Ethics of Abortion

[chilled_fluorine]

That's because you keep refusing to answer that last part, and out of attempting to be patient, I keep repeating it.

 

So as we can see, you're absolutely not interested in any form of actual debate. You think that what you think is truth regardless of evidence or proper logical succession of claims, and no one can even suggesting to attempt to hint that you may be convinced otherwise. That, beyond being a pointless base for any debate, is also borderline trolling, which is against our rules.

 

And yes, I will keep repeat this fact until you change your way or get kicked out for refusing to follow the rules, so that no one can even suggest we didn't warn you.

 

So, until that happens, it seems there's no real reason to waste time here any longer.

 

 

 

 

You don't make the rules here, and moderators do not act alone.

Phi might have been the one who pushed the button and posted the note, but it was a staff decision which you don't get to argue, not even as a method to shift the argument again trying to hide the fact you have no clue what you're talking about, and don't quite care to check.

 

That ain't a-workin'.

 

~mooey

 

"...and no one can even suggesting to attempt to hint that you may be...""...I will keep repeat this fact..."

This, is exactly the kind of gibberish that is confusing me.So would you tell me what the question is? You just keep assuming I know what you're talking about. Well, I don't. I honestly would like to answer your question. Would you please stop accusing me of argument-shifting? Why should I feel obliged to tell everyone what I want to do with iron iodide? If I don't, is that really reason enough to lock the thread? It sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about because I have no idea what we are talking about. Maybe I could sound more informed if I knew what the topic was...

[randomc]

Most people would say that puppies are cute, not sentient. I don't find puppies to be sentient. Wish as you might, logic is not evidence. If you were raised in a society that used ground puppies as it's food source, you would find it highly logical, and morally correct. Logic and reason, or at least your ideas of logic and reason, seem to be very subject to cultural and personal bias. Why does intelligence make something above being eaten? That's not how nature works. Any natural species physically able to would gladly munch down a human baby or two, if it was hungry for meat.

 

The puppy-eating issue seems to fall largely in the context of purity or sanctity, which is probably the most from-the-gut moral faculty hence relative to indivduals and cultures (i don't eat veal BTW; not an ethical position, i just can't get it down). But i don't think moral relativism is particularly applicable in other moral contexts, such as harm or autonomy.

 

I suppose you could argue that insisting on grounding morality in reason and evidence is unessential, therefore relative. But then you've wandered out of moral relativism and into metaphysical relativism, and you run into the contradiction that if relativism then all postulates not true therefore relativism not true.

 

Anyway, i think morality is most usefully defined and debated whithin the framework of reason and evidence, and moral relativism has validity in some but only some contexts.

 

To the thread topic, the pro-life position falls in the context of sanctity, and arguments for autonomy don't supercede those of sanctity on this issue when it comes to my personal morality. When it comes to legality, i have it the other way around, any position based on sanctity is a highly relative gut response whereas autonomy can be objectively grounded and considered universal even with dissenters. The dissenters are just wrong.

[chilled_fluorine]

The puppy-eating issue seems to fall largely in the context of purity or sanctity, which is probably the most from-the-gut moral faculty hence relative to indivduals and cultures (i don't eat veal BTW; not an ethical position, i just can't get it down). But i don't think moral relativism is particularly applicable in other moral contexts, such as harm or autonomy.

 

I suppose you could argue that insisting on grounding morality in reason and evidence is unessential, therefore relative. But then you've wandered out of moral relativism and into metaphysical relativism, and you run into the contradiction that if relativism then all postulates not true therefore relativism not true.

 

Anyway, i think morality is most usefully defined and debated whithin the framework of reason and evidence, and moral relativism has validity in some but only some contexts.

 

To the thread topic, the pro-life position falls in the context of sanctity, and arguments for autonomy don't supercede those of sanctity on this issue when it comes to my personal morality. When it comes to legality, i have it the other way around, any position based on sanctity is a highly relative gut response whereas autonomy can be objectively grounded and considered universal even with dissenters. The dissenters are just wrong.

 

Seem, suppose, think, I have it... All these support that this is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is just that, and you don't need to ask me for approval. Likewise for myself. We share some ideas, others not. That's pretty much all there is to say. Can anyone here explain why it isn't okay to eat puppies? Without claiming they are sentient? Sentience is, once again, a matter of opinion in this case. No one can know for sure if puppies are sentient, except, of course, a sentient puppy.

[Phi for All]

I still find it unfair that there aren't any republicans here to back me up.

We have them, I'm not sure where they are. The right wing stance is usually a religious one. There really is no scientific basis that can guide a ban on abortion. It would be stupid, as stupid as Prohibition was. When you have something so necessary to society that so many people will do it whether it's legal or not, arguing against it is pointless. And unlike alcohol, abortion has some extremely compelling reasons why it should be allowed.

[mooeypoo]

Also,

 

 

Whether we like it or not, that's a fact. We might as well make sure it's done safely and is being regulated so not "every woman who wants it" can just "have it" and potentially die from it. A better argument, for instance, would be to try and get potential abortion patients to go through some screening process to make sure they're choosing abortion for ethical and responsible reason. We can discuss THAT. But saying that banning abortions will "Save lives" is factually untrue not just because you can't define a blastocyst as life scientifically, but because women die from home-made abortions regardless of what laws are put in place.

 

Reality. It is even when it sucks.

[chilled_fluorine]

We have them, I'm not sure where they are. The right wing stance is usually a religious one. There really is no scientific basis that can guide a ban on abortion. It would be stupid, as stupid as Prohibition was. When you have something so necessary to society that so many people will do it whether it's legal or not, arguing against it is pointless. And unlike alcohol, abortion has some extremely compelling reasons why it should be allowed.

 

I wonder where they are... Agreed, prohibition was stupid. My 98 year old great aunt told me all about prohibition. Her brother was a moonshiner, but then, who wasn't? I don't drink, so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it was still incredibly stupid.

[randomc]

Seem, suppose, think, I have it... All these support that this is a matter of opinion.

 

That's just the way i talk.

 

 

Can anyone here explain why it isn't okay to eat puppies? Without claiming they are sentient? Sentience is, once again, a matter of opinion in this case. No one can know for sure if puppies are sentient, except, of course, a sentient puppy.

 

Therefore the sanction against you i can justify is limited. As is sanction against women to terminate pregnancy. The autonomy of women to terminate pregnancy, on the other hand, can be well justified.

 

 

OK,OK, try this: assume moral relativism.

 

A principle moral 'faculty' (might not be such a good way to put it, but, onward) is that of fairness. So in any circumstance in which sanction is considered on a moral basis, that sanction must be justified in order to be fair sanction.

 

The quality of a justification is a philosophical issue and not a moral one, so moral relativism needn't apply in selecting our framework for justification, but fairness should dictate that we pick the framework best suited to arbitrating moral differences. Obviously reason is better than gut-reaction in this.

 

I suppose since moral relativism is assumed you could still simply say fairness isn't all that important to you, but you definitely do have that faculty so would be a dodge.

[swansont]

I preach because I am given so many opportunities to. If we had a factual conversation, which I am completely open to, then we couldn't get anywhere on a matter of opinion.

!

Moderator Note

No, you haven't. Preaching and soapboxing are against the rules. Learn to live with the disappointment.

 

You are free to state your opinions and then use facts to back up why you think those opinions are valid, up to the point where those opinions violate rule #1c (slurs and prejudice), and so while I'm here I have to point out that comments like " post subjects only men could possibly be interested in" and " don't talk like a girl" don't fall in the category of being prejudice/slur-free.

 

Please don't respond to this modnote in this thread. If you have questions or concerns, bring it up elsewhere

[Greg H.]

If you didn't "want" your colonoscopy, why did you have it done? Like it or not, you wanted a colonoscopy.

 

I can't really agree with this statement. If someone is having a colonoscopy, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was probably medically necessary, which does not make it a want (assuming they enjoying being alive). Having a breast augmentation done is a medical want. Having a procedure to determine if you have a life threatening illness is not.

 

That would be like saying having an appendectomy so you don't bleed to death internally is something you wanted to do.

[chilled_fluorine]

I can't really agree with this statement. If someone is having a colonoscopy, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was probably medically necessary, which does not make it a want (assuming they enjoying being alive). Having a breast augmentation done is a medical want. Having a procedure to determine if you have a life threatening illness is not.

 

That would be like saying having an appendectomy so you don't bleed to death internally is something you wanted to do.

 

I've already explained, people want to stay alive, and to stay alive, people will willingly do unpleasant things. Things you wouldn't want to do if you didn't receive the benefit of staying alive. We just have different ways of looking at things. This is not a response to a mod note, nor a message to the mod, but a comment. I'd like to point out the irony of how much prejudice I've seen here towards others and myself, or groups I am involved in, and with no mod comments.

 

That's just the way i talk.

 

 

 

 

Therefore the sanction against you i can justify is limited. As is sanction against women to terminate pregnancy. The autonomy of women to terminate pregnancy, on the other hand, can be well justified.

 

 

OK,OK, try this: assume moral relativism.

 

A principle moral 'faculty' (might not be such a good way to put it, but, onward) is that of fairness. So in any circumstance in which sanction is considered on a moral basis, that sanction must be justified in order to be fair sanction.

 

The quality of a justification is a philosophical issue and not a moral one, so moral relativism needn't apply in selecting our framework for justification, but fairness should dictate that we pick the framework best suited to arbitrating moral differences. Obviously reason is better than gut-reaction in this.

 

I suppose since moral relativism is assumed you could still simply say fairness isn't all that important to you, but you definitely do have that faculty so would be a dodge.

 

Okay...

"How do we know God exists?"

"The bible says so."

"Well, how do we know the Bible is true?"

"It's inspired by God, and anything inspired by Him must be righteous and true." (said hitlers supporters, btw)

Okay...

"Exactly how long is a meter?"

"The distance light travels travels en vacuo in 1/299792458 of a second." "Well, exactly how much time is a second?"

"The time it takes for light to travel en vacuo 299792458 meters."

Okay...Nothing can really be defined. Only in relation can anything have understandable meaning.

[randomc]

Okay...

"How do we know God exists?"

"The bible says so."

"Well, how do we know the Bible is true?"

"It's inspired by God, and anything inspired by Him must be righteous and true." (said hitlers supporters, btw)

Okay...

"Exactly how long is a meter?"

"The distance light travels travels en vacuo in 1/299792458 of a second." "Well, exactly how much time is a second?"

"The time it takes for light to travel en vacuo 299792458 meters."

Okay...Nothing can really be defined. Only in relation can anything have understandable meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're almost making a point, but i'm not religious so the frame your argument isn't all that interesting to me.

Edited October 6, 2012 by randomc

[mooeypoo]

Okay...

"How do we know God exists?"

"The bible says so."

"Well, how do we know the Bible is true?"

"It's inspired by God, and anything inspired by Him must be righteous and true." (said hitlers supporters, btw)

Okay...

Which is why that is not even remotely close to proving or claiming that God exists.

"Exactly how long is a meter?"

"The distance light travels travels en vacuo in 1/299792458 of a second." "Well, exactly how much time is a second?"

"The time it takes for light to travel en vacuo 299792458 meters."

Okay...Nothing can really be defined. Only in relation can anything have understandable meaning.

That is a strawman, since that's not QUITE how a meter was declared or how asecond was verified, but even if it wasn't, that's a good example of failed logic.

 

.... which is a great example for how your OWN arguments have so far failed the logic.

 

Now that we're on the same page, I think we will be waiting for your next more logical claim.

 

Also, my nice little visual claim (about women dying) was so far unanswered. It's a big point. Even if you abolish "pro life" you are not going to stop abortions, which clearly shows that women didn't just say to themselves "oh, yeepy, abortion is allowed and easy to get, I want me some!" and hence, clearly, women don't just "want" one. Sometimes, they need one, and clearly as history shows, they might do anything they can to get it.

 

If you're truly "pro life", should you not support clear and proper regulations, so women who need this treatment can get it safely?

 

 

 

~mooey

[chilled_fluorine]

Which is why that is not even remotely close to proving or claiming that God exists.

 

That is a strawman, since that's not QUITE how a meter was declared or how asecond was verified, but even if it wasn't, that's a good example of failed logic.

 

.... which is a great example for how your OWN arguments have so far failed the logic.

 

Now that we're on the same page, I think we will be waiting for your next more logical claim.

 

Also, my nice little visual claim (about women dying) was so far unanswered. It's a big point. Even if you abolish "pro life" you are not going to stop abortions, which clearly shows that women didn't just say to themselves "oh, yeepy, abortion is allowed and easy to get, I want me some!" and hence, clearly, women don't just "want" one. Sometimes, they need one, and clearly as history shows, they might do anything they can to get it.

 

If you're truly "pro life", should you not support clear and proper regulations, so women who need this treatment can get it safely?

 

 

 

~mooey

 

I really don't care how the meter was declared. The stick in my garage tells me more than good enough what it is. I didn't say that it was the definition of a meter, but the statements I made were true according to the definition. If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely. I'm still not quite sure what this big unanswered question is. A visual claim about women dying? That isn't lifting the fog...

[mooeypoo]

If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely.

 

Home-made abortions are deadly.

Women seek abortion when they require one (note, "REQUIRE", not "want") whether they are legal or not.

When abortions are legal, they are generally safer.

 

If you hold the stance that "If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely." as you quoted above, then I don't quite see how you could be against legalizing abortions.

 

If you still are against legalizing abortions, please explain how that holds with this logic.

 

~mooey

[John Cuthber]

I really don't care how the meter was declared.

It shows: specifically it explains why you don't understand it.

The real definitions of the second and the metre do not form a circular argument. (Obviously- they couldn't be, they wouldn't work)

The ones about God and the bible are a circular argument so they are not valid.

 

The point you made is simply not a valid point.

Would you like to try again?

Perhaps this time you should stick to things you understand.

[chilled_fluorine]

Home-made abortions are deadly.

Women seek abortion when they require one (note, "REQUIRE", not "want") whether they are legal or not.

When abortions are legal, they are generally safer.

 

If you hold the stance that "If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely." as you quoted above, then I don't quite see how you could be against legalizing abortions.

 

If you still are against legalizing abortions, please explain how that holds with this logic.

 

~mooey

 

Even Mitt Romney thinks that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest, or the possibility of serious physical harm to the mother or child. Abortions should definitely be legal in those cases, and maybe a few others. I've already explained why people "want" to do what is "required", and I now see there will be no swaying of anyone's opinion.

 

It shows: specifically it explains why you don't understand it.

The real definitions of the second and the metre do not form a circular argument. (Obviously- they couldn't be, they wouldn't work)

The ones about God and the bible are a circular argument so they are not valid.

 

The point you made is simply not a valid point.

Would you like to try again?

Perhaps this time you should stick to things you understand.

 

The point is, we don't really know anything for sure. We can only explain things with things we already know, and those things as well require explanation by things already known. How would you explain a meter? It will probably be based on units we can only define with other units. The one about god was purposely a circular argument, it was just a very simplified version of his explaining opinions with even MORE opinions. I understand, don't get me wrong, but I don't need to know anything more than the stick tells me. Perhaps you would like to try again.

[mooeypoo]

Even Mitt Romney thinks that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest, or the possibility of serious physical harm to the mother or child. Abortions should definitely be legal in those cases, and maybe a few others. I've already explained why people "want" to do what is "required", and I now see there will be no swaying of anyone's opinion.

 

Alright, that explains your position better, thank you.

 

Now another question: what do you think of the "Abortion Pill"? This can only be used up to 9-weeks in (about 60 days) in a period of time where the blastocyst is, scientifically speaking, not even remotely close to anything resembling a human.

 

Not only that, but the pill is blocking the hormone "Progesterone" - this prevents the lining of the uterus from forming to support a blastocyst, so the "potential life" has no time to become potential (let alone form into something we can call 'life'). In many ways, there's no difference between this pill and birth control, which does something very similar in process, the only difference being that the hormones are constantly present in the body and not just taken as a precautionary method after something might've gone wrong (say, a condom ripped).

 

What's your view on this?

 

Also, as a continued question - since this was a huge huge deal with the republican party not too long ago -- are you for removing Planned Parenthood from having a federal budget?

[chilled_fluorine]

Alright, that explains your position better, thank you.

 

Now another question: what do you think of the "Abortion Pill"? This can only be used up to 9-weeks in (about 60 days) in a period of time where the blastocyst is, scientifically speaking, not even remotely close to anything resembling a human.

 

Not only that, but the pill is blocking the hormone "Progesterone" - this prevents the lining of the uterus from forming to support a blastocyst, so the "potential life" has no time to become potential (let alone form into something we can call 'life'). In many ways, there's no difference between this pill and birth control, which does something very similar in process, the only difference being that the hormones are constantly present in the body and not just taken as a precautionary method after something might've gone wrong (say, a condom ripped).

 

What's your view on this?

 

Also, as a continued question - since this was a huge huge deal with the republican party not too long ago -- are you for removing Planned Parenthood from having a federal budget?

 

People should be proactive about "birth control". I find it much better to avoid the pregnancy than to end it. If people used proper contraception, but it failed, I guess I'm okay with it. If they didn't, well, I would very much prefer it wasn't used. Unless they have a valid reason. Planned parenthood is a great program, but I believe their method of prevention should be contraceptives. Abortion shouldn't be "planned", or even considered as a viable alternative, until it is deemed absolutely necessary. Btw, I believe something to have the "potential for life" when it would, if left to it's natural course, become a human life.

[ecoli]

People should be proactive about "birth control".

You don't get that by outlawing abortion. That point has been beaten to death.

 

I find it much better to avoid the pregnancy than to end it. If people used proper contraception, but it failed, I guess I'm okay with it. If they didn't, well, I would very much prefer it wasn't used. Unless they have a valid reason.

And what constitutes a valid reason. This is far too arbitrary.

 

Planned parenthood is a great program, but I believe their method of prevention should be contraceptives.

The vast majority of what PP does is distribute and educate on contraceptives and STI testing.

 

Abortion shouldn't be "planned", or even considered as a viable alternative, until it is deemed absolutely necessary. Btw, I believe something to have the "potential for life" when it would, if left to it's natural course, become a human life.

an aborted fetus has no potential for future life, whether aborting by natural causes or human caused.

[mooeypoo]

People should be proactive about "birth control". I find it much better to avoid the pregnancy than to end it. If people used proper contraception, but it failed, I guess I'm okay with it. If they didn't, well, I would very much prefer it wasn't used. Unless they have a valid reason. Planned parenthood is a great program, but I believe their method of prevention should be contraceptives. Abortion shouldn't be "planned", or even considered as a viable alternative, until it is deemed absolutely necessary. Btw, I believe something to have the "potential for life" when it would, if left to it's natural course, become a human life.

 

No one plans abortion, chilled_fluorine. We went over this.

 

 

And 'potential for life' would mean that whenever a man ejaculates, he commits genocide.

 

Actually, it's even worse than them women; see, women's bodies are designed to expel the egg if it has not fulfilled its intended potential every month. Men's bodies are not designd with this function -- whenever a man ejaculates outside a woman's womb, it is his choice, and he commits murder.

 

Are you against masturbation?

 

Oh, and check out page 2 in this document: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

 

Abortions are a really tiny tiny tteeeeeeenny tiny percent of what Planned Parentood is *actually* doing. Another point of dogmatic propaganda won for some anti-women's-rights party.

[zapatos]

And what constitutes a valid reason. This is far too arbitrary.

He has been conveniently hiding from that question the entire thread. This is the third time he's been asked to define what constitutes a valid reason.

[chilled_fluorine]

He has been conveniently hiding from that question the entire thread. This is the third time he's been asked to define what constitutes a valid reason.

 

And it seems like the fifth time I've answered it... Rape, incest, potential physical harm to the mother or child, maybe a few others.Sorry, I'm currently short for time, so I'll have to answer the other questions later.

Edited October 11, 2012 by chilled_fluorine

[zapatos]

And it seems like the fifth time I've answered it... Rape, incest, potential physical harm to the mother or child, maybe a few others.Sorry, I'm currently short for time, so I'll have to answer the other questions later.

Don't bother on my account. I've lost interest in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

[chilled_fluorine]

Don't bother on my account. I've lost interest in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

 

I was talking about the other people's questions, not yours. Now if you'll excuse me, the meat is almost done.

[Villain]

Some info:

 

http://www.guttmache...d_abortion.html

 

• Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.[6]

• Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.[6]

 

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]

 

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

• Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all nonhospital abortions, and about one-quarter of abortions before nine weeks' gestation, in 2008.[2]

 

• The risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.[11]

• In repeated studies since the early 1980s, leading experts have concluded that abortion does not pose a hazard to women's mental health.[13]

 

Whatever your opinion on abortion is, these statistics are quite shocking.

 

There doesn't seem to be much 'bad-luck' in abortions (indicated by only 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use), the statistics clearly show that abortion is primarily used as a primary form of birth control, most don't seem bothered in trying to have consistent 'safe sex'.