Gothic.net Community - I want to talk about abortion again

Gothic.net Community (https://www.gothic.net/boards/index.php)

- Politics (https://www.gothic.net/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - I want to talk about abortion again (https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=26091)

I want to talk about abortion again

This isn't exactly about the moral arguments for or against it.

But there is something I find particularly weird about the discussion.

The precept of pro-life is that the fetus has personhood.

The precept of pro-choice is that the unborn is in fact not a person.

I can understand both of these points. I get it. However, there is a stance that I find hard to reconcile with and I have to wonder why this seems to be a legitimate stance and I wonder how they can justify it:

Abortion is wrong. However, abortion should be used in the event that the mother's life is in danger or in the instances of ****.

I have a problem with this stance. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong because you're killing a life. You have to make the equation fair. The unborn = a human life with actual value with certain rights bestowed upon the unborn. In this case, why would it be permissible to execute the unborn due to the nature of the pregnancy and the means of the conception? Why is it okay to kill the unborn if the nature of its conception is the product of ****? The unborn is innocent of this conception. Why would it have to pay for it? Also, in the event that the pregnancy may in fact kill the mother. Again. Not the unborn's fault. Why are we making permissions for abortion in this case if we're dispensing rights to the unborn? Does not this unborn person deserve to live? If a situation occurs in which one may end up being a casualty in the case of justly preserving the rights of a victim, is it then not murder to kill the victim?

I can understand both sides of the coin and obviously stand on the side of pro-choice. What I don't understand is the exceptional stance on abortion. How exactly does that make any kind of judicial and just sense if you're actually suspending the consideration of personhood in the event of certain circumstances that makes the charge of personhood easier to lift?

I would imagine it is much the same as with someone who is pro-life and also a war hawk or someone who supports capital punishment. Logically the those are opposite views, if all life is sacred then it shouldn't be okay to take a life no matter what, but there are lots of people who don't see the disconnect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Despanan (Post 640786)

Ya know, I've seen alot of people throwing around "ethics" and "Ethics classes" as to why they're now pro-life.

I just wanted to point out that this is absolute hogwash. The only ethical position one can really take in this debate is to be pro-choice.

I've already touched on this, but let me break it down for you:

Either:

1) A Fetus /= A baby and has zero value when compared to a baby.

2) A Fetus < A baby (For example 8 Feti = 1 baby etc.)

3) A Fetus = A baby.

and

4) A baby < Any other human life

5) A baby > Any other human life

6) A baby = Any other human life

One really only has two choices here, which most would consider ethical. Either you believe #1 and #6, or you believe #3 and #6.

If you feel that a fetus has some fraction of a babies worth, you get into the tricky waters of putting a price tag and an exchange rate on the value of a human life (because that's the only way this thinking can logically lead). "Exactly how many feti to the baby and why?" and similarly "How many babies to the woman?" Under this logic it would be morally acceptable to sacrifice a certain number of women in order to save the life of a baby, or a certain number of babies in order to save the life of a woman. I think most people would agree that this is a monstrous line of thinking.

The ethical waters are further muddied by adding in economic concerns like the afore mentioned "It's okay if the child would bring a serious financial burden on the family". As I have previously shown this inevitably leads to ascribing a cash value to a baby, and then inevitably to a woman. As in: A woman may only have an abortion if the yearly cost of raising a baby exceeds the yearly income of her family by "X" amount, therefore a baby is worth exactly the cost of raising it to age 18.

Once again: Monstrous.

Therefore the only exchange rates that can be ethically applied are either 0:1 or 1:1. You must have the operating principal that either: A fetus is either not equivalent in any way to a human life, or it is worth exactly the same as a human life.

In the case of the latter, you run into a major ethical problem: As Saya pointed out, prohibition of abortion results in a great deal of human deaths, largely due to labor complications, and complications brought on by illegally obtained, unsanitary abortions, to say nothing of the negative effect an unwanted child has on the woman, her family, and society as a whole (for instance the article I linked shows a causal relationship between legalized abortions and a major decline in violent crime and strongly implies a causal relationship with the inverse)

Now combine this with the dicey legal and ethical issues involved in forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term.

Now combine this with the only conclusion one can come to if one believes in the 1:1 exchange rate: Abortion is murder and therefore genocide on a scale beyond anything we have ever seen. From 1973 - 1945 45 million legal abortions have occured. when only six million people died in the Holocaust

Therefore, if you are Pro-Life and believe that "Abortion is Murder, and a Fetus is a baby" you must either:

a) Immediately become a militant revolutionary (Because now America, to say nothing of the rest of the world, has exceeded the evils of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol-pot and all of histories greatest monsters combined, many MANY times over. You need to be killing abortion doctors, bombing clincis, and killing lawyers, women, and Supreme court justices. You need to weigh the deaths and compulsion of tens of thousands of women, the deaths of all those who appose you, and the deaths of those who die as a direct result of the increase in violent crime your actions cause against the deaths of the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, and find that the ends (the saving of infant lives) justify the means (the murders of your otherwise innocent friends and relatives who are pro-choice)

or

b) Turn your back on the most horrific sin and terrible Genocide the world has ever seen; because surely legalized abortion is worse than anything even our most pessimistic visions of sci-fi distopian futures, and you are living it.

Both of these positions are massively unethical. The former demands that one kill millions of otherwise innocent people in order to save millions of potential people, and the latter emphatically makes you worse than the people who looked the other way during the holocaust.

The ONLY ETHICAL OPTION is to conclude that fetuses are IN NO WAY equivalent to a baby, and that no amount of fetuses will ever be worth the life of an infant, a mother, or any other human life and focus your efforts on social reforms, sex education, and defense of a woman's right to choose.

Thus:

Logically and ethically speaking, pro-choicers are in the clear, and all pro-lifers are either ignorant or complete and utter monsters.

Spooky black text

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite (Post 640812)

No. That's not the same thing at all. A baby is a baby. A fetus is a fetus. They are just not equal, bro. By law, if we are to kill a baby, we are thrown into prison for murder. If you want to believe a fetus is the exact same thing as an infant, then you CAN NOT IDLY STAND BY AND LET CATEGORICAL SLAUGHTER of innocent lives go by without justice. By the standard of a fetus is just as equal to a post birth human should DICTATE THAT YOU GO TO WAR with a NATION of murderers. Because right now, as I'm typing this, 100s of lives have just been murdered and a nation is ALLOWING it to happen. It is even endorsing it.

I would never allow my woman to get an abortion.
That's all I'm sayin'.

I think he means "my uterus."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan (Post 691446)

'your' woman?

Hey she was bought fair and square. The receipt even matches the bar code.

Release the kraken.

I love you guys.

But yeah, pro-life except in cases of **** is weird. Its like its murder, but its murder we're okay with. I think its either for people who deep down feel a fetus isn't really a person or has a lot of doubt about it at least, or either they don't think its right but don't want everyone thinking their a heartless asshole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan (Post 691446)

'your' woman?

Look I've got my P.I.M.P license out back if I need to show yah for proof.

Please
Imprint
My
Penis onto your property

It's not very funny, Sin.

But it was funny the first 723415724 times we heard it, why not now?

Nice try. Fuck mothering spooky

That argument from Despanan is brilliant; I'm going to use it every time someone claims to believe that the life of a foetus is equivalent to a human life. Stellar logic that manages to accommodate the emotive aspects of the argument in question is a beautiful thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli (Post 691653)

It was a bit of an eye opener when he posted it, yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli (Post 691653)

It is wonderful logic, until you try and explain it to a pregnant woman/woman in labour that her life is worth the same as her babies, when her baby protection hormones/instincts have kicked in.

I don't understand how that would make it fall down - a woman whose protection hormone/instincts have kicked in would presumably not be seeking an abortion, unless her reasons are strong and sound enough to override said instincts? And if that's the case, that doesn't mean the argument falls down; only that some situations just do not afford a pain-free option, because life can really suck. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli (Post 691830)

The baby protection instincts can be incredibly strong. For instance, I read a story of a young mother (late 20's/early 30s) who was pregnant with child number 2. In the end of the first trimester she was diagnosed with Cancer. Early stages.

If she aborted the baby, she could have treatment, she'd live to see her other child(2yr old) grow up and have their own kids etc, but she didn't abort the baby, I'm not even sure she had surgery (because it's risky in pregnancy and you can have it briefly under twilight sedation during the second trimester only).

She delivered the baby, was rushed into having treatment, and ended up dying with then second child was less than a year old, leaving her husband to raise two little kids.

That's how powerful those maternal instincts are. You don't care what happens to yourself (or your husband in this case) as long as your child survives.

And that's what I was getting at. I think Desp's argument is a good one, except when you get in the situations above. Was her life worth more than that of her unborn child?

Logically, you'd think that she would just have the abortion because she already had one child, the cancer was in the early stages, she could have a great chance at surviving and living a long life as a mother of one child.

But there is no logic with maternal instincts.

There's also been cases where a comatose mother needs an abortion to live, but hospital administration lets her and the fetus die rather than perform abortion. Society as a whole says that the life and health of a woman is less than the potential life of a fertilized egg. They promise women who die for that martyrdom. And most women internalize misogyny to a degree, not surprising some would die to uphold patriarchal ideals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya (Post 691840)

I don't think society puts the health and welfare of a woman over a fertlised egg. Not here in Australia so much.

It's no dying to uphold patriarchal ideals if you put your life over the life of your baby. It's fucking insane, but then that's the mothering instinct. That's why the debate is so hot and so emotional, because of the religious and instincts of the people involved.

The instinct hit me when I was in labour. The labour stalled, babybat's heart beat was disappearing with every contraction. There was talk of cords around his neck, and i was just like "I don't give a fuck about me, all I want to do is save the life of this living being inside of me." ( I'm pretty sure that feeling is much like what most people who throw themselves in the line of danger feel. They are willing to give their life to save someone else.)

Fortunately, I was in the hospital so my medical care was great.

Unfortunately not all woman have this, and that is what we should be outraged about. Woman should be given the very best healthcare for their pregnancy and labour or they should be able to have a safe abortion if that's what they chose.

So you're saying since you stated feeling defensive over labour, of course maternal instincts will allow a mother to die by cancer in the first trimester? And the millions of women who have abortions are terrible mothers or something? What about the first kid, who now has no mother? Why didn't she have maternal protective instincts for that?

And abortion laws are shit in Austalia, just as bad as America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...egal_situation

Release the Krakken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya (Post 691847)

Krakken is off on a wild goose chase dude.

You're getting a lot of exercise jumping to the wrong conclusion there Saya.

I think there is still an opening in the Canadan Olympic team for a pole vaulter.

So you're saying since you stated feeling defensive over labour, of course maternal instincts will allow a mother to die by cancer in the first trimester?
It was when my mothering instincts kicked in. It happens differently for different people and some people never feel it. And no I wasn't defensive over labour, I was being protective about my unborn child

And the millions of women who have abortions are terrible mothers or something?
Are they? I didn't say anything like that. You leaped to this wrong conclusion on your own.

What about the first kid, who now has no mother? Why didn't she have maternal protective instincts for that?
Don't know hold a seiance and ask her.

Okay if I put my mothering hat on, let me see... oh okay, maybe she thought "My 2 year old can look after himself, but I have this wonderful life growing inside of me, and I can't give that up even for myself, and I'll try and be positive," I really have no idea what went on in her head. The story was written by her husband and he gave no insight into why they made that decision.

The thing is batty that her decision not to abort was her decision to make, but laws made because some people feel that way apply to all women, even those who would feel quite differently. I'm perfectly okay with other people sacrificing their life for whatever they want but that doesn't make it okay for there to be a law saying that I need to do the same, for a law to say so means that the law values that thing more than my life.

Or to say women naturally want to die saving their unborn offspring. Or that these decisions are ever made in a vacuum.