Moderator: Community Team
Lootifer wrote:Citing my own transparent form of liberalism to satisfy the J9Bs of this world: the classification of what the removal of a fetus from a womans womb is has no real worth to me; you can call it murder if you like, but thats not how I view it. You can argue about classification all day long, it'll get you nowhere. Its a Phattist debate (no offense PS; afaik you have been reasonably level headed in this thread).
I view pre-13 week abortions are perfectly acceptable as I do not treat what is inside the woman as anything more than an organ with which she can choose to do what she likes. The womans welfare is paramount in this situation.
Past that, I dont think I can adequately make an argument; its a grey area and am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the conservatives on this one with exceptions for extreme cases and cases where the health of the mother is at risk.
The potential human argument for me doesnt stack up. Im an apathetic/pragmatic agnostic, lump of cells with potential < society.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Haha, Sym got schooled.
On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...
Some do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime
Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.
-rd
All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"
Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?
Because it's not murder (a criminal action), and doing so would make them criminals. Most religious folks I know tend not to want to be criminal, regardless of their moral/ethical position on a subject.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Lootifer wrote:Citing my own transparent form of liberalism to satisfy the J9Bs of this world: the classification of what the removal of a fetus from a womans womb is has no real worth to me; you can call it murder if you like, but thats not how I view it. You can argue about classification all day long, it'll get you nowhere. Its a Phattist debate (no offense PS; afaik you have been reasonably level headed in this thread).
I view pre-13 week abortions are perfectly acceptable as I do not treat what is inside the woman as anything more than an organ with which she can choose to do what she likes. The womans welfare is paramount in this situation.
Past that, I dont think I can adequately make an argument; its a grey area and am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the conservatives on this one with exceptions for extreme cases and cases where the health of the mother is at risk.
The potential human argument for me doesnt stack up. Im an apathetic/pragmatic agnostic, lump of cells with potential < society.
Let's move on to the future:
In the future, let's assume for the sake of argument that the cost of an abortion will be the same (or more than) the cost of "evicting" a fetus and "rehabilitating" it. An abortion would drastically reduce the chances of "it" becoming a human being; whereas, the Eviction Procedure costs relatively the same and allows "it" to become a human being.
Would abortion be justified in this circumstance?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Haha, Sym got schooled.
On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...
Some do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime
Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.
-rd
All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"
Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?
Because it's not murder (a criminal action), and doing so would make them criminals. Most religious folks I know tend not to want to be criminal, regardless of their moral/ethical position on a subject.
If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.
BigBallinStalin wrote:So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Haha, Sym got schooled.
On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...
Some do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime
Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.
-rd
All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"
Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?
Because it's not murder (a criminal action), and doing so would make them criminals. Most religious folks I know tend not to want to be criminal, regardless of their moral/ethical position on a subject.
If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.
No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".BigBallinStalin wrote:So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?
Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.
Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.
No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".BigBallinStalin wrote:So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?
Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.
Okay. What does "Murder" exactly mean to you?
What's the difference between "lawful" and "just"?
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.
Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.
You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.
You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.
No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".BigBallinStalin wrote:So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?
Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.
Okay. What does "Murder" exactly mean to you?
What's the difference between "lawful" and "just"?
It seems odd that I would need to state what should be patently obvious. "Lawful" means "following the law". "Just" has more to do with "Justice" or "Fairness", which does not always necessarily follow the law (sometimes laws are unjust in certain circumstances, for instance). Was that really something you were confused about, or are you just trying to drag this out for some weird reason instead of just admitting you used the term wrong?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Woodruff wrote:Actually, there CAN BE a significant difference. It really depends on "when". When you consider, for instance, the morning-after pill, you're going to have a really difficult time convincing me that a child is being killed, or certainly that the particular pill is causing any real damage. Later in the gestation period, certainly that becomes more of an honest equation.
Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B or Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:
- It may prevent or delay ovulation.
- It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.
- It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.
Plan B or Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?
john9blue wrote:because that will turn public opinion against them?
or maybe for the same reason that rape victims shouldn't have abortions: because two wrongs don't make a right.
tzor wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?
Because the ends cannot justify the means, evil acts cannot be used to prevent evil acts.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.
Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).
The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?
Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.
Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).
The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?
Yeah but that doesnt quite work out since the system of abortion closes once the fetus is terminated; that is no [significant] further costs and/or benefits to be [potentially] realised.
Where as in the system of evict and rehabilitate you have an ongoing or open system where there are many future costs and/or benefits of moving a lump of cells into a fully developed newborn.
Lootifer wrote:It'd be like comparing a deterministic solution to a math problem with a stochastic one. You can assert all you like, but at the end of the day the unknowns (and their existence) are the only meaningful feature of the issue.
Unless you provide some scenarios around what kind of life the evicted newborn will lead then I cant answer your question.
Lootifer wrote:edit: I saw your trap, but ignored it. In answer to your implied question: Yes the social impacts of raising unwanted children is one of the major reasons I support first trimester abortion.
BigBallinStalin wrote:? My position is that the cost price* of an abortion would be the same as evicting and rehabilitation (which includes being a fully developed newborn).
So since the prices are the same, then how is it justified to abort the fetus--if it can clearly be allowed to live for the same price?
*(I'm switching to "price" because it makes the scenario more clear.)
Then you shouldn't be in favor of abortion or against it because the potential benefits/costs are unknown for aborting or allowing the fetus to live. Nevertheless, you do hold a position on this issue, so in light of my above scenario, I'm very interested in seeing you apply your previous position.
Yes, I partly agree with the eugenics Proper Cultivation of Individuals Deemed Best for Society argument here, but that is an issue involving the distribution of newborns, and not an issue of abortion itself. For now, let's discuss abortion. The distribution of newborns is largely run by the government and heavily regulated, so that's another matter for another day.
Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:? My position is that the cost price* of an abortion would be the same as evicting and rehabilitation (which includes being a fully developed newborn).
So since the prices are the same, then how is it justified to abort the fetus--if it can clearly be allowed to live for the same price?
*(I'm switching to "price" because it makes the scenario more clear.)
I get ya, but my request for scenario (and following edit) is where my justification lies; the binary question you ask is, from my perspective, pointless because you have limited the scope to such a point that my answer would be: No opinion based on insufficient information to form one (which isnt a dodge, its an answer in itself - I do this kind of thing regularly in the field of statistics).
Lootifer wrote:Then you shouldn't be in favor of abortion or against it because the potential benefits/costs are unknown for aborting or allowing the fetus to live. Nevertheless, you do hold a position on this issue, so in light of my above scenario, I'm very interested in seeing you apply your previous position.
True; but my position is a result of an analysis of the product itself (abortion). Why do you abort a pregnancy? Two reasons: for health reasons or because you dont want to bring a child into the world. The former we can ignore as the ethics/morals are slightly more clear cut: an established life is more valuable than a potential one. The latter is the important one.
Logical Premise: A potential parent who wants to bring a child into the world is going to be better parent than one who doesnt want to bring a child into the world.
Therefore [in a world without abortion] children who are raised by parents who would in a different world have aborted the fetus are going to be neccessarily disadvantaged (compared to their neighbours whose parents wanted them).
By allowing abortion you bypass this inequality.
Incidently the weakness of the premise (because you can easily build a scenario where its flawed) is why I can answer your first question.
Lootifer wrote:Yes, I partly agree with the eugenics Proper Cultivation of Individuals Deemed Best for Society argument here, but that is an issue involving the distribution of newborns, and not an issue of abortion itself. For now, let's discuss abortion. The distribution of newborns is largely run by the government and heavily regulated, so that's another matter for another day.
But the single biggest driver behind demand for abortion IS the distribution of newborns. I cant seperate the two.
Incidently the weakness of the premise (because you can easily build a scenario where its flawed) is why I can't answer your first question
BigBallinStalin wrote:If two wrongs don't make a right, then why opt for capital punishment or even invading Afghanistan?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.
Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.
You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.
You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.
Costs to society? What are those then? If society supposedly bears these costs, then how does every single person pay some fraction of this cost? Shall we project all future costs of every child? And what of the benefits?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Besides, your contentions cut into either side of abortion. "What are the long-term benefits of allowing all those millions of kids to live? Since we don't know, let's ignore the main issue..." Your quibbles seem irrelevant, and if they are irrelevant, they detract from the main issue.
Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.
Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).
The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.
No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".BigBallinStalin wrote:So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?
Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.
Okay. What does "Murder" exactly mean to you?
What's the difference between "lawful" and "just"?
It seems odd that I would need to state what should be patently obvious. "Lawful" means "following the law". "Just" has more to do with "Justice" or "Fairness", which does not always necessarily follow the law (sometimes laws are unjust in certain circumstances, for instance). Was that really something you were confused about, or are you just trying to drag this out for some weird reason instead of just admitting you used the term wrong?
There's formal law, and then there's informal law. An unjust killing can be considered to fall under the jurisdiction of informal law, which to most pro-lifers states that unborn children, or human fetuses, should not be killed. According to this view, an abortion would be equivalent to murder since it's an unlawful killing--within their framework of informal law.
So, now that's out of the way.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Then the question becomes:
Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee