|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 27, 2015 23:59:12 GMT
Let's talk about contentious politics, specifically abortion. Few people believe that it is either wholly right or wrong to have an abortion, but beyond that there is much division on the subject. Some people feel that abortion should be available to a woman under all circumstances. Others feel that only in cases of rape or an endangering of the mother's life should abortion be permitted. Some yet believe that it should be banned regardless.
My most conservative inner-self believes that there is something ethically wrong about using abortion as a backup contraceptive, though I do afford a woman all rights to her body (see: ambivalence). When does a fetus become its own entity with human rights (after all, we do believe in human rights)? If this happens while in the womb, does the mother have a right to end the baby's life to save her own? I'd think so, but I want to know what you think.
Just to be careful, please remember to be civil in this discussion. Abortion is a volatile political topic and needs to be approached sensitively by all participants in order to avoid turning into a shit-storm.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 28, 2015 10:46:02 GMT
It is ethically wrong to have an abortion, even from the mother's perspective. It is never an easy choice. For a woman to choose this avenue, there have to be reasons she feels she cannot support a child, or that a child is better off not coming into the world.
It's a long debate about when a fetus should have unspoken rights. But as long as it's dependent on its host, that host has rights that can't be ignored either.
This is a choice men will never have to make with their own bodies. It's a discussion that isn't fair for men alone to rule on, which we've seen happen time and again.
There is hypocrisy on both sides of the debate.
Liberals (mostly) believe in a woman's rights and choice. And they (mostly) believe in no killing of self sufficient people, and no war. And they (mostly) believe in no capital punishment.
Conservatives (mostly) believe in an unborn child's rights. And they (mostly) believe in killing in war. And they (mostly) believe in capital punishment.
Both sides believe in killing. It's just a matter of when it's appropriate.
Neither side is following the religious tenets "thou shalt not kill."
There's a lot more I could say but what I basically believe is: it's no one else's decision but the mother's.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 28, 2015 13:47:29 GMT
Somehow, I knew only Caliya would brave this thread. If it is ethically wrong to have an abortion, does that mean that we should ban abortions? Are there times when we should perform an abortion despite it being wrong, or are there just times where it isn't wrong?
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 28, 2015 17:16:44 GMT
Well, I will probably blast any guy that disagrees with me, so that may be the reason no one else is posting. lol
You ask questions that can't be answered. It's probably always wrong, just like not using birth control when both people know they don't want children, is wrong.
But I know of no perfect person, and forcing someone to bear the consequences might be just as wrong as choosing to abort.
In the end, you can't make a blanket law. Because women have been aborting babies for centuries, at the risk of their lives. The question is, do we make it safe or illegal and dangerous? Making it illegal won't stop abortion.
So what are the alternatives?
For those who believe abortion is always wrong, then they are free to not have abortions. But they should not hold dominion over the opinions and circumstances of others.
|
|
|
Abortion
Sept 28, 2015 18:09:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by fossil on Sept 28, 2015 18:09:52 GMT
Morally Evil or Morally Good?
Because some laws that are in place in today's world don't cover these basis.
I do not believe in abortion because I believe it's a living being. Even though some offspring might be produced in the most morally evil ways.
I've meet good people that have morally evil sons. I've meet morally evil father's with morally good sons. Does that mean they do not bare the right to live?
Even the girls in Cleveland love their children that were created through morally evil means. Does this reflect the child? I think they are great examples of why we should give any creation a chance.
Humans still have a choice in the end and they will choose what they feel is best for them. Are you weak or strong?
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 29, 2015 15:29:05 GMT
You ask questions that can't be answered. That's how ethics, and philosophy in general, works. Hard sciences are boring with all their certainties and laws. just like not using birth control when both people know they don't want children, is wrong. Is that ethically wrong though? Surely, it's an unwise decision since they don't want children, but is there anything morally wrong about it? ... [abortion is] probably always wrong If this is true, which it may be, then doesn't it follow that we shouldn't do it? The whole point of determining right and wrong in moral terms is to guide people and ourselves toward right actions and away from wrong ones, so once we determine something to be wrong, shouldn't we abstain from doing it? To be honest, I'm not sure that abortion is inherently, or always wrong. Much like violence, perhaps abortion can be justified in certain contexts. The most extreme situation would center around a victim of rape who's life is endangered by the resultant pregnancy. It would be difficult to argue that she should surrender her life as punishment for being victimized (I'm putting it in biased terms, admittedly, but you get my point). In the end, you can't make a blanket law. Because women have been aborting babies for centuries, at the risk of their lives. The question is, do we make it safe or illegal and dangerous? Making it illegal won't stop abortion. So what are the alternatives? I see the merit in your point, that outlawing abortion will really only make it more dangerous, but there are flaws here too. For example, outlawing abortion wouldn't prevent it from happening (as you point out), but it would reduce the number of abortions, so there is some preventative success there. Secondly, the argument that "we can't prevent it so let's at least make it safe" is what led to institutionalized heroin access for addicts in parts of Europe (though the linked program has actually been somewhat successful). For those who believe abortion is always wrong, then they are free to not have abortions. But they should not hold dominion over the opinions and circumstances of others. I think personal liberty is an important element of the abortion debate. I feel similarly about drug-abuse- I won't do it if I believe that it is wrong (or at least, unhealthy), but I don't demand that all people live sober lives. The other side of this coin though is that there is case to made that drug-addicts and, more relevantly, practitioners of abortion are causing harm to others through their actions. If it can be said that abortion is murder, or that it harms another person in any substantial way, then that takes it out of the realm of personal liberties and places it in the realm of human rights.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 29, 2015 15:36:25 GMT
I do not believe in abortion because I believe it's a living being. This is what I'm getting at with the human rights point at the end of my previous post. If it can be argued that we're infringing upon the rights of another human being, then abortion may very well be wrong. Another element that makes abortion so contentious is that the assumed victim (the aborted fetus) is very close to the unmarked boundary at which personhood is granted (or acknowledged). It begs the question of when personhood is established. I've meet good people that have morally evil sons. I've meet morally evil father's with morally good sons. Does that mean they do not bare the right to live? But of course, all people have the right to live. The core question is regarding when they get that right. Do unborn children have the right to live? Do sperm and egg have the right to become a new being? When does a living being become a human? What do you all think of personhood- when do we get it and who should or must decide who has it, if anyone?
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 29, 2015 16:35:24 GMT
just like not using birth control when both people know they don't want children, is wrong. Actually, in some countries yes it's wrong. Remember Julian Assange, where Sweden tried to extradite him on the grounds of rape - rape being defined as sex without contraception.
|
|
|
Abortion
Sept 29, 2015 16:48:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by fossil on Sept 29, 2015 16:48:33 GMT
Isn't that the great question? Can go along with the meaning of life?
The mentality of man in the last hundred years has changed so much and drastically some of the most important things have been forgotten.
I could go into details for days about various topics including religion but it's not worth the effort.
In the last 100 years men has come to fear death when once death was an honour. Fearless into the abyss for thousands of years of man dying with honour. Now fear plagues us. Why? Whom benefits? Where are we heading?
The great grandfather's that founded countries would be ashamed of what we have become.
People sacrificed lives for the future and now the people that lead can only look at the present day situation.
I'm afraid we live in sad times, being fearmongered.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 29, 2015 17:00:04 GMT
If it can be said that abortion is murder, or that it harms another person in any substantial way, then that takes it out of the realm of personal liberties and places it in the realm of human rights. The key here is, what is murder? If you're going to apply that term to human life and human rights, it applies regardless of age, religion, nationality. So that would mean war and killing opponents is murder. War is mass murder sanctioned by government, not punishable by law. If our lives are affected by someone else (unborn or living on their own), do we have the right to kill them for our own benefit? Or their own? What about capital punishment? Do we have the right to take the life of someone because of their crime? Is that justice? "An eye for an eye" is both from the old testament and Islam. The New Testament was "turn the other cheek." Because Gandhi was right, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." This, by the way, is the reason I opposed retaliation of what happened on 9/11. It does not bring back the dead. It makes things worse. Look at the billions of dollars we've paid in taxes towards retribution. And the cost of human lives in inestimable. Yet what have we to show for it but increasing wars, and spreading hatred to many countries, and killing innocents along the way. It's all murder if you want to define it as taking a human life. A fetus is questionably alive - it cannot survive on its own outside the womb. It must live off the mother. Her life might be endangered by carrying a child. Whose life is more valuable? If the mother dies, so will the child. But not vice versa. In that sense, I would not ever believe abortion past age of survival should be legal. If a doctor performs abortions, and his clinic is bombed and he's killed, isn't that hypocrisy? If a father can't be found to support the child he helped create, what is his part in this? If a father wants the child, does he have the right to enforce a woman carry it for his benefit? What are human rights? If a fetus cannot take a breath on their own, are they of sound character, and nature, to have rights? Should their rights override the rights of the person helping them survive? Is the mother a non-entity? What are her rights? Some people think she has no rights once a child is conceived. She becomes an incubator against her will. Is that right? Again, my view is, if the entity cannot exist on its own and it's dependent on something or someone to survive, they are not in a position to decide. Others can and will make decisions for them. Not much different than someone on a life support system. There are no guarantees that person will survive and grow into adulthood. Women miscarry in the first trimester all the time, and no one faults the mother for that. Unless, of course, she has taken drugs or alcohol in excess.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 30, 2015 0:07:24 GMT
Is that ethically wrong though? Surely, it's an unwise decision since they don't want children, but is there anything morally wrong about it? Actually, in some countries yes it's wrong. Remember Julian Assange, where Sweden tried to extradite him on the grounds of rape - rape being defined as sex without contraception. I am unfamiliar with that case, but let's forget about laws for a moment. Assuming that laws are ethically accurate is risky. Ethically speaking, and despite what Swedish precedent asserts, is sex without contraception wrong? If you're going to apply that term [murder] to human life and human rights, it applies regardless of age, religion, nationality. So that would mean war... Whoa, whoa, slow down there partner. Let's not worry about the ethics of war, at least not in this thread. If murder applies to all human life, regardless of age, then male masturbation is murder, and females not fertilizing an egg each month is negligent homicide. There is a crucial question of personhood that must be addressed if we are to attempt to make an ethical judgment on murder. I've attempted to demonstrate that homo sapien life is too broad to constitute personhood (I assume we've seen the other side to that, which is that our legal definition of personhood may be too exclusive). So, let's say that murder is killing another person. The question then is, "what or who is a person?" If our lives are affected by someone else (unborn or living on their own), do we have the right to kill them for our own benefit? Or their own? I would argue that there are circumstances under which murder can be justified. Self-defense would be one example of many. For the sake of not side-tracking the discussion, I won't express my opinion on capital punishment, war, or 911 (jeez Caliya, you just took every contentious political subject and dished them all out in the same thread- no wonder IM is feigns a fear of proboards coming down on him). What are human rights? If a fetus cannot take a breath on their own, are they of sound character, and nature, to have rights? Should their rights override the rights of the person helping them survive? Is the mother a non-entity? What are her rights? Now we're in the thick of it! These are the questions to ask. Again, my view is, if the entity cannot exist on its own and it's dependent on something or someone to survive, they are not in a position to decide. Others can and will make decisions for them. But the question is not what will happen, rather if what will or could happen is right or wrong, or in clearer terms, is ethically permissible.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 30, 2015 8:04:09 GMT
jeez Caliya, you just took every contentious political subject and dished them all out in the same thread- no wonder IM is feigns a fear of proboards coming down on him). When discussing humans, human rights, and murder, how can you isolate it to only if a fetus is a human or not? When conservatives posit their arguments, they defend some forms of murder and not others. It has to be brought into the discussion because we're talking about human life, what constitutes human life, and at what point it's justified to take a human life. If you want to limit it to only fetuses, I've already stated my views on that. Nothing more to discuss. Now we're in the thick of it! These are the questions to ask. And yet you also don't answer.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Sept 30, 2015 8:14:33 GMT
Conservatives arent the devil sheesh
Its like saying all liberals are bleeding heart retards
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 30, 2015 8:20:21 GMT
Conservatives arent the devil sheesh Its like saying all liberals are bleeding heart retards I should have said both conservatives and liberals. They both posit arguments to defend their positions. But when it comes to the rights of women, one can't deny conservatives are trying to dictate what women can and can't do.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Sept 30, 2015 8:28:13 GMT
Conservatives arent the devil sheesh Its like saying all liberals are bleeding heart retards I should have said both conservatives and liberals. They both posit arguments to defend their positions. But when it comes to the rights of women, one can't deny conservatives are trying to dictate what women can and can't do. Sweeping brush strokes. I dont think women are supressed at all
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 30, 2015 13:56:53 GMT
When discussing humans, human rights, and murder, how can you isolate it to only if a fetus is a human or not? I admit it isn't easy, but if we don't try to do it, we'll lose all brevity and focus. Topics like this are just dense enough as is, and can be hard to take in. Because of all the issues your previous post draws from, I had to read it three times. If you want to limit it to only fetuses, I've already stated my views on that. Nothing more to discuss. You've stated that abortion will happen, but you've not presented a functional ethical stance on it. And yet you also don't answer. That's because these questions have no single answer- that's the beauty of philosophy. What's important is that we think about the questions. I could tell you what human rights are, but I think you already know. As for the other questions, I'll do my best to humor you. Is a fetus of sound nature to have rights? That certainly has no definite answer, but my answer is no. In order to have rights, one must be able to invoke them- that's the whole point of rights. If you can't invoke your rights, whether because you're unborn or because you can't communicate, then you can't have any. That isn't to say that humans don't have responsibilities to beings without rights, just that the beings themselves cannot have rights. Since I answered no, you're second question is unanswerable. The mother has all the standard human rights and has no reason to be a non-entity. I dont think women are supressed at all I do believe women are suppressed, both culturally and economically, however But when it comes to the rights of women, one can't deny conservatives are trying to dictate what women can and can't do. I still disagree with this. I share a stance with you on abortion Caliya, and on politics but still, not all conservatives are trying to control women. Abortion is an issue at all because a question stands regarding whether or not human rights are being infringed upon, a question which relies on another question of personhood. I won't fault you for not answering these questions, but I will fault you if you've not considered them (though I'm sure you have).
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 30, 2015 21:40:11 GMT
I share a stance with you on abortion Caliya, and on politics but still, not all conservatives are trying to control women. Which is why the US House of Representatives just voted mostly partisan vote of 241-185 to defund Planned Parenthood. No, not trying to control women at all.... You can live in denial that they are controlling or opposing women, but these men have no right whatsoever to make decisions for women. They can vote to spend billions of dollars on war and killing people all over the world. But not to help a woman with family planning, birth control, and a very minor percentage towards abortion. Oh yes, all those women going to Planned Parenthood to prevent pregnancy in the first place are wasting your taxpayer dollars. Not billions of dollars on war. There is no way to broach this subject without speaking to the outrageous hypocrisy of killing and where we spend our money.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 30, 2015 21:43:18 GMT
I dont think women are supressed at all I don't think you're trying to troll at all.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Abortion
Sept 30, 2015 22:51:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by dodgy on Sept 30, 2015 22:51:00 GMT
How are women supressed in western culture?
Seriously
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 1, 2015 7:26:31 GMT
How are women supressed in western culture? Seriously The fact you don't know it or see it for yourself says more about you than the women that have been suppressed since antiquity.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Abortion
Oct 1, 2015 8:28:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by dodgy on Oct 1, 2015 8:28:29 GMT
How are women supressed in western culture? Seriously The fact you don't know it or see it for yourself says more about you than the women that have been suppressed since antiquity. That's not an argument that's another shot gun statement and false as there have been lots of cultures that did not "suppress " Plus we are talking about present day western world society. How are you suppressed?
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 1, 2015 17:36:00 GMT
Make a new thread. I understand that threads drift, and I respect the importance of making outside connections to the topic for the sake of bettering discussion, but this ADD-level short-attention span is detrimental to the discussion. The general gist is that we should focus around this topic, even when we draw relations to other subjects. Caliya, I would be appreciative if you gave me a new thread on the ethics of war, and another on female oppression in previous and modern society.
Now, moving on.
ABORTION: Is it wholly wrong, or is it wholly right? Probably neither. So, in which cases is abortion right? There's the issue of pregnancy endangering the mother, rape-induced pregnancies, and the question of personhood in terms of defining life (and rights).
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 1, 2015 21:57:18 GMT
Life decisions cannot be compartmentalized.
I think abortion is right for the person that chooses to do it and it should not be illegal. To me, it should not have to involve more serious crimes like rape, endangering a mother's life, etc.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Oct 1, 2015 23:09:30 GMT
Life decisions cannot be compartmentalized. I think abortion is right for the person that chooses to do it and it should not be illegal. To me, it should not have to involve more serious crimes like rape, endangering a mother's life, etc. Bang on. Morde don't call me ADD. Abortion topic is broad and covers multiple topics. To have a discussion about it entirely they need to be delved into. If looked at a purely ethical level you go in circles, feminist view similar circle but combined you get that beautiful answer cal said above. I think a lot of arguments Centre on the intricacies as opposed to the whole. So my view as application to abortion is following : If abortion was illegal it wouldn't stop it. Instead you would increase the risk to at risk women from engaging in a possibly unsafe underground medical procedure (as in the past) causing possible death and other horrible complications. You are adding a new criminal Avenue too. The rights of the mother surpass the embryo until it reaches a certain age. Why? Risk of miscarriage is drastically less at this point. Humanity is at a stage of over population. A child should be an investment into the future and brought up with access to all that is positive. A couple or mother with a child forced upon them won't necessarily have the right mindset. A child is a beautiful and innocent thing. It is us that pollutes it. They already got the shit stacked against them. I hope they are enter a family /parent who loves and cherish them so they grow to their full potential and for betterment of society. Abortion is another some say unfortunate method of control. Either way it's not an easy decision and it's only for the person undergoing the procedure to Judge and make the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 2, 2015 4:37:25 GMT
I boldfaced the most important quotes, the comments that drive to the core of the topic. Life decisions cannot be compartmentalized. What do you mean by this? I can feel that you're getting at something, but I'm failing to comprehend it. Btw, as a general statement to Dodgy and Caliya, I feel as though words have been put in my mouth, however I'm more confident that I have not effectively communicated the words I spoke. To set myself straight: I've not asserted a limit on our discussion to fetuses (nor have I claimed that anybody has ADD), rather that we maintain a focus on the ethics of abortion. That doesn't mean we can't bring other topics into the picture for the sake of illustrating a point or drawing a comparison (like dodgy did with overpopulation and Caliya with murder). All I'm saying is that the key "arguments center on the intricacies," and that there's no need to write out tangents on 911 or on the hypocrisy of murdering to prevent murder if they have no relevance to the discussion. I would never call you ADD, however I am a dark and vile being, so I will do you one worse and instead affront your reading comprehension skills, or at least I will as soon as I devise a clever way to do so. I think abortion is right for the person that chooses to do it and it should not be illegal.
You have a solid moral stance (though I'm biased). I appreciate you offering your own personal view for scrutiny. I offer a question (but don't worry- it isn't one of those huge unanswerable questions like "Hey Cal, what's the meaning of life?"). Since you believe abortion to be ethically permissible, do you also believe any of the following? 1. That legally abort-able fetuses are not human 2. That aforementioned fetuses are human but do not have human rights, or at least do not have the right to life 3. That these fetuses are human, but that something else makes impeding on their right to life ethically permissible? If you believe in the third belief, what is it that justifies impeding on another human's right to life? Obviously you believe that it can be justified by saving the mother's life, or in cases of rape, but what justifies it for any "person that chooses to do it"? If abortion was illegal it wouldn't stop it. Instead you would increase the risk to at risk women from engaging in a possibly unsafe underground medical procedure (as in the past) causing possible death and other horrible complications. You are adding a new criminal Avenue too. This is a good selling point for pro-choice politics, but let's pretend that, since we're playing god by judging right and wrong and discussing ethics at all, if we decide that abortion is wrong, it will never happen again (unless we decide that it isn't completely wrong of course, in which case we'll pretend that it will only happen under the circumstances we've laid out). The rights of the mother surpass the embryo until it reaches a certain age. Why? Risk of miscarriage is drastically less at this point. This is another solid stance- very efficient and utilitarian reasoning. Going back to the situations of life-endangerment and rape, do the rights of the embryo still overrule the rights of the mother (assuming it has reached that certain age)? Also, since that age is based on prenatal survival rates, do we know what it is roughly? Notice that I'm asking questions that challenge opposing views- my question to Caliya srutinizes the pro-choice element; dodgy's scrutinizes the pro-life element. I promise, I'm not just doing this to drive you crazy. By politely questioning and challenging your ideas, and by you defending or reforming them, real discussion is made. Despite what Koldar says, arguments should be encouraged and not grounds for moderation (though Kol's meaning is good enough [which is to prevent shitstorms]).
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 2, 2015 4:52:58 GMT
Interested in the thread guest? Why not make an account and engage in the discussion?
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 2, 2015 16:44:34 GMT
Life decisions cannot be compartmentalized. I think abortion is right for the person that chooses to do it and it should not be illegal. To me, it should not have to involve more serious crimes like rape, endangering a mother's life, etc. Bang on. Morde don't call me ADD. Abortion topic is broad and covers multiple topics. To have a discussion about it entirely they need to be delved into. If looked at a purely ethical level you go in circles, feminist view similar circle but combined you get that beautiful answer cal said above. I think a lot of arguments Centre on the intricacies as opposed to the whole. So my view as application to abortion is following : If abortion was illegal it wouldn't stop it. Instead you would increase the risk to at risk women from engaging in a possibly unsafe underground medical procedure (as in the past) causing possible death and other horrible complications. You are adding a new criminal Avenue too. The rights of the mother surpass the embryo until it reaches a certain age. Why? Risk of miscarriage is drastically less at this point. Humanity is at a stage of over population. A child should be an investment into the future and brought up with access to all that is positive. A couple or mother with a child forced upon them won't necessarily have the right mindset. A child is a beautiful and innocent thing. It is us that pollutes it. They already got the shit stacked against them. I hope they are enter a family /parent who loves and cherish them so they grow to their full potential and for betterment of society. Abortion is another some say unfortunate method of control. Either way it's not an easy decision and it's only for the person undergoing the procedure to Judge and make the decision. Wow dodgy, we actually completely agree on this. Couldn't have said it better.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 2, 2015 17:03:33 GMT
1. That legally abort-able fetuses are not human 2. That aforementioned fetuses are human but do not have human rights, or at least do not have the right to life 3. That these fetuses are human, but that something else makes impeding on their right to life ethically permissible? If you believe in the third belief, what is it that justifies impeding on another human's right to life? Obviously you believe that it can be justified by saving the mother's life, or in cases of rape, but what justifies it for any "person that chooses to do it"? It has not gone beyond my notice that you continue to question but have not answered your own, or anyone else's questions. But the fact you question without fully divulging your own views appears to point to pro-life. Especially since, instead of responding to my post where I pointed out the US House voted to defund Planned Parenthood, you instead chose to tell me I was bringing in the kitchen sink and to stay on topic (in so many words). Planned Parenthood is a buffer for under-served populations to get testing for sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, cancer screening, and get counseling for those kind of life choices. While men do use their services, they are largely used by women. If you take away public funding for this vital service to women, you are effectively harming women's reproductive rights. Now for your questions - legally abortable fetuses - every state is different I believe (could be wrong) - some allow late term abortion which I do oppose. My view is that first trimester fetuses are not yet formed enough and don't constitute a whole human, even though there may be a heartbeat. A fetus that cannot self sustain should not have rights above the rights of their host: the mother. The mother makes those decisions, not the fetus by proxy through a law. You use the term "impeding" on their life. Is a mother, by nature of carrying the baby, impeding on the baby's life, or is she sustaining it? Does she have a choice to sustain it, or is someone forcing her to do it by law? If by law, what rights does she have? She effectively becomes an incubator against her will. She may have gotten pregnant against her will - in fact, why would she want to abort unless it was against her will to start? It takes 2 parties to create life. If the father does not take responsibility for birth control, and does not want the child, why should a woman be forced to carry it and not use her only means of birth control - abortion? She is not some empty vessel with no will. The child's will does not suddenly take precedence. If the woman does not take precautions with birth control, the man should. If neither does, it's both their faults and they are taking their chances. They've decided to take a chance, knowing that if it happens, it might end in termination of pregnancy as a decision after the fact. It then becomes a form of birth control. Not a wise, or good decision, but it is by choice.
By politely questioning and challenging your ideas, and by you defending or reforming them, real discussion is made. I don't really know if we're having a discussion, per se, but I do agree we can self moderate.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 2, 2015 18:54:31 GMT
Caliya, I would be appreciative if you gave me a new thread on the ethics of war, and another on female oppression in previous and modern society. You said this, and this was my reply: "Life decisions cannot be compartmentalized." You want me to focus exclusively on abortion, fetuses, and life decisions. It's almost impossible to discuss life decisions without bringing up the hypocrisy of killing in general. Because people bring religion into why they think abortion should be illegal, they overlook their decision to kill 10s of 1000s of people just because the government claims they're evil or enemies. Death is death. Murder is murder. Why is it a human tendency to isolate one type of murder, but not all murder? Why do governments justify murder (war) and people agree with their government, but when it comes to their own citizens, they also think they can dictate what citizens can and can't do. If we make abortion illegal, plenty of people would be happy controlling others. But if we make guns illegal, those same exact people are ranting and talking conspiracy theories, and creating fear in our society by openly carrying weapons. It's ok to intimidate other people, and threaten their lives. But oh, some fetus that can't live on its own, better not touch it. It's all tied together because of the people on that side of the debate vs. people on the other side of the debate. It's all ideologies when it comes down to it, that has nothing to do with religion or rights. It's everything to do with control.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 2, 2015 19:09:10 GMT
I don't personally feel suppressed. But if you took one subject alone, equal pay, or equal treatment, that could be dissected and debated. But I have experienced inequality in pay in the past, given tasks that men in my same profession would never have been asked to do, and so on. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. A couple examples (among many) is girls not allowed to wear pants to public school back in the 1960s. Expelled from school if they tried. It doesn't happen now, but it's always something. A company I once worked for when I was in accounting, had only the women in our department bring the coffee cart (coffee & snacks) for breaks, which mostly the men indulged. I pointed out this was not in my job description and the task should be delegated equally. They abolished the coffee cart altogether and made everyone go to the cafeteria if they wanted those things, as a result. But it put a very bad light on me in the job and I started receiving petty infractions and was pretty much forced to quit my job. I was willing to be the fall guy. The job, and department, sucked anyway. If I can personally come up with a couple of examples, you can be certain there are hundreds more. Just look at gamer gate.
|
|