Philosophy revived

Draconysius · 04-03-2007, 08:13 AM

Ok, here we go again... we need some intelligent discussions.
I'm going to start off with an issue that's always popular: abortion. Is freedom more important or is human life more important? This is a very difficult question for me because I both believe in freedom and no one has the right to take the life of another, even that young. I'm currently on the side of the pro-lifers, but I'm no god-fearing bible-bashing Christian. I'm agnostic with Buddhist and Taoist beliefs. So sue me. Any thoughts?

PinstripesAndPithHelmets · 04-03-2007, 08:34 AM

Personally, I adopt an entirely secular viewpoint. If an unborn child is a mistake, I firmly believe that a woman should have the undeniable right to terminate that pregnancy. True, she will suffer some psychological damage, but is it fair to the child to bring it into a world where it is either unwanted, unable to be adequately cared for, or both? Even were the child to be put up for adoption, the psychological scars of separating it from its birth mother would remain, and then not only would the mother be affected mentally -as with terminating the pregnancy- but the child as well. An child aborted is sad; a child born unwanted is moreso.

Minyaliel · 04-03-2007, 08:38 AM

I'm pro choice. I think it does reflect personal strength to keep a baby, but not if you are not capable of giving the child a meaningful existence. This I believe because my own experiences have shown me that it is the right thing. If it hadn't been for my mother's conviction and sticking to her faith (she's a catholic), I wouldn't be sitting here today. I'm not saying that I'm not grateful for life, I'm just saying that this has made me contemplate the issue a lot. That said, I'm not a catholic myself, but a Satanist, and would not keep a baby I'd have known in advance I had no means of taking care of.

Draconysius · 04-03-2007, 08:49 AM

You've both made very good points that are going to be swimming through my head all day.

Clockwork · 04-03-2007, 09:04 AM

Choice. I never understood what the great hubbub was about terminating something that does not yet think or feel, even if it does have the potential. So, yes, you're ending a life before it's even begun - but then aren't you destroying a could-be life every time you use protection, or just aren't having sex?

Draconysius · 04-03-2007, 09:14 AM

You've made very good points. I think I've changed my mind on this completely. But still... you will burn in the fiery pits of hell sinners!

PinstripesAndPithHelmets · 04-03-2007, 09:23 AM

I'll bring my suntan. I get all reddish looking when it's too hot out.

Cyntrox · 04-03-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Choice. I never understood what the great hubbub was about terminating something that does not yet think or feel, even if it does have the potential. So, yes, you're ending a life before it's even begun - but then aren't you destroying a could-be life every time you use protection, or just aren't having sex?

How can you know when the baby starts to think and/or feel?

Clockwork · 04-03-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

How can you know when the baby starts to think and/or feel?

I suppose we can probe around their brain and see what they respond to, but we can probably agree they aren't fully functioning beings at day one.

Minyaliel · 04-03-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draconysius

you will burn in the fiery pits of hell sinners!

Bring it on - I'd be bored sitting on a cloud playing harps all the time... playing the harp hurts like heck, by the way...

As for Cyntrox' question, there's been some research on that, but I cannot remember at the moment how many weeks it takes... anyway, it still wouldn't be a baby or a thinking person, just a collection of cells animated by a few chemical processes. (Alright, I admit medicine is not my strong point. Correct me if I'm wrong here)

Don't Look Behind You · 04-03-2007, 12:34 PM

I am pro-abortion 100% and my arguments are rather subjective and yet I have them:

Forcing a woman to fulfill her "womanly duties", which include having children, is Middle Ages mentality. As much as I adore the middle ages, women have already gained the status of a human being to a certain extent by now.

And as to saving life, what life will the child have if it is born to a mother that is still a child herself, or into a family that cannot support it...or what if the child is the result of ****? Will such a life really be worth living? The best case here would be if the child was adopted, but I would suppose that it can also be difficult for a growing up personality to know they were not wanted.
And also, why ruin the life of a not wanting to be mother to save the life of SOME other human being?

And now to my real subjective point: In my opinion, a human being is a human being after it has developed a personality and found a place in this world. Nothing against babies, but I would prefure a person that has started thinking and comunicating over one that is only a, as above mentioned, collection of cells.

I do not want to seem rude, but not allowing a woman prevent a turn in her life that she does not want seems a heap more immoral than "killing" a life that is hardly worth much yet.

Zenit · 04-03-2007, 01:49 PM

I'd like to add another dimension to this discussion...What about the father? After all, it takes two to tango, and to deprave a willing man the privilege to be a father....is that right?

Circle V · 04-03-2007, 03:54 PM

After much thought, I've come to the conclusion that I am against abortion but still pro-choice-- within reason. Abortion should never be the first choice, nor an easy one, but neither should it be banned outright.

I don't believe that adopted children are significantly worse-off than children who remain with their biological parents-- more specifically, while I can see the benefits of abortion (especially in cases of sex crimes, etc), I find it difficult to believe that abortion can be preferable to adoption.

Mir · 04-03-2007, 05:33 PM

I'm not sure how a discussion on abortion equates as a philosophical discussion.

Godslayer Jillian · 04-03-2007, 07:22 PM

Haha, you beat me to it, but then again we can make other questions.
As for now I'm too tired to even think. =P

MollyMac · 04-03-2007, 08:01 PM

It's less philosophy and more politics.

All the same, from my experiences, I have come to the conclusion that I can speak only for myself and I am pro-life for my own life and my own choices. That being said, you never know what hand life will deal you and that anyone clinging to a hard and fast, black or white *anything* tends to be bitchslapped for their steadfastness. FLexibility is the key to life. Know where you stand, but know what winds may blow.

I maintain pro-life for myself, but I also maintain one's right to choose what happens to them and their bodies.

I CHOOSE to be pro-life.

Drake Dun · 04-03-2007, 09:06 PM

It's a totally unanswerable question. To come up with the "right" answer you would have to be able to determine when a "person" is a person, which is totally arbitrary. Even a child which has already been born probably has less capacity to suffer, less intelligence, and less of whatever else you might choose as your measuring stick than an adult chimpanzee.

As always, any philosophy which issues from rank moralism must be asinine and absurd. There is no right or wrong. There is only what we are, where we're at, and who we choose to be.

See? Now it's philosophical. Uh... wait. Why are we talking philosophy in the literature area?

On a final note, I find the "potential" argument so ludicrous that any time it comes out, I immediately count it as two strikes against the rationality of the person who voices it.

Drake

Godslayer Jillian · 04-03-2007, 09:18 PM

That brings an interesting new topic:
What makes a Man, a Man?

Drake Dun · 04-03-2007, 11:14 PM

LEBOWSKI: It's funny. I can look back on a life of achievement, on challenges met, competitors bested, obstacles overcome. I've accomplished more than most men, and without the use of my legs. What. . . What makes a man, Mr. Lebowski?

DUDE: Dude.

LEBOWSKI: Huh?

DUDE: I don't know, sir.

LEBOWSKI: Is it. . . is it, being prepared to do the right thing? Whatever the price? Isn't that what makes a man?

DUDE: Sure. That and a pair of testicles.

---

Drake

whispertwist · 04-04-2007, 12:14 AM

Can i have furthur definition of the topic?

Is the topic the definition of a male human, or of masculinity, or of a mensch (an upstanding male), or of an upstanding human of either sex?

I like the last topic.

And my answer reads like something out of the boyscout handbook, though it does apply to either sex.

A stand up person is kind, loyal, and honest. A stand up person will defend those weaker than him/her self from bullying of any sort. A stand up person will defend his/her principles without rancor. True strength is not a matter of muscles, but of character, though of course it is easier to be a stand up person when you are the mightiest son of a bitch on the block.

MollyMac · 04-04-2007, 05:32 AM

Being a man has little to do with anatomy and everything to do with responsibility. The ability to look beyond oneself and ones own wants to see the greater needs.

Godslayer Jillian · 04-04-2007, 05:47 AM

Wait, I didn't phrase my question as I had wanted to. I was looking for a neutral word and didn't thought of it at first. The real question would be, what makes Humanity, well, Human?

mrs.wes straker · 04-04-2007, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Wait, I didn't phrase my question as I had wanted to. I was looking for a neutral word and didn't thought of it at first. The real question would be, what makes Humanity, well, Human?

Having a soul......

Drake Dun · 04-04-2007, 06:44 AM

That's really only a satisfying answer if you subscribe to one of certain religious belief systems. And it starts to seem silly the first time you have any kind of exposure to the more intelligent non-human animals in the world, like primates, dolphins, and heck, even dogs and other random mammals. To say nothing of certain birds.

Drake

Draconysius · 04-04-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Wait, I didn't phrase my question as I had wanted to. I was looking for a neutral word and didn't thought of it at first. The real question would be, what makes Humanity, well, Human?

I believe it's because we're the only species that's aware of its death long before it comes creeping up on us. We also have an inquisitive nature; we question everything. Humans are the only philosophers of the animal kingdom.