Topic: Abortion (Read 8299 times)

Those fetuses could just as well grow up to be someone that contributed extremely negatively to humanity; the number of real life supervillains we might have escaped from because they've died before being born is just about incalculable.

I'm actually kind of with you on that. There are plenty of options for the mother to avoid the financial burden of having a child, and if she decides to take on that burden, anyway, then it's her choice entirely. I would maybe have the father still pay for part of the abortion or adoption services (and maybe the morning sicknesses and ice cream), since the situation was caused by his negligence. Though this thing is a rather inflammatory hot topic issue  


Controlling through shaming is still controlling. That's how the church does it: take something that is people's most basic desire and want, and make them feel ashamed of it, which works great since everyone thinks about and wants it. Then, when they feel shamed and guilty, tell them you have answers, have them come to you, and tell them what to do. It's been pretty destructive, actually. Shame keeps it all in secret, makes people avoid honestly discussing the issues, and just leads to more ignorant mistakes followed by more shame. Compare this (us) to secular cultures, where sex maybe makes people blush, but is not shamed; where sexual issues like contraception, disease, and abortion are freely discussed, and where sex is not something shamefull that you must get before anyone finds out. Those cultures are much better informed of the issues and risks, are much better prepared to discuss, plan for, and deal with them, and thus have far fewer STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion. In a way it's also like keeping candy from a baby. Compare the problems with underage drinking in US with, say, Italy, where there's really no minimum drinking age in family homes, and alcohol is just a part of dinner.


Wrong about what exactly? And why do you suppose that children born to financially destitute parents who don't want them will most likely grow up to be leaders, scientists, and doctors, as opposed to troubled people?


Why do you believe that they would have been aborted? Abortion is not a new invention, and an ancient procedure is even mentioned in the bible. Also, if the mother aborts, who's to say she won't have another baby later, when she is ready, and have that second baby become the great person that the first one never had the chance to?

It's not about a culture of right vs wrong, it's about a culture of fear and shame that has been perpetrated on women for the past many centuries. Heck, having babies out of wedlock was considered borderline exileable offence not too long ago (but only for the mother; no one cared about the father's mistake). So, as long as women are shamed about this stuff, they will do whatever it if that conceals that. If it's abortion, then it's only the moralist extremists to blame.


Too many conflicting studies on this, so best to leave this out.



Accidents happen, and please don't propose controlling people's sexuality. The church has been using that as their main method of holding control over people through shame for far too long. It only ever leads to bad things (proof? Compare abortion rates in much more securalist Europe where abortion is freely available to much more religious America).


Trial for murder would first have to mean that the fetus is considered on par with a human being. As mentioned by my definitions, it does not. If it did, people who take their comatose family members off life support would have to be tried for murder as well.
Regarding the father wanting to keep the baby, that's a tricky situation. My guess/train of thought: Even though the baby IS valued by someone, it is not actually the property of the father, since it is in possession of the mother and she is the one being required to take care of it (or using her body to take care of it). So, perhaps the father has no right to it, since his contribution to it was very minimal, and whatever contribution he did make (sperm) he technically willingly gave the possession of it to the mother. I know it's "not fair," but we have plenty of benefits women don't too, so it's not like we can complain.
Artificial woumbs have recently been shown to work for mice fetuses, so it's a short matter of time before they can work for human babies, too. At that point, I guess the father, if he insists on keeping the baby, can ask the mother to give him the fetus, and he would be responsible for providing the financing for the procedure, but it would still be up to the mother as to what to do with her "property."

You are right about Goodwin's law. And I was joking.

Btw, i would think linking to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Godwin%27s_law would be more appropriated than ad Hitlerum; however neither of those articles specify that there can never be a valid continuation after Hitler, or some standin for him, is mentioned; we can go on, i will, but if you don't wanna you're free to leave.

If it was its natural conclusion why would it be my fault?



Like i said, it will only be over if people don't wanna go any further; regardless of the mention of any infamous figures.

Abandoning your child is not only an extreme social stigma, it's in such a place in our culture that it's almost impossible for someone to do with clear conscience. I don't see most mothers picking that over abortion, and it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (not that I agree with it, but emotionally it's the best option). Giving your baby should be perceived as normal, a decision everyone can freely make. Maybe then the choice would be obvious.


Hehe, relax, it's just a metaphor. And I wouldn't kill Hitler either.

No,  sorry, it's over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Any time someone brings in Hitler, it means the debate has come to it's natural conclusion. There is now nothing more left to discuss. This thread is dead now, and it's all your fault.

It's only over when we say so, rules are meant to be broken.

God, I was SO trying not to mention Hitler when I mentioned those three mass murderers. Thanks for killing the thread. It's all over now  

Adoption is the most often quoted solution, but I suspect vast majority of anti-abortion protesters never take that route (I would be willing to bet no one on this threat arguing against abortion has adopted either). Those people going around looking to adopt are mostly looking for white or "exotic" babies. Non-white babies, young children, and children from troubled backgrounds are sorta screwed. I keep running into statistics saying that there are approximately 500,000 children out there waiting for adoption, many of whom end up doing all of their growing up in foster care, and I believe that is one of the biggest indicators of why abortion is so high and so needed.

If you knew with 100% sure a kid was gonna grow up to be the next Hitler, would you murder that kid?

Can we make serious decisions based on what might or might not be? What if the fetus that was spared from abortion grows up to be another Laugher, or Tim McVeigh, or Kazynsky?
This is usually where these debates tend to come to an impase, with one group wanting to take future possibility into account, and the other believing that possibilities are too infinite and general to consider, and thus should be irrelevant. I don't really know how to progress from that. It's why I asked about an AI that was built that would have all the mental abilities of a human, but that was never turned on, and if it would be wrong to destroy it... but that was kind of ignored with dismissive claims that I would kill babies.

Well, that's what I meant. Develop those options, make them attractive and easy to use. If some great people want to adopt childrens, don't add hurdles in the process, try to make it easier for them. It is possible that some women who aborted would have chose to give their child to a good family if they had the choice. Don't shame them if they have a lack of reasonable choices.


It's not because you perceive the roots as bad that you can't help the rest of the tree.

Really interesting debate here, I've read all the posts.

It's sad that there is no logical conclusion on that one. The two sides have excellent points, and it's seems like a classic case of "Damned if you, damned if you don't".

I believe the scope of this debate is too small though. Abortion is only a tool in the toolbox to solve a problem in a certain situation. I think that the tool should be kept in the toolbox, but we should find a way to add more tools in it. Women who abort have usually little options in front of them, and it's not a joy either. I know there's a certain aspect of responsibility, but to take responsibility, you need support, and if you don't have it, you usually don't give a shit about responsibility.

Some people have a hard time trying to hold the pieces of their life together, giving them the burden of another life is not what they need, neither the society around them.

If you prevent abortions, people are simply going to find a new way of solving this problem. In certain situations, as horrible as it is, it's a need for those people.

Instead of fighting each other about an impossible position, determining the exact date of a "living being" or just shitting on other's beliefs, whatever they might be, why don't you use that time and energy to add more tools in the toolbox? Create new solutions, so much better than people will find abortion to find a .00001% last resort tool. We live for that, trying to find new ways of solving problems, and solving them in a much better way than before.

I personally find abortion horrible, but it's sometime the last hope of some people, and I refuse to create more despair. That's why my stance is, bury abortion under a massive pile of better solutions(I mean, real BETTER solutions for real people, not forced beliefs) so abortion is somewhat forgotten. If you find the abortion too high, it's simply because you don't offer enough solutions adapted to the needs of the people.

I don't think huh? Right...

Here's a thought; if any human, at whatever point in its development is potentially capable of acquiring self-awareness, sentience, consciousness or self-sufficiency, let it be; or if you're unwilling, convey that responsibility to someone else who is. Interrupting it, destroying it, abandoning it, evicting it, or altering it at the beginnings of life is tantamount to murder. Deal.

So tell us, where do you think laws and right come from?

Self awareness is arbitrary? Understanding what death means and fearing it is arbitrary? Making choices is arbitrary?
Perhaps the issue is that you believe everything, including the definition of a human life, is arbitrary, thus we shouldn't even think about it, and thus the best option is just to do whatever the law or the bible says, without questioning it?

No wonder you can't even begin to think about where things like laws and rights come from 

Um yours is arbitrary and based on your feelings.  So is everyone else's.  That's the way this stuff works.  Are you hoping that there is some definition written in the stars?

I have a definition. You don't. Using my definition, you think we should allow babies to die a horrible death by thirst or starvation. I don't know how you could be so cruel to babies to leave them to that fate.
If you don't like my definition, feel free to suggest improvements. Somehow I doubt you can come up with anything that isn't arbitrary or just based on your feelings. Prove me wrong.