Abortion Survey...

[Severian]

Since making my earlier post on this topic I have changed my mind. I think I am now anti-abortion.

[iNow]

I think most of are "anti-abortion." However, should we interpret your post to mean that you are not for allowing this decision to be made by the parents of the as yet undeveloped collection of cells, and instead you are for legislating your personal morality onto the choices of those others?

[DrDNA]

I think most of are "anti-abortion." However, should we interpret your post to mean that you are not for allowing this decision to be made by the parents of the as yet undeveloped collection of cells, and instead you are for legislating your personal morality onto the choices of those others?

 

Objection your honor.

The defense is clearly leading the witness (and how).

[iNow]

What, by phrasing the issue clearly?

 

 

Overruled. Please continue, iNow.

[DrDNA]

Your honor, I think Mr iNow did a wonderful job of stating HIS position on the issue.

However, Mr iNow's position may in fact not relate to Mr Sever's actual position. It has no merit on Mr Sever's position other than to lead him to a preconceived conclusion.

You have no choice but to hold Mr iNow in contempt of your court, your honor.

[iNow]

However, Mr iNow's position may in fact not relate to Mr Sever's actual position. It has no merit on Mr Sever's position other than to lead him to a preconceived conclusion.

 

My question to Severian did not present him with a forced choice, nor was it leading. It framed the issue as I see it. He has the option of answering in the affirmative, the negative, or the "sort of," and also has the option of framing the issue himself and providing alternate context.

 

No contempt for the court, instead, my contempt is for others are trying to legislate their morality, a morality quite regularly rooted in their religious teachings.

[Severian]

However, should we interpret your post to mean that you are not for allowing this decision to be made by the parents of the as yet undeveloped collection of cells, and instead you are for legislating your personal morality onto the choices of those others?

 

Yes, that's right. I think people should be forced to adhere to my personal morality. I would possibly allow abortion in rape cases.

 

If fact there are really only two possibilities for consesual sex:

 

Either the parents took precautions, and are sensible, constructive members of society who just had bad luck (like a burst condom). If so, then I am sure such sensible people will be able to bring up a child, and they should accept the changes to their lifestyle without complaint. Indeed, such sensible people can lead perfectly happy constructive lives with a child without being overwhelmed ot having their life 'ruined'.

 

Or, the parents were idiots who had unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences. In that case, they are not competent to make the decision for themselves anyway and the state should make the decision for them.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, that's right. I think people should be forced to adhere to my personal morality. I would possibly allow abortion in rape cases.

 

If fact there are really only two possibilities for consesual sex:

 

Either the parents took precautions, and are sensible, constructive members of society who just had bad luck (like a burst condom). If so, then I am sure such sensible people will be able to bring up a child, and they should accept the changes to their lifestyle without complaint. Indeed, such sensible people can lead perfectly happy constructive lives with a child without being overwhelmed ot having their life 'ruined'.

 

Or, the parents were idiots who had unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences. In that case, they are not competent to make the decision for themselves anyway and the state should make the decision for them.

 

Actually, there's a third possibility. That the parents had unprotected sex after considering the consequences and then chose to ignore other's ideas of morality. Just like my refusal to sign up for Islam's ideas of ethics, I refuse to sign up for yours as well.

 

I choose to give greater moral value and consideration for a person's right to govern what goes on inside their bodies than I do the life that grows within them. And I make no moral or ethical judgements about sexuality to begin with. Your morality code appears to rely on passing judgement on sexuality in the first place, which is what creates the glow of "negativity" before we even get out of the gate. You rely on this negative to further a point about what they "deserve" or "don't deserve". That's intrusive, arrogant behavior of the self-annointed that we see from both sides of the political spectrum now.

 

I have a question for you. Would you violate another country's sovereignty to save a life? That's what you're advocating here. To violate the sovereignty, quite intimately bordering on rape, of an individual.

[Severian]

I have a question for you. Would you violate another country's sovereignty to save a life?

 

Of course I would. Wouldn't you?

 

I think that is not analagous at all though. I would be very suspicious of anyone who would claim that a fertilized egg is a 'life' (so your analogy would only be applicable after some arguable amount of time had passed).

[ParanoiA]

Of course I would. Wouldn't you?

 

No, I wouldn't, and don't. To do so is to place a higher moral obligation to that "life" than the moral obligation to the "lives" that form that country.

 

I think that is not analagous at all though. I would be very suspicious of anyone who would claim that a fertilized egg is a 'life' (so your analogy would only be applicable after some arguable amount of time had passed).

 

Not the best analogy, agreed (since you disagree when life begins). However, why does the older, prerequisite life form not trump the rights of whatever is inside them that you're trying to save?

 

I guess I'm unclear why you're against abortion if you don't believe it is "life" yet. And when it does become a life to you, THEN what has it done to earn MORE rights than the host it's feeding off of? Or are you seeing this a completely different way?

[Mr Skeptic]

Or, the parents were idiots who had unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences. In that case, they are not competent to make the decision for themselves anyway and the state should make the decision for them.

 

But always the same choice? I think that you and I would make a different decision here. If the parents are too incompetent to have safe sex, and too incompetent to decide whether they want a child or not, I wouldn't want the decision to be forced for them in the affirmative. Why condemn a child to a life with incompetent and perhaps resentful parents and the risk that they may have a poor education and higher crime rate?

 

My own view is that abortion is a bad thing, but preferable to an unwanted child. However, if there were good parents volunteering to adopt of an unborn child themselves, I would think that the abortion would be immoral.

[DrDNA]

My own view is that abortion is a bad thing, but preferable to an unwanted child. However, if there were good parents volunteering to adopt of an unborn child themselves, I would think that the abortion would be immoral.

 

There are many want to be parents standing in line to adopt babies.

[iNow]

There are many want to be parents standing in line to adopt babies.

 

And an even greater number of slightly older children in foster care who cannot get adopted... So?

[DrDNA]

My own view is that abortion is a bad thing, but preferable to an unwanted child. However, if there were good parents volunteering to adopt of an unborn child themselves, I would think that the abortion would be immoral.

 

There are many want to be parents standing in line to adopt babies.

 

And an even greater number of slightly older children in foster care who cannot get adopted... So?

 

 

Was the logical conclusion unclear?

What does older children in foster care have to do with abortion or parents waiting in line to adopt babies. PS: I wish this were not the case.

[iNow]

So, why the "so?" (was the logical conclusion unclear?) and what does your statement have to do with abortion or parents waiting in line to adopt babies.

Considering this thread is about abortion, and not about adoption, the question would be more relevant if you asked:

 

What does parents waiting in line to adopt babies have to do with legislating your morality in such a way as to remove choice from the one who conceived?

[DrDNA]

Considering this thread is about abortion, and not about adoption, the question would be more relevant if you asked:

 

What does parents waiting in line to adopt babies have to do with legislating your morality in such a way as to remove choice from the one who conceived?

 

Did you decide to ignore Mr Skeptic's statement completely?

 

EDIT: Your choice of words, in particular the word "choice", is a big part of the problem as some of us that are against abortion view it...it is much more complicated than simply "choice" and no "choice".

 

Choice is good....no choice or take away a person's choice is bad of course.

That is all nice, neatly packed, packaged and clearly black and white. Unfortunately, in life and dead, there is a whole lot of gray area.

[iNow]

Did you decide to ignore Mr Skeptic's statement completely?

 

Not at all. He clearly stated it was his own opinion, and he was simply placing a morality judgment on the act of abortion IF there were parents willing to adopt. I didn't find it relevant to my approach on the topic, as it doesn't address the issue of attempts to legislate said morality, so I didn't respond to it.

 

 

Choice is good....no choice or take away a person's choice is bad of course.

That is all nice, neatly packed, packaged and clearly black and white. Unfortunately, in life and dead, there is a whole lot of gray area.

 

I agree, but the legislation under discussion effectively removes that choice completely, so it's of the utmost importance here, and it effectively becomes completely "black and white."

 

Decisions such as this are a gray area, and it's not our place to decide for others what they should be allowed to do, nor is it the in purview of the state (the government) to restrict their choice via legislation because it conflicts with someone else's personal morality.

[DrDNA]

I find it interesting that the pro choice camp so eagerly clings on to choice (good) and take away my choice (bad), yet at the same time so easily dismisses life (very good) vs take away life (very very bad).

 

If the issue was about choice and only choice, you wouldn't get any argument from me.

However, my rights to choose start to decline when they begin to impede on another person's rights and that includes a person or even a potential person that lives inside somebody else.

[iNow]

Whatever. If this was about protecting the child, everyone would be calling for free health care for all pregnant women. They're not, and this isn't about protecting the child, it's about attempts to legislate your personal morality onto others.

[DrDNA]

Whatever. If this was about protecting the child, everyone would be calling for free health care for all pregnant women. They're not, and this isn't about protecting the child, it's about attempts to legislate your personal morality onto others.

 

Believe what you wish. I certainly don't claim to speak for "everyone", but my stance on abortion has nothing to do with my own personal morality and/or a desire to legislate it onto others. It is about protecting the most helpless and most innocent from warrantless harm.

 

That said, are you saying that societal codes should have nothing to do with morality?

[iNow]

It is about protecting the most helpless and most innocent from warrantless harm.

 

So why aren't you arguing for free healthcare for all pregnant women and children under 10?

[ydoaPs]

My first vaguely related blag entry is about abortion and ethics and such. I'm probably going to revise it when I didn't just get off work to make it less dreadfully boring and to explain myself more.

[Reaper]

So why aren't you arguing for free healthcare for all pregnant women and children under 10?

 

Because its an irrelevant appeal.

[DrDNA]

So why aren't you arguing for free healthcare for all pregnant women and children under 10?

 

The same reason that I'm not arguing for or against putting pregnant women that smoke, drink, or take other harmful substances uder guard to prevent them from doing so.....because this thread is about abortion.

[iNow]

Because its an irrelevant appeal.

 

Actually, it's not an appeal at all, and it's incredibly relevant. Let me explain why.

 

When asked, those who are for making abortion illegal say that it's not about forcing their own personal morality on to others, but instead they are looking after the welfare of the child.

 

If the childs welfare were truly their primary concern, then there would be a whole gambit of issues they supported, and abortion would not be the only issue discussed.

 

If they were sincere (or, perhaps, to be fair, if they weren't so self-deluded) in their statements, they'd be pushing hard on other issues as well... other issues that would have signifanct impact on the welfare of the child... in my example, free healthcare for the pregnant female and children under 10.

 

They are not. Those who wish to make it illegal for a woman to make this choice herself say NOTHING about providing her healthcare, and her children healthcare. They say NOTHING about other means of protection.

 

The reason I have made this point is because it shows how internally inconsistent their position is (when they argue that it's not about their morality, but that it's about protection and well-being).

 

This supports my contention that it's about legislating their personal morality, and not about a simple desire to protect the child.

 

 

 

The same reason that I'm not arguing for or against putting pregnant women that smoke, drink, or take other harmful substances uder guard to prevent them from doing so.....because this thread is about abortion.

 

Since when do you have the authority or the right to put her under guard for engaging in (yep, you guessed it) actions you just don't agree with? When did it become your decision? It's her pregnancy, not yours, and the point applies to abortion as well.