Abortion discussion

[McCloskey]

Well clearly, as soon as you've had a baby you've lived a full life. That's the only reason to exist, right?

Biologically speaking, yes, the only reason to exist it to propagate the species. That goes for both sexes. Sorry feminists!

[CiaranAnnrach]

Actually, I've always wondered where on earth the barefoot thing came from? I wouldn't be above granting my wife a couple of old socks once in a while.

I think it's a redneck joke. They are often portrayed as barefoot and "uncivilized." I could be wrong, it could have cultural implications.

Biologically speaking, yes, the only reason to exist it to propagate the species. That goes for both sexes.

Some species, maybe, others it goes well beyond just "giving birth." Not all young can care for themselves immediately upon birth, often the offspring must be cared for (usually by both parents) until it can survive on it's own. Birds are the classic example of this.

Nevermind that whole higher brain functions stuff and opposable thumbs.

[tenalpia]

Well I've lived three full lives and am happily enjoying taking up oxygen along with all the other people who have don't want to live full lives, have yet to live full lives and those that have lived varying numbers of full lives :P

[DanteGabriel]

Actually, I've always wondered where on earth the barefoot thing came from? I wouldn't be above granting my wife a couple of old socks once in a while.

I don't know where the idea started or who popularized it, but I always figured barefoot = they can't run away.

[tenalpia]

I don't know where the idea started or who popularized it, but I always figured barefoot = they can't run away.

Also - I figured it's about being kept indoors - that shoes are something that aren't necessary for someone who never leaves the house

[Kalbear]

Feet aren't necessary for changing diapers.

[Stalker]

Nevermind that whole higher brain functions stuff and opposable thumbs.

Nvermind that, as it is a means, not an end, from the gentic perspective.

[McCloskey]

Nevermind that whole higher brain functions stuff and opposable thumbs.

These evolved as survival traits allowing humans to expand, adapt, and of course procreate.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Actually, I've always wondered where on earth the barefoot thing came from? I wouldn't be above granting my wife a couple of old socks once in a while.

Once you give them clothes, you set them free.

[El-ahrairah]

Roe v Wade is a red herring and you damn well know it. Before the ruling, the state abortion laws had a clause that allowed abortion in the case of where the woman was raped, or birth endangered the life of the mother. So does Ireland.

According to this admittedly from Wiki map, it was illegal without exception in some 30 states.

So, yes, demanding that the mother die for a chance to give birth to a child is, I'd say, tyrannical.

Well then, yay for tyranny.

Popular opinion, yes. Yours is not popular. Yours is, "I'm right, and this is how I want everyone to act." You want to impose your morals on people, not a policy. And it is the height of arrogance to go around and mandate that everyone conform to your opinion, instead of accepting the fact that everyone is going to feel differently. I know where you are coming from, and I don't fault you for your opinion. I fault you for trying to impose it on everyone else.

Abolitionism was not a "popular opinion" in the early 1800s, do you think it was wrong for it to impose its opinions?

You're making excuses, and we're not talking about darts. We're talking about what you would do, and what you've said. You've said you would most likely pick the "wrong" choice. So either you were lying, you don't know what your moral code really is, or your moral code isn't strong enough to endure the emotional duress you would experience in that situation. Either way it marks you a hypocrite, since you are condemning everyone else for doing what you've admitted you yourself would likely do.

And, there is absolutely no shame in admitting you don't know what you'd do. Most people don't. Just don't go around telling everyone else what to do in that same situation. Which is exactly what you are doing.

I did not say I would "most likely" make the wrong choice. And it's not that the moral code might not be strong enough, but that your own self might not be strong enough to fulfill it. The whole reason I brought up the "not knowing what I would do" line was to not present myself as pompous and sanctimonious - I don't see why you can't realize that my actions, future or otherwise, have nothing to do with whether a moral idea is true.

Wow. I thought you'd have backpedaled some, maybe admitted that women have other reasons to be born besides giving birth. You know, that whole contribution to society, helping make the world a better place, that kind of thing that's not necessarily related to just being a "baby maker." But no, you went full steam and more or less said men don't need women at all if it wasn't for that pesky childbirth thing. A snarky reply was not your best choice here.

Well, women don't need men at all if it wasn't for that pesky childbirth thing, so I don't see any inequality there.

Your lighter shade of gray is dictated by a sharp line you've drawn in the sand of which there can be no variation. That's not a shade of gray, that's black and white.

If you insist on interpreting it that way, O very well I'm as black & white as a herd of pandas, zebras, and penguins stampeding toward Armageddon.

Also, I can't help but notice you've skipped over some of the points I've posed to you. Care to explain how a 20 year old or 18 year old has "lived a full life"?

Well to begin with, either one would have lived a fuller life than me so far, and I've lived quite a fuller one than those who were never born. I don't like doing arithmetic for the Reaper, but it can only have one answer.

[the silent speaker]

Ciaran:

There are no absolutes in life, nothing that is absolutely "wrong" or "right", I hope you can agree to that much. There will always be a time where a lie is justifiable, and perhaps considered the right thing.

Um, are you trying to argue here that circumstances alter cases? Did you somehow miss the part of my post where I said, "Circumstances alter cases, of course"? What I'm rejecting is the assertion, "Any colorable decision made by anyone, if they're ethically comfortable with it, is ipso facto morally right."

Mind you, even if you make a decision that is morally wrong in that set of circumstances, that says nothing on the question of what I or anyone else can or should do about it. In the case of your personal abortions, the answer (as pertaining to me at least) will almost certainly be "nothing".

We're talking about what you would do,

In fairness, we're talking about a whole bunch of interrelated things, of which "what the poster would do" is only one. "What the poster feels they ought to do, even if they expect they would fail at it come the test" is also fair game.

Nymeria:

Under this definition, a zygote doesn't count as being alive.

Neither does a child.

Bill:

I presume you are not advocating yourself as the ultimate arbiter. But for a thing to be "wrong" necessarily entails a judge. Who do you propose?

Goood question, and not me, no thank you. Any of us can judge whether a thing is right or wrong (and sometimes blow the call, as all of us do), but no one of us can decree that a thing is right, or wrong. For "the ultimate arbiter" -- the premise from which the answer to the question springs -- I am well aware that no suggestion I could make would be without people challenging its right to decide, and I'm not going to try; for what it's worth, though, I believe in God.

I don't think that changes the conclusion, though. Godwin makes for a terrible argument but a splendid existence theorem. We may not agree on what things are bad and what things are good, or why, but from as early as people can speak we know that not all actions are equal in rightness. There is right and wrong, whencever it stems, and what goes for one goes for all.

Rabbit king, I probably shouldn't even dignify this, but have you factored in the children the woman might have in the future in your calculus of "lives already lived"?

[El-ahrairah]

There is right and wrong, whencever it stems, and what goes for one goes for all.

I've never seen it before, but I love that word! Of course, "whencesoever" would be even better.

[The Khaleesi]

A foetus is a potential baby. If it's wanted - great!

If it's not (for whatever reason), it's completely up to the mother to decide what to do. without being pressured by either right-to-lifers or people who think she MUST have an abortion.

The decision should be made without bringing in all sorts of emotive baggage, guilt and scaremongering.

Abortion is not a terrible moral crime, IMO. It's a choice that a woman can make (if she lives in a civilised society), and nobody's business but hers (and, to a lesser extent, her partner).

[Angalin]

Once you give them clothes, you set them free.

:lol: Women = house elves!

[Lord Mord]

McCloskey,

Biologically speaking, yes, the only reason to exist it to propagate the species. That goes for both sexes. Sorry feminists!

Biology doesn't have reasons, though. Biological processes are abstractions based on observation; they don't have purpose, only pattern. Therefore there is no right, no wrong, no shoulds. There is only fact. Factually, people have found many reasons to exist, and believe it or not, not everyone has found propagation to be necessary or even desirable.

[Lord Mord]

the silent speaker,

I don't think that changes the conclusion, though. Godwin makes for a terrible argument but a splendid existence theorem. We may not agree on what things are bad and what things are good, or why, but from as early as people can speak we know that not all actions are equal in rightness. There is right and wrong, whencever it stems, and what goes for one goes for all.

But if everyone's definition of the right and the wrong differs, then which is the Absolute Right and which is the Absolute Wrong? I mean, if we can't agree, then how do you tell the difference between the Absolute Right and the right that happens to suit us in the moment?

If you can't tell the difference, then how do you know there is an Absolute Right, and not just a string of shifting rights of the moment?

[kiko]

These evolved as survival traits allowing humans to expand, adapt, and of course procreate.

I hate to tell it to you, maybe you would have discovered it on your own...but higher brain functions and especially opposable thumbs actually interfer with nature's imperative to procreate.

[Lyanna Stark]

It's not a positive action that the mother is compelled to do, but a negative one that is forbidden to her. And what is forbidden is not a "human right", but a premeditated homicide.

El-ahrairah

But here you have still avoided the original question by empty rethoric.

You haven't answered how you would force women to carry their unwanted baby to term. That IS after all the effect of your reasoning, even if you cover it in roses and makes it smell real nice. You NEED to be able to also stipulate how to actually deal with the consequences of your decisions. If you want abortion banned, then you need to also solve this very important issue. Religious texts won't do: you will need something that works on a practical level.

Also, you will have to force women of all kinds of religions (or lack thereof) and of all political denominations to never end their pregnancies, even in cases of rape, severe genetic abnormalities and in cases where the mother and baby are likely to die. This will all have to be dealt with and a solution provided.

[Stalker]

I hate to tell it to you, maybe you would have discovered it on your own...but higher brain functions and especially opposable thumbs actually interfer with nature's imperative to procreate.

I have 6 billion reasons to think you are wrong.

[Balefont]

Lyanna, does it really matter as long as the entity is allowed to survive? After that it's the mother's problem to take care of it or give it up for adoption. And if it has defects, well, the state can pay the minimal amounts to ensure that the entity continues to live albeit perhaps not happily or comfortably. But that's not the pro-lifers' problem at that point. :rolleyes:

All babies want to get borned. All babies want to get borned. All babies want to get borned.