At what point are we merely projecting human qualities onto objects vs. those qualities actually existing independent of our projecting them? — Harry Hindu
Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu
Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu
Not to worry, Smith. If you're not a fertile female of child-bearing age, then it's very unlikely you will ever have to decide to terminate your pregnancy. — 180 Proof
What would be the purpose of defining such things, and what makes you think there would be a consensus? If you're just proposing that an individual do this for themselves, I'm fine with it. I'm just not fine with imposing a definition on people who may legitimately disagree.This is simple to resolve. Instead of just two categories (man vs. woman or person vs. non-person), there could be three or more. — Harry Hindu
Who decides on who is suffering, and to what degree? These judgments will necessarily be based on one's subjective beliefs because there's no objective measure of suffering and no objective identifier of what constitutes an individual human being.Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu
This sounds a reasonable basis for you to decide on when you should or shouldn't get an abortion. But it's not based on objectively true standards, so how could you justify imposing your view on others?I don't see anything wrong with using a morning-after pill to abort a pregnancy because I don't see a zygote as a something that can be self-aware or suffer. The longer you wait, the more it becomes an issue.
Who decides on the level of risk women are required to accept (e.g. "more than likely" she'll die? 50-50? 25%risk?)Is there some reason to think women are getting late term abortions for a reason that is so bad that it needs to be made illegal? I've seen no statistics on it, and my impression is that people feel it should be banned because it sounds gruesome (It IS gruesome!) without considering that there may be good reasons (such as health risks).The only reason I can see for having a late-term abortion is because the woman's life is in danger.
I understand, and in the abstract - it's a reasonable objective. In practice, there are problems. Louisiana was considering a law that would treat any act that causes the death of a zygote as a homicide, including a morning after pill, in-vitro fertilization, and failure to medically implant a fertilized egg in an entopic pregnancy. The legislators who favored it believe they would be preventing evil things from occurring.I think that the words of a statute prevent some people from doing evil things. — Harry Hindu
We ALL want people to do the right thing, but there's an element of subjectivity in deciding when something is wrong and there are nearly always exceptional circumstances that make any firm legal boundaries problematic in special cases. Why isn't it "the right thing" to trust women to do what's right for themselves, and refrain from creating restrictions that limit their choices?I'm interested in talking to those that can do the "right" thing even when not threatened with prison.
It's so wonderful that the abortion dicsussion is done mostly by men. And that most women who participate in it protect the interests of men. — baker
So why do we consider it murder if a mother abandons her newborn in a dumpster after being born? — Harry Hindu
In some cultures in the past, killing one's own child wasn't murder, but killing another person's child was. — baker
And back to the rule of the dick.
The surest way to keep the discussion of this topic superficial and never moving from the spot. — baker
Sure, but then so is using bug spray to terminate bugs and weed spray to terminate weeds. The intent is the same (to kill) but are the consequences the same - meaning is a weed's life any more important than a zygote in the grand scheme of things? To human's a zygote in a woman's womb is more important than a weed, but that doesn't mean that a zygote in a woman's womb is objectively more important. The universe doesn't care, nor does it place any value on one life over another. We do that. What if an alien race that evolved from weeds millions of years ago travels to Earth, defines humans as the pests and attempts to eradicate the infestation?This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.
If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill. — baker
It seems to me that one can have the intention of experiencing the pleasurable feeling of sex and the orgasm that follows, or even building stronger social bonds between you and your mate, not necessarily to have kids. The existence of contraceptives allow us to make that distinction. Since my wife went through the pain and effort to carry and give birth to our children, I thought that it only fair that I be the one that gets a vasectomy. While it wasn't entirely painless, it was far less invasive than my wife getting her tubes tied. Getting the vasectomy was one of the best things I did. Now I can enjoy sex with my wife without worrying about a pregnancy. Of course the tubes can always find their way back together, but that hasn't happened in 15 years and now my wife is post-menopausal so even if my tubes did reconnect, there would be no pregnancy.Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.
And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:
What is the greater suffering:
Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)? — baker
There is no specific point: an individual human life gradually emerges during the development of that "bundle of human cells".The pivotal question to this issue remains: at which point does a bundle of human cells actually become a human being? — javra
What would be the purpose of defining such things, and what makes you think there would be a consensus? If you're just proposing that an individual do this for themselves, I'm fine with it. I'm just not fine with imposing a definition on people who may legitimately disagree. — Relativist
The issue with abortion is that it shines a light on when we, as a society or as individuals, acknowledge that some life have the right to life. At what point do we as either a society, or as an individual, recognize that another life has the the right to life?We ALL want people to do the right thing, but there's an element of subjectivity in deciding when something is wrong and there are nearly always exceptional circumstances that make any firm legal boundaries problematic in special cases. Why isn't it "the right thing" to trust women to do what's right for themselves, and refrain from creating restrictions that limit their choices? — Relativist
That's the thing - who speaks for those that cannot speak of their suffering? It seems to me that if a life attempts to flee or fight back against being killed then we don't necessarily need a language to make it known to others that some organism is suffering. This is why I think that most people agree that killing a zygote creates less suffering than killing a fetus with a brain and nervous system that reacts to an abortion doctor killing it. Plants also react to being killed or attacked. Do plants suffer the same way that animals with nervous systems do, or are their behaviors instinctive in that there is no self-awareness or self-reflective experiences?Who decides on who is suffering, and to what degree? These judgments will necessarily be based on one's subjective beliefs because there's no objective measure of suffering and no objective identifier of what constitutes an individual human being. — Relativist
Again, this isn't me imposing my view on others. It is asking about when a life without language deserves the right to life. We already impose our views on others by putting people in jail if that life without language is terminated after it is born, but not before. It's strange to complain about others imposing their views on you when you live in a society that does just that. If you are fine with living under someone else's rules, why are you complaining about that when it comes to abortion? At what point are we imposing our views on the fetus/baby?This sounds a reasonable basis for you to decide on when you should or shouldn't get an abortion. But it's not based on objectively true standards, so how could you justify imposing your view on others? — Relativist
I didn't think so until I saw women bragging about having an abortions. What would be the goal a woman is trying to achieve by bragging about it, or calling it joyful? If a serial killer calls their killing of others joyful and brags about it, what would you conclude?Is there some reason to think women are getting late term abortions for a reason that is so bad that it needs to be made illegal? — Relativist
I would do what I am doing now - question the consistency of such a position when they believe that killing viruses and bacteria is a good thing. I wouldn't consider an abortion a good or evil thing - just a necessary thing from some people. In my opinion, terminating the life of a zygote isn't much different than terminating the life of a virus. Terminating the life of a fetus is approaching that area where morality begins because we cross into that gray area of a language-less organism having the right to life or not. Do only organisms that can use language and make others aware of their suffering via utterances deserve to live?I understand, and in the abstract - it's a reasonable objective. In practice, there are problems. Louisiana was considering a law that would treat any act that causes the death of a zygote as a homicide, including a morning after pill, in-vitro fertilization, and failure to medically implant a fertilized egg in an entopic pregnancy. The legislators who favored it believe they would be preventing evil things from occurring. — Relativist
My point was that your argument was extremely poorly reasoned (i.e. pretty stupid) because (1) it defies my experience (in that the sex I've had, I truly wanted to have) and (2) if you believe most sex is under societal duress, you're claiming most sex is rape. — Hanover
There is no specific point: an individual human life gradually emerges during the development of that "bundle of human cells". — Relativist
Consider that there is no set of necessary and sufficient properties for "human personhood". We can identify traits that most humans have, ranges of DNA, and reference to parenthood,, but it's impossible to narrow any such properties into being necessary and sufficient. — Relativist
This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.
If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill.
— baker
Sure, but then so is using bug spray to terminate bugs and weed spray to terminate weeds. The intent is the same (to kill) but are the consequences the same - meaning is a weed's life any more important than a zygote in the grand scheme of things? To human's a zygote in a woman's womb is more important than a weed, but that doesn't mean that a zygote in a woman's womb is objectively more important. The universe doesn't care, nor does it place any value on one life over another. We do that. — Harry Hindu
What if an alien race that evolved from weeds millions of years ago travels to Earth, defines humans as the pests and attempts to eradicate the infestation?
Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.
And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:
What is the greater suffering:
Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)?
— baker
It seems to me that one can have the intention of experiencing the pleasurable feeling of sex and the orgasm that follows, or even building stronger social bonds between you and your mate, not necessarily to have kids.
Would it be fair to the child and to us if we were forced to have a child with birth defects? Which would cause the most suffering?
Sure, going under a doctor's knife can have it's risks, but in today's modern world, that is a small risk, and I think that, as individuals, it is our own prerogative to make our own risk assessments.
women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real. — Hanover
It implies there is no basis for creating legal restrictions on abortion based on protection of an "individual human life".how do you interpret this lack of a strict moment of dichotomy to weigh in on the issue? — javra
IOW, per SCOTUS, a woman doesn't have a right to choose, but the state does have the right to choose for her. — Relativist
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but How do you propose we do that as a society? You seem to accept even a late term abortion if the woman's life is in danger. Even this implies you are valuing the woman's life over the fetus. Perhaps we could do this as a society through education, rather than through legal mandates.The issue with abortion is that it shines a light on when we, as a society or as individuals, acknowledge that some life have the right to life. At what point do we as either a society, or as an individual, recognize that another life has the the right to life? — Harry Hindu
Sure, nearly everyone agrees that inflicting pain on other organisms should be avoided, but this includes inflicting a lifetime of hardship on a 14 year old girl who's been date-raped. I expect you'd agree in such a case, just as you do regarding cases in which a mother's life is in danger. But what other exceptions might be you consider reasonable if you had perfect knowledge of each situation? Laws are problematic because they can't make value judgments.That's the thing - who speaks for those that cannot speak of their suffering? It seems to me that if a life attempts to flee or fight back against being killed then we don't necessarily need a language to make it known to others that some organism is suffering. This is why I think that most people agree that killing a zygote creates less suffering than killing a fetus with a brain and nervous system that reacts to an abortion doctor killing it. — Harry Hindu
It's reasonable for everyone to consider this, as long as it isn't codified into law because of the inherent ambiguity. I return to my point about education.Again, this isn't me imposing my view on others. It is asking about when a life without language deserves the right to life. — Harry Hindu
If a woman had a late term abortion simply because she changed her mind about having another child, that's absolutely abhorent. Legislating it is another matter, but that's apparently not what you're arguing for.I didn't think so until I saw women bragging about having an abortions. What would be the goal a woman is trying to achieve by bragging about it, or calling it joyful? — Harry Hindu
Fair enough, and I feel pretty similarly about it.I would do what I am doing now - question the consistency of such a position when they believe that killing viruses and bacteria is a good thing. I wouldn't consider an abortion a good or evil thing - just a necessary thing from some people. In my opinion, terminating the life of a zygote isn't much different than terminating the life of a virus. Terminating the life of a fetus is approaching that area where morality begins because we cross into that gray area of a language-less organism having the right to life or not. Do only organisms that can use language and make others aware of their suffering via utterances deserve to live? — Harry Hindu
So, back to the discussion: women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real. — Hanover
It merely denied a right that women should have (irrespective of whether it's constitutionally protected as a technical matter) by permitting states to create arbitrary restrictions. IOW, per SCOTUS, a woman doesn't have a right to choose, but the state does have the right to choose for her. — Relativist
I do. The fewer unwanted offspring / less-than-enthusiastic mothers the better. :up: — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.