[quote]pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
…I don’t think anyone has said life isn’t valuable…
The implications by many that all innocent life is not valuable is rife in a debate like this one.
Do you want me to cut and paste?
no because your inference of implication might not be mine
this is a subjective topic
I have read a lot of posters who seem to think they own a moral ground by calling women murderers though
that is an implication I have picked up…
The inference of implication that you picked up might not be mine.
exactly!
So we should abort this discussion and hold hands and walk down the beach and watch the sun set over the Pacific and hum Bad Company’s “Feel Like Makin Love” and lay down on the warm sand and embrace each other and stare at the twinkling stars
And dream of peace and tranquility and discuss why Geraldine Ferraro never could make a positive impact for Walter Mondale in the '84 presidential race and then wonder aloud together why she is here on T-Nation posing as some woman from Eugene, OR.
[/quote]
well… see that seems flippant but I may be inferring something you didn’t mean to imply
my remarks regarding implication had to do with you stating that some posters had implied that they did not value life.
just like most things this subject is never going to have an answer that everyone is going to agree with.
it’s good to discuss, but bad when you have one side calling the other side murderers and saying it is all “women killing babies” and yet the men are not held equally accountable and yet those men want to be equally accountable in the ultimate decision.
can’t have it both ways and biology says you don’t have an equal footing
It is crystal clear that life is not as valuable to some as it is to others. If you failed to see that you did not read the whole thread.
By the way, many have commented on how civil this thread has been, even Geraldine.
[/quote]
I did read the whole thread. I also read that people do value life. Maybe some do not place the same value as you would like them to, but things are rarely universal.
you did not make a mention about the lack of talk of how to control the male input in the pregnancy? How do we punish men for unwanted pregnancy? How do they pay for the unwanted pregnancy, don’t say the wallet because that is nothing. If this is to be a crime, punish that male criminal.
Nor did you mention the lack of adoptions from those who have been posting
civil or not, you cannot deny that the term murder and the bashing of women has been inherent in some of the posts, that has been crystal clear or you have not read the whole thread.
Thus, if you accept the premise that a fetus is a person, you are obligated to recognize that the termination of said person represents an incontrovertible denial of that persons rights. And a right to deny another person a right has never been passed (or would ever be accepted) by our founding fathers.
If you do not accept the premise of fetus = person, this is not an issue.
Alternately, if you do not accept the premise that person = automatically deserving of full protection under law, this is also not an issue.
Aragorn, I enjoyed your post. I agree that life begins at conception, but personally feel that personhood is reserved for people who are born. The view is problematic, of course, which I recognize.
If a fetus becomes viable at x number of weeks, is it not then a person? It seems absurd to say no, since it could be born at any time and survive independent of the mother. But the view of an embryo as a person is problematic, too, of course. I liked Christine’s (I think) “dropped petri dish = murder?” as a clarifier.
I think what a lot of pro-lifers (and pro-choicers, for that matter) fail to really understand is that certainty is a luxury not everyone shares. [/quote]
Hey thanks, I try to make sense once in a while. I agree with you, the view is problematic. Then again, the entire issue is thorny. However, while I completely agree that certainty is not a given, I do believe it is more ethical to err on the side of caution.
[quote] Emily–I empathize with your situation in dealing with young single parents. It is not easy. I have several friends I’ve had long conversations with about these sorts of things.
A lot of them need a place to kinda vent and break away from the things they see every day when dealing with kids like this, or abused kids, etc. It’s rough and I really respect them for doing what they can to improve the status quo.
Thank you. The rewards are pretty significant. It may not come through in a discussion like this, but I love my work.[/quote]
As you should. I know (only secondhand) that it can be immensely trying. But it is definitely doing the world a service.
[quote]I too have reservations about the wide-ranging implications of illegalizing abortion, including many you have mentioned. However, it is my belief that one can only rationally decide an ethical situation in the absence of the superfluous policy issues.
As Push said, one has to decide on what the right thing is, and how we know it’s the right thing, and THEN and only then proceed to public policy considerations.
See, where we’re falling apart in this conversation is that I don’t find these issues superfluous. [/quote]
I suppose I should have rephrased that one. These issues are undoubtedly thorny and interconnected and I admit that. But lets say for the sake of discussion that it is shown decisively that a fetus is a person deserving of complete legal protection and abortion amounts to murder (clarify–unjustifiable killing).
So, do you keep it legal? These wide ranging problems of illegalizing abortion are still there. But now the morality of abortion is no longer in question.
Now we know exactly what the right thing to do is. Making abortion illegal and seriously criminal is now the right thing to do, but all the problems of doing so are still there.
So, now the issue becomes HOW do we enforce it, and HOW do we minimize problems such as black market abortions, etc. I believe the public policy requirements are secondary to the central ethical issue.
You have to decide on the right thing before you can decide how to administrate or execute it, or whether to leave the situation status quo because that is the ethical thing to do.
In any case, the order of decision must stem from the ethical to the political, not the reverse. I have a dash of the utilitarian in me, but not enough to decide that the difficulties in administration of a task should dictate that the task is not executed. .
I dunno, I ended up reading about 8 pages and I may have confused you and Christine. sorry!
It is crystal clear that life is not as valuable to some as it is to others. If you failed to see that you did not read the whole thread.
By the way, many have commented on how civil this thread has been, even Geraldine.
I did read the whole thread. I also read that people do value life. Maybe some do not place the same value as you would like them to, but things are rarely universal.
you did not make a mention about the lack of talk of how to control the male input in the pregnancy?
I don’t understand what you’re looking for here.[/quote]
I don’t know how much clearer I can be but I will try. Some men lie and say they will be there for the baby and then leave. Men can get a woman pregnant and then walk away. For some men there isn’t even a financial burden.
What is the consequence of that? Yes… yes… I know you support a responsible parenting, but for right now there isn’t. Why not? Why isn’t there a campaign to go after men who lie? I know why, the Courts don’t legislate emotion and that is how men get out of it.
But there needs to be a change. If you get into a pregnancy and then walk away, go to jail or be castrated so you do not commit this battery again.
[quote]How do we punish men for unwanted pregnancy?
Do you mean rape? If not, what do you mean by punishing men? Are you implying that an innocent child is a punishment for a woman? A consequence maybe but a punishment?[/quote]
No… some men lie and say they will be there for the pregnancy. How do we punish this type of fraud? Not in the wallet, that doesn’t have an impact.
Or I also mentioned that group of men/boys in Chicago that were getting points by getting girls pregnant. Why isn’t that some kind of crime?
[quote]How do they pay for the unwanted pregnancy, don’t say the wallet because that is nothing. If this is to be a crime, punish that male criminal.
You mean if abortion were illegal and the woman gets one anyway with the sperm donor’s support and urging?[/quote]
Sure we can go with the illegal abortion theory. But see there is the crux isn’t it? Men can lie and say they didn’t want an abortion… then it leaves the woman hanging all on her own. Men can and do lie.
[quote]Nor did you mention the lack of adoptions from those who have been posting
I don’t know that adoptions or the lack thereof has been mentioned at all. I do know and I imagine you do too that many Americans have to go overseas to find children to adopt.[/quote]
but I know of two families in my department that have adopted children from here.
I can change that though, how about (and no lying or embellishing) all the posters who donate time and money to an orphanage or youth home please post. How many of you are Big Brothers or Big Sisters?
[quote]civil or not, you cannot deny that the term murder and the bashing of women has been inherent in some of the posts, that has been crystal clear or you have not read the whole thread.
I haven’t seen bashing of women; maybe I’m blind. I’ve seen bashing of the idea that abortion is appropriate and downright necessary because of social pressures.
[/quote]
I do see the bashing, and I’ve seen some cavalier attitude towards women. This is subjective, but I find it hard to swallow that you haven’t seen ANY bashing.
abortion is legal and the women who get an abortion are not criminals
and you as a man will never have to face the actual decision, you can guess how you might decide, but you will never have the mindset and you will never completely understand
maybe young men should have a constriction band on their vas deferens until they are ready to have a baby.
maybe if a woman become pregnant by accident and took all the precautions she can sue the man not for money but for “specific performance” he will have to be a nanny and a diaper changer and work his job and live his life for the baby.
maybe they could implant a balloon in men and have it continually stretch for 9-months and then he will have to pass a walnut through his urethra anytime he gets a woman pregnant that she didn’t want.
I dunno, but for right now, men want equal voice but they do not share equal burden
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Celeste, I disagree with nothing you wrote but see Aragorn’s post above. Everything you wrote is valid but it is secondary to whether or not the child is a human or not.
I could make a list two pages long detailing every conceivable societal/familial/political/ethical problem under the stars but the correct solution is not the willful, deliberate elimination of innocent human life in any one of those cases. Not a single one.
See, everyone wants to point to all the complications, the complexities, the myriad of twists and turns that illegal abortion might encompass but in all that mind-weaving exercise the innocent baby and his/her will and right to live is set aside as inconsequential.
That is simply backwards no matter how your Ginsu knife slices and dices it.[/quote]
Push, nothing in life is as simple as some people would like to believe.
no matter how you slice it and dice it, life rarely hands you simple answers and solutions.
The fact that life, lives and situations are weighed and measured happens every day in all social strata and circumstance.
I notice you didn’t address how men really don’t have the same obligation and you don’t choose to discuss how social change with the men being more liable could perhaps reduce unwanted pregnancy.
fortunately life is subjective
you can change a person’s opinion but not a belief so this whole topic is really hard to discuss because it is usually folks who have a belief in regards to the issue so you are just at loggerheads
and you telling me what your belief is doesn’t necessarily make it a truth for me, but I do respect that as your belief
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And one more thing before…my biological father bailed on my 20 year old mom when I was a very young boy and I was raised in poverty my first few years.
I am eternally grateful my mom didn’t see that coming and decide it was going to be too much for her to handle; I’m glad she didn’t bail on me when I was still in her womb.
Just some perspective for all you social workers and family law associates who think maybe I have no business voicing a strong position on this sensitive issue.
Whatever you do, don’t any of you yap to me about poor single mothers having a rough time raising children. I’ll bet you a 10 year supply of ZMA very few if any of you were raised as poor as I was.[/quote]
congratulations to your mother Push
I am not saying you don’t have the right to voice your opinion
but as I mentioned in regards to my miscarriage, no man will ever have the same weight in this issue
a human life begins at conception. So far as I am aware, there is no alternate scientific explanation. So yes, a fertilized embryo is a human being. Is it a person?
I think we all agree that murder of a person is wrong. The question is how do you define person?
[/quote]
The question of personhood is extremely problematic. It does nothing to develop the debate and at best simply asks questions that are unanswerable.
We can examine Mary Ann Warren’s personhood argument, but even she admits that a being need not possess all five conditions to be determined a person (consciousness, reason, motives, communication, self-awareness), and that it lends itself well to infanticide.
The most obvious problem with this argument is that there is insufficient reason to distinguish between the personhood of a newborn and that of a fetus. The list also seems to exclude the comatose from personhood, as most of these arguments do.
Many abortionists choose to then throw in the brain activity variable, which also does little to further this argument. The biggest limiting factor to measuring neural activity is our own current technology. Furthermore, this argument suggests that it is morally permissible to murder the brain dead.
The other major problem with the personhood argument is that there are many other mammals that meet all the criteria. In many cases these animals fit her definition of personhood better than young children, not just infants. Chimpanzees and dolphins are the best examples.
The personhood argument should then logically conclude that killing a dolphin is as morally wrong as killing a six-year old. Our own intuition tells us that while killing a dolphin is probably not morally permissible, it is surely not equal to killing a six-year old.
This is why the DNA argument is arbitrary. If a dolphin possesses every quality that we consider valuable in a person, sometimes moreso than a person, how can we logically deprive it of the same right to life that we give people?
Thankfully, this whole argument can be avoided. Since by definition killing results in death, we simply must ask ourselves why death is undesireable. The most logical answer is because it deprives us of all future experiences.
A future of value is our most valuable asset. No other loss would be as great as the loss of that future. Killing clearly deprives a being of this future. Therefore, killing is prima facie wrong because it deprives a being of a future like ours.
This argument need not distinguish between the future of an animal or a human. It does raise the question as to whether or not some other beings have a future of value, but it is clear that a chimpanzee or a dolphin does not have a future like ours, whereas a fetus obviously does.
Since we all agree that a fetus or embryo has all of the potential to become a full-fledged human, it can easily be concluded that the future of an embryo is a future sufficiently close to a future like ours. Since the embryo then has a future like ours, killing of the embryo must also be prima facie wrong.
Ok, I’ve got to ask a question here OG. I kinda understand what you are saying in all this, but are you saying that while men have the right to voice their opinion, their opinions do not deserve the same weight as women’s opinions in the abortion issue?
If that is the case, I disagree with you. Regardless of the differential weight with which the after-effects of an unintended pregnancy fall on the woman instead of the man, the ethical issue at hand is one that is universal. That is, gender doesn’t matter for the purposes of being incorrect or correct about the central ethical issue of the debate, only rational discussion, of which both men and women are capable. Corrrect or incorrect is not gender based.
If that’s not what you were saying, then I’m confused.
a human life begins at conception. So far as I am aware, there is no alternate scientific explanation. So yes, a fertilized embryo is a human being. Is it a person?
I think we all agree that murder of a person is wrong. The question is how do you define person?
The question of personhood is extremely problematic.
…
Thankfully, this whole argument can be avoided. Since by definition killing results in death, we simply must ask ourselves why death is undesireable. The most logical answer is because it deprives us of all future experiences.
A future of value is our most valuable asset. No other loss would be as great as the loss of that future. Killing clearly deprives a being of this future. Therefore, killing is prima facie wrong because it deprives a being of a future like ours.
This argument need not distinguish between the future of an animal or a human. It does raise the question as to whether or not some other beings have a future of value, but it is clear that a chimpanzee or a dolphin does not have a future like ours, whereas a fetus obviously does.
Since we all agree that a fetus or embryo has all of the potential to become a full-fledged human, it can easily be concluded that the future of an embryo is a future sufficiently close to a future like ours. Since the embryo then has a future like ours, killing of the embryo must also be prima facie wrong.
[/quote]
Very good post. I agree that the personhood topic is problematic. I do not think yet however that it is worthless. I also generally like the “future of value” variation arguments as well–if I recall correctly, the first time I read a version of that was a Robert George article. It is a very interesting position.
I’m also not advancing the DNA based argument right here, because DNA is not equal to personhood. Or at least that deterministic view has not been established as correct.
But broadly, my point was more that the ethics have to be decided before and separately from public policy issues of administration or enforcement.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Ok, I’ve got to ask a question here OG. I kinda understand what you are saying in all this, but are you saying that while men have the right to voice their opinion, their opinions do not deserve the same weight as women’s opinions in the abortion issue?
If that is the case, I disagree with you. Regardless of the differential weight with which the after-effects of an unintended pregnancy fall on the woman instead of the man, the ethical issue at hand is one that is universal. That is, gender doesn’t matter for the purposes of being incorrect or correct about the central ethical issue of the debate, only rational discussion, of which both men and women are capable. Corrrect or incorrect is not gender based.
If that’s not what you were saying, then I’m confused.[/quote]
it is what I am saying
Aragorn, I just don’t see this as an ethical debate.
first, you really can’t debate a belief, you can debate opinions.
secondly, I haven’t seen a post to really address that this isn’t an equal playing field. I know you understand what I am saying whether or not you agree.
and maybe I am this is just a whole different part of things that I am getting at.
I am speaking of responsibility and the ramifications. That will never be equal.
If this whole thread is soley upon the ethical status of abortion than I haven’t been discussing that at all.
and let me expand on what I mean by “weight” in regards to this issue. As I’ve stated before the pregnancy experience is not the same for a man as it is for a woman. A man at this time, cannot experience an actual physical pregnancy, as such he cannot really understand the whole possibility of being pregnant and how it will affect him. Not to the extent of how it effects a woman. This is true. So with that, when you know you are always “safe” you have a whole different background on how an opinion is matured. That is just the way things are, it isn’t a good or a bad thing, it is just the way things are.
But right now I am reading about men upset that they feel their rights are subjuated but isn’t that the result of biology? and men do have recourse right now that is available to them. Can you not see that the ramifications of a pregnancy hit a woman to a much higher degree than a man?
Did you read about what I posted in regards to abortion and if they become illegal about how do you punish the male? It is never going to be an equal situation.
see… I do think I am stating a portion of the issue maybe other folks aren’t even debating.
I am supportive of legal abortions but am not supportive of late term abortions.
