| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2012 06:45:20 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if you are ok with that Kelli then that's on you. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough", am I right? |
No. You're not right. I never said anything of the kind.
Like I've said before, neither side will ever change the other's mind about what's right and what's wrong. The thing is one side just wants to be left in peace to make their own decisions, while the other side wants to force their morality down the throats of those that don't agree with them. |
Once again the "force down your throat" bit. The plantation owners wish you were there for their cause!
If you think about it, you said exactly as much. You said that you see a starving child and think it would have been better to abort them. You are declaring that you are fit to decide what level of living is worth living. The Supreme Court thought they could decide the exact same thing. Why would you want a degenerate mother? You are just going to wind up in jail or starve.
I know you don't really mean these things, but you need to understand the consequences of what you say. Interestingly, believe it or not, that Supreme Court decision was 8-1. Eight to friggin one! The only dissent? A devout Catholic... |
I never said any such thing. I said the complete opposite and you're trying to turn it around. Degenerate or not, if a woman wants a child that's her choice. And it should also be her choice not to have a child. If I was pregnant and knew my child would starve to death within it's first year, yes I would abort it rather than watch it suffer. But never did I say they should be forced to have an abortion. It's a personal choice. What that person can personally live with. And mental illness was less understood back then. People were afraid of it. I won't make excuses for the forced sterilizations, I never agreed with it. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 06:57:23 PM · #377 |
Just curious... what about the father's rights with regards to abortion. If the father doesn't want the child, fine... but what if the father DOES want the child?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2012 06:59:49 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't want to let my slaves go says the Alabama farmer...
You believe in forcing people to do things just fine when you agree with what is being imposed... |
No way to sugar coat it– this is plain stupid. NOT forcing plantation owners to relinquish slaves = forcing human beings to BE slaves. Owning slaves is not a human right, freedom is. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 07:09:07 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't want to let my slaves go says the Alabama farmer...
You believe in forcing people to do things just fine when you agree with what is being imposed... |
No way to sugar coat it– this is plain stupid. NOT forcing plantation owners to relinquish slaves = forcing human beings to BE slaves. Owning slaves is not a human right, freedom is. |
Of course Shannon. But at the time it was not. Slaves were not persons and did not have the rights that go along with it. The North declared this to be morally wrong and changed the law to reflect this. They declared that said slaves were, in fact, people and had the rights to life and freedom like anybody else. The south said they didn't want any part of it. The North forced their view on the South (and rightly so). How is this not clear?
Just to be super clear about the question at hand which is as follows: If somone declares "I don't believe in forcing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do." could they consistently support the historical facts of the civil war which obviously show the North forcing the South to relinquish slavery? I don't believe you can logically support both without modification to the original statement (and requiring enough modification that it becomes meaningless).
Message edited by author 2012-02-24 19:21:40. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 07:31:12 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I thought all newspapers were hotbeds of editorial liberalism... ;) |
Don't let the Murdoch's catch you thinking that -- I hear they play rough ... |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 07:34:27 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I thought all newspapers were hotbeds of editorial liberalism... ;) |
Don't let the Murdoch's catch you thinking that -- I hear they play rough ... |
My voice mail has funny clicks. Should I be concerned? |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 07:53:06 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't want to let my slaves go says the Alabama farmer...
You believe in forcing people to do things just fine when you agree with what is being imposed... |
No way to sugar coat it– this is plain stupid. NOT forcing plantation owners to relinquish slaves = forcing human beings to BE slaves. Owning slaves is not a human right, freedom is. |
Of course Shannon. But at the time it was not. Slaves were not persons and did not have the rights that go along with it. The North declared this to be morally wrong and changed the law to reflect this. They declared that said slaves were, in fact, people and had the rights to life and freedom like anybody else. The south said they didn't want any part of it. The North forced their view on the South (and rightly so). How is this not clear?
Just to be super clear about the question at hand which is as follows: If somone declares "I don't believe in forcing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do." could they consistently support the historical facts of the civil war which obviously show the North forcing the South to relinquish slavery? |
Mental block due to this?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You believe in forcing people to do things just fine when you agree with what is being imposed... |
If the slavery comparison is too hard for people to stomach then maybe one of the countless other examples would be better? Say criminalization in general? taxation? vaccinations? If you agree with a law on the books then you by definition support forcing people to some degree. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 07:56:02 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Slaves were not persons and did not have the rights that go along with it... If somone declares "I don't believe in forcing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do." could they consistently support the historical facts of the civil war which obviously show the North forcing the South to relinquish slavery? |
Slaves were considered three fifths of a person by the constitution as of 1787, so your first point is at least partially moot. However the comparison in general is still stupid: the Emancipation Proclamation was a temporary measure designed to deprive the South of their productivity and economy. It was an act of war, and no different than forcing Confederates to give up their own lives on the battlefield while slave holding states aligned with the Union were not forced to give up anything. Plantation owners were not forced to give up slaves outside the necessity of war until the Thirteenth Amendment.
You're trying to use Kelli's statement literally rather than apply the common sense meaning. The bold part should be freakin' obvious: "I don't believe in forcing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do [as long as it's legal and we aren't engaged in a bloody war with them]." |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 08:10:01 PM · #384 |
Ok, the modified statement is just fine. Frankly we can all rejoice because I also generally don't believe in forcing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do. BUT, I do think there are caveats just like Kelli and I may believe this issue is one of those since we are literally dealing with matters of life and death.
My point with taking Kelli to task is that as soon as you introduce qualifications to that "I believe" statement it ceases to be the Kevlar vest of moral protection. I only bring this up because it has been raised at least three times in the last twenty posts by three people (Kelli, Paul, and Jeb). I'm tired of it. Hey guys, I believe the same thing. But I think there are exceptions where it is worth suspending that notion. Slavery in our country was an obvious example. Abortion may be another. So let's stop with the "shoving down your throat" talk. It's nonsense. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 10:54:43 PM · #385 |
| Putting aside the argument about whether the state can force us to do something with our bodies we don't want to do, Kelli makes a good point. Is it unethical or immoral for a woman to end a pregnancy at a point before she believes the embryo/fetus is a sentient being when she doesn't want a child and/or is incapable of caring for it properly? For example, I'm desperately poor and can't properly care for myself, or I'm desperately poor and have other children I can't support. Or I'm a drug addict and if I allow the pregnancy to go to term my child will be born addicted to heroin, or may die soon after birth. I also don't believe that an embryo (first eight weeks of development) is a sentient human being, so there are no moral implications to ending a pregnancy within that timeframe. Wouldn't the ethical course of action be to end that pregnancy within the first eight weeks rather than allow that pregnancy to continue to term? |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 11:59:46 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Putting aside the argument about whether the state can force us to do something with our bodies we don't want to do, Kelli makes a good point. Is it unethical or immoral for a woman to end a pregnancy at a point before she believes the embryo/fetus is a sentient being when she doesn't want a child and/or is incapable of caring for it properly? For example, I'm desperately poor and can't properly care for myself, or I'm desperately poor and have other children I can't support. Or I'm a drug addict and if I allow the pregnancy to go to term my child will be born addicted to heroin, or may die soon after birth. I also don't believe that an embryo (first eight weeks of development) is a sentient human being, so there are no moral implications to ending a pregnancy within that timeframe. Wouldn't the ethical course of action be to end that pregnancy within the first eight weeks rather than allow that pregnancy to continue to term? |
Why not give it a choice? If the situation is so dire then they can always choose to end their own life. Why sell them short? If someone like Gianna Jessen can survive an abortion attempt and go on to become an activist then I say they can be pretty much handle whatever life throws at them. Or in her case, since she's religious, whatever God throws at her. :P
Message edited by author 2012-02-25 00:00:41. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 12:28:01 AM · #387 |
| Plus I would add that the most ethical course would be to not get pregnant in the first place. How hard is it to not get pregnant these days? We talk like that's not even an option. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 12:37:07 AM · #388 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I won't press it. At the very least I would encourage you to use that thought experiment as a way to understand people who arrive at a different conclusion than yours. To them, the easiest (though still not easy) answer seems to be personhood is granted at the very beginning. Then they compare the right to that person's life versus the right of its mother's bodily autonomy and ultimately decide the right to life supercedes it. I won't ask you to change your mind about things, but I'll ask you to remember that line of argument when you talk with the next person who sides against abortion. It isn't a ludicrous argument as Judith intimates, but I will also say it isn't the only defensible position (you won't hear me saying pro-choice people are ludicrous). This is why the debate on this issue is so difficult. Both sides seem to have important points but a compromise position that is satisfying to everybody is hard to come by. |
I understand that completely. Hence leaving it up to the woman. I totally understand the pro-life stance, but I think there are too many benefits to the availability of abortion, and too many desperate women who would do it anyway if it was illegal, to even consider banning abortion a good option. It's just not. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 12:49:18 AM · #389 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus I would add that the most ethical course would be to not get pregnant in the first place. How hard is it to not get pregnant these days? We talk like that's not even an option. |
... if one follows the Pope's decree on birth control, that would be a relatively easy matter by comparison I guess.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 01:35:28 AM · #390 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus I would add that the most ethical course would be to not get pregnant in the first place. How hard is it to not get pregnant these days? We talk like that's not even an option. |
Of course, the ideal is to not get pregnant if one is not in a position to be a parent. But in the real world, unwanted/unplanned pregnancies happen all the time. So... |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 01:39:20 AM · #391 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Putting aside the argument about whether the state can force us to do something with our bodies we don't want to do, Kelli makes a good point. Is it unethical or immoral for a woman to end a pregnancy at a point before she believes the embryo/fetus is a sentient being when she doesn't want a child and/or is incapable of caring for it properly? For example, I'm desperately poor and can't properly care for myself, or I'm desperately poor and have other children I can't support. Or I'm a drug addict and if I allow the pregnancy to go to term my child will be born addicted to heroin, or may die soon after birth. I also don't believe that an embryo (first eight weeks of development) is a sentient human being, so there are no moral implications to ending a pregnancy within that timeframe. Wouldn't the ethical course of action be to end that pregnancy within the first eight weeks rather than allow that pregnancy to continue to term? |
Why not give it a choice? If the situation is so dire then they can always choose to end their own life. Why sell them short? If someone like Gianna Jessen can survive an abortion attempt and go on to become an activist then I say they can be pretty much handle whatever life throws at them. Or in her case, since she's religious, whatever God throws at her. :P |
But you didn't really address my question. Is there anything unethical about ending a pregnancy in the embryonic stage, assuming that it is not a sentient human being, especially given the hardships that bringing that pregnancy to term would entail? |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 01:58:11 AM · #392 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus I would add that the most ethical course would be to not get pregnant in the first place. How hard is it to not get pregnant these days? We talk like that's not even an option. |
If you remember what this thread is about, it was going to be less of an option if you happened to work for a Catholic business ... |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 02:01:01 AM · #393 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Putting aside the argument about whether the state can force us to do something with our bodies we don't want to do, Kelli makes a good point. Is it unethical or immoral for a woman to end a pregnancy at a point before she believes the embryo/fetus is a sentient being when she doesn't want a child and/or is incapable of caring for it properly? For example, I'm desperately poor and can't properly care for myself, or I'm desperately poor and have other children I can't support. Or I'm a drug addict and if I allow the pregnancy to go to term my child will be born addicted to heroin, or may die soon after birth. I also don't believe that an embryo (first eight weeks of development) is a sentient human being, so there are no moral implications to ending a pregnancy within that timeframe. Wouldn't the ethical course of action be to end that pregnancy within the first eight weeks rather than allow that pregnancy to continue to term? |
Why not give it a choice? If the situation is so dire then they can always choose to end their own life. Why sell them short? If someone like Gianna Jessen can survive an abortion attempt and go on to become an activist then I say they can be pretty much handle whatever life throws at them. Or in her case, since she's religious, whatever God throws at her. :P |
But you didn't really address my question. Is there anything unethical about ending a pregnancy in the embryonic stage, assuming that it is not a sentient human being, especially given the hardships that bringing that pregnancy to term would entail? |
This is, of course, the million dollar question in the debate. Which is more important to having the right to life? Being sentient? or being a human being? I think this is where the sides split. Some would say, hey, if you are human, you are in the club. Period. And if that is the case then there may be plenty unethical about ending a pregnancy.
Sentience seems like a tough sell because what would that say about people with severe MR or who are in comas? |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 02:04:09 AM · #394 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus I would add that the most ethical course would be to not get pregnant in the first place. How hard is it to not get pregnant these days? We talk like that's not even an option. |
If you remember what this thread is about, it was going to be less of an option if you happened to work for a Catholic business ... |
Pfft. I still think it's plenty of an option if you work for a catholic business. Seriously. I'll tell you what. If you can show me you were on birth control when you got pregnant and now you cannot afford the baby or you have serious problems with your ability to raise it, I'll let you have the abortion. But that's the only reason. How far do you think we'd cut the number of abortions? 80%? 90%? 98%? It would be a great start. Are we arguing about these abortions only? The rest are unethical?
Message edited by author 2012-02-25 02:05:15. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 03:41:55 AM · #395 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But you didn't really address my question. Is there anything unethical about ending a pregnancy in the embryonic stage, assuming that it is not a sentient human being, especially given the hardships that bringing that pregnancy to term would entail? |
Why does that matter? Suppose you wanted to keep it but miscarriage? Would you simply dismiss it like you would shedding skin cells? I doubt you would. But to answer your question directly, yes I would have a problem with it personally unless the mother's health was at risk. I try to value all life, even the little insects on the floor.
What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted and the atheist/agnostics pro life. If this is all there is, why on earth would you ever take that away from someone else? I would need far more justification than simply trying to avoid parenthood or economic hardship to do that to someone else. I'm sure everyone here is glad someone else didn't make that choice for them.
Message edited by author 2012-02-25 03:43:59. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 08:59:12 AM · #396 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Putting aside the argument about whether the state can force us to do something with our bodies we don't want to do, Kelli makes a good point. Is it unethical or immoral for a woman to end a pregnancy at a point before she believes the embryo/fetus is a sentient being when she doesn't want a child and/or is incapable of caring for it properly? For example, I'm desperately poor and can't properly care for myself, or I'm desperately poor and have other children I can't support. Or I'm a drug addict and if I allow the pregnancy to go to term my child will be born addicted to heroin, or may die soon after birth. I also don't believe that an embryo (first eight weeks of development) is a sentient human being, so there are no moral implications to ending a pregnancy within that timeframe. Wouldn't the ethical course of action be to end that pregnancy within the first eight weeks rather than allow that pregnancy to continue to term? |
Why not give it a choice? If the situation is so dire then they can always choose to end their own life. Why sell them short? If someone like Gianna Jessen can survive an abortion attempt and go on to become an activist then I say they can be pretty much handle whatever life throws at them. Or in her case, since she's religious, whatever God throws at her. :P |
But you didn't really address my question. Is there anything unethical about ending a pregnancy in the embryonic stage, assuming that it is not a sentient human being, especially given the hardships that bringing that pregnancy to term would entail? |
This is, of course, the million dollar question in the debate. Which is more important to having the right to life? Being sentient? or being a human being? I think this is where the sides split. Some would say, hey, if you are human, you are in the club. Period. And if that is the case then there may be plenty unethical about ending a pregnancy.
Sentience seems like a tough sell because what would that say about people with severe MR or who are in comas? |
It doesn't say anything about people who are in comas (and I don't know what MR is). You can't compare someone who has already been born to an embryo or fetus, something that has not been born and has not yet developed into a sentient being. If your argument is that all that is required to obtain full human rights is that the requisite DNA be present, then certain forms of birth control are unacceptable as well. Anything that interferes with the natural course of a fertilized egg can then be deemed unlawful, yes? |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 09:20:11 AM · #397 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But you didn't really address my question. Is there anything unethical about ending a pregnancy in the embryonic stage, assuming that it is not a sentient human being, especially given the hardships that bringing that pregnancy to term would entail? |
Why does that matter? Suppose you wanted to keep it but miscarriage? Would you simply dismiss it like you would shedding skin cells? I doubt you would. But to answer your question directly, yes I would have a problem with it personally unless the mother's health was at risk. I try to value all life, even the little insects on the floor.
What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted and the atheist/agnostics pro life. If this is all there is, why on earth would you ever take that away from someone else? I would need far more justification than simply trying to avoid parenthood or economic hardship to do that to someone else. I'm sure everyone here is glad someone else didn't make that choice for them. |
If you want a child and lose the pregnancy, I think one's reaction to that loss is highly dependent on the stage of the pregnancy when the loss occurs. Losing the pregnancy in the first few weeks is quite a bit different than losing it in the later stages of development.
Also, I fail to see why, if the zygote/embryo/fetus has obtained full human rights, the life or health of the mother should be any more important or highly valued than that of the zygote/embryo/fetus. Why should deference be given to the mother's status in that scheme of things? |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 10:10:32 AM · #398 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But you didn't really address my question. Is there anything unethical about ending a pregnancy in the embryonic stage, assuming that it is not a sentient human being, especially given the hardships that bringing that pregnancy to term would entail? |
Why does that matter? Suppose you wanted to keep it but miscarriage? Would you simply dismiss it like you would shedding skin cells? I doubt you would. But to answer your question directly, yes I would have a problem with it personally unless the mother's health was at risk. I try to value all life, even the little insects on the floor.
What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted and the atheist/agnostics pro life. If this is all there is, why on earth would you ever take that away from someone else? I would need far more justification than simply trying to avoid parenthood or economic hardship to do that to someone else. I'm sure everyone here is glad someone else didn't make that choice for them. |
I can tell you from personal experience that you do simply dismiss it and move on if it's early enough. I miscarried at 20 weeks. It wasn't a full miscarriage, I had to have a D&E to remove the fetus. And yes, I wanted the child, even though it was unplanned because my birth control failed. I had been using the birth control successfully for 9 years so I think I knew what I was doing. All birth control methods have failure rates. Yes, I cried when I found out, and I cried again before I went in for the procedure, but then I dismissed it as something not meant to be. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 11:22:49 AM · #399 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus I would add that the most ethical course would be to not get pregnant in the first place. How hard is it to not get pregnant these days? We talk like that's not even an option. |
If you remember what this thread is about, it was going to be less of an option if you happened to work for a Catholic business ... |
Pfft. I still think it's plenty of an option if you work for a catholic business. Seriously. I'll tell you what. If you can show me you were on birth control when you got pregnant and now you cannot afford the baby or you have serious problems with your ability to raise it, I'll let you have the abortion. But that's the only reason. How far do you think we'd cut the number of abortions? 80%? 90%? 98%? It would be a great start. Are we arguing about these abortions only? The rest are unethical? |
This is not an issue to be so lightly brushed off. It seems to many of us on this side of the issue that religious folks want it both ways. There is a movement now highly visible for everyone to see, but that probably was always there, by the religious right to make contraception unavailable. From my perspective it's disingenuous in the extreme to pound women for being irresponsible in their use (or non-use) of birth control when those very same folks doing the pounding would like not only to make it more difficult to obtain birth control but also want abstinence-only programs the only education on sexuality and pregnancy, would like to deny gay couples the right to adopt, would like to do away with all social safety net programs, want barriers to safe and early abortion even when those barriers produce no effect or perverse effects in terms of reducing the number of abortions, and I'm sure I could think of a few more examples of these kinds of absurdities if I had the time. So you all get to be as irresponsible as can be, AND you get to substitute your judgment for mine in terms of what is moral and ethical with regard to ending a pregnancy that may have profound effects on the quality of my personal life, even when I have no moral qualms about ending the pregnancy. And your response is "pfft"? |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 11:23:55 AM · #400 |
Sorry for the abbreviation Judith. MR is medical shorthand for mental retardation.
Here's an interesting question. How would you show a one day old infant was sentient? |
|
