<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 11 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 11 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It proves that less women died from abortions when they were legalized compared to when they were not. Which is the entire point I was trying to make.
I never said anything about comparing fetuses to women dying. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is that your argument is a moot. It won't convince anyone at all. If someone thinks a fetus is a baby, then the million dead fetuses trump a couple hundred deaths. If someone thinks a fetus isn't a baby, then that person already is pro-choice and you're not convincing anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think however there is one problem in this debate.
How many of you actually have a uterus?
Until we all have uterus's and can actully experience childbirth I don't think the males have a leg to stand on in either side of the debate. Let the women decide what to do with their uterus. After all, we don't have any real reason to be playing about in there anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This was addressed earlier in the thread. The right of women to control their bodies is not strong enough to allow women to commit murder.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 11 2005, 04:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 11 2005, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 11 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 11 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It proves that less women died from abortions when they were legalized compared to when they were not. Which is the entire point I was trying to make.
I never said anything about comparing fetuses to women dying. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is that your argument is a moot. It won't convince anyone at all. If someone thinks a fetus is a baby, then the million dead fetuses trump a couple hundred deaths. If someone thinks a fetus isn't a baby, then that person already is pro-choice and you're not convincing anyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you are failing to even see the point here clam.
You have proven for me that legalizing abortions, (allowing them to take place in clinics) had decreased the number of deaths associated with them. That takes simple common sense to see that.
If you wish to believe the fetus is a baby so be it, but that doesn't change the fact there are now less women dying due to self inflicted (botched) abortions. Since they DO NOT have to go that route, unlike Brazil and South Africa.
It has saved the woman's life, thereby allowing her to have a child later on in life when she is actually ready to have children. Usually, as troll has proved for me, the abortions that take place are, a majority, due to failed contraceptives (condom breaking, pill failing, diaphram broke, etc), (here in the US) which means the potential baby was not wanted.
As proved from the site , troll posted it on page 18, that contraceptives do and have failed. <!--QuoteBegin-http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortions...ortionstats.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortions...ortionstats.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)
<b> * 54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant. * 90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception * 8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception. * It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception. </b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think however there is one problem in this debate.
How many of you actually have a uterus?
Until we all have uterus's and can actully experience childbirth I don't think the males have a leg to stand on in either side of the debate. Let the women decide what to do with their uterus. After all, we don't have any real reason to be playing about in there anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This was addressed earlier in the thread. The right of women to control their bodies is not strong enough to allow women to commit murder. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't murder by any definition of the word. Pay really close attention to the first definition. (Ignore the mass group of crows definition) (Use <a href='http://www.m-w.com' target='_blank'>http://www.m-w.com</a> for proof)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, all we are left with is the argument that we can allow a morally impermissable action, in the intrest of doing less harm in the long run. I am not interested in what harm comes of ethics. I am interested in what those ethics are. A right action with wrong consequences is still a wrong action.
Besides, your argument is based on a false dilemma. You claim that a woman will get an abortion no matter what, and some women will die doing it in an unsafe manner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realise you should read all the posts in a thread correct? I've covered this many times now. It's not a 'false dilemma' because it's <i>actually what occurs in the real world</i>.
Again, <b>read the papers I have referenced</b>. I'm tiring of repeating myself incessantly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems like you're conceding that abortion is immoral wherever found, just that <b>we should tolerate it anyway</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah this conclusion was just based on 'we should tolerate it anyway', it wouldn't have been based on many reviews, papers studies and more from medical establishments and researchers from across the world. As my argument has heavily focused on this, I would suggest, again, that if you want to comment on this you read the papers I've presented. They cover this extremely well and why legalising abortions is <i>recommended</i> by a great majority of the medical world.
theclam
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is that your argument is a moot. It won't convince anyone at all. If someone thinks a fetus is a baby, then the million dead fetuses trump a couple hundred deaths. If someone thinks a fetus isn't a baby, then that person already is pro-choice and you're not convincing anyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the other medical complications that arise from <i>self-abortive</i> attempts, which are vastly different to what you are actually describing.
Again, <b>read the papers I have referenced</b>. I do not reference things for sheer amusement.
You know, people should really read my MANY references on this topic (which aside from being up to date discuss this topic extremely well). There are of course many more articles available and all of them are from the medical community (or a great majority).
1) Doctors know a lot more than nearly anyone in this thread about issues like pregnancy
Secondly
2) Medical establishments know more about what kinds of abortions are being undertaken and how many.
3) Doctors and medical practitioners are the ones that pushed for abortion to be legalised in many countries (Psst, READ THE DAMN REFERENCES) for exactly the reasons I have described earlier (Psst, READ THE DAMN REFERENCES).
It's getting tiring repeating myself like some sort of broken record. If you want to stick your head in the sand and not bother actually knowing *anything* relevant to the topic then carry on. I can't be bothered responding further to individuals who don't even bother reading peoples posts and keep ressurecting dead horses that have been refuted several times in the thread already.
Cyndane
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->@Troll: Ageri never addressed you once in his previous posts, because him like myself have given up on showing you how ignorant you are of the world. We both have posted many different sources (his are better then mine since he has ready access to medical journals) showing this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can get more of these as well, but now that I've been reading through this thread it's very clear that those opposed do not give a damn about anything except their narrow little world view. They are completely unwilling to listen to what the MEDICAL community who have to deal with these women *directly* has to say on the matter.
I ultimately only agree with abortion for the simple fact that I am not a woman, so I will never have to make that choice. Secondly, it has come up in the literature time and time again that illegalising abortion only increases the amount of unsafe and illegal abortion practices. It also comes up time and time again, and theclam SHOULD HAVE NOTED THIS IS EXPLICITELY STATED IN ONE OF MY SOURCES, that deaths and medical complications due to self-abortion techniques are well <i>under reported</i>. Posting data from 'deaths' from abortions in 1965 is not only irrelevant, it's already been discussed in one of my previous sources as deaths/complications are massively lower than what the <i>actual</i> rates are. Again, many of my sources have discussed this problem.
Here are a couple more sources to ignore (Which cover other points bought up previously or that add to what I've already incessantly pointed out):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Women undergoing repeat abortions are more likely than those undergoing a first abortion to report using a method of contraception at the time of conception</b>.7,8,10,11 In addition, women seeking repeat abortions report more challenging family situations than women seeking initial abortions: they are more likely to be separated, divorced, widowed or living in a common-law marriage, and to report difficulties with their male partner.1,5,8,11,12 They also are older,7,13 have more children1,5,13 and are more often non-white7,11,13 than women seeking initial abortions.
b]There is little evidence to suggest that women seeking repeat abortion are using pregnancy termination as a method of birth control[/b].1,5,6,8,11 Evidence also does not indicate that women seeking repeat abortion are psychologically maladjusted.8,13<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
William A. Fisher, Sukhbir S. Singh, Paul A. Shuper, Mark Carey, Felicia Otchet, Deborah MacLean-Brine, Diane Dal Bello, Jennifer Gunter. Characteristics of women undergoing repeat induced abortion. CMAJ. 2005 March 1; 172(5): 637–641.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The central issue in the abortion debate is the moral status of the conceptus. There are two positions that argue this issue. At one extreme are the views of the pro-life group which argues that human life begins at the moment of conception whilst at the other are views of the pro-choice group that argues in favour of a woman's right to self-determination. Two basic principles come into conflict in this debate, namely the Value of Life and that of Self-determination. In this paper the arguments forwarded by each group in justification of its position are presented. Also discussed is the moderate developmental viewpoint which accepts that the genetic basis of an individual is established at conception. Some development, however, has to occur before the conceptus can be called a person. The fact that an entity is a potential person is a prima facie reason for not destroying it. On the other hand, we need not conclude that a person has a right to life by virtue of that potentiality. Simultaneously we should recognise that the right a potential entity has, may be nullified by the woman's right to self-determination.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lastly because this paper made a poignant statement:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The characterization of women as enemies of fetal life denigrates women as conscientious decision makers, and deflects governments' attention from their creative role to facilitate women to continue rather than terminate pregnancies</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
R. J. Cook and B. M. Dickens. Human rights and abortion laws. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. Volume 65, Issue 1 , 1 April 1999, Pages 81-87
Actually Ageri I am very interested on more sources, if you would be kind enough to PM me a huge list of them, so I may go to my local library and look them up I would love to.
My only references have been my personal nurse and OBGYN doctor, which of course I have used quite heavily the past few days, I'm sure that office is sick of my phone calls.
You and I both know how pregnancy works quite well, as evidenced. I do wish more people would wake up and quit being so narrowminded.
I apologize Aegeri, you're right. It's hard to keep track of all the data in a 21 page thread.
I don't actually think that abortion is wrong. I've stated that a couple times in this thread. I was just playing Devil's Advocate, because I didn't think Cyndane's argument held water.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 11 2005, 10:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 11 2005, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think however there is one problem in this debate.
How many of you actually have a uterus?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This was addressed earlier in the thread. The right of women to control their bodies is not strong enough to allow women to commit murder. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You'll note that I didn't say that.
What was meant to come across is the fact that we as men cannont aprehend how it all works and everything related.
Its like trying to tell a woman how much getting kicked in the happy-sack hurts. You can liken it to almost anything but the problem is, unless the woman grows balls and gets kicked in them they are unable to find out for themselves therefore its not the same experence.
So why are men getting involved with the whole abortion debate? Why do we feel its nessesary to impose our will on something that blatently we as men cannot relate to? Forget all the reasons for and against abortion, because really its nothing to do with us. Women are mature, they can have discussion between each other because they are the people it directly affect. Why do we still think that the women need defense or arguing for by men. I for one would love to see a debate on this issue done entirely by women. Its called equality, and it still amazes me at how much it isn't in the world.
In summery: Let women resolve discussions like this as they will be the people dealing with it. Not men, who have no experience and can only liken it to something.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 11 2005, 08:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 11 2005, 08:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I apologize Aegeri, you're right. It's hard to keep track of all the data in a 21 page thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is true, especially when the post isn't directed at you. I'm just a little frizzed that I spent a fair amount of time making sure I supported all my statements yet the supporting material is largely being ignored.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't actually think that abortion is wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The greatest irony of this whole thing is that I do happen to think it is. I just also happen to understand that outlawing/preventing access to an abortion happens to do a lot more harm than it does good. No matter what anyone can argue about the cognitive abilities of a fetus (or lack there of), nobody can deny that a woman is a fully grown human being.
In a lot of respects, this debate reminds me of the early debates at the turn of last century (1930s or so), where numerous Christian (and other religious) fundamentalists argued against giving painkillers to women during child birth. Why? Because the pain of childbirth is a 'penalty' from God. It's not really surprising to me, that we're still trying to punish women for the fact they can carry children. As evidenced by the clear hatred for women expressed by some in this thread where they disagree with killing a fetus, but care little for killing the mother as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You realise you should read all the posts in a thread correct? I've covered this many times now. It's not a 'false dilemma' because it's actually what occurs in the real world.
Again, read the papers I have referenced. I'm tiring of repeating myself incessantly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we accept that someone is going to act in a manner which is ethically wrong, tolerating that ethically wrong action is also ethically wrong.
Imagine someone going to kill another person with a hand grenade. They are going to kill this person no matter what, and if they continue on their present course of action, they will end up harming or killing themselves in the process. If we are to allow this action, or God-forbid, actually have a part in it, we are as morally wrong as the one who pulls the trigger/pin in the first place.
The only morally permissable action we can take is one in which we reject the morally wrong action being taken. I am not interested in the studies and the medicine behind whether or not abortion's legality encourages its use. I am interested in its moral permissability or impermissability. If it is a morally impermissable action, as a moral society, we must ban it. If it is a morally permissable action, we have every right to legalize it. THAT is the dilemma. We must first establish the morality of abortion itself, before we can move on to the morality of legalization.
Do we have a consensus on the first point? At least, is there any sensible argument that we can use to argue for abortion's morality in and of itself, independant of other factors.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited May 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+May 12 2005, 01:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ May 12 2005, 01:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we accept that someone is going to act in a manner which is ethically wrong, tolerating that ethically wrong action is also ethically wrong.
Imagine someone going to kill another person with a hand grenade. They are going to kill this person no matter what, and if they continue on their present course of action, they will end up harming or killing themselves in the process. If we are to allow this action, or God-forbid, actually have a part in it, we are as morally wrong as the one who pulls the trigger/pin in the first place.
The only morally permissable action we can take is one in which we reject the morally wrong action being taken. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you need to think through the implications of this a bit.
First of all, you need to better define what "not tolerating" something means. To what lengths is one required to go? Is punishment strictly necessary, or is disapproval enough? If you are in a situation in which you must tolerate one morally wrong action or another without any clean options, how are you to go about doing it?
Everyone agrees that lying is wrong outside of significant mitigating circumstances, but lying is not illegal. Do you seriously believe it should be?
Additionally, your preception of the realm of moral action is remarkably narrow. Thriving schools of ethical thought are built around consequence based metrics. To suggest that the country should agree on the absolute moral status of an action is first requiring everyone to agree with one system of evaluating moral actions in which actions are either accepted or dismissed categorically. We must be able to create legislation without demanding that we first resolve all of the millenia old debates of ethical systems.
This is the reason why our laws are based on a limited system of natural rights and weak fairness metrics rather than any particular total system of morality.
I can't understand why anyone would be against abortion. First off all, as long as the baby is inside the mother it's not even consious. So it doesn't have any emotions or feelings (the baby can't breathe and without sufficient O2 there is no descent brain function), then who cares if you kill it? we kill bugs and other lower life forms (like the baby) without hessitation. Second, a lot of people say you deny a the baby the change to grow into a conscious and emotionally active human being... aren't we doing the same when we wank off or using birth control? You could give live to a human being but decide not to, just like the mother who wants an abortion. Also if she takes the child at that time she won't be having a child later on because she only wants a certain number of children, again denying a human being to live. Third, does anyone ever think about the live of the mother??? Why does she have to throw away her life because she made a mistake (example: she has to drop out of university and work at burger king the next 15 years to support the baby, then she has to attend evening classes to still get the dreamjob and LIFE! she wanted which has been denied to her for 20 years). I'm not even talking about rape her. Who wants to have a child who will remind her of that dreadfull event every single day (this is one of the most destructive trauma's you can ever get, I notice in everyday live how a lot of men underestimate this, makes me wanna throw em in prison and let em get raped in the **** by 10 big men), of course you will grow to love your child. But won't you rather have an abortion so there is some space in your life for a child from a man you truly love?
This is my first post ever on this forum, I usually just lerk ( <!--emo&::lerk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/lerk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lerk.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) the forum reading through the interesting posts, you people already say the stuff I would have said so I don't bother. But I really had to respond to this. Stuff like this really boils my blood. If someone would deny a friend of mine an abortion I'll make certain that person won't be leaving the hospital the next couple of months. I'm so happy I live in Holland where everyone is pro freedom of choice and noone is very conservative, I would never want to live in a country where this is not the case.. By the way; didn't read all of the 21 pages so it's possible someone else already said everything I said but still this is so damn important it should be said a million times.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+May 12 2005, 01:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ May 12 2005, 01:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is the reason why our laws are based on a limited system of natural rights and weak fairness metrics rather than any particular total system of morality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And oddly enough, Consequentialism makes no provision for either. Justice and Rights are forgotted in a Consequentialist system.
Assume that a race riot begins due to the rape of a white woman by an african-american man. A utilitarian in the midst of this society would save lives, property, and suffering if he only perjurs himself and incriminates the wrong man, claiming himself to be a witness to the rape. Justice would not be served, but the total good that came of it would outweigh the bad.
Or, for example, the case of the Peeping Tom. Assume that he spys on a woman in such a way that she, or anyone else, will never become aware of the action. Assume also that he gets pleasure from voyurism. The only consequence of this action is his pleasure. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism dictate that action to be morally right.
Thus, Consequentialist considerations, if taken into consideration while legislating, are morally wrong.
As you said, we have a government founded on rights and fairness. Apply Marquis' FLO argument to this situation, and see what legs the Choice camp is left to stand on. As has been proved by the last page or so, merely consequentialism, a system that runs counter to the very basic principles our country was founded, and is run upon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second, a lot of people say you deny a the baby the change to grow into a conscious and emotionally active human being... aren't we doing the same when we wank off or using birth control? You could give live to a human being but decide not to, just like the mother who wants an abortion. Also if she takes the child at that time she won't be having a child later on because she only wants a certain number of children, again denying a human being to live.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE Second, a lot of people say you deny a the baby the change to grow into a conscious and emotionally active human being... aren't we doing the same when we wank off or using birth control? You could give live to a human being but decide not to, just like the mother who wants an abortion. Also if she takes the child at that time she won't be having a child later on because she only wants a certain number of children, again denying a human being to live.
I've already said it and will say it again. You COULD give birth to a child with you sperm or eggs by finding a mate, but you DON'T do it because you don't want or can't care for it. Just like the mother could but won't. Sperm and eggs have no chance on it's own, the baby has. So because it has a chance it should be given that chance? At the cost of the mother's happieness? When I see a bug in my room I won't give him a chance to survive so why should we give a piece of meat the chance? Also again stated above, the sperm does have a chance, when it encounters an egg.. So why not work a bit to give the sperm that chance just like you have to work a bit to give birth to the baby and raising the kid. Sounds kinda silly doesn't it? well it is... Again, the argument you could.. but you won't...
lastly, taking away a part of the mothers life, giving her a less happy life but still creating a life. By doing this you've created some happieness (child) and some unhappieness (mother). When you abort, you only create happieness... and why can't people have second chances, because they screw up they have to pay by delivering a baby? No the baby doesn't deserve that chance because it's not people it's a thing a nothing a piece of flesh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The odds of death by asteroid are 1 in 50000? Meaning that one in every fifty thousand people dies from getting hit by an asteroid? Let me whip out my calculator: Assuming six milliard people in the world, that comes to 120000 deaths by asteroid. Now spread out across, say, eighty years, that gives us 1500 deaths by asteroid every year, give and take a little. You'd think we'd hear about that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't strengthen my point one bit but I just had to reply to it. If the odds are 1 in 50000 it means that probably the whole planet will be wiped out (what's that 6 Billion something?) when we have 50,000 * 6,000,000,000 people who have ever been walking the earth. This means 300,000,000,000,000 people have to be born before our planet will be wiped out (assuming the planet will be populated by 6 billion). that will still take a while...
<!--QuoteBegin-Blammo8+May 12 2005, 08:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Blammo8 @ May 12 2005, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can't understand why anyone would be against abortion. First off all, as long as the baby is inside the mother it's not even consious. So it doesn't have any emotions or feelings (the baby can't breathe and without sufficient O2 there is no descent brain function), then who cares if you kill it?[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, but I'll have to request you to back that up with sources. The common perception is that at a certain point during pregnancy, the fetus has a functional and working brain, as well as being conscious. The baby can indeed not breathe inside the womb and does not attempt to do so, but neither can it eat nor drink, and still it grows. Nutrients <b>and oxygen</b> are supplied by the mother through the umbilical cord.
Ok lets say the baby is conscious.. Then what is it suppose to do with that consciousness. It can't think about anything! because it never had any form of input. He may feel the fluid to his skin and taste some of it. But still he doesn't know what it means. He may feel emotions, but it can't be triggered by anything except for the brain who does a "testrun" with the hormones. Won't he feel pain and fear when you kill it. Maybe and if so, the mother still feels alot more of that **** than the baby ever can. It is still a lesser life form then the chickens and cows we eat everyday. We kill them with no hessetation and no we don't need to eat em to sustain ourselves. If your a vegetarian I praise you for being that strong (I am not) and the argument doesn't count.
I can't back that up with any proof, modern science agrees that the fetus will be conscious after 6 to 8 weeks. Still I think that level of consciousness is worthless until it starts to develop when it gets some descent input (outside the mother that is)
That's basically John Locke and his "tabula rasa" theory. Arguing that a child has no worth because it has no perception of the outside world, no outside input, is not something that will appeal to the other side of the argument though, and therefore not really relevant to this discussion.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+May 12 2005, 03:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ May 12 2005, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+May 12 2005, 01:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ May 12 2005, 01:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is the reason why our laws are based on a limited system of natural rights and weak fairness metrics rather than any particular total system of morality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And oddly enough, Consequentialism makes no provision for either. Justice and Rights are forgotted in a Consequentialist system.
Assume that a race riot begins due to the rape of a white woman by an african-american man. A utilitarian in the midst of this society would save lives, property, and suffering if he only perjurs himself and incriminates the wrong man, claiming himself to be a witness to the rape. Justice would not be served, but the total good that came of it would outweigh the bad.
Or, for example, the case of the Peeping Tom. Assume that he spys on a woman in such a way that she, or anyone else, will never become aware of the action. Assume also that he gets pleasure from voyurism. The only consequence of this action is his pleasure. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism dictate that action to be morally right.
Thus, Consequentialist considerations, if taken into consideration while legislating, are morally wrong.
As you said, we have a government founded on rights and fairness. Apply Marquis' FLO argument to this situation, and see what legs the Choice camp is left to stand on. As has been proved by the last page or so, merely consequentialism, a system that runs counter to the very basic principles our country was founded, and is run upon. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the classic error that I see people make in dismissing consequence based morality. You are assuming that the key agent in your examples is capable of knowing all ends of his actions. I don't want to get into a debate about the individual analogies, because that would completely derail the thread, (maybe we need a separate thread on moral systems?) but for either of the actions of your characters to be justified, they must be capable of knowing with absolute certainty what would result from their actions. If they were gods, then those actions would be justified. However a human has to deal with the possibility that lying won't stop the race riot and will just put an innocent man to death, or that the woman will discover his spying and never feel safe in her house again. For normal fallable human beings with limited intelligence, these edge cases break down. Rights and justice arise out of the system because they are excellent <i>heuristics</i> for right action for people who are not prescient.
But again, this is missing the point. Consequence based ethical systems are still widely discussed and explored by ethicists. Neither you nor I is going to end all debate on them immediately through the skill of our argument. We cannot dismiss their evaluation of the situation outright for any reason.
Now answer my other questions. They weren't rhetorical. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ageri+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ageri)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As evidenced by the clear hatred for women expressed by some in this thread where they disagree with killing a fetus, but care little for killing the mother as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
>< YOU ARE NOT BEING SERIOUS. When we are disagreeing in the killing of the foetus, we do not hate women.... AT ALL.
We do not care little for the killing of the mother. You are saying if abortion is illegalised, mothers will go to great lengths to get an abortion, at great cost to themselves (sterility or death) This is true and is a GREAT sadness.
I do not assume i know why some women will go to such great lengths, probably desparation, but i would hope that with the illegalisation of abortion, measures will be put in place at both an infant level (schools) for education in the wrongs of abortion (morals)... Next, healthcare for teenagers and young women, including much better sex ed in schools (sex ed atm is a joke tbh, consists of the school inadequately trained teachers talking, and children sitting and giggling)
More shock tactics eg showing informative videos etc as children, also contraception talks(we got none of those) peer support would all help to reduce the number of self abortions. Everything possible would be done to prevent illegal abortions, including the raiding of backdoorabortionists.
Its like stopping depressives from commiting suicide, you can do everything possible in the whole world, but still some will commit suicide. Its a great shame, but that does not mean we hate em.
No matter how much money you put into it, you'll always have sex education being taught to uncaring kids. They tried "shock" tactics for the anti-drug campaign at my old school, but it made no difference at all.
Even if you could eliminate the backdoor abortionists, you'll still have the problem of women self-aborting, as Aegeri has said to great effect. Nothing you can do about that.
When your life is falling apart you will consider and possibly do almost anything to pull yourself back up again. Fact <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Pregnancy is one of the biggest changes that will ever happen to a womans life if not <i>the</i> biggest. You can't stop them taking drastic measures.
Oh and for those that believe only women are allowed an opinion on this... don't be silly. Do you think only animals should protest for animal rights? That only black people can fight anti-black prejudice?
I think I'm pretty much done with this thread, I've said what I need to say and further discussion will just muddy the waters more <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+May 13 2005, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 13 2005, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When your life is falling apart you will consider and possibly do almost anything to pull yourself back up again. Fact <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Pregnancy is one of the biggest changes that will ever happen to a womans life if not <i>the</i> biggest. You can't stop them taking drastic measures.
Oh and for those that believe only women are allowed an opinion on this... don't be silly. Do you think only animals should protest for animal rights? That only black people can fight anti-black prejudice?
I think I'm pretty much done with this thread, I've said what I need to say and further discussion will just muddy the waters more <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hehe.. forrester.. that and the fact certain people don't listen even with all the evidence you bring to the board. :-)
What I mean, Blammo8, and I apologize in advance for saying something that must seem rather patronising, is that the purpose of a discussion is to exchange ideas, and perhaps even change them. The purpose of discussion, therefore, is not to cater to your own side, but to the opposite. If you say something like "a fetus has no perception of the outside world and is therefore worthless" to somebody who is pro-life, you alienate them and make discussion impossible. That's what I was trying to say.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+May 13 2005, 07:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 13 2005, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh and for those that believe only women are allowed an opinion on this... don't be silly. Do you think only animals should protest for animal rights? That only black people can fight anti-black prejudice? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps not, but I'm sick of having this debate only discussed by men. It does seem in many cases that the women have absolutly no say in this debate at all. Which is stupidity as they are the only people that are going to be effected.
They have an equal say in the debate although for them it is more personal and so they may well have stronger feelings on it. I think the reason that men have had more of a say is simply because there are a lot more males on this forum than there are females.
Cyndane: Not forrester, East <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I'm used to people not listening. In a discussion like this it's always easy to ignore the good points and just tear apart all the really obvious mistakes. It's like the forum equivalent of spawn camping.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+May 14 2005, 02:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 14 2005, 02:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They have an equal say in the debate although for them it is more personal and so they may well have stronger feelings on it. I think the reason that men have had more of a say is simply because there are a lot more males on this forum than there are females.
Cyndane: Not forrester, East <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I'm used to people not listening. In a discussion like this it's always easy to ignore the good points and just tear apart all the really obvious mistakes. It's like the forum equivalent of spawn camping. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow... my mistake. Now I feel partially stupid for that one.
I shall refute that last statement though, there has always been good points in almost every post, its when people ignore the facts and use their opinions that debates/discussions fail. Especially when they ignore said facts for PAGES of a discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, you need to better define what "not tolerating" something means. To what lengths is one required to go? Is punishment strictly necessary, or is disapproval enough? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're not the shame-based society we once may have been. Action, not merely words, is needed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are in a situation in which you must tolerate one morally wrong action or another without any clean options, how are you to go about doing it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe there is ever a situation in which the only possible choices are ones morally wrong.
Then again, I have the luxury of belief in a sort of Divine Command meets Catagorical Imperative system of ethics.
Lets take the example at hand. Do we outlaw abortion, and indirectly cause harm to women who attempt to abort children themselves, or legalize it and condone an immoral action?
If I assume people are free-will beings, then I am doing the right thing, without question, when I forbid abortion. Not condoning immorality is right.
Yet, harming people is wrong. However, it is not me who harms someone, it is their own free will that allows them to harm themselves. There is such a thing as manipulation, yet, a law can hardly be considered that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone agrees that lying is wrong outside of significant mitigating circumstances, but lying is not illegal. Do you seriously believe it should be?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perjury.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you say something like "a fetus has no perception of the outside world and is therefore worthless" to somebody who is pro-life, you alienate them and make discussion impossible. That's what I was trying to say.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes I get it now very good point indeed. But I'd like to know, those people who are pro-life are they pro-"the baby's life" or pro-"the human being it's going to grow into life". If your pro-"the baby's life" I really don't get it because it's a lower life form just like the bugs and livestock examples I've given. The reason it has no comprehension at all about anything that is happening is because it doesn't have anything to work with thus the outside input. When you deny any adult human being any outside input (this experiment has really taken place) the following will happen. The brain deteriorates (god hard to spell), people's IQ goes down drasticly and they start to show signs of dementia. Don't know for sure but I think they only did this to people for a few days and luckely the effects were only temporary. But if this happends to fully grown adults, the amount of consiousness and intelligence of a baby can't be very much. An emotion like psychological pain or fear, can't argue on this matter much because I believe humans are just biochemical robots** so the chemical reaction that triggers these will probably take place when you harm the baby. Don't know how they do an abortion but they should do it in a way the baby doesn't notice a thing. (even if they don't and considering Steeltrols post they don't I still think mother > baby.)
**(about the biochemical robots, this believe makes a conscious adult just a piece of meat like any lifeform. But there's a difference in the believe I live by and the believe I rationally believe in.)
If your pro-"the human" then I say, when the life is born there will be no place for another child in the mothers life. Also you couldn't but won't argument still stands, and the take a part of the mother's life away as well.
In the end I think this boils down to the rights of the mother vs the rights of the baby. The rights of the mother will always be stronger imo, of course I can be pursuaded but I've never heard an argument sufficiently strong enough to change my mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it is their own free will that allows them to harm themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, it's their limited free will that will harm themselves, limitations made by people who think like you. Their free will wants an safe abortion being restricted by other people it's not entirely a free will situation anymore. It's the same thing as being at gunpoint, chose who will die.. your mother, your father or all three of you. No free will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, you need to better define what "not tolerating" something means. To what lengths is one required to go? Is punishment strictly necessary, or is disapproval enough?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disapproval can be far worse than punishment. When someone is punished a lot of people will think you did ur punishment now we can move on. Disapproval will always be there until the one in question did something to redeem himself (even if it's a simple apology)
Comments
I never said anything about comparing fetuses to women dying. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is that your argument is a moot. It won't convince anyone at all. If someone thinks a fetus is a baby, then the million dead fetuses trump a couple hundred deaths. If someone thinks a fetus isn't a baby, then that person already is pro-choice and you're not convincing anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think however there is one problem in this debate.
How many of you actually have a uterus?
Until we all have uterus's and can actully experience childbirth I don't think the males have a leg to stand on in either side of the debate. Let the women decide what to do with their uterus. After all, we don't have any real reason to be playing about in there anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was addressed earlier in the thread. The right of women to control their bodies is not strong enough to allow women to commit murder.
I never said anything about comparing fetuses to women dying. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is that your argument is a moot. It won't convince anyone at all. If someone thinks a fetus is a baby, then the million dead fetuses trump a couple hundred deaths. If someone thinks a fetus isn't a baby, then that person already is pro-choice and you're not convincing anyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you are failing to even see the point here clam.
You have proven for me that legalizing abortions, (allowing them to take place in clinics) had decreased the number of deaths associated with them. That takes simple common sense to see that.
If you wish to believe the fetus is a baby so be it, but that doesn't change the fact there are now less women dying due to self inflicted (botched) abortions. Since they DO NOT have to go that route, unlike Brazil and South Africa.
It has saved the woman's life, thereby allowing her to have a child later on in life when she is actually ready to have children. Usually, as troll has proved for me, the abortions that take place are, a majority, due to failed contraceptives (condom breaking, pill failing, diaphram broke, etc), (here in the US) which means the potential baby was not wanted.
As proved from the site , troll posted it on page 18, that contraceptives do and have failed.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortions...ortionstats.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortions...ortionstats.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)
<b> * 54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
* 90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception
* 8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
* It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think however there is one problem in this debate.
How many of you actually have a uterus?
Until we all have uterus's and can actully experience childbirth I don't think the males have a leg to stand on in either side of the debate. Let the women decide what to do with their uterus. After all, we don't have any real reason to be playing about in there anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was addressed earlier in the thread. The right of women to control their bodies is not strong enough to allow women to commit murder.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't murder by any definition of the word. Pay really close attention to the first definition. (Ignore the mass group of crows definition) (Use <a href='http://www.m-w.com' target='_blank'>http://www.m-w.com</a> for proof)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, all we are left with is the argument that we can allow a morally impermissable action, in the intrest of doing less harm in the long run. I am not interested in what harm comes of ethics. I am interested in what those ethics are. A right action with wrong consequences is still a wrong action.
Besides, your argument is based on a false dilemma. You claim that a woman will get an abortion no matter what, and some women will die doing it in an unsafe manner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realise you should read all the posts in a thread correct? I've covered this many times now. It's not a 'false dilemma' because it's <i>actually what occurs in the real world</i>.
Again, <b>read the papers I have referenced</b>. I'm tiring of repeating myself incessantly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems like you're conceding that abortion is immoral wherever found, just that <b>we should tolerate it anyway</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah this conclusion was just based on 'we should tolerate it anyway', it wouldn't have been based on many reviews, papers studies and more from medical establishments and researchers from across the world. As my argument has heavily focused on this, I would suggest, again, that if you want to comment on this you read the papers I've presented. They cover this extremely well and why legalising abortions is <i>recommended</i> by a great majority of the medical world.
theclam
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is that your argument is a moot. It won't convince anyone at all. If someone thinks a fetus is a baby, then the million dead fetuses trump a couple hundred deaths. If someone thinks a fetus isn't a baby, then that person already is pro-choice and you're not convincing anyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the other medical complications that arise from <i>self-abortive</i> attempts, which are vastly different to what you are actually describing.
Again, <b>read the papers I have referenced</b>. I do not reference things for sheer amusement.
You know, people should really read my MANY references on this topic (which aside from being up to date discuss this topic extremely well). There are of course many more articles available and all of them are from the medical community (or a great majority).
1) Doctors know a lot more than nearly anyone in this thread about issues like pregnancy
Secondly
2) Medical establishments know more about what kinds of abortions are being undertaken and how many.
3) Doctors and medical practitioners are the ones that pushed for abortion to be legalised in many countries (Psst, READ THE DAMN REFERENCES) for exactly the reasons I have described earlier (Psst, READ THE DAMN REFERENCES).
It's getting tiring repeating myself like some sort of broken record. If you want to stick your head in the sand and not bother actually knowing *anything* relevant to the topic then carry on. I can't be bothered responding further to individuals who don't even bother reading peoples posts and keep ressurecting dead horses that have been refuted several times in the thread already.
Cyndane
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->@Troll: Ageri never addressed you once in his previous posts, because him like myself have given up on showing you how ignorant you are of the world. We both have posted many different sources (his are better then mine since he has ready access to medical journals) showing this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can get more of these as well, but now that I've been reading through this thread it's very clear that those opposed do not give a damn about anything except their narrow little world view. They are completely unwilling to listen to what the MEDICAL community who have to deal with these women *directly* has to say on the matter.
I ultimately only agree with abortion for the simple fact that I am not a woman, so I will never have to make that choice. Secondly, it has come up in the literature time and time again that illegalising abortion only increases the amount of unsafe and illegal abortion practices. It also comes up time and time again, and theclam SHOULD HAVE NOTED THIS IS EXPLICITELY STATED IN ONE OF MY SOURCES, that deaths and medical complications due to self-abortion techniques are well <i>under reported</i>. Posting data from 'deaths' from abortions in 1965 is not only irrelevant, it's already been discussed in one of my previous sources as deaths/complications are massively lower than what the <i>actual</i> rates are. Again, many of my sources have discussed this problem.
Here are a couple more sources to ignore (Which cover other points bought up previously or that add to what I've already incessantly pointed out):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Women undergoing repeat abortions are more likely than those undergoing a first abortion to report using a method of contraception at the time of conception</b>.7,8,10,11 In addition, women seeking repeat abortions report more challenging family situations than women seeking initial abortions: they are more likely to be separated, divorced, widowed or living in a common-law marriage, and to report difficulties with their male partner.1,5,8,11,12 They also are older,7,13 have more children1,5,13 and are more often non-white7,11,13 than women seeking initial abortions.
b]There is little evidence to suggest that women seeking repeat abortion are using pregnancy termination as a method of birth control[/b].1,5,6,8,11 Evidence also does not indicate that women seeking repeat abortion are psychologically maladjusted.8,13<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
William A. Fisher, Sukhbir S. Singh, Paul A. Shuper, Mark Carey, Felicia Otchet, Deborah MacLean-Brine, Diane Dal Bello, Jennifer Gunter. Characteristics of women undergoing repeat induced abortion. CMAJ. 2005 March 1; 172(5): 637–641.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The central issue in the abortion debate is the moral status of the conceptus. There are two positions that argue this issue. At one extreme are the views of the pro-life group which argues that human life begins at the moment of conception whilst at the other are views of the pro-choice group that argues in favour of a woman's right to self-determination. Two basic principles come into conflict in this debate, namely the Value of Life and that of Self-determination. In this paper the arguments forwarded by each group in justification of its position are presented. Also discussed is the moderate developmental viewpoint which accepts that the genetic basis of an individual is established at conception. Some development, however, has to occur before the conceptus can be called a person. The fact that an entity is a potential person is a prima facie reason for not destroying it. On the other hand, we need not conclude that a person has a right to life by virtue of that potentiality. Simultaneously we should recognise that the right a potential entity has, may be nullified by the woman's right to self-determination.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jali MN. Abortion--a philosophical perspective. Curationis. 2001 Nov;24(4):25-31.
Lastly because this paper made a poignant statement:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The characterization of women as enemies of fetal life denigrates women as conscientious decision makers, and deflects governments' attention from their creative role to facilitate women to continue rather than terminate pregnancies</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
R. J. Cook and B. M. Dickens. Human rights and abortion laws. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. Volume 65, Issue 1 , 1 April 1999, Pages 81-87
My only references have been my personal nurse and OBGYN doctor, which of course I have used quite heavily the past few days, I'm sure that office is sick of my phone calls.
You and I both know how pregnancy works quite well, as evidenced. I do wish more people would wake up and quit being so narrowminded.
I don't actually think that abortion is wrong. I've stated that a couple times in this thread. I was just playing Devil's Advocate, because I didn't think Cyndane's argument held water.
How many of you actually have a uterus?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was addressed earlier in the thread. The right of women to control their bodies is not strong enough to allow women to commit murder. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll note that I didn't say that.
What was meant to come across is the fact that we as men cannont aprehend how it all works and everything related.
Its like trying to tell a woman how much getting kicked in the happy-sack hurts. You can liken it to almost anything but the problem is, unless the woman grows balls and gets kicked in them they are unable to find out for themselves therefore its not the same experence.
So why are men getting involved with the whole abortion debate? Why do we feel its nessesary to impose our will on something that blatently we as men cannot relate to? Forget all the reasons for and against abortion, because really its nothing to do with us. Women are mature, they can have discussion between each other because they are the people it directly affect. Why do we still think that the women need defense or arguing for by men. I for one would love to see a debate on this issue done entirely by women. Its called equality, and it still amazes me at how much it isn't in the world.
In summery: Let women resolve discussions like this as they will be the people dealing with it. Not men, who have no experience and can only liken it to something.
That is true, especially when the post isn't directed at you. I'm just a little frizzed that I spent a fair amount of time making sure I supported all my statements yet the supporting material is largely being ignored.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I don't actually think that abortion is wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The greatest irony of this whole thing is that I do happen to think it is. I just also happen to understand that outlawing/preventing access to an abortion happens to do a lot more harm than it does good. No matter what anyone can argue about the cognitive abilities of a fetus (or lack there of), nobody can deny that a woman is a fully grown human being.
In a lot of respects, this debate reminds me of the early debates at the turn of last century (1930s or so), where numerous Christian (and other religious) fundamentalists argued against giving painkillers to women during child birth. Why? Because the pain of childbirth is a 'penalty' from God. It's not really surprising to me, that we're still trying to punish women for the fact they can carry children. As evidenced by the clear hatred for women expressed by some in this thread where they disagree with killing a fetus, but care little for killing the mother as well.
Again, read the papers I have referenced. I'm tiring of repeating myself incessantly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we accept that someone is going to act in a manner which is ethically wrong, tolerating that ethically wrong action is also ethically wrong.
Imagine someone going to kill another person with a hand grenade. They are going to kill this person no matter what, and if they continue on their present course of action, they will end up harming or killing themselves in the process. If we are to allow this action, or God-forbid, actually have a part in it, we are as morally wrong as the one who pulls the trigger/pin in the first place.
The only morally permissable action we can take is one in which we reject the morally wrong action being taken. I am not interested in the studies and the medicine behind whether or not abortion's legality encourages its use. I am interested in its moral permissability or impermissability. If it is a morally impermissable action, as a moral society, we must ban it. If it is a morally permissable action, we have every right to legalize it. THAT is the dilemma. We must first establish the morality of abortion itself, before we can move on to the morality of legalization.
Do we have a consensus on the first point? At least, is there any sensible argument that we can use to argue for abortion's morality in and of itself, independant of other factors.
Imagine someone going to kill another person with a hand grenade. They are going to kill this person no matter what, and if they continue on their present course of action, they will end up harming or killing themselves in the process. If we are to allow this action, or God-forbid, actually have a part in it, we are as morally wrong as the one who pulls the trigger/pin in the first place.
The only morally permissable action we can take is one in which we reject the morally wrong action being taken. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you need to think through the implications of this a bit.
First of all, you need to better define what "not tolerating" something means. To what lengths is one required to go? Is punishment strictly necessary, or is disapproval enough? If you are in a situation in which you must tolerate one morally wrong action or another without any clean options, how are you to go about doing it?
Everyone agrees that lying is wrong outside of significant mitigating circumstances, but lying is not illegal. Do you seriously believe it should be?
Additionally, your preception of the realm of moral action is remarkably narrow. Thriving schools of ethical thought are built around consequence based metrics. To suggest that the country should agree on the absolute moral status of an action is first requiring everyone to agree with one system of evaluating moral actions in which actions are either accepted or dismissed categorically. We must be able to create legislation without demanding that we first resolve all of the millenia old debates of ethical systems.
This is the reason why our laws are based on a limited system of natural rights and weak fairness metrics rather than any particular total system of morality.
Second, a lot of people say you deny a the baby the change to grow into a conscious and emotionally active human being... aren't we doing the same when we wank off or using birth control? You could give live to a human being but decide not to, just like the mother who wants an abortion. Also if she takes the child at that time she won't be having a child later on because she only wants a certain number of children, again denying a human being to live.
Third, does anyone ever think about the live of the mother??? Why does she have to throw away her life because she made a mistake (example: she has to drop out of university and work at burger king the next 15 years to support the baby, then she has to attend evening classes to still get the dreamjob and LIFE! she wanted which has been denied to her for 20 years). I'm not even talking about rape her. Who wants to have a child who will remind her of that dreadfull event every single day (this is one of the most destructive trauma's you can ever get, I notice in everyday live how a lot of men underestimate this, makes me wanna throw em in prison and let em get raped in the **** by 10 big men), of course you will grow to love your child. But won't you rather have an abortion so there is some space in your life for a child from a man you truly love?
This is my first post ever on this forum, I usually just lerk ( <!--emo&::lerk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/lerk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lerk.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) the forum reading through the interesting posts, you people already say the stuff I would have said so I don't bother. But I really had to respond to this. Stuff like this really boils my blood. If someone would deny a friend of mine an abortion I'll make certain that person won't be leaving the hospital the next couple of months. I'm so happy I live in Holland where everyone is pro freedom of choice and noone is very conservative, I would never want to live in a country where this is not the case..
By the way; didn't read all of the 21 pages so it's possible someone else already said everything I said but still this is so damn important it should be said a million times.
And oddly enough, Consequentialism makes no provision for either. Justice and Rights are forgotted in a Consequentialist system.
Assume that a race riot begins due to the rape of a white woman by an african-american man. A utilitarian in the midst of this society would save lives, property, and suffering if he only perjurs himself and incriminates the wrong man, claiming himself to be a witness to the rape. Justice would not be served, but the total good that came of it would outweigh the bad.
Or, for example, the case of the Peeping Tom. Assume that he spys on a woman in such a way that she, or anyone else, will never become aware of the action. Assume also that he gets pleasure from voyurism. The only consequence of this action is his pleasure. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism dictate that action to be morally right.
Thus, Consequentialist considerations, if taken into consideration while legislating, are morally wrong.
As you said, we have a government founded on rights and fairness. Apply Marquis' FLO argument to this situation, and see what legs the Choice camp is left to stand on. As has been proved by the last page or so, merely consequentialism, a system that runs counter to the very basic principles our country was founded, and is run upon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second, a lot of people say you deny a the baby the change to grow into a conscious and emotionally active human being... aren't we doing the same when we wank off or using birth control? You could give live to a human being but decide not to, just like the mother who wants an abortion. Also if she takes the child at that time she won't be having a child later on because she only wants a certain number of children, again denying a human being to live.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92201&view=findpost&p=1473818' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....dpost&p=1473818</a>
Second, a lot of people say you deny a the baby the change to grow into a conscious and emotionally active human being... aren't we doing the same when we wank off or using birth control? You could give live to a human being but decide not to, just like the mother who wants an abortion. Also if she takes the child at that time she won't be having a child later on because she only wants a certain number of children, again denying a human being to live.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....dpost&p=1473818' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....dpost&p=1473818</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've already said it and will say it again. You COULD give birth to a child with you sperm or eggs by finding a mate, but you DON'T do it because you don't want or can't care for it. Just like the mother could but won't.
Sperm and eggs have no chance on it's own, the baby has. So because it has a chance it should be given that chance? At the cost of the mother's happieness? When I see a bug in my room I won't give him a chance to survive so why should we give a piece of meat the chance? Also again stated above, the sperm does have a chance, when it encounters an egg.. So why not work a bit to give the sperm that chance just like you have to work a bit to give birth to the baby and raising the kid. Sounds kinda silly doesn't it? well it is...
Again, the argument you could.. but you won't...
lastly, taking away a part of the mothers life, giving her a less happy life but still creating a life. By doing this you've created some happieness (child) and some unhappieness (mother). When you abort, you only create happieness... and why can't people have second chances, because they screw up they have to pay by delivering a baby? No the baby doesn't deserve that chance because it's not people it's a thing a nothing a piece of flesh.
Assuming six milliard people in the world, that comes to 120000 deaths by asteroid. Now spread out across, say, eighty years, that gives us 1500 deaths by asteroid every year, give and take a little. You'd think we'd hear about that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't strengthen my point one bit but I just had to reply to it. If the odds are 1 in 50000 it means that probably the whole planet will be wiped out (what's that 6 Billion something?) when we have 50,000 * 6,000,000,000 people who have ever been walking the earth. This means 300,000,000,000,000 people have to be born before our planet will be wiped out (assuming the planet will be populated by 6 billion). that will still take a while...
Sorry, but I'll have to request you to back that up with sources. The common perception is that at a certain point during pregnancy, the fetus has a functional and working brain, as well as being conscious. The baby can indeed not breathe inside the womb and does not attempt to do so, but neither can it eat nor drink, and still it grows. Nutrients <b>and oxygen</b> are supplied by the mother through the umbilical cord.
I can't back that up with any proof, modern science agrees that the fetus will be conscious after 6 to 8 weeks. Still I think that level of consciousness is worthless until it starts to develop when it gets some descent input (outside the mother that is)
And oddly enough, Consequentialism makes no provision for either. Justice and Rights are forgotted in a Consequentialist system.
Assume that a race riot begins due to the rape of a white woman by an african-american man. A utilitarian in the midst of this society would save lives, property, and suffering if he only perjurs himself and incriminates the wrong man, claiming himself to be a witness to the rape. Justice would not be served, but the total good that came of it would outweigh the bad.
Or, for example, the case of the Peeping Tom. Assume that he spys on a woman in such a way that she, or anyone else, will never become aware of the action. Assume also that he gets pleasure from voyurism. The only consequence of this action is his pleasure. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism dictate that action to be morally right.
Thus, Consequentialist considerations, if taken into consideration while legislating, are morally wrong.
As you said, we have a government founded on rights and fairness. Apply Marquis' FLO argument to this situation, and see what legs the Choice camp is left to stand on. As has been proved by the last page or so, merely consequentialism, a system that runs counter to the very basic principles our country was founded, and is run upon.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the classic error that I see people make in dismissing consequence based morality. You are assuming that the key agent in your examples is capable of knowing all ends of his actions. I don't want to get into a debate about the individual analogies, because that would completely derail the thread, (maybe we need a separate thread on moral systems?) but for either of the actions of your characters to be justified, they must be capable of knowing with absolute certainty what would result from their actions. If they were gods, then those actions would be justified. However a human has to deal with the possibility that lying won't stop the race riot and will just put an innocent man to death, or that the woman will discover his spying and never feel safe in her house again. For normal fallable human beings with limited intelligence, these edge cases break down. Rights and justice arise out of the system because they are excellent <i>heuristics</i> for right action for people who are not prescient.
But again, this is missing the point. Consequence based ethical systems are still widely discussed and explored by ethicists. Neither you nor I is going to end all debate on them immediately through the skill of our argument. We cannot dismiss their evaluation of the situation outright for any reason.
Now answer my other questions. They weren't rhetorical. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
>< YOU ARE NOT BEING SERIOUS. When we are disagreeing in the killing of the foetus, we do not hate women.... AT ALL.
We do not care little for the killing of the mother. You are saying if abortion is illegalised, mothers will go to great lengths to get an abortion, at great cost to themselves (sterility or death) This is true and is a GREAT sadness.
I do not assume i know why some women will go to such great lengths, probably desparation, but i would hope that with the illegalisation of abortion, measures will be put in place at both an infant level (schools) for education in the wrongs of abortion (morals)... Next, healthcare for teenagers and young women, including much better sex ed in schools (sex ed atm is a joke tbh, consists of the school inadequately trained teachers talking, and children sitting and giggling)
More shock tactics eg showing informative videos etc as children, also contraception talks(we got none of those) peer support would all help to reduce the number of self abortions. Everything possible would be done to prevent illegal abortions, including the raiding of backdoorabortionists.
Its like stopping depressives from commiting suicide, you can do everything possible in the whole world, but still some will commit suicide. Its a great shame, but that does not mean we hate em.
Even if you could eliminate the backdoor abortionists, you'll still have the problem of women self-aborting, as Aegeri has said to great effect. Nothing you can do about that.
Oh and for those that believe only women are allowed an opinion on this... don't be silly. Do you think only animals should protest for animal rights? That only black people can fight anti-black prejudice?
I think I'm pretty much done with this thread, I've said what I need to say and further discussion will just muddy the waters more <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh and for those that believe only women are allowed an opinion on this... don't be silly. Do you think only animals should protest for animal rights? That only black people can fight anti-black prejudice?
I think I'm pretty much done with this thread, I've said what I need to say and further discussion will just muddy the waters more <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe.. forrester.. that and the fact certain people don't listen even with all the evidence you bring to the board. :-)
If you say something like "a fetus has no perception of the outside world and is therefore worthless" to somebody who is pro-life, you alienate them and make discussion impossible. That's what I was trying to say.
Perhaps not, but I'm sick of having this debate only discussed by men. It does seem in many cases that the women have absolutly no say in this debate at all. Which is stupidity as they are the only people that are going to be effected.
Cyndane: Not forrester, East <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I'm used to people not listening. In a discussion like this it's always easy to ignore the good points and just tear apart all the really obvious mistakes. It's like the forum equivalent of spawn camping.
Cyndane: Not forrester, East <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I'm used to people not listening. In a discussion like this it's always easy to ignore the good points and just tear apart all the really obvious mistakes. It's like the forum equivalent of spawn camping. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow... my mistake. Now I feel partially stupid for that one.
I shall refute that last statement though, there has always been good points in almost every post, its when people ignore the facts and use their opinions that debates/discussions fail. Especially when they ignore said facts for PAGES of a discussion.
We're not the shame-based society we once may have been. Action, not merely words, is needed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are in a situation in which you must tolerate one morally wrong action or another without any clean options, how are you to go about doing it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe there is ever a situation in which the only possible choices are ones morally wrong.
Then again, I have the luxury of belief in a sort of Divine Command meets Catagorical Imperative system of ethics.
Lets take the example at hand. Do we outlaw abortion, and indirectly cause harm to women who attempt to abort children themselves, or legalize it and condone an immoral action?
If I assume people are free-will beings, then I am doing the right thing, without question, when I forbid abortion. Not condoning immorality is right.
Yet, harming people is wrong. However, it is not me who harms someone, it is their own free will that allows them to harm themselves. There is such a thing as manipulation, yet, a law can hardly be considered that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone agrees that lying is wrong outside of significant mitigating circumstances, but lying is not illegal. Do you seriously believe it should be?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perjury.
Ah yes I get it now very good point indeed. But I'd like to know, those people who are pro-life are they pro-"the baby's life" or pro-"the human being it's going to grow into life".
If your pro-"the baby's life" I really don't get it because it's a lower life form just like the bugs and livestock examples I've given. The reason it has no comprehension at all about anything that is happening is because it doesn't have anything to work with thus the outside input. When you deny any adult human being any outside input (this experiment has really taken place) the following will happen. The brain deteriorates (god hard to spell), people's IQ goes down drasticly and they start to show signs of dementia. Don't know for sure but I think they only did this to people for a few days and luckely the effects were only temporary. But if this happends to fully grown adults, the amount of consiousness and intelligence of a baby can't be very much.
An emotion like psychological pain or fear, can't argue on this matter much because I believe humans are just biochemical robots** so the chemical reaction that triggers these will probably take place when you harm the baby. Don't know how they do an abortion but they should do it in a way the baby doesn't notice a thing. (even if they don't and considering Steeltrols post they don't I still think mother > baby.)
**(about the biochemical robots, this believe makes a conscious adult just a piece of meat like any lifeform. But there's a difference in the believe I live by and the believe I rationally believe in.)
If your pro-"the human" then I say, when the life is born there will be no place for another child in the mothers life. Also you couldn't but won't argument still stands, and the take a part of the mother's life away as well.
In the end I think this boils down to the rights of the mother vs the rights of the baby. The rights of the mother will always be stronger imo, of course I can be pursuaded but I've never heard an argument sufficiently strong enough to change my mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it is their own free will that allows them to harm themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, it's their limited free will that will harm themselves, limitations made by people who think like you. Their free will wants an safe abortion being restricted by other people it's not entirely a free will situation anymore. It's the same thing as being at gunpoint, chose who will die.. your mother, your father or all three of you. No free will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, you need to better define what "not tolerating" something means. To what lengths is one required to go? Is punishment strictly necessary, or is disapproval enough?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disapproval can be far worse than punishment. When someone is punished a lot of people will think you did ur punishment now we can move on. Disapproval will always be there until the one in question did something to redeem himself (even if it's a simple apology)