Abortion


Danneskjold

Recommended Posts

In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought. Especially in the area of what one is willing to do for cosmetic improvement: how many men would be willing to have a hot wax bikini line treatment, or even tweeze their eyebrows? Women do it on a regular basis.

Judith

Well, I had my dentist drill on my teeth over a ten-year period without anesthetic. Then I moved and my new dentist fainted first time out so I went back to the needle. He couldn't stand my pain. (The first sentence is true.) What does this prove? Women are smarter. :)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe he just preferred pressured, shearing boring over taking a little shot.

That's another thing: guys tend to be total wusses even on the level of taking injections.

rde

Every day I find my child within, smack him around, and swipe his lunch money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in college, I was constantly embroiled in discussions with socialists. Often the discussion would last hours and roam over many forms of the claim that someone's need required the government to tax everyone and provide the needy with welfare. I would refute this philosophically and point out the many problems caused by such welfare programs as well. I would explain that charity was fine and should be performed on an individual voluntary basis. I would point out that charity work had always been extensive in America and was actually degraded by the assumption that government would take care of problems now. Finally, I sometimes won a complete concession. Then the next day, the same person would return and say, "But what about the poor?" The lesson: People find it very difficult to change their views even when given perfectly good reason to do so.

The parallel to the large lack of understanding of the significance of the fetus as a part of a pregnant woman's body and how that determines the fetus's status with regard to the right to life seems staggering to me. This thread has gone on without even addressing these issues of rights. The fetus is human and it lives. It is a part of a human mother and it lives because she lives and nourishes it as a part of herself. Because it is a part of the woman's body, she has the rights to its life as she has it to the rest of her body.

There is no other hope of solving this abortion issue but by realizing this. If one does not, then we are doomed to perpetual warfare between the interests of the mother and the fetus, which has falsely been deemed to have rights to assert against the mother.

So, you ask, "What about the poor fetus?' Ugh. Back to the start of the cycle, a perpetual motion cycle of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, why do you dismiss the birth control is not 100% argument outright?

Remember, this is not a reason I think abortion should be illegal, this is a reason I think that the birth control argument isn't a good one.

The reason I dismiss this argument outright is because everybody knows that nothing (or very close to it) is 100%. So it becomes a question of personal responsibility. I am walking down the stairs, something I know contains the risk of me slipping and falling down the stairs, I slip, fall, and break my leg tumbling down the stairs. It is my fault that I broke my leg, no one else's, and I will spend x amount of time in a cast.

Now, as reluctant as I am to call a baby a punishment, that is what those who get an abortion obviously see it as, or at the least something bad (generally speaking). So, assuming one knows that contraception is not 100%, then those who use contraception are taking a calculated risk. If their calculated risk doesn't pay off, then if you have abortion legal for the sole purpose of that argument then you have just given someone a way to shrug off responsibility for an action at the cost of another person-to-be's life. As I have said before, there are many good reasons abortion should be legal, one of them is that it would probably turn into a bigger disaster than the American war on drugs. However, giving a person to pass the buck onto a person-to-be is not a reason to keep abortion that I can bring myself to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's better, a seventeen-year-old mom from failed birth control, or an early termination so she can get on with her life, and maybe not put someone into a life that can't be nurtured?

Is abortion birth control? Only for unfeeling morons, one would think. But how do you verify the raison d etre for the abortion? Hmmm? How do we document and prove?

The real person that always suffers psychologically (unless of course they are a sociopath) is the woman. This, I have seen.

It's a one-time payment, and it hurts like Hell. It's, er, "enough."

And I stand with my position: men could do a better job stepping up to the plate. And what's worse is that even when they don't, they still act like they have more rights than they deserve. That is what usually happens. A lot of men will draw this out into a complete progeny lifespan, and not even because they so much care about the kid, but rather, on "principle." A property/ownership mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To abstain from sex because it incurs a risk of pregnancy would be too great a sacrifice on my part. I value my life and my happiness. I am NOT some sacrificial schmoo. Therefore, I am not willing to deny myself the wonderful connection, intense joy and multiple other needs that the sexual act gives me. As far as I am concerned, using a reliable form of birth control is my taking as full responsibility for preventing a pregnancy as I am rationally able to do, without incurring massive self-sacrifice on my part [abstinence].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if y'all have discussed this yet and how it plays into this debate, but is anyone here familiar with economist Stephen Levitt's research and article on abortion and crime?

Here are the two articles, they are very interesting:

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Pap...galized2001.pdf

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Pap...ttReply2004.pdf

--Dustan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To abstain from sex because it incurs a risk of pregnancy would be too great a sacrifice on my part. I value my life and my happiness. I am NOT some sacrificial schmoo. Therefore, I am not willing to deny myself the wonderful connection, intense joy and multiple other needs that the sexual act gives me. As far as I am concerned, using a reliable form of birth control is my taking as full responsibility for preventing a pregnancy as I am rationally able to do, without incurring massive self-sacrifice on my part [abstinence].

It is your decision, knowing full well that it is not a 100% protection, to have sex. Congratulations, you have made decided to take a calculated risk. Abstinence is rational if you believe that the good caused by having sex is outweighed by the bad of if you had a child at this point in time when added to the risk of having a child.

As far as the

intense joy and multiple other needs
I will refer you to a passage from Atlas Shrugged... on second thought, I cannot find the exact passage because I do not have my book with me at school, however, the gist of it is that someone is demanding Reardon Metal because he "needs" it to build his house but it is too expensive. He demands its cost to be lowered because of his "need" (note Objectivist punctuation :P) and his inability to pay the price. Several other things are suggested as materials from which to build the house. He says no to them all because he "needs" Reardon Metal and the others are not as good. It is pointed out to him that he doesn't "need" Reardon Metal, he wants it. If anyone could find the exact passage for me it would be greatly appreciated.

In the same way that this man "needed" Reardon Metal, you "need" sex. It is not a requirement for your survival. If the cost of sex (the inability or lack of motivation to care for a baby) combined with the risk of having to pay that price (having a baby) outweighs your "need" then perhaps it is not a wonderful idea. However, if you decide to anyway, it is your responsibility.

You should not have the ability to end a possible life (assuming it's not yet alive because we have yet to set standards for when it should be considered as such) for the sole reason of shrugging off responsibility. That is why I disagree with that particular argument although others are still in play.

Edited by Jeff Kremer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sex is a need and a strategy for meeting other needs. No, I don't need it for my survival, in the same way that I don't need a partner, friends, love, work that gives me fulfillment, etc., but they do have a huge bearing on my pursuit of happiness. I do have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Like I said, I'm not a sacrificial schmoo. If I become pregnant I will have an abortion because it is anti MY life to continue with the pregnancy. My life is my own. My body is my own, to do with as I please - I'm not merely some biological baby-making machine.

Edited by Fran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic in general seems simple in all but obscure boundary cases (e.g. 3rd trimester partial birth abortions). To paraphrase - "I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor any part of my energy. Nor one ounce of my blood."

I'm not sure if y'all have discussed this yet and how it plays into this debate, but is anyone here familiar with economist Stephen Levitt's research and article on abortion and crime?

I first read of Levitt's theory in Freakonomics and found it very interesting as well as intuitive in an odd sort of way; of course I loved the fact too that it can easily offend people on both the right and left. :) However, while reading it I was also waiting for the part where he showed that crime rates went down first among younger people, and then decreased in older age groups in later years - a necessary telltale sign of the theory's validity. Such evidence was never presented. I then looked online and confirmed there isn't such evidence; crime rates dropped across all age groups essentially simultaneously, not consistent with a reduction in criminals born starting in a certain year. There are a number of good (and many bad, purely anti-abortion motivated) criticism sites concerning this fatal flaw in his theory, as well as some lesser methodological issues with his conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Fran. Now you have moved into a completely different point. Which is just proving my point that when standing alone, the fact that birth control is never 100% does not give sufficient reason to legalize abortion.

Now, the questions are: Is the baby a part of the body? When does the baby become alive? If the baby is alive and is not part of the body what's more important, sanctity of life, or individual choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Fran. Now you have moved into a completely different point. Which is just proving my point that when standing alone, the fact that birth control is never 100% does not give sufficient reason to legalize abortion.

Now, the questions are: Is the baby a part of the body? When does the baby become alive? If the baby is alive and is not part of the body what's more important, sanctity of life, or individual choice?

Please read all my other posts for why I believe it's freedom of choice. Birth control not being 100% reliable was never meant to be taken as a stand-alone reason, but taken within the context of individual choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully realize that your position was never that it was a stand alone argument. Kat was the person that presented it as such and is who I was addressing. You decided just decided to join in. I disagree that it is a valid argument, which I showed by forcing you to switch to a different side. I still do not intend to say there are no valid arguments, just saying that isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I have an irreplaceable, finite life and I do not want to sacrifice 18 months of it (9 months pregnant and a further 9 months to recover) feeling dreadful and putting on a huge amount of weight which I will find hard to shift, for somebody else. The pregnancy or childbirth may also kill me, of course.

The more I read Fran, the better I like her. The following shrugs off everything said thus far, pro-choice and pro-life, but I addressed the question of abortion in a novel way:

As you can imagine, I needed to have a policy on this subject. The way I solved it was to propose that women be exempt from the criminal law and put in charge of law enforcement, to end male 'input' on abortion and domestic violence. This generally went over like a lead balloon, but I still think it's the correct solution. Women and men have contrary political purposes. That's why I also proposed a U.S. Constitutional amendment, giving women the entire House of Representatives. Legislation would require passage by both sexes.

from The Rule of Law

see also The Good Walk Alone

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it rather disturbing the contempt that some people have for pregnancy (I'm not talking about rape, incest, or the mother's life). Sure, it's definitley NOT for every one, but without it there would never be Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Aristotle, or even YOURSELVES.

Edited by blackhorse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, this is not a reason I think abortion should be illegal, this is a reason I think that the birth control argument isn't a good one.

I think it is an excellent reason.

The reason I dismiss this argument outright is because everybody knows that nothing (or very close to it) is 100%.

Then it's good that there is always a safety net in the form of abortion. I don't know why that should be anybody else's business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, this is not a reason I think abortion should be illegal, this is a reason I think that the birth control argument isn't a good one.

I think it is an excellent reason.

The reason I dismiss this argument outright is because everybody knows that nothing (or very close to it) is 100%.

Then it's good that there is always a safety net in the form of abortion. I don't know why that should be anybody else's business.

Whether or not it is a good safety net is reliant on whether or not it is a life which is begging the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not it is a good safety net is reliant on whether or not it is a life which is begging the question.

Jeff, okay for argument's sake let's say that that the foetus is a life. So is a starving boy in Africa. This child will die unless you help him. Are you going to give up school and do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad comparison. The kid in Africa requires me to take action while it doesn't require any action at all to let him die. On the other hand, it takes action to abort the fetus while it takes no voluntary action to let the fetus continue as is.

By aborting the fetus you are change its course, by not aborting it you are letting it continue. By letting the kid in Africa die you are letting it continue its course, by not letting the kid from Africa die you are changing the course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad comparison. The kid in Africa requires me to take action while it doesn't require any action at all to let him die. On the other hand, it takes action to abort the fetus while it takes no voluntary action to let the fetus continue as is.

By aborting the fetus you are change its course, by not aborting it you are letting it continue. By letting the kid in Africa die you are letting it continue its course, by not letting the kid from Africa die you are changing the course.

Where does this "changing the course"/ "continue the course" philosophy come from? God says don't use a condom so the sperm and the egg can continue their courses? According to the Pope, yes, I believe. Don't ride in a car or fly in an airplane? Continue the course with bi-pedal locomotion, if not a horse? Don't put a murderer in prison? Let him continue his course? Let the abortion doctor continue his course aborting? If it is your course to abort the fetus why abort your course in favor of the fetus's course?

All I'm saying is your formulation seems essentially contentless leaving anything goes--or, hedonism, if you want, to say nothing of sociopathy.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how rational person can debate abortion as such. The basic issue obvious. So obvious in fact that most Americans even get it. Yes the fetus is "alive" but only in the respect that any other clumps of cells are. It's not a "baby. It's a *potential* baby. This line might be less clear later in pregnancy, but early, it's obviously not a baby. That's why *science* has given it the designation: fetus.

So the notion that we should force a woman to let this clump of cells develop into an actual baby is vicious in its total detachment from reality ignorance. This is not even debatable it's so ignorant. A is A: a clump is a clump; a baby is a baby; they're not the same. That's the end of it right there.

What can cause legitimate confusion is the nature of the issue in the later stages of pregnancy, when the fetus is developed enough it would be a baby if it were born (as opposed to a dead clump of cells). The argument for abortion gets more complicated here, but you guys can't seriously be debating the morality of abortion as such. It's definitely as moral as all the other forms of birth control, indeed it's essentially no different from the others: it just stops a potential from becoming an actual.

Edited by sjw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you draw the line on whether or not it is living. I personally say it is living when the heart starts and the brain starts being active. If you go by once it has the ability to think rationally then you aren't going to be able to define it as human for quite a while after birth. I just think that there should be a logically set time at which having an abortion past that should be illegal. When does a *potential* baby become a baby and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now