Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Lagavulin

Abortion

Recommended Posts

gamemaster    245

I've always wondered, how is it that 3rd person "foeticide" is anything more that "aggravated assault" anyplace that allows abortion (assuming the foeticide is not late term)?

It would seem all you've done is taken away the woman's right to choose whether or not to retain the fetus. It should not be prosecuted as murder. Yet they call it "fetal homicide" implying that's it's possible to murder something without life.

One would think it'd be treated similar to, oh, cutting off someone's finger or limb against their will. It's just a mass of cells that's apart of your body; it possesses no life of it's own independent of the individual.

That's always mystified me; please explain what would seem to be a double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

The current rationale is that this is a very special mass of cells, one that you are very likely to care more about than many things, possibly even yourself - and if you don't care about it that much, then we wonder why you're carrying the bloody thing to term.

It's a general case of "you won't willingly be pregnant unless you care more about this specific mass of cells than about most other masses of cells that you can lose."

"Fetal homicide" is a terrible name for the case in any sort of legally consistent area that doesn't consider willful pregnancy termination an illegal thing. But this is name semantics. Treating the unwilling termination of one's pregnancy through the actions of another (be they deliberate or reckless) as a more serious offense does make sense, in that regard, as the attachment to that specific mass of cells becomes a gaping emotional weakpoint, one savagely attacked by the loss of that mass when said loss isn't wanted.

This is why you sue and maybe imprison a person who blasts a finger, and this is why you sue and definitely imprison a person who blasts baby.

So, the sentencing for it is valid; the name would be better put as "unwilling termination of pregnancy by means of reckless action, or action undertaken to end said pregnancy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L@rry    16
The current rationale is that this is a very special mass of cells, one that you are very likely to care more about than many things, possibly even yourself - and if you don't care about it that much, then we wonder why you're carrying the bloody thing to term.

It's a general case of "you won't willingly be pregnant unless you care more about this specific mass of cells than about most other masses of cells that you can lose."

"Fetal homicide" is a terrible name for the case in any sort of legally consistent area that doesn't consider willful pregnancy termination an illegal thing. But this is name semantics. Treating the unwilling termination of one's pregnancy through the actions of another (be they deliberate or reckless) as a more serious offense does make sense, in that regard, as the attachment to that specific mass of cells becomes a gaping emotional weakpoint, one savagely attacked by the loss of that mass when said loss isn't wanted.

This is why you sue and maybe imprison a person who blasts a finger, and this is why you sue and definitely imprison a person who blasts baby.

So, the sentencing for it is valid; the name would be better put as "unwilling termination of pregnancy by means of reckless action, or action undertaken to end said pregnancy."

Best post in this thread. The Pro life argument sells itself to me that conception is the beginning of life which is significant in the belief that humans whether in womb or not, have a soul and therefore feel. Basically if you kill an unborn child it is equal to killing a person.

In majority of cases the understanding of the subject is influenced by your religion. Absolutely nothing is wrong with that and if anyone attempts to criticize you for your religious belief may need need to retake American History and would learn that freedom of religion was one of many reasons we decided to split with those tea drinking fags across the ocean. Many people profess the same religion as you in the world, but for those who do not, don't make yourself look like an asshole because nothing is worse than showing how good you are at contradicting the principles of the religion you base your life around. Simply show respect and you will get it in return.

Before embarrasing and further damaging the repuation of your religion keep in mind that you have no scientific evidence to back your position. This doesn't mean that the pro life argument is invalid. There hasn't been any evidence that conflicts with the pro life argument, but nonetheless a person well rehearsed in the pro life argument such a church official or pastor would be a better choice to pick a bone with. There are a lot of flawed leaders in practically any religion, but there are some out there who can provide a very legitimate pro life argument.

I'm Christian and don't care if it gets outlawed or gets more spotlight. All I can say is that the church's image is pretty much damaged beyond repair. I don't even go to church.........

/end rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

Correction: wanting to impose our religion on others, but failing to because we were a heretic sect without strength in numbers when compared to the Church of England, were why some of my cracker ancestors decided to split from the tea-drinking fags

They then promptly did whatever the hell they pleased to my "red, yellow, and negro" ancestors (Re: DuBois the Hegel-style Sociologist)

It's painted as religious freedom, sure - but actually looking at conduct both while over there and here shows that it was really "the freedom to do what they were doing to us"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingFrost    0

The main problem "Pro-Life" have is the killing of an innocent unborn child before the child has any decisions the make of it own.

The main problem I have against this argument is that many times the new child is brought into a bad life, typically a poor single parent or a teen who cant properly support the child. While "Pro-Lifers" will say that a life is a life and we can not play god or it could lead to the extermination of others. Which is why abortion is used as a last resort. Having an emergency exit in a store does not mean it is used for everyday use but rather in the case of an emergency. The same logic applies here, in case a birth control fails, god forbid you get raped etc abortion is a final resort. Keeping a current "pro-choice" format in our society will give desperate people a last hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
The main problem "Pro-Life" have is the killing of an innocent unborn child before the child has any decisions the make of it own.

For Pro-Life, the ability to make decisions as a moral agent doesn't actually enter into it. The imperative is one of not offing an independent organism; nothing more.

The problem with this imperative truly stems from the assumption that the mass of cells destroyed is indeed an independent organism. Ultimately, mammalian life begins in a parasitic state; this does not resonate well with their preconceived notion that the cells are 1) a child already, 2) innocent. The child point is obvious - consult the OED to see if it's a kid or not, and if you disagree w/ the OED, you're WRONG.

True innocence in this matter is not simply absence of guilt; rather than exist as an either/or dichotomy, the world of guilt is simply one of causality. If you cause something, you are guilty of what you cause. It's a continuum of increasing or decreasing guilt, based upon how much stuff you are an actor in.

The parents are guilty of forming a zygote. The zygote is guilty of embedding itself inside the mother and becoming an embryo. The embryo (and the mother, should she choose to sustain it) is guilty of its development into a fetus. And so on. The cells' biological programming is not to be seen as this innocent little thing; just because it's on autopilot doesn't mean that it doesn't DO things, and that autopilot doesn't excuse the cells from their consequences.

Compare it to how a child is held responsible for its actions even if it is ignorant of consequences, or otherwise impaired in judgment. Just because I punched Billy in the eye to see if he'd explode into a bunch of rings like when I played Sonic the other day doesn't mean that I'm to be treated scot free. I am to be told I did something wrong. Kids at young ages are at times unable to distinguish reality from fiction; we are operatively insane until we hit the age of reason. But we are STILL held responsible for our actions and their consequences; that "insanity" we are in at the time just happens to be our "autopilot" at that time.

Children do not escape responsibility. Nor do zygotes. Nor do parents.

In essence, in cases where the parents tried and somehow failed to prevent the zygote from its current successes, then the perserverance in question here places all blame on the zygote - and thus an abortion is easily tolerated. This is because the parents took responsibility already; they did their part and made their best efforts. The zygote, however, cannot and will not take responsibility for its actions; thus the parents get to make the decision about whether the mass of cells may live or die. This also applies in personal geno-politico-socio-economic cases where an abortion is the ONLY way the parents can try to prevent the zygote's success.

In cases where the parents didn't try their best, then an abortion isn't tolerable, because the parents didn't take the level of responsibility called upon.

So, guess what? No one's "innocent", not even a zygote. A zygote, like a child, cannot and will not take responsibility for itself; thus it has no claim to have any demands listened to about getting what it wants. To get what you want, you are morally required to take responsibility for yourself, regardless of your status. When you do not take responsibility, others take responsibility instead; and when they take responsibility, they also take the right to choose fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gamemaster    245
The main problem "Pro-Life" have is the killing of an innocent unborn child before the child has any decisions the make of it own.

For Pro-Life, the ability to make decisions as a moral agent doesn't actually enter into it. The imperative is one of not offing an independent organism; nothing more.

The problem with this imperative truly stems from the assumption that the mass of cells destroyed is indeed an independent organism. Ultimately, mammalian life begins in a parasitic state; this does not resonate well with their preconceived notion that the cells are 1) a child already, 2) innocent. The child point is obvious - consult the OED to see if it's a kid or not, and if you disagree w/ the OED, you're WRONG.

True innocence in this matter is not simply absence of guilt; rather than exist as an either/or dichotomy, the world of guilt is simply one of causality. If you cause something, you are guilty of what you cause. It's a continuum of increasing or decreasing guilt, based upon how much stuff you are an actor in.

The parents are guilty of forming a zygote. The zygote is guilty of embedding itself inside the mother and becoming an embryo. The embryo (and the mother, should she choose to sustain it) is guilty of its development into a fetus. And so on. The cells' biological programming is not to be seen as this innocent little thing; just because it's on autopilot doesn't mean that it doesn't DO things, and that autopilot doesn't excuse the cells from their consequences.

Compare it to how a child is held responsible for its actions even if it is ignorant of consequences, or otherwise impaired in judgment. Just because I punched Billy in the eye to see if he'd explode into a bunch of rings like when I played Sonic the other day doesn't mean that I'm to be treated scot free. I am to be told I did something wrong. Kids at young ages are at times unable to distinguish reality from fiction; we are operatively insane until we hit the age of reason. But we are STILL held responsible for our actions and their consequences; that "insanity" we are in at the time just happens to be our "autopilot" at that time.

Children do not escape responsibility. Nor do zygotes. Nor do parents.

In essence, in cases where the parents tried and somehow failed to prevent the zygote from its current successes, then the perserverance in question here places all blame on the zygote - and thus an abortion is easily tolerated. This is because the parents took responsibility already; they did their part and made their best efforts. The zygote, however, cannot and will not take responsibility for its actions; thus the parents get to make the decision about whether the mass of cells may live or die. This also applies in personal geno-politico-socio-economic cases where an abortion is the ONLY way the parents can try to prevent the zygote's success.

In cases where the parents didn't try their best, then an abortion isn't tolerable, because the parents didn't take the level of responsibility called upon.

So, guess what? No one's "innocent", not even a zygote. A zygote, like a child, cannot and will not take responsibility for itself; thus it has no claim to have any demands listened to about getting what it wants. To get what you want, you are morally required to take responsibility for yourself, regardless of your status. When you do not take responsibility, others take responsibility instead; and when they take responsibility, they also take the right to choose fate.

I read this post earlier today (very good post obv), and while cleaning out my refrigerator (yeah) I had a thought.

Is it logically inconsistent to be against abortion while for capitol punishment?

I've always thought, "No, the criminal to be punished has done something deemed by society punishable by death. The fetus has not.", but I no longer think that's correct.

The basis of the argument against abortion is, I think, that human existence is worth something and should not be extinguished without proper cause. The fetus is (supposedly) guilty of no action worthy of "death", so should not be "killed." A murderer, etc., is guilty of something deplorable enough that the value of his existence is forfeit.

But how do we determine what action forfeits a right to exist, even if the only action for which the entity is guilty of is, simply existing? A society's determination of what is punishable by death seems to be determined by popular consensus anyway; if popular consensus says existing as an unwanted fetus is an action punishable by (for lack of a better word here) death, what's the difference really?

This is all the thrown out the window, of course, if religion comes into the equation [God(s) determines what is punishable by death]. Let's pretend for a moment it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

I think my post might make me a sociopath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol obama's basically gonna freeze out the right for the bill passage. my main issue is that it's far too easy to pass a bill and far too hard to remove one that's previously been made into law.

on the one hand you have a bunch of democrats who absolutely need to pass something, anything, or they risk looking like losers. then you have the republicans, who fully understand what's at stake politically, and are doing whatever they can to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

It's a good case of the right not realizing that they're not in the zeitgeist on this. They're trying to be, but the rational position to take looks more and more like a position of "no one knows the fucking answer, so it's up to you to decide what you're going to do with your business, ergo abortion should be legal, along w/ evil socialized medicine, et al.

Living here is tacit consent to work for everyone's benefit. There is no benefit for all in the MO of the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
The main problem "Pro-Life" have is the killing of an innocent unborn child before the child has any decisions the make of it own.

For Pro-Life, the ability to make decisions as a moral agent doesn't actually enter into it. The imperative is one of not offing an independent organism; nothing more.

The problem with this imperative truly stems from the assumption that the mass of cells destroyed is indeed an independent organism. Ultimately, mammalian life begins in a parasitic state; this does not resonate well with their preconceived notion that the cells are 1) a child already, 2) innocent. The child point is obvious - consult the OED to see if it's a kid or not, and if you disagree w/ the OED, you're WRONG.

True innocence in this matter is not simply absence of guilt; rather than exist as an either/or dichotomy, the world of guilt is simply one of causality. If you cause something, you are guilty of what you cause. It's a continuum of increasing or decreasing guilt, based upon how much stuff you are an actor in.

The parents are guilty of forming a zygote. The zygote is guilty of embedding itself inside the mother and becoming an embryo. The embryo (and the mother, should she choose to sustain it) is guilty of its development into a fetus. And so on. The cells' biological programming is not to be seen as this innocent little thing; just because it's on autopilot doesn't mean that it doesn't DO things, and that autopilot doesn't excuse the cells from their consequences.

Compare it to how a child is held responsible for its actions even if it is ignorant of consequences, or otherwise impaired in judgment. Just because I punched Billy in the eye to see if he'd explode into a bunch of rings like when I played Sonic the other day doesn't mean that I'm to be treated scot free. I am to be told I did something wrong. Kids at young ages are at times unable to distinguish reality from fiction; we are operatively insane until we hit the age of reason. But we are STILL held responsible for our actions and their consequences; that "insanity" we are in at the time just happens to be our "autopilot" at that time.

Children do not escape responsibility. Nor do zygotes. Nor do parents.

In essence, in cases where the parents tried and somehow failed to prevent the zygote from its current successes, then the perserverance in question here places all blame on the zygote - and thus an abortion is easily tolerated. This is because the parents took responsibility already; they did their part and made their best efforts. The zygote, however, cannot and will not take responsibility for its actions; thus the parents get to make the decision about whether the mass of cells may live or die. This also applies in personal geno-politico-socio-economic cases where an abortion is the ONLY way the parents can try to prevent the zygote's success.

In cases where the parents didn't try their best, then an abortion isn't tolerable, because the parents didn't take the level of responsibility called upon.

So, guess what? No one's "innocent", not even a zygote. A zygote, like a child, cannot and will not take responsibility for itself; thus it has no claim to have any demands listened to about getting what it wants. To get what you want, you are morally required to take responsibility for yourself, regardless of your status. When you do not take responsibility, others take responsibility instead; and when they take responsibility, they also take the right to choose fate.

I read this post earlier today (very good post obv), and while cleaning out my refrigerator (yeah) I had a thought.

Is it logically inconsistent to be against abortion while for capitol punishment?

I've always thought, "No, the criminal to be punished has done something deemed by society punishable by death. The fetus has not.", but I no longer think that's correct.

The basis of the argument against abortion is, I think, that human existence is worth something and should not be extinguished without proper cause. The fetus is (supposedly) guilty of no action worthy of "death", so should not be "killed." A murderer, etc., is guilty of something deplorable enough that the value of his existence is forfeit.

But how do we determine what action forfeits a right to exist, even if the only action for which the entity is guilty of is, simply existing? A society's determination of what is punishable by death seems to be determined by popular consensus anyway; if popular consensus says existing as an unwanted fetus is an action punishable by (for lack of a better word here) death, what's the difference really?

This is all the thrown out the window, of course, if religion comes into the equation [God(s) determines what is punishable by death]. Let's pretend for a moment it doesn't.

It's less about popular consensus to me, as popular consensus is prone to idiocy. Folks trust the info given to them by others without rigorously testing it sometimes; this, combined with folks' possibly lacking true intellectual faculty, leads to their adoption of weak conclusions.

Leave it to the smarties.

It's moreso about the weighing of alternatives, especially in light of how nothing but belief in early quickening exists as how the mass of cells may be "punished". Punishment is endemic to the living alone; the only people proven hurt by an abortion would be a fetus sufficiently developed to the point where we know it can actually feel (hello higher functions), and people who choose to be butthurt when their belief in early quickening (and attached demand that everyone believe the same or at least behave in concord with that belief) is ignored by others.

This is why "abortion's legal until a certain point in time" is the truly fine and proper legal strategy; you don't need to ascribe personhood to someone based upon their ability to survive outside the mother; you could just ascribe it to the capacity to suffer, as the human condition IS general suffering interspliced with other things.

So, the mother suffers carrying a mass of cells until it becomes a person, which we assign at a point where suffering becomes possible - in essence, the reception and cognition of pain as pain. Then the old mom v. kid dichotomy starts up, at which point you say "k, under what circumstances did all this shit occur? and how much suffering will be incumbent total if the kid lives, vs. its dying?"

(There is no logic in being biased toward either the mother or the kid. Both are citizens and thus equal in the eyes of true justice. That said, it is wholly possible that the kid may need to die for the best circumstances to be reached. It all depends upon what was available to the mom in terms of options, what pressures were in her life, et al. It's a seemingly arbitrary thing; in reality true justice looks to every variable and accounts for every variable, and true justice refuses to ignore considering any possible sentence for any entity involved, be they born or preborn. "Cruel and unusual", to justice, is nothing more than "illogical." Thus we don't care who takes the majority of the suffering.)

As suffering is the one criterion that cannot be denied or removed from thoughts about human existence, it is a sort of act utilitarianism of "reduce suffering as much as possible, then work to redistribute the suffering to everyone in equal proportion to their ultimate powers and faculties" that dictates what true justice would be. After all, suffering is merely the agent by which freedom in existence is corroded and reduced; if you are automatically suffering via a cause and effect you do not control, you are not truly free of the control of that cause and effect. Freedom, true freedom, is mastery, freedom of control, from that cause and effect.

The fetus, by existing, may impose more suffering on the world and its people than the destruction of the fetus would.

Intrinsic to pro-life is an assumption that something about the fetus renders it unable to impose this. This is unproven and thus cannot be honored by a logical analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice-eyes    31

Essentially, Pro-Life's argument is that everything has a 'right' to life. This is patently untrue. Why is it then murder to have an abortion when it is not murder to refuse sex or to not use contraception? In both circumstances, conceptual human life is being denied a potential existence, but few now argue that contraception is wrong and should be illegal - and I doubt anyone would suggest that it would be murder for all women not to be constantly producing children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

This is why the radical anti-contraception sex-only-to-produce-life-but-make-babies-all-the-time-forever people are worth our respect, while the less radical people aren't. The radicals are logically consistent in their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×