The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

[History_Buff]

Do you think that isn't much of a shift, particularly when the discussion is taking place on the internet?

Not really. It's a start, but not a particularly promising one. But he's just 17, so I have hope.

 

[otago]

Not really. It's a start, but not a particularly promising one. But he's just 17, so I have hope.

17 a virgin no doubt but knows all about women's biology.
Strange how those who are so pro life are so keen that a fetus that develops without a brain should be carried to full term even though it will die at the most within hours of birth.

The pro-life types believe pregnancy carries no risk to the mother at all.
Going to a mate's funeral after she had a stroke while giving birth at the age of twenty eight is a real kicker.

 

[El_Machinae]

Forced?

It might be too evocative a word, and I'm happy to find a replacement. The word itself seems to cause an adverse effect in those I'm conversing with.

In my estimation, when a being that has will interacts with something else, in order to cause that something else to change in a way desired by the being with will, that's "forced". There is no consent involved, only the exercise of power by a person upon something else.

Saying that we force the fetus to grow to sentience seems (to me) to be precise wording, because we're exercising our will and our desires onto something. We have an end goal that we're causing to happen, and there's no consultation with the entity that we're creating.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Now we just have to figure out if the opposite of "God bless you Ghost Writer" is "God damn you Ghost Writer" or "God bless you Useless"...

The opposite of God = Satan/the Devil
The opposite of "bless" = curse

Or it could simply be referring to the idea that God's blessing is about as useful as the Easter Bunny's blessing - both being mythical.

This isn't about being pro or anti women, its about being pro-life.

I'll believe that when you tell us you're getting married and adopting an orphan that some young mother gave up for adoption.

It is a shift, but not the one most people wanted to see. Most people wanted me to be convinced that life does not begin until some time after conception (Or at least, life worth protecting.)

Personally, I'd love it if you were convinced that women are real people in their own right, and that you could honestly understand why I have found your comments on this issue so incredibly offensive.

... I don't really care what anyone else thinks of it.

Then why should we care about your thoughts on the matter?

Well, shifting from executing those who have abortions to "simply" locking them up for the rest of their lives is no less of a stupid and tyrannical idea that screams "big government" with every syllable, but it does represent a seismic shift in thought as far as GW is concerned. Accentuate the positive, as they say.

I'm positively underwhelmed.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not really. It's a start, but not a particularly promising one. But he's just 17, so I have hope.

Forgive going meta on the conversation, but given how much disagreement there is on the internet and how rarely anything ever really gets shifted at all, I'm cautiously optimistic about this exchange(ra ra go CFC!). There's a couple core reasons people can disagree: either they disagree on or do not understand the underlying facts or science of an issue, or they can disagree regarding the decision about what do do with those facts and knowledge.

Take for example GW and I(or many people in this thread). We're starting almost on different planets but the core motivation seems to be mutual - including more in that which we value, respect, or at least tolerate. There's a long long way to go, but progress happens and that is the purpose of this whole exchange of digitally transmitted ideas. Huzzah.

I'm far less optimistic regarding, say, my conversation with El Mac. I enjoy his presence online, as far as being mutual forum board members goes, I like him. Nothing but compliments. He's even a wonderfully gracious conversationalist and most of the time I try not to be terrible. We agree on practically all the biology of the matter. Our facts and science, such as they are, are mostly in accord. There's no real room for discussion on the science, it's just mutual agreement on the premises of the conversation. For example, yes - the needs of sentient women trump her reproductive process, etc etc. The inch in which we are free to decide moral obligations is relatively small. That would be why I'm so interested in the somewhat asinine point of whether or not abortion, for no other reason than the worth of the zygote, can be considered a loss we should be interested in preventing everything else aside. Hence the whole ogre's choice(poor reference, I know) deal. That is the leeway our understandings allow us to operate within. Do we take all our premises and use them to inclusively expand our internal assessment of worth to encompass something or do we take those same premises and use them to exclusively narrow down what we owe meaningful moral obligation to. The couple discussions we've had that dance around eugenics reinforce my understanding of his position that a less than ideal early term pregnancy can, maybe even should, be be terminated to make way for something more desirable. This is a core moral holding, an honest assessment of worth, removing as many extraneous variables as possible. It's the sort of moral holding we build the rest of our ethics out from - and it's where we disagree. Should we try our hardest to give any single developing human the best possible start we can? Sure, that's laudable. To assert, though, that something can be so fundamentally flawed that it is less deserving to be is something I cannot follow. He's been generous(thank you El Mac) in assumption, but he's incorrect when he assumes my disagreement with that argument is a "quiver of consternation." It's close to full blown antipathy. You see, of course, he's done all the assessments of fact correctly, reasoned carefully, and is still so wrong! I am far more dubious that our exchange of ideas is likely to produce anything of new worth, my blame in this is not excluded.

Does that make better sense?

Edit: Work is busy today, my composition was slow - I'll ponder on your latest post El.

 

[Samson]

Is it really big government if its protecting innocent life? That's a question, that, at the very least, deserves asking.

I don't really think "Keeping morality out of government" is possible here, either you think that a fetus is an innocent life from conception, and thus will say it is immoral to allow it to be killed, or you will say that a fetus obtains personhood at some later date than conception and then, until that date, it is immoral to restrict a woman's choice to abort that life since it doesn't possess personhood.

There are other options to belief though, one that springs to mind is being agnosic as to when personhood is defined. Another is pre-conception.

But I don't really think "Leaving morals out of it" is possible here. "Live and let live" doesn't really apply to a debate of what living and letting live really is. To me, abortion itself is a contradiction of "Live and let live" becuase of the whole "Let live" part. You aren't letting the fetus live.

It seems to me the current situation (in most of the west at least) seems to be a reasonable attempt to leave morals out of it, and get the answer that results in the best outcome for most people. IE. not too many people disagreeing with it to the detriment of society (few if any illegal and damaging abortions, and fairly low levels of civil unrest). Does this not seem like a reasonable solution for a secular society to adopt considering there are such vast differences of opinion as to what the correct "moral" answer is?

 

[History_Buff]

The opposite of God = Satan/the Devil
The opposite of "bless" = curse

Or it could simply be referring to the idea that God's blessing is about as useful as the Easter Bunny's blessing - both being mythical.

Ooh, can we have a discussion about inverse, converse and contra-positives?!


Not actually of course. That would be dumb.

Forgive going meta on the conversation, but given how much disagreement there is on the internet and how rarely anything ever really gets shifted at all, I'm cautiously optimistic about this exchange(ra ra go CFC!). There's a couple core reasons people can disagree: either they disagree on or do not understand the underlying facts or science of an issue, or they can disagree regarding the decision about what do do with those facts and knowledge.

I'm optimistic, if only because I know Dommy doesn't really have a good grasp on the premises. I probably can't convince him he's wrong, due to the tribal wiring and all that, but I'm pretty sure that if I just keep him confronting his own nonsensical assumptions, he'll grow out of many of his more extreme views.

Does that make better sense?

Honestly, my eyes misted over in the middle of the block. tl;dr: tl;dr.

 

[Farm Boy]

Honestly, my eyes misted over in the middle of the block. tl;dr: tl;dr.

Noted.

 

[Borachio]

I'm optimistic, if only because I know Dommy doesn't really have a good grasp on the premises. I probably can't convince him he's wrong, due to the tribal wiring and all that, but I'm pretty sure that if I just keep him confronting his own nonsensical assumptions, he'll grow out of many of his more extreme views.

I think you have good cause to be optimistic. You seem to have an intelligent, rational individual to deal with. I am really very impressed, especially when I remember how I was (not that long ago!) at the same age. (Assuming he is that age - I can't be sure of anything on these internetery things.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Personally, I'd love it if you were convinced that women are real people in their own right, and that you could honestly understand why I have found your comments on this issue so incredibly offensive.

When did I ever deny this?

Being a person does not give you the right to destroy your own offspring.

Women's rights do not apply to the right to kill your children.

The reality is, you don't agree that that is what abortion is, and so you act like the fetus is "Your body" and so that you have every right to kill it, and that everyone who would deny you that "Right" is a misogynist. That's ridiculous.

 

[Zack]

Is it really big government if its protecting innocent life?

Your justification doesn't make any sense.

Is a pizza really unhealthy if it tastes good? Is it really rape if a sweet, innocent child is the result? Is it really a taco if it's made by a white guy?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Your justification doesn't make any sense.

Is a pizza really unhealthy if it tastes good? Is it really rape if a sweet, innocent child is the result? Is it really a taco if it's made by a white guy?

Well, define "Big".

I think protecting the innocent is the #1 reason there's supposed to BE a government. If they can't do that, they don't deserve to exist.

So even if I'm a social minarchist who would like the government reduced overall, I still want them to protect innocent life. That's fully consistent.

 

[galdre]

I love the abortion argument - both sides disagree on the subjective determination of what is a human, and neither are going to convince the other, but still we spend pages doing it

 

[Zack]

Well, define "Big".

Well, killing people who administer and/or undergo legal medical procedures is a pretty good example of the government stepping way over its bounds.

I think protecting the innocent is the #1 reason there's supposed to BE a government. If they can't do that, they don't deserve to exist.

So? What does that have to do with the size of government? Absolutely nothing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, killing people who administer and/or undergo legal medical procedures is a pretty good example of the government stepping way over its bounds.

Firstly, it wouldn't be legal if the death penalty were being applied to it.

Secondly, I said I do not any longer support using the death penalty for it in most cases (Late-term abortions being the exception since almost nobody supports the legality of those.)

Thirdly, calling it a "Medical Procedure" in any case where the woman's life is not at risk is laughable.

 

[Zack]

Firstly, it wouldn't be legal if the death penalty were being applied to it.

Which wouldn't be "big" government at all.

Secondly, I said I do not any longer support using the death penalty for it in most cases (Late-term abortions being the exception since almost nobody supports the legality of those.)

Life imprisonment is a tiny step down in severity.

Thirdly, calling it a "Medical Procedure" in any case where the woman's life is not at risk is laughable.

Sorry I don't call it a "murder procedure" like you do.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Which wouldn't be "big" government at all.

Glad to see we are in agreement.

Life imprisonment is a tiny step down in severity.

Well, we are talking about punishing murder. Or at least, that's what I'm talking about.

And its not a "Murder procedure." Its murder. "Procedure" implies a degree of acceptability on the thing.

 

[Zack]

Glad to see we are in agreement.

I think you're too used to taking things literally that weren't meant to be taken literally.

Well, we are talking about punishing murder. Or at least, that's what I'm talking about.

Nope. You're talking about punishing a medical procedure which has been legal for 40 years.

And its not a "Murder procedure." Its murder.

Stop doing this. That's the nicest way I can think of telling you to stop deliberately misusing terms in a propagandist attempt to try and evoke guilt and make yourself appear morally superior. Just stop it.

"Procedure" implies a degree of acceptability on the thing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think you're too used to taking things literally that weren't meant to be taken literally.

I did know what you meant, but seriously, you need to use smilies if you don't want to be taken literally

Nope. You're talking about punishing a medical procedure which has been legal for 40 years.

Who cares how long its been legal?

Stop doing this. That's the nicest way I can think of telling you to stop deliberately misusing terms in a propagandist attempt to try and evoke guilt and make yourself appear morally superior. Just stop it.

Would you criticize someone for using terms incorrectly if they called Stalin's purges, or Hitler's Holocaust "Murder"? If not, then stop dwelling on the terms and consider the meat of what I'm saying, which is that abortion is the destruction of innocent human life and if the government cannot protect innocent life it can't even accurately be described as worthwhile, let alone "Big."

 

[Zack]

Would you criticize someone for using terms incorrectly if they called Stalin's purges, or Hitler's Holocaust "Murder"?

Stop comparing the Holocaust to abortions. The Holocaust was genocide, and the leaders of it were found guilty of numerous war crimes. And just because the government killed a ton of people and no one was able to stop them does not mean it was legal.

Who cares how long its been legal?

It's legal and thus not murder.

if the government cannot protect innocent life it can't even accurately be described as worthwhile, let alone "Big."

First of all, stop incorrectly and arbitrarily capitalizing words.

Second, since when does the effectiveness of government determine its size?