The Future of Abortion

[rdsrds2120]

But why overlook the cause-and-effect relationship here?

I'm not saying that a potential human = human. I'm talking about the consequences of one's decisions on the lives of others.

Clearly, choosing Option 1 (abortion) causes the non-existence of a human being (or reduces the chance of the creation of a human to 0%).
Choosing option 2 (eviction + rehab) causes the series of actions which converts a fetus eventually into a human being--according to the whichever definition and timeline is applied.

No one is promising anything to anyone here because there can't be consent without two human parties, so I'll agree on that part, but it's not relevant. It's about the consequences when faced with two choices of equal prices.

I think I know our qualm -- you have a premise that more people living = better, right?

Well, I don't. I see a person coming into the world as an entirely neutral (maybe somewhat negative) thing.

No one is promising anything to anyone here because there can't be consent without two human parties, so I'll agree on that part, but it's not relevant.

Promises aren't a 2-way street on human consent. I can promise a fetus-- or heck, I can promise to a rock that I will not throw it. It may not be sentient and know that I promised anything, but a promise is just a personal and binding agreement (a contract, if you will) between what I intend to do and what I will do.

-rd

[Frigidus]

Even then, it is still a grey area. For instance, I would still see no problem with the morning after pill. Ultimately this still comes down to the argument of what stage of development of a fetus constitutes a human being. Prior to that point abortion is fine, and after that point it is not.

[Symmetry]

Even then, it is still a grey area. For instance, I would still see no problem with the morning after pill. Ultimately this still comes down to the argument of what stage of development of a fetus constitutes a human being. Prior to that point abortion is fine, and after that point it is not.

I'd merely point out that most abortions occur well before the foetal stage. Making the area more grey by employing the term fetus to describe non-fetuses does little good.

A foetus (pronounced /ˈfiːtəs/; also spelled fetus, fœtus, faetus, or fætus, see below) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.
In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Human_fetus

When discussing the abortion of fetal pregancies, it's important to know what a fetus is, after all. In an embyonic abortion like the morning after pill (and there's evidence to suggest that it's even preventing that stage, so perhaps not even an embryonic abortion at all), no fetus has been aborted.

[Lootifer]

Thanks for the update Sym; but I think there's a phrase you should look up:

"Seeing the forest for the trees".

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the update Sym; but I think there's a phrase you should look up:

"Seeing the forest for the trees".

I see both, hence why I don't like the lazy mistakes when they're employed in justifying the larger issue. Pedant, I know, but let's at least get the basics right, no?

[Lootifer]

Thanks for the update Sym; but I think there's a phrase you should look up:

"Seeing the forest for the trees".

I see both, hence why I don't like the lazy mistakes when they're employed in justifying the larger issue. Pedant, I know, but let's at least get the basics right, no?

I guess; but I think most of the people debating this thread could quite happily do a find and replace on all of their posts with the find being "fetus", and replace being "fertalised, or pre fertalised, ovum, or the resulting collection of cells, or the resulting fetus, or basically anything inbetween the little swimmer nailing that egg and the water breaking". Doesnt quite have the same ring to it thou.

Now when that fetus/whatever becomes a "human" is up for (and central to the) debate. My stance would be that fetal (using your definition - thanks - post 11 week) abortions should be heavily restricted. Prior to this I advocate full freedom to terminate.

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the update Sym; but I think there's a phrase you should look up:

"Seeing the forest for the trees".

I see both, hence why I don't like the lazy mistakes when they're employed in justifying the larger issue. Pedant, I know, but let's at least get the basics right, no?

I guess; but I think most of the people debating this thread could quite happily do a find and replace on all of their posts with the find being "fetus", and replace being "fertalised, or pre fertalised, ovum, or the resulting collection of cells, or the resulting fetus, or basically anything inbetween the little swimmer nailing that egg and the water breaking". Doesnt quite have the same ring to it thou.

Now when that fetus/whatever becomes a "human" is up for (and central to the) debate. My stance would be that fetal (using your definition - thanks - post 11 week) abortions should be heavily restricted. Prior to this I advocate full freedom to terminate.

They are heavily restricted. Mostly with regard to medical expertise. The folks who classify a fetus. My post was in regard to a poster who was troubled by the birth control pill aborting fetuses, something that will never ever cause a fetal abortion, and has evidence suggesting that it's not an abortofacient at all, even at pre-foetal stages.

That the anti-abortion lobby has come so far as to make ignoring the basic definition of a fetus to include anything from a zygote to a 9 month developed fetus suggests a basic level of dishonesty.

Most abortions occur well before the foetal stage. Hence opposing aborting a fetus has little to do with opposing abortion. The small number of fetuses that are aborted are usually done for medical purposes. The ones that aren't are already illegal.

Abortion after the first trimester is rare:



Link

[PLAYER57832]

*If you still adhere to this argument, then you must use your objections to undermine your own stance on the current issue of abortion. In other words, the potential costs/benefits argument and its unknowns currently apply to your own position on abortion in the real world. If you rely on such premises and conclude that you can't answer the question, then you must also conclude that you can't hold a position on abortion in today's world.

If you object, you can argue about it here.


The main point of the OP is to hold certain variables constant in order to unravel people's actual opinions on this matter when faced with a price change.

The cost to the individual is actually irrelevant. By eliminating the survival/ no survival factor, you just eliminate the debate.

A better, related question is how much we, as a society should spend to keep one single individual alive. OR, alternatively, what kind of a life, quality is really "worth" (not just in economic sense) living? That is, is an acephalic child really living? How about one that literally does nothing more than breath and blink, even if they technically have a brain.... etc.

[john9blue]

is this thread directed at pro-lifers?

because my answer to the initial question is a simple "no"

[Lootifer]

is this thread directed at pro-lifers?

because my answer to the initial question is a simple "no"

Naw its aimed at me.

An exercise in mental masterbation pretty much.

[BigBallinStalin]

But why overlook the cause-and-effect relationship here?

I'm not saying that a potential human = human. I'm talking about the consequences of one's decisions on the lives of others.

Clearly, choosing Option 1 (abortion) causes the non-existence of a human being (or reduces the chance of the creation of a human to 0%).
Choosing option 2 (eviction + rehab) causes the series of actions which converts a fetus eventually into a human being--according to the whichever definition and timeline is applied.

No one is promising anything to anyone here because there can't be consent without two human parties, so I'll agree on that part, but it's not relevant. It's about the consequences when faced with two choices of equal prices.

I think I know our qualm -- you have a premise that more people living = better, right?

Well, I don't. I see a person coming into the world as an entirely neutral (maybe somewhat negative) thing.

The costs and benefits are unknown, so I'm not saying more= better; however, many predictions on the alleged crisis of population growth have been false.

No one is promising anything to anyone here because there can't be consent without two human parties, so I'll agree on that part, but it's not relevant.

Promises aren't a 2-way street on human consent. I can promise a fetus-- or heck, I can promise to a rock that I will not throw it. It may not be sentient and know that I promised anything, but a promise is just a personal and binding agreement (a contract, if you will) between what I intend to do and what I will do.

-rd

A contract requires consent, which is given by acting human beings. To say that you have a contract with a rock is crazy-talk or is exemplary of false anthropomorphism. Your analogy doesn't hold because it's based on that false concept.

[BigBallinStalin]

is this thread directed at pro-lifers?

because my answer to the initial question is a simple "no"

Naw its aimed at me.

An exercise in mental masterbation pretty much.

Did you cum yet?!

[BigBallinStalin]

*If you still adhere to this argument, then you must use your objections to undermine your own stance on the current issue of abortion. In other words, the potential costs/benefits argument and its unknowns currently apply to your own position on abortion in the real world. If you rely on such premises and conclude that you can't answer the question, then you must also conclude that you can't hold a position on abortion in today's world.

If you object, you can argue about it here.


The main point of the OP is to hold certain variables constant in order to unravel people's actual opinions on this matter when faced with a price change.

The cost to the individual is actually irrelevant. By eliminating the survival/ no survival factor, you just eliminate the debate.

A better, related question is how much we, as a society should spend to keep one single individual alive. OR, alternatively, what kind of a life, quality is really "worth" (not just in economic sense) living? That is, is an acephalic child really living? How about one that literally does nothing more than breath and blink, even if they technically have a brain.... etc.

If costs/prices are irrelevant to the individual, and since society is composed of individuals, then where does that leave your appeal to "society"?

[thegreekdog]

The comments in this thread from the pro-choice folks are fascinating.

[comic boy]

The comments in this thread from the pro-choice folks are fascinating.

Are we not all pro choice in that we have the option of supporting ( subject to restrictions ) or opposing abortion , thats freedom yes ?

[thegreekdog]

The comments in this thread from the pro-choice folks are fascinating.

Are we not all pro choice in that we have the option of supporting ( subject to restrictions ) or opposing abortion , thats freedom yes ?

I suppose so. My definition of "pro-choice" was the Americanized definition; that's the context I'm using.

I assumed that most, if not all, pro-choice folks (Americanized) do not celebrate abortion; they presume that abortion is the least preferable method to not have a child. I was apparently mistaken.

[tzor]

An exercise in mental masterbation pretty much.

Did you cum yet?!

A common misconception of mental masterbation.

The actual result tends to be a "brain fart."

And a wet one at that.

[Symmetry]

The comments in this thread from the pro-choice folks are fascinating.

Are we not all pro choice in that we have the option of supporting ( subject to restrictions ) or opposing abortion , thats freedom yes ?

I suppose so. My definition of "pro-choice" was the Americanized definition; that's the context I'm using.

I assumed that most, if not all, pro-choice folks (Americanized) do not celebrate abortion; they presume that abortion is the least preferable method to not have a child. I was apparently mistaken.

Being in favour of abortion rights, and even celebrating that they are there, isn't the same as celebrating an abortion.

[thegreekdog]

The comments in this thread from the pro-choice folks are fascinating.

Are we not all pro choice in that we have the option of supporting ( subject to restrictions ) or opposing abortion , thats freedom yes ?

I suppose so. My definition of "pro-choice" was the Americanized definition; that's the context I'm using.

I assumed that most, if not all, pro-choice folks (Americanized) do not celebrate abortion; they presume that abortion is the least preferable method to not have a child. I was apparently mistaken.

Being in favour of abortion rights, and even celebrating that they are there, isn't the same as celebrating an abortion.

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

[Symmetry]

The comments in this thread from the pro-choice folks are fascinating.

Are we not all pro choice in that we have the option of supporting ( subject to restrictions ) or opposing abortion , thats freedom yes ?

I suppose so. My definition of "pro-choice" was the Americanized definition; that's the context I'm using.

I assumed that most, if not all, pro-choice folks (Americanized) do not celebrate abortion; they presume that abortion is the least preferable method to not have a child. I was apparently mistaken.

Being in favour of abortion rights, and even celebrating that they are there, isn't the same as celebrating an abortion.

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, but what non-monetary costs justify killing the fetus? If you evict the child at the same price as an abortion, there's all sorts of non-monetary costs involved afterward, but at least the mother doesn't reduce the fetus' chance to live at 0%.

I present this view because although I'm in favor of the option to abort, I can't think of any good reasons which justify violating the rights of a fetus. Of course, one can say, "well, the fetus isn't a human being; therefore, it has no rights--but but but, it's a child at some arbitrary point in between fertilization and leaving the womb." Now, some pro-choicers argue that the fetus isn't a baby until it has exited stage left of the vagina, but when pressed further, that position seems absurd because they must admit that the baby is not a human being when it's 5 seconds from exiting stage left.

That withstanding, what's interesting about evictionism is its implications for the future as medical technology improves, so that even a fetus at one week could develop into a human being. Since this increases the viability range of a fetus, I find that evictionism may offer a better compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice positions. Furthermore, evictionism takes the strongest arguments of the opposition by assuming that the fetus is a human at the time of fertilization. That's a difficult stance to take, yet it's more admirable, and more critical of the pro-life position and even the pro-choice position.

[Symmetry]

Of course, but what non-monetary costs justify killing the fetus? If you evict the child at the same price as an abortion, there's all sorts of non-monetary costs involved afterward, but at least the mother doesn't reduce the fetus' chance to live at 0%.

I present this view because although I'm in favor of the option to abort, I can't think of any good reasons which justify violating the rights of a fetus. Of course, one can say, "well, the fetus isn't a human being; therefore, it has no rights--but but but, it's a child at some arbitrary point in between fertilization and leaving the womb." Now, some pro-choicers argue that the fetus isn't a baby until it has exited stage left of the vagina, but when pressed further, that position seems absurd because they must admit that the baby is not a human being when it's 5 seconds from exiting stage left.

That withstanding, what's interesting about evictionism is its implications for the future as medical technology improves, so that even a fetus at one week could develop into a human being. Since this increases the viability range of a fetus, I find that evictionism may offer a better compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice positions. Furthermore, evictionism takes the strongest arguments of the opposition by assuming that the fetus is a human at the time of fertilization. That's a difficult stance to take, yet it's more admirable, and more critical of the pro-life position and even the pro-choice position.

Would it help if I pointed out that the foetal stage occurs well past the first week of a pregnancy? Indeed, that few abortions are of fetuses? And that those abortions of fetuses are largely done for medical reasons?

I'd say that medical reasons are a good justification. Wouldn't you? Say an ectopic pregnancy?

[saxitoxin]

I've been working on a morning-after pill for men in my laboratory. Need some test subjects. PM me for detes. NO FDA SNITCHES.

[Lootifer]

So why would someone be in favor of abortion rights when, as BBS puts it, the costs associated with having the child are nil?

Has anyone supported abortion in that scenario though?

[BigBallinStalin]

RDS views abortion in that scenario as justifiable.