[quote]Makavali wrote:
to support the military is to support collateral damage, as it is unavoidable.
collateral damage includes the murder of innocents.
war is waged knowing that collateral damage is inevitable.
ergo, you support the murder of innocents.
the world is not as black and white as it was when you were five.[/quote]
Speaking of grey, intent vs. actual are not equal when supporting the military.
Intent to abort vs. murder of innocent life is.
Unless of course you are trying to convince yourself you are making a good decision by killing an innocent life you created, regardless of it’s stage of development be it 2 months, 3 years or 50 years.
Go back and read the original post that Tiger so eloquently edited, it’s on page 11. This point is black and white, by Tigers own logic.
Then shoot yourself for aborting an innocent life you were responsible for creating. Murder, when applied to punishing guilty parties, is acceptable. How is that for grey?[/quote]
“So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.”
I was addressing this. Nothing is black and white, and you seem to know it. But if it supports your point, you are happy to claim it is.
If abortion were made illegal tomorrow. And hilariously child support done away with. Lets say the mother had to bear the baby but could wash her hands of it then as well. Who should support the child then? There are plenty of unwanted children now that suffer and starve shouldn’t people that are pro life be up in arms to solve that issue?
While I have grave concerns with abortion, I also question the motives of people that bow out of the discussion of what should happen to the child at birth. As well as the halfwits that think men shouldn’t be on the hook to support their kids.
[quote]groo wrote:
If abortion were made illegal tomorrow. And hilariously child support done away with. Lets say the mother had to bear the baby but could wash her hands of it then as well. Who should support the child then? There are plenty of unwanted children now that suffer and starve shouldn’t people that are pro life be up in arms to solve that issue?
While I have grave concerns with abortion, I also question the motives of people that bow out of the discussion of what should happen to the child at birth. As well as the halfwits that think men shouldn’t be on the hook to support their kids.[/quote]
Yeah, what did people in America ever do before 1973? It must have been like some dark combination of Oliver Twist and Mad Max.
And seriously, what kids in America are starving to death, anywhere? Are you saying we are aborting kids that would actually starve?
You know the rate of abortion has massively INCREASED since 1973?
Do you want to take a guess as to why that might have happened?
[quote]groo wrote:
If abortion were made illegal tomorrow. And hilariously child support done away with. Lets say the mother had to bear the baby but could wash her hands of it then as well. Who should support the child then? There are plenty of unwanted children now that suffer and starve shouldn’t people that are pro life be up in arms to solve that issue?
While I have grave concerns with abortion, I also question the motives of people that bow out of the discussion of what should happen to the child at birth. As well as the halfwits that think men shouldn’t be on the hook to support their kids.[/quote]
Yeah, what did people in America ever do before 1973? It must have been like some dark combination of Oliver Twist and Mad Max.
And seriously, what kids in America are starving to death, anywhere? Are you saying we are aborting kids that would actually starve?
You know the rate of abortion has massively INCREASED since 1973?
Do you want to take a guess as to why that might have happened?
This thread is all kinds of stupid.
[/quote]
While there aren’t many children in America that are starving to death, there are certainly many that need the free breakfast programs and the lot. There are definitely children that are abused and suffering. I would assume an unwanted child would be more likely to fall into that abused category, but that is purely an assumption.
There are a lot of societal factors that came into play through the sixties and seventies and the genie is kinda out of the bottle. Certainly any shame on being pregnant and not married is gone at the very least.
My moral perspective while certainly not driven by some sky fairy, would say that abortion is a terrible thing and its not sought after lightly by most women. I do think there are problems with it being made illegal as well.
I would certainly never argue that unborn children aren’t human in some attempt to make me feel better as some posters do. Or some weird men should be able to opt out of child support issue.
I definitely think no religious argument should be brought to bear to make it illegal however.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
to support the military is to support collateral damage, as it is unavoidable.
collateral damage includes the murder of innocents.
war is waged knowing that collateral damage is inevitable.
ergo, you support the murder of innocents.
the world is not as black and white as it was when you were five.[/quote]
Speaking of grey, intent vs. actual are not equal when supporting the military.
Intent to abort vs. murder of innocent life is.
Unless of course you are trying to convince yourself you are making a good decision by killing an innocent life you created, regardless of it’s stage of development be it 2 months, 3 years or 50 years.
Go back and read the original post that Tiger so eloquently edited, it’s on page 11. This point is black and white, by Tigers own logic.
Then shoot yourself for aborting an innocent life you were responsible for creating. Murder, when applied to punishing guilty parties, is acceptable. How is that for grey?[/quote]
“So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.”
I was addressing this. Nothing is black and white, and you seem to know it. But if it supports your point, you are happy to claim it is.[/quote]
A fetus is a living organism, this is black or white, which ever you prefer. A fetus is totally dependent on the creatures who created it for life, also black or white. A fetus has not wronged anyone, black or white. Aborting the fetus kills it, life and death is black and white. I’m not bending anything to fit an argument.
All this talk and fascination about abortion and nothing about the guys that cause unwanted pregnancies. Aren’t they at least equal villains in this drama? Perhaps even more so?
[quote]groo wrote:
If abortion were made illegal tomorrow. And hilariously child support done away with. Lets say the mother had to bear the baby but could wash her hands of it then as well. Who should support the child then? There are plenty of unwanted children now that suffer and starve shouldn’t people that are pro life be up in arms to solve that issue?
While I have grave concerns with abortion, I also question the motives of people that bow out of the discussion of what should happen to the child at birth. As well as the halfwits that think men shouldn’t be on the hook to support their kids.[/quote]
Yeah, what did people in America ever do before 1973? It must have been like some dark combination of Oliver Twist and Mad Max.
And seriously, what kids in America are starving to death, anywhere? Are you saying we are aborting kids that would actually starve?
You know the rate of abortion has massively INCREASED since 1973?
Do you want to take a guess as to why that might have happened?
This thread is all kinds of stupid.
[/quote]
While there aren’t many children in America that are starving to death, there are certainly many that need the free breakfast programs and the lot. There are definitely children that are abused and suffering. I would assume an unwanted child would be more likely to fall into that abused category, but that is purely an assumption.
[/quote]
So the solution is to…snuff out their lives before they have a chance to experience them?
Well then I guess it’s a good thing that I have never once used religion to argue my side.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
All this talk and fascination about abortion and nothing about the guys that cause unwanted pregnancies. Aren’t they at least equal villains in this drama? Perhaps even more so?[/quote]
If they support killing their child out of convenience then yes, I would say so.
Some probably don’t, but they don’t have any rights because it’s a woman’s body!
The clause about one freedom interfering with another and superceding it was covered. In fact, we are still agreeing with each other, as far as I can tell.
[/quote]
If you’re talking about what I think you’re talking about, then we have a misunderstanding. This is why I don’t like other people to jump in to my debates already under way. In that context I was using my opponents words against him, not necessarily making an argument I would use, at least in that many words.
Well, there’s “kill” and then there’s “let die”. Since the only way to remove a fetus is by killing it (or carefully extracting it and letting it wither away… but that’s stupid) then yes, you are in fact killing the fetus by removing it as an inconvenience. Abortion is really the only circumstance off hand that I can think of where the only way to remove something as an inconvenience is to kill it, however. You don’t have to kill a two year old if you no longer want custody, for example.
[/quote]
So, basically, you are arguing that we should be able to kill certain people when their existence becomes an inconvenience to us. Gotcha.
This changes my point above not one iota.
[quote]
[quote]
The rate of abortion, on the other hand, shot WAY the fuck up after 1973.
You’re a Catholic, so tell me, what happens to the souls of unborn children? Do they get sent to Hell? I doubt it. Do they get a free pass to heaven? If so then abortion is no problem. Do they get passed off into another fetus? If so then abortion still isn’t a problem. You’re just moving the soul into the belly of a mother who actually wants a child. If anything, you’re doing it a favour. So what’s the problem?[/quote]
Come on, T, are you so desperate to “win” this debate that this is what you are reduced to churning out? Did you really just say “doing it a favor?”
So, like, we shouldn’t worry about the murder of young children either, right? And before you come back with the tired “feels pain and suffering line,” an addendum: Murder of young children in their sleep, then?
And no, souls do not get “moved.” You’re getting your religions mixed up and displaying your ignorance. One life, one soul, that’s it.
Cortes while I am not specifically directing the religious comment to you, there are certainly several people in the thread that do hold that abortion is wrong from s religious morality.
I think abortion is promiscuous killing. Which I certainly think is immoral. I also think the state asserting control over someone’s body is immoral. The debate for me comes down to which moral principle should be upheld? I certainly think we should lower the total amount of abortions, however there are other ways to do this than by making abortion illegal.
It is a totally separate argument about whether men should be able to opt of of child support. At the very least we’d assume a man consented to this obligation at the point of fucking eh?
And perhaps its not you, but there are certainly a host of people that seem to care a ton about the unborn child who seem to disappear when discussing helping children rears its head as a topic.
No man, you said you easily dismantel my claim. You said that “There’s a lot wrong with your arguments, and you’ve made a lot of them.” With so much ‘wrong’, choose one.
[quote]TigerTime wrote: Sigh Fine. One point. Pick the one you feel is your strongest argument and I’ll give it a go.[/quote]
Are the men asked before an abortion? Can men get women to have the child if the father wants the child? In America, woman have the final say. The rights of the mother are superseded when a new life is created.
So to answer your question, it depends upon the role of the father. BTW this is a person’s life, NOT a tv drama!
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
All this talk and fascination about abortion and nothing about the guys that cause unwanted pregnancies. Aren’t they at least equal villains in this drama? Perhaps even more so?[/quote]
raises hand Abortion is wrong because it kills a child. I do not need religion to tell me how wrong it is. The unborn are my neighbors and I want them to have a voice before they are torn apart.
[quote]groo wrote:
Cortes while I am not specifically directing the religious comment to you, there are certainly several people in the thread that do hold that abortion is wrong from s religious morality.
[/quote]
A woman’s rights are superseded when she is a vessel of another life. Education is never a bad thing. However, when people make the claim that abortion is acceptable, their heads are buried in the sand!
[quote]groo wrote:
I think abortion is promiscuous killing. Which I certainly think is immoral. I also think the state asserting control over someone’s body is immoral. The debate for me comes down to which moral principle should be upheld? I certainly think we should lower the total amount of abortions, however there are other ways to do this than by making abortion illegal.
[/quote]
Men cannot opt out of child support! Where are you living where this is the case?
[quote]groo wrote:
It is a totally separate argument about whether men should be able to opt of of child support. At the very least we’d assume a man consented to this obligation at the point of fucking eh?
[/quote]
Yes children go hungry, but they don’t starve to death. However, hunger that never warrants abortion!
[quote]groo wrote:
And perhaps its not you, but there are certainly a host of people that seem to care a ton about the unborn child who seem to disappear when discussing helping children rears its head as a topic.
[/quote]
I will address these directly.
On what moral basis are you deciding that killing the unborn is less moral than 9 months of slavery to the state? This is not a self evident claim that a woman’s rights are superseded by the unborn fetus.
I am close enough in this argument to a type of utilitarianism to explain my position something like.
Actions that decrease net suffering are moral.
Actions that increase net suffering are immoral.
Certainly abortion increases net suffering.
Forcing a woman to carry a child to term does as well both for her and sometimes, but not always for the child.
I don’t think its so clear as to be legislated.
However, better sex education and more available contraception are certainly things that would lower abortions.
Perhaps developing effective hormonal birth control for men as well as that which is already available for women that would be mandatory though that gets into the issue of body control as well.
Some people in this thread have made assertions that they feel it should be an option to opt out of child support or at least alluding to the perceived unfairness. Of course its not and it really isn’t germane to abortion its just such a silly idea I wanted to jeer at it some.
The hunger sites all have good motivations. I am questioning the motives of people that think its important to argue for the unborn, that don’t help the children that are suffering at the present.
[quote]groo wrote:
Cortes while I am not specifically directing the religious comment to you, there are certainly several people in the thread that do hold that abortion is wrong from s religious morality.
[/quote]
Who were they?
Well, those who wish to have the state assert control over their bodies have a foolproof option available to them. Incidentally, it is the same option that was available to those presently incarcerated criminals who did not wish to have the state assert control over their bodies.
Now THIS, my friend, is a sound insight! Now all you have to do attain logical consistency is to understand that men and women should be held to the same standard.
It’s definitely not me. I am a member of the Catholic Church, to which I donate a not insignificant portion of my income. If you are not aware of it, I would encourage you to look into our record when it comes to feeding the hungry and caring for the sick and destitute in basically every country in the world.
That said, bringing up what to do with kids after they are born is a red herring. This argument is about not killing defenseless human beings. That certain among them will have a harder life than Morgan Archer Vanderbilt IV from 5th Avenue is not and cannot ever be a justification for snuffing out their lives before they ever get a shot.
[quote]groo wrote:
On what moral basis are you deciding that killing the unborn is less moral than 9 months of slavery to the state? This is not a self evident claim that a woman’s rights are superseded by the unborn fetus.
[/quote]
Since you like utilitarianism, let’s first look at it from that angle.
Assuming she absolutely will not have anything to do with this child and immediately give it up for adoption the woman’s sacrifice in bringing a child to term will typically amount to about 1% of her total life (average age of female death = 72 years, or 864 months, 9/864 = just a hair over 1%
Child’s sacrifice in ALL cases of abortion: 100% of its life.
And the child didn’t even have the option of not having sex to stay out of its predicament in the first place.
I can give you another argument that I like better, though. It is much more romantic:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is abundantly clear. See above.
Also, I would encourage you to be careful when relying upon utilitarian arguments to inform moral decisions. You do know where that can, and has, lead, don’t you?
I highly doubt this.
Abstract: [i] Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months
A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents
John B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents.
Design Randomized controlled trial.
Setting Urban public schools.
Participants A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.
Interventions An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sexâ??only intervention targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.
Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.
Results The participants’ mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.
Conclusion Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.[/i]
[quote]groo wrote:
On what moral basis are you deciding that killing the unborn is less moral than 9 months of slavery to the state? This is not a self evident claim that a woman’s rights are superseded by the unborn fetus.
[/quote]
Since you like utilitarianism, let’s first look at it from that angle.
Assuming she absolutely will not have anything to do with this child and immediately give it up for adoption the woman’s sacrifice in bringing a child to term will typically amount to about 1% of her total life (average age of female death = 72 years, or 864 months, 9/864 = just a hair over 1%
Child’s sacrifice in ALL cases of abortion: 100% of its life.
And the child didn’t even have the option of not having sex to stay out of its predicament in the first place.
I can give you another argument that I like better, though. It is much more romantic:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is abundantly clear. See above.
Also, I would encourage you to be careful when relying upon utilitarian arguments to inform moral decisions. You do know where that can, and has, lead, don’t you?
Abstract: [i] Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months
A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents
John B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents.
Design Randomized controlled trial.
Setting Urban public schools.
Participants A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.
Interventions An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sexâ??only intervention targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.
Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.
Results The participants’ mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.
Conclusion Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.[/i]
And this one is just for fun:
[/quote]
I am not a utilitarian but it was fairly close to my position on abortion. Certainly I see the problems with it as much as you. Equally I am sure you see the problems of a religious based moral system. For your romantic appeal I could easily say I pick the inalienable right of liberty to be greater than that of life in this case.
And if it is an unalienable right it can’t be given away or taken away justly. So all killing would be just as amoral be it self defense, murder, abortion, death penalty or in war. This position I can respect but not agree with. I think all killing comes to cases and with all cases there is some merit on both sides.
[quote]groo wrote:
I am not a utilitarian but it was fairly close to my position on abortion. Certainly I see the problems with it as much as you. Equally I am sure you see the problems of a religious based moral system. For your romantic appeal I could easily say I pick the inalienable right of liberty to be greater than that of life in this case.
[/quote]
The former is cold comfort to those from whom the latter has already been taken.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
All this talk and fascination about abortion and nothing about the guys that cause unwanted pregnancies. Aren’t they at least equal villains in this drama? Perhaps even more so?[/quote]
If they support killing their child out of convenience then yes, I would say so.
Some probably don’t, but they don’t have any rights because it’s a woman’s body![/quote]
No, no. You’re talking about abortion again. Forget abortion for a nanosecond.
Take a step back and consider the CAUSE of unwanted pregnancy.
Seems like the guy plays a major role in there somewhere.
Why not focus on not causing unwanted pregnancy?
Why don’t guys man-up and take responsibility for that?