Author
|
Topic: Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice? (Read 2512 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #15 on: 2007-11-08 19:15:31 » |
 |
Quote from: Hermit 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
|
Perhaps a similar equation as a hangnail, however the value of the variables are considerably different. For example a hangnail's threat to the health of the woman is considerably less than the parasitic pregnancy. Also the financial and time costs of giving birth, raising a child, etc. actually make an abortion more imperative than removing a hangnail assuming that the pregnancy was unplanned. One can survive the consequences of an unwanted hangnail than an unwanted pregancy much more easily. Furthermore considering the greater burdens of unwanted pregnancy to society in terms of greater law enforcement, likely incarceration, and legal prosecution costs makes terminating an unwanted pregnancy more ethically compelling than terminating an unwanted hangnail. Come to think of it, it seems like an entirely different ethical consideration . . .
|
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 #16 on: 2007-11-08 19:45:23 » |
|
Lovely points and a brilliant post Mo.
Thank-you
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
|
|
|
letheomaniac
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 267
Reputation: 8.40
Rate letheomaniac
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #17 on: 2007-11-09 04:17:55 » |
|
Greetings Virians 
[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.
[letheomaniac] Dear Fox - regardless of whether there are adoption agencies to deal with the unwanted fruit of a rapist's crime once it has been born, is it not just a little cruel and unusual to force the mother to be reminded of the horrific crime that was committed against her, every day of the nine months that she is forced to carry the unwanted offspring of this criminal, particularly in the highly emotional state that she will be in due to the hormones raging around her system and the trauma she has suffered by being raped? Is the mental health of a fully grown human being secondary to the 'rights' of a bunch of cells? And besides that, is it really the right thing to do to throw this unwanted child to the tender mercies of the child protection agencies? I find it difficult to believe that the government has anyone's best interests at heart (aside from their own, of course), least of all an unwanted child (you only have at the glue-sniffing street kids that live on the corner near my house to know that this is true).
Besides, what would a bunch of men know about any of this stuff anyway? 
Regards
letheomaniac
|
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #18 on: 2007-11-09 16:06:06 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit 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.
|
Hermit, Thanks for your response on my more recent coments. However going back to my original chosen life position, here I thought you may have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek or throwing out absurdities perhaps reflecting your opinion that my own position seemed absurd to you. Yes, I know my position may seem a bit extreme - that right to life coincides with the right to vote, contract etc - compared even to some more typical American pro-choice positions, but I don't offer it as an absurdity at all. I simply find it as the simplest and most consistent approach to all issues of majority, rights, etc. Some have suggested that I'm somehow advocating that parents kill their children. I don't advocate that at all, I simply wish to place the point of decision most clearly in the hands of parents. If anything I view my posistion as the strongest and still rational pro-parental rights position. And here I wish to clarify even further that I even consider it an issue of genetics, natural selection and reproductive choice -- while I'm open for permitting other contingencies, for example in the case of a deceased parent or cases where parents have given up their children for adoption etc., I think wherever possible the first point of decision lies with the genetic parents on this. To me it really is a matter of giving natural selection the greatest opportunity. Those genetic parents most likely to repeatedly terminate their offspring will not have their genes propagated as successfully.
However for the sake of having a democratic, civilized and cultured community, I think parents who allow their children to reach voting age without termination have effectively given up their rights of termination to the child-now-adult. I would be different from the Romans on this, and of course the Romans didn't just let any adult vote, whereas I would allow universal adult sufferage, so my divergence from the Roman ideal on this only gets broader. I don't see any necessary wisdom in involutarily terminating adults whether their offspring are involved or not. At some point we need to assume that an individual has full rights, and once that point has been reached, terminating those rights without some sort of criminal conviction or mental commitment undermines the very values of individual autonomy we are seeking to establish. I see the better way as encouraging adults to create living wills and powers of attorney to deal with end-of-life and end-of-competance issues with dignity.
|
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 #19 on: 2007-11-09 22:17:58 » |
|
[Mo] However going back to my original chosen life position, here I thought you may have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek or throwing out absurdities perhaps reflecting your opinion that my own position seemed absurd to you.
[Hermit] Not at all. Merely that many children are less obnoxious than their parents, often a great deal politer, and while I prefer that people not be born rather than having to be terminated, if we are going to engage in wholesale population management, I see no reason whatever to regard the rights of adults as being inherently more significant than those of children. Particularly adults who assume that they ought to make such determinations. Then again, in many adults, calcification or early onset senility and even dementia appears to result in a form of cognitive deficit, meaning that those exhibiting such conditions might be euthenased without concern for potential intellectual distress.
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
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #20 on: 2007-11-16 06:35:29 » |
|
Mo notices an interesting pattern in Sasquatch's internet behavior, first pointed out by Hermit on another CoV thread.
Quote from: Sasquatch 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.
|
Posted on 10/21/2006 by Dune; #1 at http://www.thefinalfantasy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52097
Quote:| I am intrigued to figure out the opinions of the members here on this situation. Are you for abortions, or not? Please try to not simply type a "no" or "yes".. Explanations are greatly appreciated. I will put in my opinion, I would just like to get some feedback first. All views are welcome. |
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?
« Reply #21 on: 2007-11-16 06:50:42 » |
|
Hmmm, an interesting continuation on the pattern:
Quote from: Sasquatch 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.
|
posted 10/29/2007 by Sinister; #53 at http://www.thefinalfantasy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52097&page=4
Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Casanova[OCAU]
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. |
This is an interesting and possibly a humane attemptive philosophy. What is more desirable that a potential life come to fruitition, whether 'tis 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.
Your philosophy 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.
-Sin |
Here Sasquatch plagiarized two people: Casanova #52; and Sinister's response to Casanova #53, mashed them together almost verbatim and made it his single response here without any attribution.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
