41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The moral life or the virtuous life is doing what is good and avoiding what is evil. What is good is to do what helps man flourish or what helps man function well.

According to Kant to figure out if something is good (which would make it a moral obligation), we should look at something within a maxim and apply it universally without exception to reason the consequences.

“It is permissible to have an abortion when pregnant.” Applying it universally without exception we see that within one generation all humanity would end, thus the complete opposite of flourishing or functioning well…death.

Glad we got that over. So, now we go to the legislature with this reasonable argument and over-turn current legislation.[/quote]

Flawed logic is flawed.

122

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The moral life or the virtuous life is doing what is good and avoiding what is evil. What is good is to do what helps man flourish or what helps man function well.

According to Kant to figure out if something is good (which would make it a moral obligation), we should look at something within a maxim and apply it universally without exception to reason the consequences.

“It is permissible to have an abortion when pregnant.” Applying it universally without exception we see that within one generation all humanity would end, thus the complete opposite of flourishing or functioning well…death.

Glad we got that over. So, now we go to the legislature with this reasonable argument and over-turn current legislation.[/quote]

For tens of thousands of years of human existance, not only was it permissible to terminate a pregnancy, but it was permissible to terminate any autonomous human with which you found disagreement. Obviously, humanity has not ended, and did not end within a generation. Even your god, whom you stake as having absolute moral claim in this argument destroyed human life at will and for little reason other than entertainment (see the part of my previous post you failed to address). Of course, it’s hard to argue that humanity has survived for those tens of thousands of years with someone who honestly believes that the world is 6,000 years old.

Since you wish to apply absolute principles to all circumstances, consider this: if abortion is murder, is miscarriage manslaughter?

Remember, “we should look at something within a maxim and apply it universally without exception to reason the consequences”. Since the NIH estimates that roughly 50% of pregnancies result in miscarriage (not all of which are known to the woman), how do you suggest our government go about prosecuting these reckless women who are exercising and consuming low-moderate amounts of caffeine (both known to contribute to incidence of miscarriage) for the crimes they are committing?

Remember, absolute principles applied universally without exception.

123

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]xfactor3236 wrote:
thats an insane statistic, hard to believe, part of me thinks, it must be some repeat women, as in having more than one abortion. i dont live in new york but i find it hard to believe 4 out of 10 women would choose that[/quote]I lived there 7 hellish long years and there’s almost no form or degree of sickness I would find hard to believe is occurring there.
[/quote]Now this is something we can agree on ;)[/quote]There’s been a rare couple others too =] NYC is a mammoth object lesson in what happens when social libertarianism takes serious root somewhere.

124

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
For tens of thousands of years of human existance, not only was it permissible to terminate a pregnancy, but it was permissible to terminate any autonomous human with which you found disagreement.[/quote]

Okay, glad you pointed that out, which societies, cultures, and religions do you know that did this and thought it a viable option?

Yes, since we are alive.

Yes, I may have failed to address it because I pointed out that this is not the thread to speak on the subject (besides you, your girlfriend was the only one to bring religion into the thread and both times I have pointed out that this is not the place for this as debates are better done in depth than from broad arguments). As I have pointed out, I wish to keep this argument to moral philosophies. Which of I am arguing from Natural Law and Kantian ethics.

Are you addressing two different persons in a post directed towards me? I don’t believe the world is 6,000 years old, the scientific evidence shows the earth is likely to be 4.5 billion years old. So, you might want to make clear who you are addressing as I don’t think they will know you are addressing them when you bury your comment to them in the middle of a post directed towards me.

What is your reason for thinking that miscarriage is manslaughter?

[quote]Remember, “we should look at something within a maxim and apply it universally without exception to reason the consequences”. Since the NIH estimates that roughly 50% of pregnancies result in miscarriage (not all of which are known to the woman), how do you suggest our government go about prosecuting these reckless women who are exercising and consuming low-moderate amounts of caffeine (both known to contribute to incidence of miscarriage) for the crimes they are committing?

Remember, absolute principles applied universally without exception.[/quote]

I think you are missing a step as you haven’t established that miscarriage could be considered manslaughter.

After addressing your post, I am not sure what your argument is as they don’t actually address my argument.

125

If you are equating the intentional abortion of an unborn fetus to the murder of sentient human being, then under “absolute principles applied universally without exception”, you must also recognize the accidental destruction of a fetus via miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter. It is the logical conclusion of your entire premise.

126

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If you are equating the intentional abortion of an unborn fetus to the murder of sentient human being, then under “absolute principles applied universally without exception”, you must also recognize the accidental destruction of a fetus via miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter. It is the logical conclusion of your entire premise.[/quote]

This is a foolish premise.

127

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If you are equating the intentional abortion of an unborn fetus to the murder of sentient human being, then under “absolute principles applied universally without exception”, you must also recognize the accidental destruction of a fetus via miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter. It is the logical conclusion of your entire premise.[/quote]

This is the stupidest argument I have ever read, and I’ve read a lot of stupid arguments here.

Do you have any idea whatsoever how involuntary manslaughter is applied as a statute?

On top of that, you and your girlfriend’s creepy need to introduce religion into the discussion over and over by attributing things that Catholics don’t even believe into your every post is revealing. Go back and read this thread again. Find where anyone except YOU is using religion anywhere in their argument against abortion.

128

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If you are equating the intentional abortion of an unborn fetus to the murder of sentient human being, then under “absolute principles applied universally without exception”, you must also recognize the accidental destruction of a fetus via miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter. It is the logical conclusion of your entire premise.[/quote]

This is a foolish premise.[/quote]

Why?

I think “omnipotent sky being says this unconscious, symbiotic mass of cells is a person and therefor shouldn’t be terminated under any circumstance” is a ridiculous premise.

Remember, “maxims applied absolutely without exception” is the name of the game here. If you’re going to apply the legal definition of murder to abortion, then you must apply criminally negligent manslaughter (which is a type of involuntary manslaughter) to any instance where a woman who has exercised or consumed caffeine and experienced miscarriage. Cortes, I know exactly how it is applied and if you are going to assert that abortion of a fetus is equivalent to the intentional killing of a sentient human being, then you logically must apply criminally negligent manslaughter to the aforementioned negligent acts if they result in miscarriage.

129

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If you are equating the intentional abortion of an unborn fetus to the murder of sentient human being, then under “absolute principles applied universally without exception”, you must also recognize the accidental destruction of a fetus via miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter. It is the logical conclusion of your entire premise.[/quote]

This is a foolish premise.[/quote]

Why?

I think “omnipotent sky being says this unconscious, symbiotic mass of cells is a person and therefor shouldn’t be terminated under any circumstance” is a ridiculous premise.

Remember, “maxims applied absolutely without exception” is the name of the game here. If you’re going to apply the legal definition of murder to abortion, then you must apply criminally negligent manslaughter (which is a type of involuntary manslaughter) to any instance where a woman who has exercised or consumed caffeine and experienced miscarriage. Cortes, I know exactly how it is applied and if you are going to assert that abortion of a fetus is equivalent to the intentional killing of a sentient human being, then you logically must apply criminally negligent manslaughter to the aforementioned negligent acts if they result in miscarriage.
[/quote]

No.

First, if this were true we would see it happening already, as there is already precedent for applying murder and manslaughter charges to unborn children.

Second, setting aside for the moment your false dichotomy,there are far too many confounding factors and possibilities for anyone to ever dream of prosecuting more than a tiny fraction of the actual miscarriages that occur. This is further compounded by the fact that a large percent of miscarriages occur whether or not the woman has herself on a 100% organic diet and lives in a bubble boy suit for the duration of her pregnancy.

Whereas with abortion, the cause of death in every case is indisputably clear. Your comparison is juvenile, which is why we don’t ever see anyone trying to use it in support of abortion.

And you did it again with your weird obsession with bringing religion into an argument that NO ONE has introduced religion into. Are you insecure about something?

130

That % is fucking disgusting. How anyone can defend that number while at the same time bash religion is a truly fucked up individual.

131

Oh shit, I don’t want to get into this, but I’m going to.
First off I have to agree that is a fuck up percentage.
Secondly though, I have to disagree with some of you and say that I believe about most of these abortions are not forgotten. Yeah, the idea that even one is forgotten is still sick, but it’s true.
Third, and this is the one I don’t want to get into, but I feel that abortion should be an option.

I don’t think it should ever be thought of as birth control, but I think the option should still be there. There are so many situations in which it would not be right to bring that fetus into the world. For instance it being the product of rape or brought into an abusive home. I know there is adoption, but still that isn’t always the best option for the baby to be or the parents to be.

Finally these views come from my beliefs on this. First off I believe that it is completely the woman’s choice. Yes us men help make this child to be, but it is at a point part of the woman. Also I personally believe a soul, which I believe is what we are, doesn’t enter the body until fully formed.

To sum it up, honestly none of us can say we are right. None of us know how god feels about this, and who is to say how he feels but himself. That’s why I say to take away the option of abortion would be morally wrong. I do believe that regulation should be installed to prevent it from being abused.
I hope I don’t offend anyone, but this is what I believe.

132

Reading the (probably bs) number makes me sad.

So…how can we achieve 82%?

It is possible, we just have to believe it!

133

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The moral life or the virtuous life is doing what is good and avoiding what is evil. What is good is to do what helps man flourish or what helps man function well.

According to Kant to figure out if something is good (which would make it a moral obligation), we should look at something within a maxim and apply it universally without exception to reason the consequences.

“It is permissible to have an abortion when pregnant.” Applying it universally without exception we see that within one generation all humanity would end, thus the complete opposite of flourishing or functioning well…death.

Glad we got that over. So, now we go to the legislature with this reasonable argument and over-turn current legislation.[/quote]

For tens of thousands of years of human existance, not only was it permissible to terminate a pregnancy, but it was permissible to terminate any autonomous human with which you found disagreement. Obviously, humanity has not ended, and did not end within a generation. Even your god, whom you stake as having absolute moral claim in this argument destroyed human life at will and for little reason other than entertainment (see the part of my previous post you failed to address). Of course, it’s hard to argue that humanity has survived for those tens of thousands of years with someone who honestly believes that the world is 6,000 years old.

Since you wish to apply absolute principles to all circumstances, consider this: if abortion is murder, is miscarriage manslaughter?

Remember, “we should look at something within a maxim and apply it universally without exception to reason the consequences”. Since the NIH estimates that roughly 50% of pregnancies result in miscarriage (not all of which are known to the woman), how do you suggest our government go about prosecuting these reckless women who are exercising and consuming low-moderate amounts of caffeine (both known to contribute to incidence of miscarriage) for the crimes they are committing?

Remember, absolute principles applied universally without exception.[/quote]

Slavery was around for thousands of years too, are you saying that’s right too? I mean because it was around for so long?

Principles, by definition, have to meet a certain criteria for them to apply.

I gather by what you are saying, that it’s ok to take human life when that life is not convenient to your existence. Correct? As long as you admit it’s killing, I don’t have a beef with you so long as you admit the truth.

134

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Reading the (probably bs) number makes me sad.

So…how can we achieve 82%?

It is possible, we just have to believe it![/quote]

Well, all we have to do is double it :slight_smile:

135

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Reading the (probably bs) number makes me sad.

So…how can we achieve 82%?

It is possible, we just have to believe it![/quote]

Well, all we have to do is double it :)[/quote]

I say we raise the tax rate.

Nobody should be able to afford any amount of children whatsoever.

If we also implement strict rent control, they should have no place to raise them either.

This is NY after all, most of this is already there, now we just have to crank it up a bit.

136

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I don’t consider abortion in the early stages of pregnancy murder.

pat’s argument is far from accurate. No one is recommending we endorse abortion to lower the crime rate. I simply stated one positive side effect of having legalized abortion is a lowering of the crime rate
[/quote]

You don’t consider? Shouldn’t you be damn sure if there’s a chance you are going to take a human life?

When does life begin? What constitutes a human life?

137

[quote]orion wrote:

If a rock develops a consciousness you have no right to shatter it.[/quote]

Okay, what is ‘consciousness’?

138

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.

What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?

^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]

Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…

May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]

Reductio ad absurdum - look it up

[/quote]

Have you looked it up?

[/quote]

Didn’t have to. - It’ when someone leads your argument to an absurd conclusion.

Read pat’s post about nuking the world to lower the crime rate.[/quote]

Perhaps you should look it up. It is a legitimate technique documented as far back the Greek philosophers.

pat = Plato[/quote]

So what?

it can be argued as a valid or invalid technique. In this case all pat has is a strawman.

[/quote]
It’s not a strawman, it is an analogy. The nimrod in the article basically argues that abortion drops the crime rate because it keeps the population in check, particularly in ‘high risk’ demographics. If killing off people of certain demographics keep undesired behaviours in check, then simple genocide will do the trick as well. This is what Hitler tried to do, in case you forgot.

139

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If you are equating the intentional abortion of an unborn fetus to the murder of sentient human being, then under “absolute principles applied universally without exception”, you must also recognize the accidental destruction of a fetus via miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter. It is the logical conclusion of your entire premise.[/quote]

No a miscarriage is in the category of natural death, like a heart attack. Or being killed by something natural as a tornado.

140

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.

What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?

^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]

Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…

May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]

Reductio ad absurdum - look it up

[/quote]

Have you looked it up?

[/quote]

Didn’t have to. - It’ when someone leads your argument to an absurd conclusion.

Read pat’s post about nuking the world to lower the crime rate.[/quote]

Perhaps you should look it up. It is a legitimate technique documented as far back the Greek philosophers.

pat = Plato[/quote]

So what?

it can be argued as a valid or invalid technique. In this case all pat has is a strawman.

[/quote]
It’s not a strawman, it is an analogy. The nimrod in the article basically argues that abortion drops the crime rate because it keeps the population in check, particularly in ‘high risk’ demographics. If killing off people of certain demographics keep undesired behaviours in check, then simple genocide will do the trick as well. This is what Hitler tried to do, in case you forgot.[/quote]

It’s not being argued that we should keep abortion legal to lower the crime rate. I’m saying one positive SIDE EFFECT of legalized abortion is a reduction in the crime rate. Not the intended purpose for legalized abortion but a SIDE EFFECT. That’s all. My intention for posting this was just to discuss if it was a valid hypothesis.

So you equating dropping bombs and killing most of the world to what I’m saying is asinine.