The Abortion Thread

[fatherphil]

perhaps you could help in organizations that offer adoption as a choice to abortion. this might make things easier on the home front and involve your daughters in a noble and positive effort.

[LadyShea]

perhaps you could help in organizations that offer adoption as a choice to abortion. this might make things easier on the home front and involve your daughters in a noble and positive effort.


Adoption is already an option. There are way more couples looking to adopt, and willing to pay all expenses, than there are women willing to give babies up for adoption. Agencies actively recruit and cater to birthmothers. There are more adoption options than there are abortion options.

Abortion foes always bring up adoption, but don't seem to know much about it-- and I have to wonder what you think is lacking to birthmothers in that area?

[fatherphil]

Abortion foes always bring up adoption, but don't seem to know much about it-- and I have to wonder what you think is lacking to birthmothers in that area?

moral incentive? why do you think a person would rather abort their child instead of letting it be adopted? btw, what is the opposite of an "abortion foe"?

[JoeP]

why do you think a person would rather abort their child instead of letting it be adopted?
Was this a rhetorical question? If you accept that some people view early-term embryos/foetuses as less human than live babies, you cannot deny that the emotional - and physical - trauma of bearing a baby to full term, going through labour, and seeing it is far greater than that of an early abortion.

[LadyShea]

moral incentive?

Morals are relative :shrug: Are you suggesting Beth start imposing her morals on others?

why do you think a person would rather abort their child instead of letting it be adopted?

There are as many reasons as there are people who find themselves with an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy. It's all very personal and individual.

btw, what is the opposite of an "abortion foe"?

There is no "opposite" necessarily. I support a woman's right to choose..whether that be adoption, abortion, or keeping the child.

I am trying to adopt right now, and know the situation with adoption, so it's not that I don't support it, quite the opposite. I just wondered why or how you saw adoption as in need of activist support.

[fatherphil]

adoption seems to not be as popular a choice as abortion.

there must be an absolute moral, right? or are we to be ruled by the sociopaths of our society?

is not one outcome of a pregnancy morally preferrable to another?

but this is to go where beth didn't want to in this thread. i offered an outlet for her efforts that may help pregnant women and provide peace in her household. why find fault in that?

direct me to the abortion thread (i'm sure one exists) and we can cover some of these questions there.

[LadyShea]

adoption seems to not be as popular a choice as abortion

Actually, keeping the child is more popular than either adoption or abortion.

there must be an absolute moral, right? or are we to be ruled by the sociopaths of our society?

I do not believe in absolute morals, I can demonstrate that morals are relative and subjective, nor do I see what any of it has to do with sociopathy. That has to be some kind of fallacy there.

I don't think we should derail this thread though. It's an interesting discussion though if you wish to open a thread in the appropriate forum.

is not one outcome of a pregnancy morally preferrable to another?

Not necessarily. The preferable part should come before the preganancy. The most preferable state of things would be if all preganancies were planned and wanted by people in stable financial situations and without severe mental issues.

But, half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. That's not a good start for the wanted and stable parts of my preferences.

but this is to go where beth didn't want to in this thread. i offered an outlet for her efforts that may help pregnant women and provide peace in her household. why find fault in that?

I didn't find fault, I questioned you on an aspect of your comments because I felt it was made from a state of ignorance with regard to the subject.

direct me to the abortion thread (i'm sure one exists) and we can cover some of these questions there.

You should probably start a new one. However, you have raised several avenues of discussion here. If you want to discuss morality (absolute or relative) that should be a separate thread.

[JoeP]

Oh good, a new thread in which this would not be a derail.

Why does God abort 15-17% of "pregnancies"? We call them miscarriages ... of morality? (I put pregnancies in quotes because I don't know what the studies I looked up covered. There must be far more than that as a percentage of all conceptions, let alone all acts of procreation. The studies obviously only cover known pregnancies and I suspect only the ones that go to medical/obstetric attention. Unless there are laws in some places on reporting all miscarriages?)

[Adora]

perhaps you could help in organizations that offer adoption as a choice to abortion.
So you can adopt a kid from your womb at 3 weeks, and not have to go through with the actual pregnancy now? SCORE!

there must be an absolute moral, right?
:rolleyes: Gimme a break...

[justaman]

Oh good, a new thread in which this would not be a derail.

Why does God abort 15-17% of "pregnancies"? We call them miscarriages ... of morality?
Actually it's much worse than this. God in fact aborts 65% of pregnancies when the zygote fails to attach itself to the placenta.

[Ari]

From what I have heard, adoption is a long and expensive process. There are cases where new mothers have sold their babies "under the table" to parents wanting to adopt, and I doubt those parents took the offer because the adoption process is easy and cheap.

You would think if the pro-life movement was serious about adoption being an option, we would see a larger effort to make adoption cheaper and easier.

When it comes to later term abortions, the procedure is done often because of health or medical concerns, and so adoption is less of a possibility at that point.

[albert cipriani]

God in fact aborts 65% of pregnancies

If God gets credit for aborting the majority of conceptions, does He also get credit for the minority of conceptions that actually get born? Likewise, should we give equal credit to abortionists and mothers, each in their own way acting contrary to each other? -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[justaman]

If God gets credit for aborting the majority of conceptions, does He also get credit for the minority of conceptions that actually get born? Likewise, should we give equal credit to abortionists and mothers, each in their own way acting contrary to each other? -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Well since I don't believe in him, no, I'm just being clever. What I'm saying is that one theory is that God exists, and therefore while he would be responsible for the successfully-born conceptions, he's also responsible for the majority which don't make it. This contradicts the premise that he's some kind of loving God.

The other theory is that it's a purely natural process with probability odds that deal with successfully-born conceptions. This introduces no contradictions and is therefore a much better theory.

[Adora]

And dude, if Numbers 5:11-31 isn't an abortion ritual, I don't know what is.

[flopstock]

and maybe there would be fewer abortions if the 'anti choice' moralists didn't still look at unmarried pregnant teens as inferior to themselves. Not quite good enough.

When I got pregnant at 41 and 'chose' to give it a shot, the first question everyone asked me was 'when are you getting married?' . When I responded with a laugh and said i wasn't(been there, done that ,thank you very much ,never again..lol) the response from the religious folks was 'oh, of course you are' . When they realised I was serious, they generally, with a few exceptions, quit asking how i was doing..

Now I'm old enough, I could give a rats ass what these hypocrites thought. But a young girl who just wants to be accepted, I can see where abortion would look attractive as an alternative to anyone knowing.

But that's just the opinion of someone who's been there..

[Ari]

There would also be fewer abortions if some of those same moralists would accept/allow sex education in schools instead of abstinence only programs (which have been shown ineffective).

[Sweetie]

Is the question abortion or how many abortions there should be? :chin:

What difference does the number make if the "thing" in question should or should not be an option at all?

Just asking, y'all tell me how the thread is supposed to go.

[Ari]

Well, abortion happened when abortion was banned, and it happens when it is legal, so unless you want to get theoretical I think we need to assume that it will always occur and thus always be an option (just not always a legal one).

[Sweetie]

Well, abortion happened when abortion was banned, and it happens when it is legal, so unless you want to get theoretical I think we need to assume that it will always occur and thus always be an option (just not always a legal one).

Is the question should it be an option at all and should women do it at all an option? Prescriptive not descriptive?

[Adora]

No, the question is: should it be illegal or not. Abortion will happen in some form, whether you judge it to be morally right or wrong or otherwise. How you (and society) deal with it occuring, to minimize the harm it can potentially cause people (eg- making it illegal and arresting doctors who perform abortions thus depriving women of trained abortion practitioners, thus threatening their lives and health) is the question. This is reality. Not some Christian utopia where you can say, "There should never be any abortions".

[fatherphil]

funny, who brought God into this? it wasn't me.

how can we speak of preferences in a moral vacuum? i suggested a program of encouraging women to choose to give up their babies for adoption over aborting them. what again is wrong with that? its like encouraging folks not to smoke.

[LadyShea]

funny, who brought God into this? it wasn't me.

how can we speak of preferences in a moral vacuum? i suggested a program of encouraging women to choose to give up their babies for adoption over aborting them. what again is wrong with that? its like encouraging folks not to smoke.


No, that's a false analogy. Smoking and abortion are unrelated in any way.

[fatherphil]

funny, who brought God into this? it wasn't me.

how can we speak of preferences in a moral vacuum? i suggested a program of encouraging women to choose to give up their babies for adoption over aborting them. what again is wrong with that? its like encouraging folks not to smoke.


No, that's a false analogy. Smoking and abortion are unrelated in any way.

they are both legal activities that a segment of the population feels is harmful. in that way they are related. you may be in support of efforts made to help people choose not to smoke but you would have a problem with efforts made to help people choose not to abort.

[viscousmemories]

Incidentally I split this thread off from this one (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3208) yesterday and forgot to make a note of that here. If the OP seems a little fractured that's why. Apologies to fatherphil and anyone who was confused.

[LadyShea]

they are both legal activities that a segment of the population feels is harmful. in that way they are related.

Medical science has demonstrated that smoking is more harmful than not smoking. The "feelings of a segment of the population" have nothing to do with it.

Abortion has not been demonstrated to be more harmful than pregnancy and childbirth. Opponents only have their personal feelings to go on.

Again, I say it's a false analogy.

you may be in support of efforts made to help people choose not to smoke but you would have a problem with efforts made to help people choose not to abort.

Smoking is demonstrably more harmful than not smoking.
Abortion is not demonstrably more harmful than pregnancy and childbirth.


Your argument fails.

[fatherphil]

abortion has been proven to be fatal to the fetus in almost 100% of the cases it has been performed.

btw, would you suggest making smoking illegal?

[slimshady2357]

perhaps you could help in organizations that offer adoption as a choice to abortion. this might make things easier on the home front and involve your daughters in a noble and positive effort.

I don't see how this really helps address the problem Beth was moved to help solve, i.e. the erosion of the possibility of getting a legal, safe abortion.

If there was no threat to a women's possibility of getting a legal, safe abortion in Beth's area, I can see your suggestion as quite a positive one. I agree, if the mother is metally/emotionally capable of carrying the baby to term and then giving it up, I'm for encouraging that. There are loads of people who are waiting to adopt.

However, Beth's concern seemed to be that the very possibility of getting a legal, safe abortion was being eroded in her area. She's trying to solve that problem, which is also a noble, positive cause.

Adam

[LadyShea]

abortion has been proven to be fatal to the fetus in almost 100% of the cases it has been performed.

Yes, but I don't consider fetus' persons with rights.

btw, would you suggest making smoking illegal?

Not at all. It's the person's choice whether to smoke or not.

[Farren]

A first trimester embryo is the size and cellular complexity of a shrimp.

It cannot possibly have sensations and mental activity that distinguish it as human in the sense that its physical equipment is only sufficient for it to experience the same kind of qualia as a shrimp, gecko or creature of similar complexity.

In fact, it can easily be argued that a gecko has a more cohesive qualia because its CNS is better developed. From an entirely secular and materialist point of view there is absolutely no reason to accord a first trimester human fetus more right to life than a gecko or a shrimp.

Quintessential Humaness. A Soul. And so on and so forth. The ONLY reasons for demanding more rights for a first trimester fetus are inherently religious. As such, the legal prohibition of abortion within at least the first trimester always represents the imposition of one person's religious belief on another.

There is no coherent secular argument against first trimester abortion. Any such prohibition is religious tyranny. Case closed.

[fatherphil]

that shrimp is still harmed by abortion.

and as to beth's situation, i think her kids would benifit more in a household of peace rather than one of contention. to call adoption noble is in no way to take away from the nobility of legalized abortion.

[Farren]

OK, to finesse my position somewhat, any opposition to abortion of a first trimester embryo that is not based on a religious concept of "specialness", must implicitly accord rights to an enormous number of other metazoans.

A position that treats the embryo as a special exception is a religious one, inherently founded on faith, and cannot reasonably be imposed on another human being unless one is comfortable with religious tyranny.

[LadyShea]

that shrimp is still harmed by abortion.

and as to beth's situation, i think her kids would benifit more in a household of peace rather than one of contention. to call adoption noble is in no way to take away from the nobility of legalized abortion.

I don't remember her saying much about peace versus contention. Are you referring to the fact that her family doesn't support choice?

Do you think all people should not be active in whatever arena if it might cause friction?

[Farren]

I should add that it took me 32-odd years to arrive at the position above. Even though I left Catholicism at around 17, the implicit assumptions about life I'd been programmed with were so strong it took 15 years more, a lot of impeccable reasoning and a tremendous amount of basic medical information to remove any shred of ambivelance.

But I feel the final conclusion is unavoidable for anyone not looking through a religious filter who is intellectually honest about it - and even religious individuals willing to reason it through must concede any objections they have are founded on their faith.

[fatherphil]

its a question of at what point do you attribute humanness to a being. one could argue that genetic distinction could be that point from an atheistict mindset. in other words i don't have to believe in God to make the assertion that once something is genetically distinct from the parents it should be considered as an individual. to base it on superficial "appearence" would seem less scientific if not purely subjective.

[LadyShea]

its a question of at what point do you attribute humanness to a being. one could argue that genetic distinction could be that point from an atheistict mindset. in other words i don't have to believe in God to make the assertion that once something is genetically distinct from the parents it should be considered as an individual. to base it on superficial "appearence" would seem less scientific if not purely subjective.


Appearance has nothing to do with it. I consider all fetus' human from the moment of conception. Just as all of our organs are human. Hell, cancer cells are genetically distinct from the host. Should tumors be considered individuals?

What I don't consider them is persons with legal rights. Persons must be born and have a neocortex, in my opinion.

[Farren]

its a question of at what point do you attribute humanness to a being. one could argue that genetic distinction could be that point from an atheistict mindset. in other words i don't have to believe in God to make the assertion that once something is genetically distinct from the parents it should be considered as an individual. to base it on superficial "appearence" would seem less scientific if not purely subjective.

What must be borne in mind is that our DNA is not a "homonculous" of the human it ultimately expresses. i.e. It does not have the same relationship to the expressed human as a blueprint has to a building. It doesn't describe what is ulimately expressed because of it.

In fact, it's simply a seed value for a continuous natural fractal algorithm. i.e. If the formula by which embryonic development took place were (for the sake of simple conceptualisation) a mathematical fractal formula:

z=z^2+c
(this is the formula appled iteratively to every point in the Mandelbrot Set (http://www.math.utah.edu/~alfeld/math/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.html))

Then your DNA is not the formula used. The formula used is always z=z^2+c. Your DNA is simply the seed value for c.

e.g.
c=1 is a rubarb
c=2 is a human
c=3 is a frog

I deliberately ordered the above from plant to complex animal to less complex one, because that's more or less how arbitrary DNA can be. Really simple creatures sometimes have substantially more DNA than more complex creatures.

IOW, it is not reasonable to see merely having human DNA as making something "Human" for moral consideration. The relationship is the same as a piece of string and a solution to the crystals that form around the string. Neither the solution nor the string makes the crystals, well, "Crystal". The crystalline structure of the crystals makes them "Crystal".

No, in making assumptions about the qualia of embryos and fetuses for the purpose of morals, it is the entire form of the thing, not the seed value, that's relevant. The position you stated only has appeal to someone who hasn't considered it in more depth.

[fatherphil]

What I don't consider them is persons with legal rights. Persons must be born and have a neocortex, in my opinion.

so scott peterson should never have faced a double homocide charge?

[fatherphil]

so farren, first trimester is fair game, what happens and when does it happen for you to consider a fetus "special"?

[Farren]

I'm not entirely sure, to be honest :)

I know there is a point where the fetus has a well-developed CNS, a large brain and a highly differentiated set of limbs and organs and it should certainly be considered in determining, for ethical purposes, the humanity of an unborn child. I know there's a point where babies start responding to external stimuli in the womb.

My concern, of course, is with the qualia, or experience of being, a thing. We can't know exactly what it is for any given thing, but we can know what it's not based on physical limits imposed by structure. For instance prior to a connected up CNS, its impossible for an embryo to have a singular consciousness that feels pain in any way we can conceive of.

But I can't honestly say I've come to a conclusion about when a baby becomes "human". Of course it happens gradually rather than suddenly but I mean the point at which the kind of ethical considerations we're discussing kicks in. The only thing I'm certain about is that the "human from conception" position is indefensible.

One thing I'd like to comment on, fatherphil, assuming you're RC (and this is also for Sweetie and Albert if they're reading this), is that in my understanding the current RC position on abortion is relatively recent. IIRC, Aquinas felt the soul entered the unborn child months after conception, as did many other RC scholars of the past.

Certainly if one's objection to abortion is based on the idea that one is killing the vessel of a soul, there are some logical consistency problems with assuming the moment of conception is when the soul enters the vessel. IIRC a fertilized egg can split into twins or even triplets two weeks after conception. Does the soul enter at conception, then split? Of course, even in answering that one would be making up a personal article of faith. The church doesn't have an official response and neither do ancient documents provide any definite statement on the issue.

The reason I bring this up is to demonstrate that there's even a definite grey zone for people who believe their faith is clear and uneqivocal on this issue. Its clear from the above that the church hasn't given it sufficient thought, if the position of the church is that the soul enters the egg automatically at conception. That being the case, I don't think there's an onus on Catholics to hew to the anti-abortion line, if abiding by dogma is their concern, especially if there are sensible reasons not to.

Of course, I could be suffering from misconceptions about some of this. Feel free to correct me if I am :)

[JoeP]

If God gets credit for aborting the majority of conceptions, does He also get credit for the minority of conceptions that actually get born? Likewise, should we give equal credit to abortionists and mothers, each in their own way acting contrary to each other? -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Well since I don't believe in him, no, I'm just being clever. What I'm saying is that one theory is that God exists, and therefore while he would be responsible for the successfully-born conceptions, he's also responsible for the majority which don't make it. This contradicts the premise that he's some kind of loving God.

The other theory is that it's a purely natural process with probability odds that deal with successfully-born conceptions. This introduces no contradictions and is therefore a much better theory.
Justy, that is a fine post, one of your best. You're maturing.

Albert -- still spiralling into pettiness, unfortunately.

[LadyShea]

What I don't consider them is persons with legal rights. Persons must be born and have a neocortex, in my opinion.

so scott peterson should never have faced a double homocide charge?

Not in my opinion, no. Though I feel pregnancy could be a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes, I do not think he should have been charged with two counts of murder.

[JoeP]

funny, who brought God into this? it wasn't me. I think it was me. Was it wrong to?

[JoeP]

A first trimester embryo is the size and cellular complexity of a shrimp.

It cannot possibly have sensations and mental activity that distinguish it as human in the sense that its physical equipment is only sufficient for it to experience the same kind of qualia as a shrimp, gecko or creature of similar complexity.

In fact, it can easily be argued that a gecko has a more cohesive qualia because its CNS is better developed. From an entirely secular and materialist point of view there is absolutely no reason to accord a first trimester human fetus more right to life than a gecko or a shrimp.

Quintessential Humaness. A Soul. And so on and so forth. The ONLY reasons for demanding more rights for a first trimester fetus are inherently religious. As such, the legal prohibition of abortion within at least the first trimester always represents the imposition of one person's religious belief on another.

There is no coherent secular argument against first trimester abortion. Any such prohibition is religious tyranny. Case closed.
Farren, this, one of your shorter posts, is surely missing something: isn't a major part of anti-abortion claim not what the foetus is at that time, but its potential? A gecko will never grow into something that can speak, vote and have other human rights. (And by the way, not long ago a female or black foetus would never grow into something that could vote and have full human rights. I associate those thankfully-dead beliefs with the anti-abortion crowd; it's the same conservative religious right crowd.)

There are as many unwanted corollaries from the idea of potential human life as there are from extending matching rights to geckos and shrimps. From this we get the absolute moral wrong of contraception; the absolute moral wrong of a wife to refuse her husband conjugal rights; the impossibility of rape within a marriage. All things which all right-thinking people must agree with.

I'm some rapist somewhere has tried to justify his act as "going forth and multiplying".

OK, to finesse my position somewhat, any opposition to abortion of a first trimester embryo that is not based on a religious concept of "specialness", must implicitly accord rights to an enormous number of other metazoans.

A position that treats the embryo as a special exception is a religious one, inherently founded on faith, and cannot reasonably be imposed on another human being unless one is comfortable with religious tyranny.
The idea of "potential" is at least a non-religious case.

[fatherphil]

funny, who brought God into this? it wasn't me. I think it was me. Was it wrong to?

i think its counter-productive, the wrongness can be covered under the morality thread;)

and no i'm not rc, just a dad.

[LadyShea]

and no i'm not rc, just a dad.

Are you a Christian though, even if not RC?

I did IVF, I saw 9 of my 3-day old zygotes under the microscope, I even have pictures of them. They are not babies, they are a cluster of 8 cells that still must implant themselves into the uterus before becoming a pregnancy. None of them did that. It is estimated that 50-70% of all conceptions never implant, and those women never miss a period or know anything about it. Then, even if they implant, close to 30% fail in the first trimester.

Another unknown percentage of pregnancies start as twins and one twin vanishes, absorbed by the other twin. In a particularly odd situation called fetus in fetu, the twin is actually trapped and continues growing inside the other, otherwise normal fetus, resulting in children with a parasitic, brainless, but alive and human twin inside their abdomen. Is that also a person? It's alive, it's growing, it has limbs and a head and eyes.

Becoming a person is a process, and things can and do go wrong every step of the way. There is nothing special or miraculous about pregnancy or a fetus, only what meaning we imbue them with.

[Farren]

Farren, this, one of your shorter posts, is surely missing something: isn't a major part of anti-abortion claim not what the foetus is at that time, but its potential? A gecko will never grow into something that can speak, vote and have other human rights. (And by the way, not long ago a female or black foetus would never grow into something that could vote and have full human rights. I associate those thankfully-dead beliefs with the anti-abortion crowd; it's the same conservative religious right crowd.)

There are as many unwanted corollaries from the idea of potential human life as there are from extending matching rights to geckos and shrimps. From this we get the absolute moral wrong of contraception; the absolute moral wrong of a wife to refuse her husband conjugal rights; the impossibility of rape within a marriage. All things which all right-thinking people must agree with.

I'm some rapist somewhere has tried to justify his act as "going forth and multiplying".

...
The idea of "potential" is at least a non-religious case.

Sure but its a completely arbitrary one, in the sense that "potential" is a concept conceived of in our intellects that doesn't have any actual life experience of the subject associated with it, other than us thinking about it. As such it has no evident or inherent superiority as an ethical consideration than "geographical location", "Weather at time of conception", "how many batman comics the father has".

We've just taken an entirely nonphysical, conceptual relationship that the embryo/fetus has with a concieved future state and called it important - with no real justification other than the fact that we've got a necessary fascination with children required to persist as a species. So our imaginations are particularly vivid in imagining how the smallest scrap of tissue can become this or that hero or villian because it is a part of our mythos, which springs from instinct. We fear the latter expression of life and desire the latter.

But that imagining, that hope that makes every little potential hero or saint seem to be covered with the glow of future glory... does not one bit change the experience of the tissue or organism in question, the embryo. The embryo has absolutely no relationship with the thing in our imagining that is the presumed future of it. It is only experiencing what it is immersed in to the extent it is capable of experiencing it.

So the relevence of potential to the embryo is zip. I'd say that pretty much renders it meaningless as a argument for defending the right to life on behalf of another organism. In every discussion I can recall where potential comes up in this context, its pretty much a priori inasmuch as people say yeah but it has potential as if it was some quality the embryo or fetus has when its not at all. And that presumption basically means the relevance of potential is seen as not worth exploring.

I dunno, I could be missing something. But potential seems like an illusory justification.

[fatherphil]

yeah lady, i'm a Christian. & you?

i'm hoping you can have success in adopting a child. along my original line of thinking, it would be great if we could successfully encourage folks to opt for adopting their unwanted children out instead of aborting them. perhaps if they could appreciate the value of a healthy child and appreciative adoptive parents over an aborted fetus it might make the 9 month physical trial and pain of seperation something worth going through.

[LadyShea]

yeah lady, i'm a Christian. & you?

Atheist, humanist, and feminist amongst other things.

i'm hoping you can have success in adopting a child.

Thanks, we plan to either adopt Internationally or from the State system

along my original line of thinking, it would be great if we could successfully encourage folks to opt for adopting their unwanted children out instead of aborting them.

I want you to really think about that a minute. How many abortions are done where the mother is a drug addict, minority, too poor to pay for prenatal care, unhealthy, etc?

There are hundreds of thousands of kids available for adoption from the state systems that have emotional, mental, and/or physical problems that nobody wants to adopt. How many more would the system be forced to care for if more women were encouraged to give birth rather than abort?

perhaps if they could appreciate the value of a healthy child and appreciative adoptive parents over an aborted fetus it might make the 9 month physical trial and pain of seperation something worth going through.

What if the child isn't healthy? If the 1 millionish terminated pregnancies last year had gone to term, approximately 35,500* would have some kind of birth defect. Another 100,000* or so would be born premature, which often leads to catastrophic health problems.

There are about 500,000 Americans looking to adopt right now, but they largely only want healthy white infants. What happens to the others? What about next year when all those looking to adopt have adopted? Can they keep up with the huge increase in births if nobody ever aborted?


*Based on March of Dimes figures for birth defect and premature birth rates

[fatherphil]

well if they are striving to have a healthy child i imagine they will take the steps necessary to insure that outcome. if you have convinced them that they are doing something noble for the sake of someone outside of themselves they would act accordingly.

[LadyShea]

well if they are striving to have a healthy child i imagine they will take the steps necessary to insure that outcome. if you have convinced them that they are doing something noble for the sake of someone outside of themselves they would act accordingly.

What if they can't afford it? Lack of adequate prenatal care and poor nutrition is the number 1 cause of premature births and infant deaths. So, who pays for the food and medical care for those women?

And there is no way to ensure a healthy infant. Genetic abnormalities, and pure accidents of nature happen frequently regardless of the mother's actions during pregnancy.

[Farren]

well if they are striving to have a healthy child i imagine they will take the steps necessary to insure that outcome. if you have convinced them that they are doing something noble for the sake of someone outside of themselves they would act accordingly.

Your faith in other human beings is admirable - and I think what you describe is part of the solution. But abortion is another part of the solution. There are still masses of starving people being born to starving people in the world that with all the goodwill you could muster there would still be children doomed to a wretched existence and doomed to visit that on another generation of children. Worse still the children place a burden on someone barely able to cope on her own. Its two-way damage.

It's in cogniscence of that, that a lot of us feel that many of the woes of the world could be more rapidly solved if we acknowledge the fundamental problem of the human population expanding without check and providing women, from whom new life issues, the power to control what new life issues according to the needs of their communities, the expected welfare of the child, their own emotional and physical needs (which are intimately bound up with the expected welfare of the child).

The termination of an embryo can't possibly be as bad as a life of abject misery. It seems to me if one looks at the reality we're in and wants to see the least harm and the most love and happiness in the world, this should be a fundamental right.

Its the love of children, of women and of a life that makes me pro-abortion and I think that's the case for most people who are.

[JoeP]

But potential seems like an illusory justification.I'm with you. Just filling a "potential" gap in the argument...

[viscousmemories]

Farren, as it happens I agree with just about everything you've said completely except I'm not sure about the potential thing. Human zygotes have a potential to become grown human beings that shrimps just don't have. Anyway I think that's a minor point, personally, but if you're interested here's a recent 23 page thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2648) on the subject, wherein Ronin expressed his pro-life (based on the human potential angle) views at some length. So it's apparently not only religious people who believe that potential human life deserves rights.

[SharonDee]

We're all potential corpses. Should we hop into our graves (or cremation chambers) now?

[Farren]

I'm pretty damn sure of the potential thing. A long time ago I remember a loooooong thread on IIDB where that became a serious sticking point and I thought about it and thought about it and went away with it and thought about it months later and so on and I realised the potential thing is nothing more than "I can vividly imagine x becoming y, therefore it has some bearing on x, even though x doesn't know, understand, feel, experience or give flying fuck about y".

Its completely arbitrary. Its not relevant to x. Its relevant to our emotionalism and vivid imaginations. Its like the concept of taboo. What's taboo? Something you can't do or speak about. Why? Its taboo. That's what I meant when I said its a priori.

Some things are justifiably a priori, like "kick me in the nuts, I feel pain". They really are universal and communicable. Others are illusions wrought by misapplication of or ambiguities in language when communicating to each other. Potential (as used here), like Taboo, falls into the latter category. Its not at all useful

[edit]
I can't re-iterate this enough - Potential is not a quality of the embryo, its an idea in our heads. There is no chain of reasoning terminated by a "QED because this idea exists in our heads the embryo has the following rights". The reasoning is simply "Because I conceive of it, it has bearing". How can this be differentiated from demanding the same status for every other brainfart we can conjure?

[viscousmemories]

Potential is not a quality of the embryo, its an idea in our heads.
But it's an idea with a rational basis, unlike the idea that every sperm is a potential human. Undisturbed and with proper nourishment an embryo will become a fully grown human. Anyway I found a summary of Ronin's argument in that long thread you apparently don't want to read. :P I can't emphasize enough that I disagree with his reasoning in this, but here it is anyway for the sake of argument.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69430#post69430

Identity - 1 a : sameness of essential or generic character in different instances.

a) a certain moral code should apply to humans
b) that moral code should only apply to humans
c) subjects that are conceived (human zygotes) and, therefore, have sameness of essential or generic character in different instances as every other human as established by the qualifying feature of their human DNA and the noted fact that they are animate cell-self-replicating humans deserve a moral code equivalent to all humans despite their appearance or developmental condition.
d) non-humans deserve a moral code (of whatever respective format) for humane treatment, yet not one that supercedes that of humans.

This is a consistent and non-contradictory standard that applies realistically to life, the universe and everything.

[Farren]

But it's an idea with a rational basis, unlike the idea that every sperm is a potential human. Undisturbed and with proper nourishment an embryo will become a fully grown human.


Think about this, Tom - you've simply expanded a sentence redundantly. The effective meaning above is "An embryo with the potential to become something has the potential to become something"


Anyway I found a summary of Ronin's argument in that long thread you apparently don't want to read. :P I can't emphasize enough that I disagree with his reasoning in this, but here it is anyway for the sake of argument.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69430#post69430

Identity - 1 a : sameness of essential or generic character in different instances.

a) a certain moral code should apply to humans
b) that moral code should only apply to humans
c) subjects that are conceived (human zygotes) and, therefore, have sameness of essential or generic character in different instances as every other human as established by the qualifying feature of their human DNA and the noted fact that they are animate cell-self-replicating humans deserve a moral code equivalent to all humans despite their appearance or developmental condition.
d) non-humans deserve a moral code (of whatever respective format) for humane treatment, yet not one that supercedes that of humans.

This is a consistent and non-contradictory standard that applies realistically to life, the universe and everything.

This is easy because I've responded to most of it already


a) a certain moral code should apply to humans
b) that moral code should only apply to humans
d) non-humans deserve a moral code (of whatever respective format) for humane treatment, yet not one that supercedes that of humans.


Wrong, wrong and wrong. A moral code is simpy a derivative prescription for a desired result, but the desired result is more important and other, better means can conceivably achieve it. What we seek is health, happiness, love and harmony all round. A moral code is one way of achieving this.

Taoism, f'rinstance, doesn't have a moral code. It has a set of considerations and a practice that focuses the mind on desired results, but allows the means to vary, which is in some ways hostile to a moral code. When a moral code actually prevents the accomplishment of net benefit for the entire system, its prescription is WRONG. And I don't believe its possible to formulate an absolute and inviolate code that doesn't fall into this trap.


c) subjects that are conceived (human zygotes) and, therefore, have sameness of essential or generic character in different instances as every other human as established by the qualifying feature of their human DNA and the noted fact that they are animate cell-self-replicating humans deserve a moral code equivalent to all humans despite their appearance or developmental condition.


As I said to fatherphil, your DNA is not a blueprint of you, its a seed value in a biological equation. DNA does not make us human. It triggers a series of events that, given other conditions being true, leads to other humans. The sole criteria for humanity is humanity, NOT the seed value in the equation that generates humanity. Saying DNA=Humanity is no different from saying "Chocolate sponge cake = 5 eggs, some flour, lots of chocolate and an oven". I pray I never have to eat 5 raw eggs, some flour, lots of chocolate and an oven

Fetuses are qualitatively and quantitatively different from octageneratians and teens and 30-year-olds and dead people. There's some value (for instance in the simplicity of the systems we devise) in lumping big ranges of age together ffor the purpose of social cohesion. But on lumping together distinctions that are not utilitarian are, IMHO arbitrary.

Sorry if I'm sounding arrogant, BTW. I'll admit I'm a wee bit drunk on Port and will probably read this and think I was a prick in phrasing or reasoning tommora :)

[viscousmemories]

Think about this, Tom - you've simply expanded a sentence redundantly. The effective meaning above is "An embryo with the potential to become something has the potential to become something"
See, to me this sounds like you're saying "Human potential is a fantasy. A human zygote is no more or less likely to become a fully grown human than this shoe."

Sorry if I'm sounding arrogant, BTW. I'll admit I'm a wee bit drunk on Port and will probably read this and think I was a prick in phrasing or reasoning tommora :)
As long as you didn't miss the fact that you're preachin' to the choir. :)

[Adora]

funny, who brought God into this? it wasn't me.
If you're arguing from an Absolute Moral standpoint, as you endorse in your other threads, what else are you going to argue from?

what again is wrong with that? its like encouraging folks not to smoke.
WTF! This is the worst analogy I've ever read.

Here's a new on fatherphil: Why don't you take it to its logical conclusion, and promote condoms. That's truly comparable to encouraging people "not to smoke". :rolleyes: I did not inhale, and all that XD.

[JoeP]

[God]
If you're arguing from an Absolute Moral standpoint, as you endorse in your other threads, what else are you going to argue from?
Exactly my thinking.
Why don't you take it to its logical conclusion, and promote condoms. That's truly comparable to encouraging people "not to smoke".
Quite so. My point in saying:There are as many unwanted corollaries from the idea of potential human life as there are from extending matching rights to geckos and shrimps. From this we get the absolute moral wrong of contraception; the absolute moral wrong of a wife to refuse her husband conjugal rights; the impossibility of rape within a marriage. All things which all right-thinking people must agree with.

[fatherphil]

wasn't tackling this issue on an absolute morality basis. willing to deal with it on our current sliding scale.

its all about selling an idea. if you want to promote something like adoption over abortion why find fault in that. if you rather abort a down syndrome child, or any child for that matter, cause you don't want to be troubled by them that is certainly your right. so justify it. just don't fault me for wanting to encourage other "equally" noble options.

[viscousmemories]

Potential is not a quality of the embryo, its an idea in our heads.
Okay let me put it this way: Since I don't believe in absolute morality, I say the notion that any organism has a right to live at all is nothing more than an idea in our heads. Does that automatically invalidate human rights? If not (and I don't think it it does), then why should the idea that human zygotes deserve equal rights be dismissed on that basis?

[fatherphil]

Okay let me put it this way: Since I don't believe in absolute morality, I say the notion that any organism has a right to live at all is nothing more than an idea in our heads.

that's consistent.

[Farren]

Potential is not a quality of the embryo, its an idea in our heads.
Okay let me put it this way: Since I don't believe in absolute morality, I say the notion that any organism has a right to live at all is nothing more than an idea in our heads. Does that automatically invalidate human rights? If not (and I don't think it it does), then why should the idea that human zygotes deserve equal rights be dismissed on that basis?

Fair enough, but my issue is not with ideas, which morals obviously are, in and of themselves, but with the degree to which ideas affect experience of life, and the quality of reasoning behind them.

If one does not regard "sacred" as in "life is sacred" as a good basis for values, which I presume you as an agnostic/athiest and relativist don't - and I certainly don't - then greater examination of the value and purpose of holding human life in high regard is required.

Obviously we have to concur on some a priori values in order to arrive at all others. I submit that the most widely agreed upon values are the pursuit of happiness and the limitation of suffering. Even those who deprive themselves of every pleasure for religious reasons do so because they pursue happiness in the afterlife and fear eternal suffering, too.

If I examine the "right to life" in light of these a priori values, there immediately appears to be a problem: If someone is killed without suffering, should it be immoral? How does it violate our core, universal values?

Of course further thought on the issue makes it obvious that even death without suffering being experienced by a individual doing the dying can result in many forms of suffering for others. There is the feeling of loss and anger of loved ones. In the broader sense there is an existential suffering, an ambient fear experienced by the whole of society when life is cheap. Simply the knowledge that someone may arbitrarily terminate my existence changes the quality of that existence substantially for me.

Since we want to minimise suffering, these issues clearly imply that our values should somehow protect life from arbitrary termination. So there is a strong case to be made for some kind of "right to life", by which people can be assured that within certain parameters, life will not be arbitrarily terminated by others. The ideas, or morals, that consequently inform behaviour, directly affect the quality of our experience of life, by minimising existential angst for ourselves and our loved ones.

But the termination of a fetus or embryo with inadequate means to experience existential angst, by the choice of the person who can most certainly be said to be the one closest to that organism, clearly fails to qualify as a relevant individual in the case being made above. It cannot experience the existential angst of a grown human being, and is thus unaffected by the general nature of rights in society. Unlike a grown human, an embryo cares not a jot if it is in a tyrannical society or a free, equal and democratic one.

Neither can the argument be made that its life should be respected to avoid the suffering of loved ones, when the loved ones themselves are, in fact making the decision.

Yes, all morals are just ideas, but some ideas have direct impact on our actual experience of life, which was the nub of my earlier argument, and some do not. The former are obviously in an entirely different category to the latter and should be treated as such in the contemplation of ethics.

Potential is arbitrary because it does not speak, this way or that, to the core values we commonly seek. Worse still, its elevation to being a useful and relevant measure means that it can lend respectability to ideas that in fact oppose the a priori values most humans have in common. i.e. in the name of "potential" we can (and do) arrive at value systems that increase suffering.

And yes, I'm aware that the above line of reasoning can be used to vindicate post-natal abortion, because I've discussed this at length before. But I'm running out of mental stamina and this post is getting too long anyway - I'm certainly willing to discuss that issue hereafter.

[viscousmemories]

Obviously we have to concur on some a priori values in order to arrive at all others. I submit that the most widely agreed upon values are the pursuit of happiness and the limitation of suffering. Even those who deprive themselves of every pleasure for religious reasons do so because they pursue happiness in the afterlife and fear eternal suffering, too.
I agree.

[...] even death without suffering being experienced by a individual doing the dying can result in many forms of suffering for others.
I also agree here, almost. I just don't see why it should be necessary that the person experience death for other people to suffer as a result of it. For example, some of my nieces and nephews expressed a terrible sense of loss (as did many of my family members) as a result of my sister having a miscarriage, because they were considerably emotionally invested in having a new sibling/cousin/grandchild, etc. I don't think it matters one iota to any of them that this fetus didn't experience its death.

[...]There is the feeling of loss and anger of loved ones. In the broader sense there is an existential suffering, an ambient fear experienced by the whole of society when life is cheap. Simply the knowledge that someone may arbitrarily terminate my existence changes the quality of that existence substantially for me.
I agree, and said as much to justaman in the Infanticide thread. He appeared to think it was absurd to even consider the impact abortion has on anyone but the mother and father, as in his opinion they are the only people who could possibly have any significant emotional investment in the matter.

But the termination of a fetus or embryo with inadequate means to experience existential angst, by the choice of the person who can most certainly be said to be the one closest to that organism, clearly fails to qualify as a relevant individual in the case being made above.
So now I have a problem accepting this, since as I've explained above I'm not sure why its important that the fetus experience death and I believe that because of the nature of social interaction, every day the fetus lives the impact its death will have on others broadens.

And yes, I'm aware that the above line of reasoning can be used to vindicate post-natal abortion, because I've discussed this at length before.
And this is one of the main reasons I prefer my rationale at this juncture. I can rationalize abortion prior to the third-trimester because up to that point the likelihood of any significant number of other people (outside the parents) having any degree of investment (directly or indirectly) in preserving its life is slim to none. At the same time I can oppose infanticide without contradicting myself.

[Adora]

cause you don't want to be troubled by them
You're missing the point, and resorting to the pathetic self-serving lies you call "ideas" (ha, weren't we talking about this in the other thread) that all anti-abortionists use about "abortions of convenience". Women have abortions for many different reasons, not because they will be "troubled" by a child once it is born. If you can't understand the complexity of the situation women are in when they make this decision, don't even begin to think you have any right to judge them, and what is "noble" and what is not, you condescending arsehole.

[Farren]

Way to sway someone's opinion, Adora. Are you capable of debating anything without resorting to ad homs? Sometimes you make me embarrased to be in the same camp as you on particular issues.

[Farren]

I also agree here, almost. I just don't see why it should be necessary that the person experience death for other people to suffer as a result of it. For example, some of my nieces and nephews expressed a terrible sense of loss (as did many of my family members) as a result of my sister having a miscarriage, because they were considerably emotionally invested in having a new sibling/cousin/grandchild, etc. I don't think it matters one iota to any of them that this fetus didn't experience its death.
...
I agree, and said as much to justaman in the Infanticide thread. He appeared to think it was absurd to even consider the impact abortion has on anyone but the mother and father, as in his opinion they are the only people who could possibly have any significant emotional investment in the matter.
...
So now I have a problem accepting this, since as I've explained above I'm not sure why its important that the fetus experience death and I believe that because of the nature of social interaction, every day the fetus lives the impact its death will have on others broadens.


I still think a clear distinction can be made between the kind of suffering I was talking about and the kind of suffering you describe above. The distinction I've been trying to make is between

1. Feelings that occur instinctively in all or 99% of humans, regardless of culture or beliefs. Evidently, these will not change or go away regardless of culture and should be recognised in our moral reasoning.

and...

2. Feelings that are triggered by learned or constructed beliefs which themselves are either spun out of whole cloth or the result of faulty reasoning.

The latter category is easy to distinguish when one picks deliberately absurd examples, e.g.

I believe my turds are sacred. Any attempt to dispose of them causes me existential angst.

But when they're deeply entrenched in our culture and bolstered by arbitrary labels that describe, in essence, nothing inherent in our natures, but are accorded the status of labels that do describe natural phenomena, they take on the illusory quality of being non-arbitrary.

Yet they are still arbitrary, inasmuch as a change in culture and learned values would erase the feelings in question. These latter feelings are obviously not the same as natural, inherent, culturally invariant feelings.

The pain experienced by friends and relatives due to the loss of potential life are clearly arbitrary and culturally dependant feelings in the sense described above. Its not reflex or instinct, nor is it informed by said, except through completely arbitrary association.

Were my sister to have an abortion, I would feel no reflexive pain for the loss of her potential child. Were someone I knew and loved to die, I would. The pain would not be the result of any set of beliefs, it would be a reflex borne of my animal instincts. That pain that you cite is entirely the result of some people's beliefs and prejudices that are consciously constructed around a certain set of premises, not their innate humanity.

To more clearly illustrate this, I ask you to look at other, similar, social species. There's no apparent reason to believe a wolf or a dolphin or an ape or an elephant would mourn the loss of potential life they never knew. But there's ample recorded evidence that they do mourn the loss of indivuals they knew.

So the pain you describe is, IMHO, entirely the result of a particular culture or set of beliefs. To reason from that pain is therefore circular moral reasoning, because its possible to be free of the beliefs that inform that suffering, and therefore its possible to be free of the suffering used to vindicate the beliefs.

To reason from the pain of losing someone you know and love, however, is not circular or arbitrary. Its reasoning from something which is unavoidably, naturally, a priori. The belief stems from an unalterable reality of human nature.

This line of reasoning also provides a clear argument against post-natal termination of life. When a baby is born all sorts of instincts do kick in that are defensibly "natural" among friends and family. As nurturing and social animals, we establish bonds with babies, however helpless and unformed they may be, that are unavoidable and informed not by belief or culture, but by instinct. So the pain experienced because of the loss of a born child is a valid component of moral reasoning.

[Beth]

you condescending arsehole.
I've Known Phil for many years. This, he is not.

[fatherphil]

Way to sway someone's opinion, Adora. Are you capable of debating anything without resorting to ad homs? Sometimes you make me embarrased to be in the same camp as you on particular issues.

take heart farren, you aren't the only one embarrassed by fellow campers;)


adora, sometimes the most complicated scenarios boil down to a simple reason. is it wrong to encourage someone to make a better choice?

[viscousmemories]

So the pain you describe is, IMHO, entirely the result of a particular culture or set of beliefs. To reason from that pain is therefore circular moral reasoning, because its possible to be free of the beliefs that inform that suffering, and therefore its possible to be free of the suffering used to vindicate the beliefs.
You had me at "Every turd is sacred".

[viscousmemories]

adora, sometimes the most complicated scenarios boil down to a simple reason.
That's probably true, but it's equally true that sometimes scenarios are inherently more complex than people are willing to acknowledge. In my opinion your off-hand comment that all abortions boil down to a woman simply not wanting to be 'troubled' by having a baby dismisses the practical and ethical complexity of the issue in favor of insinuating that women who have abortions are shallow and selfish. I have no reason to believe that "simple reason" is at all accurate.

is it wrong to encourage someone to make a better choice?
Not as long as you realize that 'better' is relative.

[Beth]

adora, sometimes the most complicated scenarios boil down to a simple reason.
That's probably true, but it's equally true that sometimes scenarios are inherently more complex than people are willing to acknowledge. In my opinion your off-hand comment that all abortions boil down to a woman simply not wanting to be 'troubled' by having a baby dismisses the practical and ethical complexity of the issue in favor of insinuating that women who have abortions are shallow and selfish. I have no reason to believe that "simple reason" is at all accurate.

is it wrong to encourage someone to make a better choice?
Not as long as you realize that 'better' is relative.I'm gonna have to agree with Tom here. "Better" does not always mean carrying a child to term. Anyway, he so articulately stated my thoughts on the post that I have nothing else that I can think to add.

[JoeP]

So we can terminate this thread?

[Farren]

Smartass

[fatherphil]

your off-hand comment that all abortions boil down to a woman simply not wanting to be 'troubled'

show me that quote. if better was not subjective, folks would not need to be convinced. you think its better to have legal abortion, that's ok if you acknowledge that your 'better' is relative.

[Beth]

show me that quote. if better was not subjective, folks would not need to be convinced. you think its better to have legal abortion, that's ok if you acknowledge that your 'better' is relative.I think this (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81497&postcount=61) was the quote:"its all about selling an idea. if you want to promote something like adoption over abortion why find fault in that. if you rather abort a down syndrome child, or any child for that matter, cause you don't want to be troubled by them that is certainly your right. so justify it. just don't fault me for wanting to encourage other "equally" noble options."

Sometimes it isn't as easy as someone not wanting to be troubled. Sometimes there are very complex situations that lead to the decision to abort. But you did not say "all abortions" but that was a general impression that one could derive from it.

[viscousmemories]

show me that quote.
You're right, I misquoted you. I'm sorry. I was referring to this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=81497#post81497), where you said:

if you rather abort a down syndrome child, or any child for that matter, cause you don't want to be troubled by them that is certainly your right. so justify it. just don't fault me for wanting to encourage other "equally" noble options.
So granted you didn't say that the only reason a woman might get an abortion is because babies are too much trouble, it's just the only reason you happened to mention. And it's unclear who you were responding to since you didn't quote anybody and no one before you had mentioned aborting children with Downs Syndrome for any reason, much less because they're too much trouble. Given that and assuming you didn't mean to make an unfair generalization, who exactly were you talking to when you requested that someone justify aborting babies with Downs Syndrome because they're too much trouble?

if better was not subjective, folks would not need to be convinced. you think its better to have legal abortion, that's ok if you acknowledge that your 'better' is relative.
Of course. I don't pretend to be able to determine good and bad for everyone, and 'better' is always subjective.

ETA: Oops, Beth was a little quicker on the draw than me...

[Adora]

Way to sway someone's opinion, Adora.
You're assuming that I'm trying to sway his opinion. HA!

adora, sometimes the most complicated scenarios boil down to a simple reason.
"Abortion" is not a scenario. A "scenario" is, "A woman who is an important member in politics and a strong human-and-women's-rights advocate falls pregnant unexpectadly. She does not wish to have to interrupt her career which could potentially help refugees who are being held in mandatory detention and suffering serious mental problems because of it, by having to carry the child to term and therefore leave politics for that period of time. What does she do?"

That is a scenario.

if better was not subjective, folks would not need to be convinced.
But you're not arguing "better" from a single subjective point of view. You're arguing from an absolute moral-system standpoint, by using such phrases as "noble" to judge actions. Make up your mind, or stop putting on the act.

[fatherphil]

no problem tom, it was directed at the person in adora's scenario.

and adora, i think there can be nobility in a world without absolute morality. you don't?

[Adora]

and adora, i think there can be nobility in a world without absolute morality. you don't?
First of all, yes, you are right. But since I think "nobility" is an outdated and barbaric concept, that has never truly existed anywhere since no absolute system of morality has truly existed either, and should therefore be dumped from the social consciousness of the human race, I don't see your point, and fail to see the point of this post, since you've been insisting you're arguing from a subjective, non-moral-system standpoint until I called you on it. So which is it?

[beyelzu]

So the pain you describe is, IMHO, entirely the result of a particular culture or set of beliefs. To reason from that pain is therefore circular moral reasoning, because its possible to be free of the beliefs that inform that suffering, and therefore its possible to be free of the suffering used to vindicate the beliefs.
You had me at "Every turd is sacred".
:tmgrin:

[beyelzu]

and adora, i think there can be nobility in a world without absolute morality. you don't?
First of all, yes, you are right. But since I think "nobility" is an outdated and barbaric concept, that has never truly existed anywhere since no absolute system of morality has truly existed either, and should therefore be dumped from the social consciousness of the human race, I don't see your point, and fail to see the point of this post, since you've been insisting you're arguing from a subjective, non-moral-system standpoint until I called you on it. So which is it?
outdated and barbaric?

whatfuckingever.


nobility has a modern usage and bitching about it's origins borders on retarded, in a similar vein I hate anyone who uses the word villain as it maligns french farmers.


"whether tis nobler in spirit to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous adora, or to take arms against a sea of bullshit and by opposing end it"
shakespear '05

[fatherphil]

lets argue from an amoral world view on the subject. can the word "better" be used for anything?

[LadyShea]

can the word "better" be used for anything?

Sure, subjectively. What's "better" for me, in a given situation, may not be "better" for you in the same or similar situation.

[fatherphil]

so current abortion laws might not be better than the use to be and the 50's might have been better than today.

[LadyShea]

so current abortion laws might not be better than the use to be and the 50's might have been better than today.

Better to someone? Sure.

But the above examples are entirely too vague for me to answer.

[viscousmemories]

no problem tom, it was directed at the person in adora's scenario.
I just read all of Adora's posts again and I still couldn't find a reference to aborting Down's Syndrome babies for any reason, much less because they're too much trouble.

lets argue from an amoral world view on the subject. can the word "better" be used for anything?
Why? What's the point in arguing from a worldview nobody here claims to have? Are you just looking to argue for the sake of arguing?

[fatherphil]

the person in adora's scenario would be troubled by having to bring to term a baby much less care for them after birth.

as for discussing this or any subject where there can not be consensus on what is better or worse seems fruitless. is it better to be born or not to be born and who makes such a determination based on what.

perhaps everything can be justified by the preface "it pleases me to..."

[viscousmemories]

the person in adora's scenario would be troubled by having to bring to term a baby much less care for them after birth.
Okay, I'm done trying to guess what "scenario" you're referring to.

as for discussing this or any subject where there can not be consensus on what is better or worse seems fruitless.
I agree, this does seem like a fruitless discussion.

[LadyShea]

the person in adora's scenario would be troubled by having to bring to term a baby much less care for them after birth.

Can you quote the post or give us the post number? I didn't see such a scenario described.

as for discussing this or any subject where there can not be consensus on what is better or worse seems fruitless.

Sure it is fruitless, there cannot be a consensus on what is "better", there cannot be a consensus on any such a subjective and relative concept.

is it better to be born or not to be born and who makes such a determination based on what.

Again, there cannot be an answer to this question. Those of us who have been born have nothing to compare not being born with to call it "better". Those not born have never had a consciousness with which to compare anything.

Your question is the same as asking "Is it better to be dead or alive?" The two can't be compared, because if we are alive we don't know what dead is like to determine which state is "better".

My personal opinion is that there is no "like" in death, we simply cease existing, and won't be around to compare anyway.


perhaps everything can be justified by the preface "it pleases me to..."

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

I am getting very confused as to the points you are trying to make. Can you maybe lay out your argument in a single, concise post rather than ask so many questions that appear pointless? I would like to have an actual discussion, but that's difficult when your point has been obfuscated.

[fatherphil]

A "scenario" is, "A woman who is an important member in politics and a strong human-and-women's-rights advocate falls pregnant unexpectadly. She does not wish to have to interrupt her career which could potentially help refugees who are being held in mandatory detention and suffering serious mental problems because of it, by having to carry the child to term and therefore leave politics for that period of time. What does she do?"



being pregnant is too much trouble for this woman, right?

as for what is better, noble, moral or whatever the term, i guess that should be discussed on the absolute morality thread.

if it pleases me means i will determine what is right by how it pleases me. if it pleases me to terminate my pregnancy i shall do it.

look tom, we can not even decide here if it is better to be alive or dead. and lady, compare what you know about being born, having been born, to the time before you were born for that was when you were "not born"

[LadyShea]

being pregnant is too much trouble for this woman, right?

Again with your quibbling. It's not that it's too much trouble, it's a matter of priorities, choices, timing and a whole host of other things. You are trying to oversimplify the issue.

as for what is better, noble, moral or whatever the term, i guess that should be discussed on the absolute morality thread.

The abortion debate definitely includes morality, but you need to lay out your argument more clearly. WHY do you think it is "better", "more moral", or "more noble" to give birth than to abort?

if it pleases me means i will determine what is right by how it pleases me. if it pleases me to terminate my pregnancy i shall do it.

Bad, bad form. Strawman I am thinking. You are very difficult to have a discussion with, are you aware of that? I have rarely been so frustrated.

Every woman who finds herself with an unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancy faces a hard decision, and I have never met a woman in this scenario who based her decision on what "pleases" her.

How you can reduce complicated life decisions and situations to doing "what pleases me" is mind boggling.

look tom, we can not even decide here if it is better to be alive or dead.

And what is this remark supposed to mean? How do you know being dead isn't better than being alive or vice versa?

[viscousmemories]

A "scenario" is, "A woman who is an important member in politics and a strong human-and-women's-rights advocate falls pregnant unexpectadly. She does not wish to have to interrupt her career which could potentially help refugees who are being held in mandatory detention and suffering serious mental problems because of it, by having to carry the child to term and therefore leave politics for that period of time. What does she do?"
being pregnant is too much trouble for this woman, right?

So when you said...
its all about selling an idea. if you want to promote something like adoption over abortion why find fault in that. if you rather abort a down syndrome child, or any child for that matter, cause you don't want to be troubled by them that is certainly your right. so justify it. just don't fault me for wanting to encourage other "equally" noble options.
You were responding to a scenario Adora described 36 hours later?

[fatherphil]

lady, does it really matter why i think a live baby is better than a dead fetus? btw, which would you rather have and why?

tom, i was talking about the situations where that would apply. adora just presented one for me to use a day and a half later.

[LadyShea]

lady, does it really matter why i think a live baby is better than a dead fetus?

In a discussion regarding abortion, yes. All we have to discuss are our personal thoughts on the matter.

btw, which would you rather have and why?


Although I take extreme exception to your hyperbolic wording, I will answer the question.

The answer is, it depends on the circumstances and situation. There was a time in my life when I wanted a pregnancy terminated and a time when I wanted to get pregnant.

[viscousmemories]

tom, i was talking about the situations where that would apply.
Boy am I gonna look like a pedant here, but just so we're 100% crystal clear when you said "if you rather abort a down syndrome child, or any child for that matter, cause you don't want to be troubled by them that is certainly your right. so justify it." you weren't addressing anything anyone in this thread had said before your comment? So without regard for the actual debate until that point, you were just asking anyone who might be reading along to justify aborting Downs Syndrome babies because they're too much trouble?

[Farren]

I'd just like to weigh in about the issue of "better".

I live in a country where AIDS is a massive problem. There's also a giant divide between the haves and the have nots. South Africa is a study in contrasts. Its only a twenty minute drive from what used to be the largest shopping center in the Southern Hemisphere to a sprawling squatter camp of 100,000 people, without electricity or running water.

In the vast informal settlements around Johannesburg, people live packed together like sardines. Fire sweeps through such settlements regularly. The woman who hasn't been raped or molested at some stage is the exception. Literacy is minimal, food is scarce and gangsters are everywhere.

Far too many mothers are themselves still teenagers, completely unequipped to properly nourish their children, shelter them, protect them or educate them. Thanks to fear and superstition, children are regularly raped by AIDS victims in the mistaken belief that it will cure the AIDS sufferer.

That a huge number of mothers don't want their children is self evident. Babies are found in trash cans, down drains and just lying out in the open on freezing winter nights. No amount of sermonizing and attempts at "moral regeneration" are going to stop these babies being born. People struggling to survive and surrounded by brutality have little time for moralistic philosophies.

Since time immemorial, Christian missionaries and Muslim prosthyletisers have believed that people living in such abject conditions can be uplifted by stirring ideas and austere values and since time immemorial they've been dead wrong. No amount of "moral regeneration" fixes situations like this. The provision of land, food, education, shelter, reproductive choices - these are the only known ways by which the cycle of misery is ended.

It doesn't take sophisticated ethical arguments to establish what's "better" in situations like this. There are heavily Catholic areas of Africa (the Catholic church's fastest growing source of new converts) where the population is exploding and people are starving to death and dying of AIDS because of Catholic prohibitions on condoms. At least one Bishop in Kenya has openly defied the RC church because he said he conscience would not allow him to advise people to live a lifestyle that increases the death and misery in his community. There are other places in Africa where reproductive rights are being advanced, where doctors are providing more and more women with abortions on demand, and these places are getting better.

Try telling an international aid worker from Medicins Sans Frontiers, WHO, UNESCO, the UN body that handles refugees, the Red Cross or any other organisation that's effective in any way in breaking the cycle of misery, that all you have to do to make things right is encourage people to lead a Moral Lifestyle and exercise Responsible Reproductive Choices and they'll laugh at you - no, they'll look upon you with horror - because the people on the frontlines, the people that actually care enough to work day in, day out in some of the worst places on earth have a better idea what "better" is than armchair moralists.

But you don't have to do aid work in refugee camps in Africa to see, first hand, what "better" is. In the richest societies on the planet there are ghettos full of poverty stricken people and crack addicts and criminals and teenage mothers who were crippled right out of the starting gate and are pushing out babies who are mostly doomed to the same miserable existence as them. This despite decades of religious people bringing the word to the slums and telling people that all they need to make it right is "values". 12% of the population of the USA is below the poverty line (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

Abstinence-only and similar programs have been tried and failed, tried and failed, over and over again. Programs that not only grant full reproductive rights, but assist women in exercising them, have succeeded in many places.

The moralist who views the life of a fetus as sacred will of course argue that the results of the latter programs are not "success". But its undeniable that their argument is that generation after generation of masses of miserable and abject lives, filled with suffering and sadness, bereft of hope and without any end in sight, are "better" than the death of human embryos who in most cases lack even a full central nervous system to feel pain and cannot possibly have any concept of their impending demise and the existential dread that entails.

That definition of "success" favours massive misery and suffering to preserve lives barely capable of either, so that they may be miserable and suffer for the span of a life thereafter. The opposing view favours the termination of nascent live, so that the overall amount of suffering is continuously reduced and the lives of those that do become fully formed humans are better.

I can't imagine why it isn't self evident to any thinking, compassionate human being, which is "better"

[fatherphil]

tom, at that point we had hit on birth defects. i had also read about china trying to discourage abortions based on sex selection. look, i'm not out to find fault with someone's reasons for having an abortion. at that point, and taking the post in it's entirety, i was stressing the idea of making adoption a more desirable option to the unhappy mother.

and farren, no kidding weigh in.

[Farren]

Heh. I'm (in)famous for it, Phil. Sometimes I just have a hard time turning the tap off after its been opened :)

[Farren]

Seriously though, I have a hard time seeing how:

A self perpetuating cycle of miserable and hopeless lives + the lives of almost vegetative embryos and early fetuses being sacrosanct is somehow "better" than the alternatives.

[LadyShea]

i was stressing the idea of making adoption a more desirable option to the unhappy mother.


Adoption is an option perhaps "more" desireable in some sets of circumstances. But it doesn't solve the entire problem of half of all pregnancies being unplanned, nor does it prevent the problem in the first place.

Adoption also doesn't address the fact that there are already 100s of thousands of unhealthy children in the system that have not, and probably will not, be adopted. Is languishing in an institution "better" in your opinion? Have you , personally, volunteered to be a foster parent or adopt one of these unfortunate children in need?

[fatherphil]

done with my kids, you're in the market for a kid. have you considered on of the "problem" children? saw a play about white babies being coveted over all others in the adoption pool. has that been your experience? what is standing in the way of you and others like you from adopting a child?

and this is in no way an attack. just curious.

[LadyShea]

done with my kids, you're in the market for a kid. have you considered on of the "problem" children?

Yes, we are researching both state and international adoption. We decided first thing not to go the "traditional" domestic infant route.

saw a play about white babies being coveted over all others in the adoption pool. has that been your experience?

Yes. Healthy white infants, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread. For the most part, only upper middle and upper class white couples can afford to adopt.

what is standing in the way of you and others like you from adopting a child?

It's a complicated, bureaucratic process and prohibitavely expensive, unless you will take a "problem" child. With the state system kids, families must have the resources, time, and committment to raise a child with emotional, physical or mental issues, sometimes severe...or go with a sibling group of 3 or more or an older child. Not a decision that's easy to make and often they will only place with experienced parents (depending on the childs background and issues).

and this is in no way an attack. just curious.

Didn't see it as an attack.

[fatherphil]

is it a supply problem and are you particular about the child's race?
for what its worth i got my ass kicked pretty well with 3 healthy kids. tp be done right, child rearing must be selfless at its core. but then that could just be my opinion.

[Adora]

nobility has a modern usage and bitching about it's origins borders on retarded, in a similar vein I hate anyone who uses the word villain as it maligns french farmers.
I'm not doing either bey, since I never said anything about its origins. I said I thought the concept was outdated and barbaric.

if it pleases me means i will determine what is right by how it pleases me. if it pleases me to terminate my pregnancy i shall do it.
You're missing the point, fatherphil. You're arguing for the value of the life of the child to be allowed to be judged once it is born and adopted, but ignoring the consequences of letting that child to be born, which I specifically inserted into the scenario I put forward.

It would not just be the woman's life that would be troubled, but those she helps to improve their lives. I mentioned nothing about birth defects, so I fail to see why you brought it up. You want to use gross concepts like "nobility", and yet still argue that in such a situation, a woman should not sacrifice one potential life (considering miscarriage ratios and such) for the bettering of lives already in existence that are suffering? Wow. You're possibly the most hypocritical person on this board, and that's saying something.

[beyelzu]

then I am really confused,

how can you have a problem with "the quality of being exalted in character or ideals or conduct"

I just kind of assumed it was because of word origins and carried some sort of chivalric baggage or some such shit.

[beyelzu]

I'd just like to weigh in about the issue of "better".

I live in a country where AIDS is a massive problem. There's also a giant divide between the haves and the have nots. South Africa is a study in contrasts. Its only a twenty minute drive from what used to be the largest shopping center in the Southern Hemisphere to a sprawling squatter camp of 100,000 people, without electricity or running water.

In the vast informal settlements around Johannesburg, people live packed together like sardines. Fire sweeps through such settlements regularly. The woman who hasn't been raped or molested at some stage is the exception. Literacy is minimal, food is scarce and gangsters are everywhere.

Far too many mothers are themselves still teenagers, completely unequipped to properly nourish their children, shelter them, protect them or educate them. Thanks to fear and superstition, children are regularly raped by AIDS victims in the mistaken belief that it will cure the AIDS sufferer.

That a huge number of mothers don't want their children is self evident. Babies are found in trash cans, down drains and just lying out in the open on freezing winter nights. No amount of sermonizing and attempts at "moral regeneration" are going to stop these babies being born. People struggling to survive and surrounded by brutality have little time for moralistic philosophies.

Since time immemorial, Christian missionaries and Muslim prosthyletisers have believed that people living in such abject conditions can be uplifted by stirring ideas and austere values and since time immemorial they've been dead wrong. No amount of "moral regeneration" fixes situations like this. The provision of land, food, education, shelter, reproductive choices - these are the only known ways by which the cycle of misery is ended.

It doesn't take sophisticated ethical arguments to establish what's "better" in situations like this. There are heavily Catholic areas of Africa (the Catholic church's fastest growing source of new converts) where the population is exploding and people are starving to death and dying of AIDS because of Catholic prohibitions on condoms. At least one Bishop in Kenya has openly defied the RC church because he said he conscience would not allow him to advise people to live a lifestyle that increases the death and misery in his community. There are other places in Africa where reproductive rights are being advanced, where doctors are providing more and more women with abortions on demand, and these places are getting better.

Try telling an international aid worker from Medicins Sans Frontiers, WHO, UNESCO, the UN body that handles refugees, the Red Cross or any other organisation that's effective in any way in breaking the cycle of misery, that all you have to do to make things right is encourage people to lead a Moral Lifestyle and exercise Responsible Reproductive Choices and they'll laugh at you - no, they'll look upon you with horror - because the people on the frontlines, the people that actually care enough to work day in, day out in some of the worst places on earth have a better idea what "better" is than armchair moralists.

But you don't have to do aid work in refugee camps in Africa to see, first hand, what "better" is. In the richest societies on the planet there are ghettos full of poverty stricken people and crack addicts and criminals and teenage mothers who were crippled right out of the starting gate and are pushing out babies who are mostly doomed to the same miserable existence as them. This despite decades of religious people bringing the word to the slums and telling people that all they need to make it right is "values". 12% of the population of the USA is below the poverty line (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

Abstinence-only and similar programs have been tried and failed, tried and failed, over and over again. Programs that not only grant full reproductive rights, but assist women in exercising them, have succeeded in many places.

The moralist who views the life of a fetus as sacred will of course argue that the results of the latter programs are not "success". But its undeniable that their argument is that generation after generation of masses of miserable and abject lives, filled with suffering and sadness, bereft of hope and without any end in sight, are "better" than the death of human embryos who in most cases lack even a full central nervous system to feel pain and cannot possibly have any concept of their impending demise and the existential dread that entails.

That definition of "success" favours massive misery and suffering to preserve lives barely capable of either, so that they may be miserable and suffer for the span of a life thereafter. The opposing view favours the termination of nascent live, so that the overall amount of suffering is continuously reduced and the lives of those that do become fully formed humans are better.

I can't imagine why it isn't self evident to any thinking, compassionate human being, which is "better"


damn, it's good to have you back around, farren.

:bow:

damn good.

now if you can just find the time to rack up 15 or so arcade victories it really will be like old times.

:tmgrin:

[Farren]

[off topic]



damn, it's good to have you back around, farren.
:bow:
damn good.



Thank you Bey



now if you can just find the time to rack up 15 or so arcade victories it really will be like old times.

:tmgrin:


Not a chance. I had my moment in the sun with 20 simultaneous titles, but then I wasn't doing anything productive with my life at all :) Besides, gotta make way for the young bloods or they get pissed and revolt and stuff.


[/off topic]

[LadyShea]

is it a supply problem

It's a monetary and bureaucracy problem as I detailed. There is no supply problem when dealing with the State system or International.

We must have full medical workups, background checks, and a homestudy before we can even begin the process. Our house will not be completed until the Fall.

If we choose to go the State route, we will need to complete foster parent training, and really sit down and decide what kinds of health, mental, and emotional problems we can realistically handle, and/or if we can accomodate an instant family with a sibling set of 3 or more. Very few kids in the state system are fully healthy and happy, they are there due to neglect or abuse.

We need to have about 30-50k set aside if we decide to go international.

and are you particular about the child's race?

I do, unfortunately, have to be somewhat race conscious as we just moved to Alabama. I do not know what a child of a different race than his/her parents would have to deal with here. Also, I would want to be sure to raise a child with some knowledge of their culture. That being said, I personally don't care, but would want to do what's best for a child.

for what its worth i got my ass kicked pretty well with 3 healthy kids.

Yes, and no matter which choice we make, we will probably not be getting healthy children.

tp be done right, child rearing must be selfless at its core. but then that could just be my opinion.

Is this a hidden dig or insituation about me being selfish?

So you had children for selfless reasons? Nothing to do with your desire to be a parent?

[fatherphil]

i thought it was something i could do well enough. going in i thought i was a completion of a cycle of sorts. but reality sets in with the belief that here is something apart from yourself which looks to you for pretty much all their needs. and no, there was no insinuation. i really wish you well in your efforts. sorry it has been so difficult thus far.

adora, i was not moved by the argument in the movie erin brockavich. i thought the son should be rightfully pissed at the choice his mom decided to make especially when she laid a guilt trip on him for feeling deprived. life's about chioces and you really can't have it all without others suffering.

[Adora]

how can you have a problem with "the quality of being exalted in character or ideals or conduct"
Because exalting human beings over others just leads to really messed-up societies. Those who make up the systems that exalt people over the others do it by their own standards to make themselves noble, and then impose it on everyone else.

adora, i was not moved by the argument in the movie erin brockavich.
Wow, nice work. I was talking about real life. Not some shitty Juila Roberts movie.

life's about chioces and you really can't have it all without others suffering.
Who said anyone wants to "have it all"? You're making false assumptions again.

[beyelzu]

adora, you are fast approaching crackpot territory,

danger, danger will robinson.

I am at a loss with your most recent response, do you laud nothing? if no actions are worthy of being exalted, or character for that matter, from what moral relativistic place are you speaking?

[Adora]

I am at a loss with your most recent response, do you laud nothing? if no actions are worthy of being exalted, or character for that matter, from what moral relativistic place are you speaking?
There's a big difference between endorsing something and exalting it. I can say "women's rights are good", but I will not exalt them, because it thats it that extra step further that I am uncomfortable with. It's like the difference between loving someone and worshipping them. One accepts the person as well-rounded, with faults and flaws, but is still loved. The other places them on a pedestal and is blind to flaws.