not a mere body part, I think it is both reasonable and justifiable to agree on the latter. Thus the female has no right over its termination.
[Fox] But, to address the question of murder, according to wikipedia murder is defined as being:
Quote:| Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice, aforethought, and the lack of justification. |
[Fox] So the question becomes whether or not abortion should be considered as unlawful, as we already have one human killing another (with intent). For reasons already specified I don’t see how you can justify abortion as being lawful, unless the females life is endangered and put at risk, and this could be medically confirmed, during gestation and pregnancy.
[Fox] Though if one were more selective, and there was a severe deficiency with the offspring which couldn’t be helped, then they could argue for abortion on that basis. In my opinion, and to be fair, this would depend on the viability of the offsprings well-being and whether or not it could survive long term.
[Fox 1] The zygote and embryo are living human beings.
[David Lucifer 1] That is actually irrelevant. What matters is whether the unborn human is legally a person and what rights the parents and the state have in controlling the pregnancy. The answers to these questions are not scientific facts.
[Fox 2] Irrelevant? How so?
[Fox 2] Lets define a person; American heritage dictionary:
Quote:| 1 A living human. Often used in combination. |
Quote:| 2 An individual of specified character |
Quote:| 3 The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self. |
Quote:| 4 The living body of a human |
And, according to classical terminology wikipedia defines it as being:
Quote:| “a human being regarded as an individual” |
Although there is further dispute the more you read on, such as:
Quote:| in many jurisdictions a corporation may be treated as a "person" under the law. In the fields of philosophy, theology, and bioethics, the definition of 'person' may exclude human beings who are incapable of certain kinds of thought (such as embryos, fetuses with incomplete brain development, or adult humans lacking higher brain functions). |
[Fox] Given all the twisting of words and definitions, and all the semantic masterbation surrounding what constitutes as a “person” I suggest that the term be left out of the issue and replaced with what constitutes a “living human being”. This would be more accurate and less complicated for both sides of the debate.
[Fox] The argument of what ultimetly defines a “person” appears more ontological then anything else and therefore endless. I don’t see this as helping the issue but rather overcomplicating it.
[Fox] As for controlling the pregnancy, unless it is to the benefit of the mother and/or offsprings life/well-being I don’t think any rights sould be given or required.
==============================================================
Greetings Hermit.
To begin with I’ll discuss them, and, if you can manage to convince me otherwise, I’ll change them. 
[Hermit] A cadavar is indistinguishable from a living human (even after fossilization, it probably still contains human genetic material (in the teeth));
[Fox] Eh? A cadaver is defined as a dead human body, so how is it indistinguishable from a living one? A cadaver slowly athropies and decays over time whereas a living body continues to grow and function.
[Hermit] a defective embryo has to be taken to term, and thereafter cared for for so long as it survives irrespective of the defect
[Fox] It would depend on its state of viability. If it could survive on its own (relying on its own delevolping systems – or eventually come to) then yes; if not, no.
[Hermit] a raped woman not only has to deal with the consequences of rape but also potentially having to bear the rapists child and potentially a duty of care towards it;
[Fox] Well as I said this would be what adoption agencies would be for. I can sympathise I really can, along with required therapy and financial support, but the developing offspring has done nothing wrong. I feel that it is important to remember this.
[Hermit] a mother's life would be put at risk in order to preserve the asserted "life" of a fetus and a medical practitioner would risk license and sanctions if preserving the mothers life involved eliminating the fetus
[Fox] Eh? If a mother wasn’t able to sustain long-term pregnancy without endangering her life (as verified by a medical practicioner) then abortion/ejection methods would be a reasonably option, no?
[Hermit] a contraceptive failure would sentence mother - and potentially the rest of her family - to the inconvenience, unpleasantness, pain and expense of carrying a fetus to term - and potentially having to raise it
[Fox] I would suggest financial support and offered therapy, providing she doesn’t want to keep it and conforms with an adoption/fostering agency.
[Hermit] (arguing that adoption is available does not mean that all birth mothers will feel able to dispose of something that they have already hosted for 9 months);
[Fox] Well either they want it or they don’t. I would suggest a psychological evaluation (perhaps even a series of them depending on the case) before anything was decided, or “written in stone” to resolve the case as efficiently and comprehensively as possible.
[Hermit] a dramatic increase in the number of mouths to feed on an already massively overloaded planet with a consequent threat to the wellbeing and potentially survival of all other creatures.
[Fox] If such a catastrophic case of overpopulation could be supported, and shown to be the case, then, of course, I couldn’t argue with that.
[Hermit] The above are partly consequent on Fox having ignored the fact that what defines human life is not genetics, nor even cardiovascular action, but cognition as determined by analysis of cerebral activity to determine whether higher thought is possible.
[Fox] If your going into thought processes and mental states of cognition then I can see how you can define a person (personality, personal identity, reason, ect). But a human life is surely defined by an individual matrix/system of developing, growing, maturing, organising, adapting, metabolising and responding human cells – which would constitute the self.
[Hermit] In addition, Fox ignores the fact that over 60% of all pregnancies terminate spontaneously in abortion, and by his assertion, rather than flushing the result, we should perhaps be engaging in heroic efforts to preserve this (potential) "human."
[Fox] Not at all, I am only against the intent of the people behind the action. If the action itself is natural then no one is to blame.
[Hermit] However, failing to recognize the difference between potential and real ignores the fact that it is already possible to autofertilize an ovum (in other words sperm is not required to form a fetus) and thus every one of the millions of eggs in a little girl's ovum - most of which will die before she reaches menarche and potential motherhood - could achieve some level of "life" if appropriately nurtured.
[Fox] In such rare cases of, what could we call this… parthenogenesis? Then I can see how this type of event should be a personal choice for the host it involves.
[Hermit] As such, Fox's assertion that "potential life" is life presumably means these ova should be harvested (preferably before birth, as they begin dying before the fetus reaches term), fertilized and brought to term (ignoring the problem of exactly who he would force to act as host).
[Fox] Lets look at seeds for a moment. Until they are planted into the ground, begin to germinate and then start to grow they remain “potential life”. But, once they germinate and start to grow, they are alive. I’m not saying that every single “potential life” (i.e ovum’s) should be fertilised, harvested and brought to term; not at all. I am saying that for those already fertilised and “living” (albeit in a very basic sense) it is unfair to terminate them. However if overpopulation was such a dire problem (could you elaborate?) or if a mothers life were endangered from the pregnancy then yes, abortion becomes justifiable.
[Hermit]… suggests that masturbation and spitting should also be regarded as murder.
[Fox] *Shakes head* These are your body constituents, and, as I’ve already said, I’m all for people doing with their own bodies as they wish, just not others where it cannot be justified.
That took longer then I wanted it too. There may be some errors or misplaced words which I will try and get round to correcting later. My apologies.
Regards
Fox
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #8 on: 2007-10-28 12:28:36 » |
|
Sorry Fox, because of computer issues, I've taken submitting as soon as I have the bulk of a posting outlined and then editing it into final shape in order not to lose what I've typed already in the face of an almost inevitable crash. I hadn't expected you to be sitting at the keyboard waiting to reply :-O Would you mind editing your piece in the light of my finished post and then I'll change this note into a response.
Thanks
Hermit
Speaking of that, I just lost a partial response to an unarguable aspect of the above due to a power interruption. Here is a reprise.
In the early 1940s, largely as a response to the tragedy of the crop failures in the USA during the depression, but also to worldwide depletion of nitrate sources, the world transitioned to the modern farming technologies that form the backbone of the "Green Revolution." Fossil fuel powered irrigation, petrochemical derived pesticides and herbicides, mechanical tillage and most importantly, fertilizers produced via the Halber-Bosch process where natural gas is used to compress, heat and donate the required Hydrogen. "The Green Revolution" increased agricultural productivity by at least 250% and, together with better distribution technologies (also powered by cheap fossil fuels) allowed the world population to swell from 2 to 2.5 billion to well over 6 million with, until recently, a percentage reduction in global starvation.The UN and other agencies have been predicting a population stabilizing at around 9 billion by 2060, based on the Chinese continuing their aggressive program of abortion and sterilization to maintain their population levels, and other nations following suite as they reach the end of the ability to support their populations. But this does not take "peak oil" and its impact into account.
While some still try to argue that "peak oil" is a myth, the US military and other experts suspect that the peak for oil was in 2006, and the peak for natural gas even earlier. I tend to concur. The consequential rise in farming input costs will dictate a massive increase in the costs of fuel, fertilizer, biocides, water and other inputs, as well as the cost of distribution, and thus the cost and availability of food. In addition, something not widely known or discussed is the eutrophication of surface waters and the massive overutilization of "fossil water" (water accumulated in aquifers over the course of millennia) both of which are already causing serious water availablity issues - even before taking global warming into account.
This combination point to the fact that the 1 to 1.5 billion global population carried at the turn of the 1900s just before we began the process of mechanization may point to the best possible carrying scenario, rather than the 2 billion currently predicted as sustainable by most agronomists. Even their, in my (and other's, e.g. Kunstler) opinion, wildly optimistic figures are only 1/3 of current global levels. Even the US sustainable carrying level - assuming no change in water availability (which global warming makes unlikely) is around 1/3 less than present at about 200 million.
Being a kindly person I'd far rather see people not being born than having them starve to death. And really, those are the only two alternatives. Unfortunately, it seems as if we are going to see who is correct within our lifetimes. My prediction is before 2015, but the most optimistic projections by in field experts is that we will face widespread starvation long before 2030.
Let me quote from Wikipedia:David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in theirs study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds, says study.[28]
The authors of this study believe that the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050. The oncoming peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production could precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected. Geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer claims that coming decades could see spiraling food prices without relief and massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before.[29][30]
Perhaps now you can see why I have chosen to work exclusively on this and problems related to it, and why I think that abortion needs to remain legal (and thus not murder) and why the use of birth control in all its forms (including abortion), needs to be increased rapidly and dramatically, rather than forcing the as yet unthought of, let alone unborn, to experience the inevitable resource based wars which will undoubtedly accompany and exacerbate the coming miseries.
Kind Regards
Hermit
PS The misery could perhaps be largely alleviated if not entirely avoided if we concentrated our energies and declining fossil fuels on building around the consequences of our profligacy now. Unfortunately, I don't think it is going to happen. My prediction, based on historical behaviours, is that we will carry on as usual until far too late. And then say "if only", and "it isn't our fault" as vast numbers of people die.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.55
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
The chosen life
« Reply #9 on: 2007-10-28 21:41:02 » |
|
I advocate for the chosen life. Up until birth it should strictly be the mother's choice, from birth until majority (old enough to vote) it should be the choice of the mother and father combined (either one gets a veto). After majority it should be the individual's decision whether or not to self terminate. All terminations should be as painless as possible (euthenasia), and cruelty towards others regardless of termination rights is to be criminal (as is cruelty to animals, child abuse, etc.). I'm simply in favor of giving natural selection a boost, and wish everyone to realize that if they are in fact still alive it is because SOMEBODY wants you to live. Is there anything wrong with that? It could be a beautiful world!
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #10 on: 2007-10-29 00:08:24 » |
|
[David Lucifer 1] That is actually irrelevant. What matters is whether the unborn human is legally a person and what rights the parents and the state have in controlling the pregnancy. The answers to these questions are not scientific facts.
[Fox 2] Irrelevant? How so?
[Lucifer 2] Irrelevant because if the unborn child does not have legal rights it doesn't matter whether they are human or not.
[Fox 2] Lets define a person;
[Lucifer 2] If it wasn't obvious I meant person in the legal sense of the word. For example women were not considered persons under the law until October 18, 1929 (in this case with a right to vote).
[Fox] Given all the twisting of words and definitions, and all the semantic masterbation surrounding what constitutes as a “person” I suggest that the term be left out of the issue and replaced with what constitutes a “living human being”. This would be more accurate and less complicated for both sides of the debate.
[Lucifer 2] So you are saying it isn't relevant whether or not these "living human beings" are legal persons with a corresponding right to life? Sorry but I thought that was the subject of the debate.
[Fox] As for controlling the pregnancy, unless it is to the benefit of the mother and/or offsprings life/well-being I don’t think any rights sould be given or required.
[Lucifer 2] Ignoring who has rights in determining how the pregnancy ends doesn't make the problem go away.
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.55
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #11 on: 2007-10-29 10:36:57 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2007-10-29 00:08:24
[David Lucifer 1] That is actually irrelevant. What matters is whether the unborn human is legally a person and what rights the parents and the state have in controlling the pregnancy. The answers to these questions are not scientific facts.
[Fox 2] Irrelevant? How so?
[Lucifer 2] Irrelevant because if the unborn child does not have legal rights it doesn't matter whether they are human or not.
[Fox 2] Lets define a person;
[Lucifer 2] If it wasn't obvious I meant person in the legal sense of the word. For example women were not considered persons under the law until October 18, 1929 (in this case with a right to vote).
[Fox] Given all the twisting of words and definitions, and all the semantic masterbation surrounding what constitutes as a “person” I suggest that the term be left out of the issue and replaced with what constitutes a “living human being”. This would be more accurate and less complicated for both sides of the debate.
[Lucifer 2] So you are saying it isn't relevant whether or not these "living human beings" are legal persons with a corresponding right to life? Sorry but I thought that was the subject of the debate.
|
It is absolutely the subject of debate. I've suggested the most consistent breaking point for "legal persons" in the sense . . . indeed I think all issues of majority should be combined at one age break, specifically the age at which one gets the right to vote. This should include the rights to legally contract, to imbibe intoxicating substances, to join the military, to drive a motor vehicle unsupervised, to enter into marriage/domestic contracts, and of course the individual right to life (or from it if one wishes to commit suicide).
Quote:
[Fox] As for controlling the pregnancy, unless it is to the benefit of the mother and/or offsprings life/well-being I don’t think any rights sould be given or required.
[Lucifer 2] Ignoring who has rights in determining how the pregnancy ends doesn't make the problem go away.
|
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #12 on: 2007-10-29 13:04:24 » |
|
Dear Mo
While the Romans gave parents unlimited powers and responsibilities over and for theoiir children for life, we don't have to be bound by such stereotyping. After all, we all know many adults who are absolutely a waste of space and probably more than a few who are brain impaired to the point where the cabbage looks intelligent in comparison. So why not switch it around later in life. When the kids are old enough to vote (28 was good enough for the Athenians and makes sense on the basis of ethical development), why not require the offspring to decide, at least annually if not continuously, on their parents' right to live.
For those without children, the life-or-death decision might be made by a committee for aesthetic deletions. The committee might also have review rights on public appeal, such that in the event that children continuously err in favor of maintaining vegetative parents on life-support, then the committee for aesthetic deletions would be tasked with eradicating the clearly flawed germ-line, root and branch.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
With acknowledgments to Swift.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Sasquatch
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 12
Reputation: 3.36
Rate Sasquatch
Doing what you can't...
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #13 on: 2007-11-08 11:37:35 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-10-19 20:14:17 Welcome to the CoV
Abortions are as meaningless as having a hangnail removed unless you actually want to have a child and need not to have one for whatever reason.
More Monday
Hermit.
|
Hello Hermit, thanks for the greeting. Out of all the things recently said, what you say here confuses me the most. You say abortions are meaningless but you later go on to say that you support them. Could you offer some explanation to your logic?
I see my topic has been doing some evolving in my absence. Wonderful!
Well I guess it’s about time I posted up my own views. Even though they may differ from some of you here please bear in mind that I respect your individual opinions respectively.
I'm all for abortion. Their carers won't be able to provide the kind of care that children need and deserve. Aborting a baby is a VERY big decision, and it is a decision taken with significant consideration, as it harms a women's chances of conceiving again. The aborted babies, if forced to live, would live a horrible life, on top of all the evils in the world that already exist. It's absolutely inhumane to intentionally scar someone like that.
If anyone here has read a book called 'freakanomics' it will explain how the lack of abortion also leads to an increase in youth delinquency and crime.
I find this 'pro-life' premise quite funny. Clearly a clever marketer somewhere thought of this. What's the opposite of pro life? anti life? If only.
I can't remember where I saw this quote. But here goes. "I need a license to operate my boat. I don't need a license to have a child. Now which one do you think is more important" It's sad isn't it.
I see this as an interesting and possibly a humane attemptive philosophy. What is more desirable that a potential life come to fruitition, whether it’s nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
It reminds me of what author Jorge Luis Borges once wrote, that mirrors and coitus were abominations because they increased mankind's numbers. Rather pesimistic, if you don't mind me saying so, but done with good intentions.
As far as "Pro-life" is concerned. Nothing new. More political and pathos spin. In the end, no veiwpoint, no matter what good intentions (be they religious or secular) should hold illimitable sway over all of mankind. Life is subjective, that goes to those who bring it with blessings and those who end it with blessings.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #14 on: 2007-11-08 18:58:34 » |
|
Meaningless because they don't require any more ethical consideration than hangnail surgery (with the exception of the already identified situation. e,g, the situation where a woman wants a child and has to abort because she received a rubella innoculation while pregnant without a warning that this would dramatically increase the probability of birth defects) .
Given the lack of evidence requiring ethical debate, arguing for abortions in the absence of ethical debate is no more illogical than arguing for a surgical cure for hangnails in the absence of ethical debate. If it pains you, remove it.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
