Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[mrmufin]

we all have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage

I agree 100% but I also believe that there is always an exception to every rule.

Are you saying that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is wrong because our right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage must have an exception?

For example: murder vs the death penalty, same result from a different perspective.

I'm not sure how this examample helps your argument. If the "same result" you're refering to is death, the same result can be had from any number of sources. Murder is malicious. The death penalty is a punishment for crime(s). Suicide is intentional and consensual death. Deadly force may be justified in self defense. The principle still stands. Unless you want to regard carrying an unawanted fetus to term as punishment for a crime...?

One of the problems with bestowing a fetus with civil rights is that the fetus is devoid of all civil responsibility.

Pretty much every parent in the world struggles with this same issue and a lot of them probably have, lets just say, "fleeting thoughts" of madness. But what can ya do?

Transfer dependency; though this is not an option with a fetus.

That's just life. In life we don't get to choose the consequences for our choices, they're already set.

For a wide variety of reasons, I don't subscribe to such a deterministic worldview.

This is no different and sooner or later everything we do catches up with us. At best all we can do choose wisely.

Whether or not everything we do catches up to us is certainly debatable. I have no objection to choosing wisely. In fact, I think choosing wisely includes choosing to have children when they're wanted. I have little reason to suspect that an unwanted fetus, carried to term against the will of the woman, will result in a wanted child.

Regards,
mrmufin

[DOuCwhatIsee]

DOuCwhatIsee wrote:
mrmufin wrote:
we all have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage
I agree 100% but I also believe that there is always an exception to every rule.
Are you saying that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is wrong because our right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage must have an exception?

DOuCwhatIsee wrote:
For example: murder vs the death penalty, same result from a different perspective.
I'm not sure how this examample helps your argument. If the "same result" you're refering to is death, the same result can be had from any number of sources. Murder is malicious. The death penalty is a punishment for crime(s). Suicide is intentional and consensual death. Deadly force may be justified in self defense. The principle still stands. Unless you want to regard carrying an unawanted fetus to term as punishment for a crime...?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you've been taking a lot of my parallels literal and not for the mirror statements they are. My exception to the rule with murder vs death had nothing to do with being forced to have babies as a punishment. I was trying to say that even though it's wrong to kill someone the death penalty is an exception to the rule for that particular situation. These rules exist for every other situation we face the purpose of which is to prevent extremism and maintain balance even though it doesn't always work.

For a wide variety of reasons, I don't subscribe to such a deterministic worldview.

Sure you do, you just haven't Consciously realized it yet. Just because we choose not to face reality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "What is reality" you might ask, it is what it is.

Whether or not everything we do catches up to us is certainly debatable.

Keep living.

I have little reason to suspect that an unwanted fetus, carried to term against the will of the woman, will result in a wanted child.

The reason you suspect that is obvious, you haven't spoken to a lot of mothers.

Transfer dependency; though this is not an option with a fetus.

Are you really suggesting that the majority of parents on the planet simply "transfer dependency" and the problem would be solved? (Hmm, question to me: Did something happen to mrmufin when he was a kid? I don't know.) Am I wrong in assuming that you're assuming that these parents I am referring to either didn't want/plan their children or were parents "against their will"? On the contrary, if you were to actually speak to some of these people you never know, you just might change, to some degree, what you believe.

[Tigerlilly]

Speak to whom?

Sure you do, you just haven't Consciously realized it yet. Just because we choose not to face reality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "What is reality" you might ask, it is what it is.

I don't support determinism either. People make choices and those choices affect what happens in the world.

[mrmufin]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you've been taking a lot of my parallels literal and not for the mirror statements they are. My exception to the rule with murder vs death had nothing to do with being forced to have babies as a punishment. I was trying to say that even though it's wrong to kill someone the death penalty is an exception to the rule for that particular situation. These rules exist for every other situation we face the purpose of which is to prevent extremism and maintain balance even though it doesn't always work.

Okay then. If we have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage (to which you said you agreed 100%), then why is terminating an unwanted pregnancy wrong? Can you think of any other examples where the right to occupy and use someone's body against their will is protected?

That's just life. In life we don't get to choose the consequences for our choices, they're already set.

For a wide variety of reasons, I don't subscribe to such a deterministic worldview.

Sure you do, you just haven't Consciously realized it yet. Just because we choose not to face reality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "What is reality" you might ask, it is what it is.

Can you demonstrate that consequences are already set? I never said anything about reality not existing, I just don't subscribe to such a deterministic worldview. What was the name of Schrödinger's cat ?

I have little reason to suspect that an unwanted fetus, carried to term against the will of the woman, will result in a wanted child.

The reason you suspect that is obvious, you haven't spoken to a lot of mothers.

Can you support that assertion?

Are you really suggesting that the majority of parents on the planet simply "transfer dependency" and the problem would be solved?

I'm pointing out that transfering dependency of a fetus is not an option. The fetus is entirely dependent on the woman. It is occupying her body and altering her body chemistry. There may be times when this occupation and usage of her body is not wanted.

(Hmm, question to me: Did something happen to mrmufin when he was a kid? I don't know.)

Quite a bit happened when I was a child. In fact, I had a very happy, safe, and healthy childhood.

Am I wrong in assuming that you're assuming that these parents I am referring to either didn't want/plan their children or were parents "against their will"? On the contrary, if you were to actually speak to some of these people you never know, you just might change, to some degree, what you believe.

I never tried to equate unplanned with unwanted. Nor did I suggest that a majority of children are unwanted, though some are. I also suspect that some women have an array of very serious decisions to make once they find out they're pregnant. I do not assert that the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is an easy decision to make. I do suggest that ultimately, the one person best qualified to determine whether or not to carry a fetus to term is the woman carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me. I also suspect that the number of unwanted children would increase if abortion is outlawed.

Regards,
mrmufin

[DOuCwhatIsee]

I don't support determinism either. People make choices and those choices affect what happens in the world.

We both agree peoples choices affect what happens in the world but are saying that we can determine outcome of our choices? If so could you give me an example because I've never seen it happen and I need a little help with this one.

Okay then. If we have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage (to which you said you agreed 100%), then why is terminating an unwanted pregnancy wrong? Can you think of any other examples where the right to occupy and use someone's body against their will is protected?The military is an example of that. Even though people volunteer to join the military once they're in they have to go where ever whenever the military wants them to go and do whatever is asked of them until their enlistment is up. This unwanted usage and occupancy "against your will" can only be avoided if you don't join the military. I think the same reasoning applies to getting pregnant because, except for the times when BC fails like you stated earlier, nobody HAS to get pregnant. It's up at least 98% avoidable. I know you don't agree but do you at least see where I'm coming from?

Can you demonstrate that consequences are already set? I never said anything about reality not existing, I just don't subscribe to such a deterministic worldview. What was the name of Schrödinger's cat ? It's as simple as 1+1=2. Nobody created the law that states every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It existed before we did and somebody discovered it and we have been designing and building things around this "pre-existing" law ever since. Consequences is just another word for results and according to the laws of science results are the product of the sum of the equation. As far as dudes cat I have no idea what his name was and I think he wishes he didn't either. But what do you think about this? If the cat was dead and alive at the same time then why does the same not apply to a fetus or is that not even the point?

Can you support that assertion?Do I have the resources to take poles and gather that type of information, no. All I have is what you have which is personal experience unless you know something I don't which is entirely possible. I think you would be surprized at the ratio of mothers who did not want to be pregnant before their baby was born, my own mother included. MOST women change their mindset after they've seen the fruit of their labor but it's pretty ugly until that point.

I never tried to equate unplanned with unwanted. Nor did I suggest that a majority of children are unwanted, though some are. I also suspect that some women have an array of very serious decisions to make once they find out they're pregnant. I do not assert that the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is an easy decision to make. I do suggest that ultimately, the one person best qualified to determine whether or not to carry a fetus to term is the woman carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me. I also suspect that the number of unwanted children would increase if abortion is outlawed. Honestly I can't argue anything you just said except I don't think the number of unwanted children would increase if abortion was outlawed because of what I wrote earlier. After discussing this back and forth like we've been doing I think I may have realized something. Maybe my point is not that abortion should be outlawed. Maybe my point is that I just don't understand why society should even feel like it should HAVE to outlaw abortion in order to attempt to prevent it. I can't understand how it can looked at as just a part of daily living.
Whatcha thinkin?

[Tigerlilly]

We both agree peoples choices affect what happens in the world but are saying that we can determine outcome of our choices? If so could you give me an example because I've never seen it happen and I need a little help with this one.

I agree that some things are determined. At least some things are free. I dont believe either one is 100%. But I believe people make their own choices mixed from nature and nuture, internal and external forces.


We might be able to determine the outcome of our choices by tailoring the consequences. We can fix some of the negative consequences that come as a result of choices, thus changing the ending.

[DOuCwhatIsee]

We might be able to determine the outcome of our choices by tailoring the consequences. We can fix some of the negative consequences that come as a result of choices, thus changing the ending.


Good point but check this out. I believe there is a reason or purpose for everything including negative consequences and that attempting to remove negative consequences could ultimately produce an even worse outcome. For example: pain sucks but if you take it away then how would you first know that you have sustained serious internal injury? (i.e. bone fracture, heart attack or something like that)

[mrmufin]

Okay then. If we have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage (to which you said you agreed 100%), then why is terminating an unwanted pregnancy wrong? Can you think of any other examples where the right to occupy and use someone's body against their will is protected?

The military is an example of that. Even though people volunteer to join the military once they're in they have to go where ever whenever the military wants them to go and do whatever is asked of them until their enlistment is up. This unwanted usage and occupancy "against your will" can only be avoided if you don't join the military.

Currently, the US armed forces are volunteer. When you sign up, you agree to certain terms, to accept orders, to go where you're needed, etc. In short, some rights are waived. To the best of my knowledge, not even the Secretary of Defense can tell a soldier whether or not she should carry a fetus to term.

I think the same reasoning applies to getting pregnant because, except for the times when BC fails like you stated earlier, nobody HAS to get pregnant. It's up at least 98% avoidable. I know you don't agree but do you at least see where I'm coming from?

I have no argument against practicing safe sex, personal responsibility, abstinence, etc. I have no problem with offering support, outreach, alternatives, or guidance. The bottom line is that not all pregnancies are wanted, and some are definitely unwanted. I have a big problem with undermining a woman's right to be the ultimate arbiter and defender of her bodily integrity.

It's as simple as 1+1=2. Nobody created the law that states every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It existed before we did and somebody discovered it and we have been designing and building things around this "pre-existing" law ever since. Consequences is just another word for results and according to the laws of science results are the product of the sum of the equation.

Sometimes results are probabilistic rather than deterministic. Incidentally, 1+1 need not always be 2.

As far as dudes cat I have no idea what his name was and I think he wishes he didn't either. But what do you think about this? If the cat was dead and alive at the same time then why does the same not apply to a fetus or is that not even the point?

The question about Schrödinger's cat was interference; more related to probabilistic results than fetuses.

I think you would be surprized at the ratio of mothers who did not want to be pregnant before their baby was born, my own mother included. MOST women change their mindset after they've seen the fruit of their labor but it's pretty ugly until that point.

I don't doubt that some women may be ambivalent, but carry the fetus to term and have no regrets. Other outcomes are also possible. The point is that the pregnant woman is the one who should get the final say, because the fetus is entirely dependent upon her.

Honestly I can't argue anything you just said except I don't think the number of unwanted children would increase if abortion was outlawed because of what I wrote earlier.

We can only speculate, but it sure doesn't seem likely that the number of unwanted children would decrease any if abortion was outlawed. I'm sure abortions would still take place even if they were outawed; else women would go to different jurisdictions.

After discussing this back and forth like we've been doing I think I may have realized something. Maybe my point is not that abortion should be outlawed. Maybe my point is that I just don't understand why society should even feel like it should HAVE to outlaw abortion in order to attempt to prevent it. I can't understand how it can looked at as just a part of daily living.
Whatcha thinkin?

I don't suspect that the decision to get an abortion is an easy decision or one that's usually taken lightly. I have no problem with offering support, alternatives, counseling or the like to a woman who may be indecisive or uncertain about carrying a fetus to term. But ultimately, we need to respect a woman's right to make the final decision.

Regards,
mrmufin

[DOuCwhatIsee]

Currently, the US armed forces are volunteer. When you sign up, you agree to certain terms, to accept orders, to go where you're needed, etc. In short, some rights are waived. To the best of my knowledge, not even the Secretary of Defense can tell a soldier whether or not she should carry a fetus to term.

True but there are laws in the military that state that you can't have pre-marital sex, that forbid certain sexual positions and other stuff like this. They are never enforced though.

Sometimes results are probabilistic rather than deterministic. Incidentally, 1+1 need not always be 2.

That's true outside of base 10 but I was kinda hoping that you would take for granted that's what I meant. It has become painfully obvious that you are not an idiot but if you were this conversation would be a lot easier

I don't doubt that some women may be ambivalent, but carry the fetus to term and have no regrets. Other outcomes are also possible. The point is that the pregnant woman is the one who should get the final say, because the fetus is entirely dependent upon her.

So then your argument is not necessarily that abortion is right or wrong but more that the woman should have final say?

The question about Schrödinger's cat was interference; more related to probabilistic results than fetuses.

That crazy cat!

[mrmufin]

So then your argument is not necessarily that abortion is right or wrong but more that the woman should have final say?

Pretty much. For the woman to truly have the final say, the option to extract an unwanted fetus is consistent with her right to bodily integrity. No one else is better equipped than the woman to determine whether or not the fetus should be carried to term. By the same principle, no one is better equipped than the individual to determine whether ot not to have another drink, have sex, become a vegetarian, get cosmetic surgery, etc.

In a moral sense, abortion can be considered right, wrong, something else, undecided, whatever. My position is that from a legal perspective, abortion must remain an available option because we all have a fundamental right to defend ourselves from unwanted bodily occupation and usage. Because the fetus is entirely dependent upon the woman, and it may definitely be unwanted, the woman gets the final say. Because the fetus is not viable outside of the woman, all of its rights are afforded by the woman carrying it.

Regards,
mrmufin