Post: #26

Abortion is one of those things that's easy to oppose for everyone but yourself.

Post: #27

(06-19-2013 01:25 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Abortion is one of those things that's easy to oppose for everyone but yourself.

If you're referring to my personal anecdote, it's one thing to be hypocritical - it's another to be told something is okay your entire life, by your mother and society, and then after experiencing it up close change your mind about it and decide it's morally wrong. At 19, you're still very impressionable.

As I mentioned in the OP, there's no way I would do it again. Not a chance.

So I get your point, but I think you're stretching. People choose it as an option because it's been normalized in our society and we've emotionally distanced ourselves from what we're actually doing. There's nothing wrong with coming to an epiphany about that and having a change of heart.

Now if I were to condemn the act and then use it to get out of a jam later this year, only to go back to condemning it again, then your accusation might be founded. Until then...

I'm Here.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #28

(06-19-2013 12:19 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I normally find myself in agreement with you, but here I disagree. I think there is a difference between a 2 week clump of cells and a fetus at 7 months.

Is there a difference of humanity between a 2 week clump of cells and a 7 month fetus?

Quote:I think early term abortion is morally justifiable because I think the self determination of a woman is more valuable than whatever it is that's growing inside her.

Are you denying that there is a human being inside of her?

Post: #29

I call a spade a spade. It's killing a person for convenience. I'm pro choice, but I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not just to feel not guilty about it.

Post: #30

BB, it was not directed at you specifically.

Still you acknowledge you made a mistake. Are others not entitled to make them? Should they only be allowed to a certain she?

Post: #31

(06-19-2013 03:26 AM)Vicious Wrote:  BB, it was not directed at you specifically.

Still you acknowledge you made a mistake. Are others not entitled to make them? Should they only be allowed to a certain she?

My argument would be that in a society that didn't rationalize an immoral practice, the mistake would not be misunderstood or allowed in the first place. So, no, I don't believe anyone else should be entitled to that mistake. Not if we want to pretend we're a civilized society.

And I don't think she (or I) should have had the option either.

Again, it only became an option due to the paradigm society has developed and continues to pass down. Once you see past cultural conditioning, whether it is a negotiable point all comes down to what you believe spiritually, in my opinion (as for me, my view of life isn't purely based in science).

But I was raised without faith and one of the strongest beliefs handed to me was the "sacredness" and need for empowerment of women. Thanks a lot Ma...

Now I believe that shouldn't have anything to do with the issue - just as empowering a woman to her own choices wouldn't excuse throwing a newborn baby in a dumpster.

If a woman wants to be empowered by freedom from spawn, she can take birth control, use condumns, and not ride the cock carousal. Or get her tubes tied. For guys, much of the same applies. Personal responsibility...whodathunk?

And when that fails and they "make a mistake" (i.e. create a human life), it's time to accept the consequences of one's actions and step up to the plate. As I should have.

As a plus, I think if people were forced to face the music instead of having the easy out, they'd look at what their friends and family went through and make better choices.

I'm Here.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #32

So you're saying you shouldn't have had the option for it and that it's the fault of an immoral society that caused "your" unwanted pregnancy in the first place. .. yet you go on about the necessity for personal responsibility?

How is this not hypocritical?

You're not saying that you fucked up and was a horny kid too focused on blowing his load rather than think about the far reaching consequences. Instead you lay the blame at your mother's feet.

How is this any different from what feminists are doing? They also blame society for holding them back, for not getting them equal pay or allow them a life of excess without consequences.

Personally I loathe abortion as a contraceptive. But too remove the option all together? Better have a more solid argument than the above.

Post: #33

I can be a very callous person when it needs, but I cannot look at a baby (including photos of unborn babies) and accept their killing.

I don't know how I would react if I would accidentally impregnate a slut that is unfit to be a mother and would be an unpleasant wife material trough. Maybe I would give in and go against against my conscience, accept a murder to escape from paying alimony to an obnoxious pig. But I don't want to be in a situation where I have to make this decision. This is one of main reasons why I am choosy, probably more choosy then most guys around here. I only bang women whom I could picture as at least decent wives for me even trough I have no intentions to actually marry them. I don't mind lost opportunities because of that, here in Eastern Europe relationships are more fulfilling then one night stands anyway so it doesn't leave me sexless.

Post: #34

(06-19-2013 01:45 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:19 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I normally find myself in agreement with you, but here I disagree. I think there is a difference between a 2 week clump of cells and a fetus at 7 months.

Is there a difference of humanity between a 2 week clump of cells and a 7 month fetus?

Absolutely, a baby could be born at 7 months and survive and feel basic human emotions like happy and sad. a 2 week clump of cells could not.

Quote:I think early term abortion is morally justifiable because I think the self determination of a woman is more valuable than whatever it is that's growing inside her.

Are you denying that there is a human being inside of her?
[/quote]


at 2 weeks? yes.

Post: #35

(06-19-2013 04:46 AM)Vicious Wrote:  So you're saying you shouldn't have had the option for it and that it's the fault of an immoral society that caused "your" unwanted pregnancy in the first place. .. yet you go on about the necessity for personal responsibility?

How is this not hypocritical?

Whoah - you're putting words in my mouth, Man. I'm not sure what lens you're viewing my posts through, but I was saying it's society's influence that people think abortion is a viable option - through normalization of the practice. Not that I got some chick pregnant. If you don't think your society influences what you see as right or wrong, especially when young, you're much deluded, my friend.

I already said I should have taken responsibility, and I should have. And I will next time. Regardless of how mental the woman was, I'd probably have custody of the kid by now anyways - not that it makes a difference to my opinion on the issue overall.

Quote:You're not saying that you fucked up and was a horny kid too focused on blowing his load rather than think about the far reaching consequences. Instead you lay the blame at your mother's feet.

You're putting words in my mouth again.

I'm not blaming my mother for me getting someone pregnant. I blame her and the rest of my culture for convincing me at a young age that a woman's choice is the crucial aspect of this matter. Believing this so strongly keeps you from looking deeper into the reality of what it actually represents; one of the reasons it won't go away anytime soon.

Saying "thanks mom" was sarcasm about the bullshit feminist principles I was taught growing up. She was a single mom doing her best and I don't begrudge her on it, but of course she made mistakes as we all do. She also taught me to treat women like "queens," regardless of their own contribution to the relationship, and even she changed her tone on that by the time I was almost out of high school and says it was a mistake to this day.

Just as my perceptions were once the product of my society, before I learned to think for myself, so were hers.

Abortion is only an option for people due to cultural indoctrination that should be changed. Discussing how cultural values and upbringing can influence our belief systems isn't the same as shirking responsibility.

As for my own mistake, I'm pretty sure the pregnancy occurred because the girl I was with stopped taking the pill in a bid to keep me, but I still take full responsibility for allowing that to happen. I should have been more cautious and hedged my bets by pulling out. And by using a condumn like I did every other time over the two years we were together. I probably shouldn't have banged this particular woman in the first place, knowing what type of person she was.

Such is.

If guys didn't take have such an easy out when they got some psycho pregnant, more people would likely be cautious about those types of things.

Quote:How is this any different from what feminists are doing? They also blame society for holding them back, for not getting them equal pay or allow them a life of excess without consequences.

Wow - now you're comparing me to feminists? You are really stretching hard now. Is this your version of Godwin's Law? Don't paint me with that brush. I don't see how you got any of this BS out of my posts? Blaming society for "holding me back?" Huh?

Quote:Personally I loathe abortion as a contraceptive. But too remove the option all together? Better have a more solid argument than the above.

I didn't start the thread to argue with anyone or shove my opinion down anyone's throat, so no, I don't need to bring a better argument then above. The above was my opinion based on me thinking you were making an implication about me, and then you continued questioning me about my opinion, at which point you started cherry-picking bits and pieces of my answers to suit the points you wanted to make.

I've decided to forge my own beliefs about right and wrong and thus take greater responsibility next time - Wow, what a victim role I play (sarcasm again, in case you miss it). I really don't see how my posts could have given you any other idea about that.

I have no delusions about changing anyone's mind on this and am not even trying to. As the thread titles suggests, I was curious about other Roosher's thoughts.

I'm Here.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #36

Alright, I was unfairly harsh. You responded with grace and dignity considering my aggressive tone. I didn't need to go there.

Post: #37

(06-19-2013 05:06 AM)master_thespian Wrote:  

Quote:Are you denying that there is a human being inside of her?

at 2 weeks? yes.

There really is no way around the scientific realities of the human life cycle. A 2 week old human embryo represents a human being at the earliest stages of this life cycle. There's no getting around this fact, even with denial. Unless you can come up with a scientifically viable argument that places a human embryo outside of the human life cycle, you'll have to accept this at some point.

Post: #38

I can't stand babies. They don't look human, they don't feel human and all they do is scream in a way that makes me want to flee the space immediately. I know an infant can feel pain and they're defenseless so it angers me if someone hurts a baby but that's the same thing I feel if someone hurts an animal, I don't think babies are human. I just don't feel it.

My guess is that opinion on abortion is mostly determined by how cute you think babies are. I get these pro-lifers sending me pictures of fetuses and they think I'm going to go "aww, cute things being killed" but I'm just disgusted by babies if they haven't reached the point where they can walk and talk.

Post: #39

(06-19-2013 05:06 AM)master_thespian Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 01:45 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:19 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I normally find myself in agreement with you, but here I disagree. I think there is a difference between a 2 week clump of cells and a fetus at 7 months.

Is there a difference of humanity between a 2 week clump of cells and a 7 month fetus?

Absolutely, a baby could be born at 7 months and survive and feel basic human emotions like happy and sad. a 2 week clump of cells could not.

What's the difference between a 6 month old fetus and a 7 month old fetus?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I think early term abortion is morally justifiable because I think the self determination of a woman is more valuable than whatever it is that's growing inside her.

Are you denying that there is a human being inside of her?

at 2 weeks? yes.

So if there's no human inside of her why do you need to have an abortion?

Post: #40

(06-19-2013 01:45 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:19 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I normally find myself in agreement with you, but here I disagree. I think there is a difference between a 2 week clump of cells and a fetus at 7 months.

Is there a difference of humanity between a 2 week clump of cells and a 7 month fetus?

Quote:I think early term abortion is morally justifiable because I think the self determination of a woman is more valuable than whatever it is that's growing inside her.

Are you denying that there is a human being inside of her?

Your first question: Although one is considerably more developed and is beginning to display characteristics of sentience, I think I understand what you're getting at so let's say there is no difference in terms of humanness between 2 week and 7 month, since both are equally homo sapien.

Your second question: Absolutely. It is not a human being. I think what you're saying is that because it is human (homo sapien), therefore it is a human being.

I think this is a problem of necessary and sufficient conditions. A human genome is necessary to be a human being but it is not sufficient. A 2 week clump of cells has a necessary condition, but not sufficient conditions. At 7 months a fetus is beginning to display both necessary and sufficient conditions. And by the way whether we define it at 6 months or 7 months or 8 months, I think there is a point where what's inside the woman needs to be respected.

Keep in mind I am not saying a 2 week clump of cells isn't valuable, I just think the self determination of a woman is more valuable.

BTW Women who use abortion as birth control are dysfunctional for a number of reasons, I certainly will never argue that.

Post: #41

(06-19-2013 12:35 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 01:45 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:19 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  I normally find myself in agreement with you, but here I disagree. I think there is a difference between a 2 week clump of cells and a fetus at 7 months.

Is there a difference of humanity between a 2 week clump of cells and a 7 month fetus?

Quote:I think early term abortion is morally justifiable because I think the self determination of a woman is more valuable than whatever it is that's growing inside her.

Are you denying that there is a human being inside of her?

Your first question: Although one is considerably more developed and is beginning to display characteristics of sentience, I think I understand what you're getting at so let's say there is no difference in terms of humanness between 2 week and 7 month, since both are equally homo sapien.

What does sentience have to do with anything? If a man is knocked out unconscious, or goes into a coma, does that mean he loses his rights because he's no longer sentient?

Quote:Your second question: Absolutely. It is not a human being. I think what you're saying is that because it is human (homo sapien), therefore it is a human being.

If it's not a human being, then why do you need to abort it?

Post: #42

The "its a human being" arguments don't change my mind. I can concede that it is a human being that is growing in a woman's womb and still support abortion.

Besides, Roe v. Wade isn't getting overturned anytime in the near future (if ever).

Post: #43

Quote:The "its a human being" arguments don't change my mind. I can concede that it is a human being that is growing in a woman's womb and still support abortion.

Then by logical extension you must be a supporter of infanticide, or the killing of anyone for any expedient reason whatsoever. After all, if humanity does not guarantee the right to life, then what is to say we should protect someone who merely pisses off someone powerful?

Post: #44

(06-19-2013 12:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If it's not a human being, then why do you need to abort it?

To prevent it from becoming a human being. A human being is a thing of value that needs to be respected, cared for, and parented. A human being can't be aborted but a clump of cells can.

And as for your other question, let's assume an unconscious man isn't sentient. He's still a human being capable of sentience, a 2 week clump of cells isn't.

And I think sentience is what needs to be respected. It's why people protest animals being abused, they are sentient. Nobody protests cockroaches being abused because they aren't sentient.

Post: #45

(06-19-2013 12:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:The "its a human being" arguments don't change my mind. I can concede that it is a human being that is growing in a woman's womb and still support abortion.

Then by logical extension you must be a supporter of infanticide, or the killing of anyone for any expedient reason whatsoever. After all, if humanity does not guarantee the right to life, then what is to say we should protect someone who merely pisses off someone powerful?

Necessary evil, in my opinion.

The Spartans practiced infanticide and had democracy. The extension you are making isn't supported by reality since the only thing that prevents political assassinations is a robust democracy, not whether a society practices infanticide.

Post: #46

(06-19-2013 12:50 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If it's not a human being, then why do you need to abort it?

To prevent it from becoming a human being. A human being is a thing of value that needs to be respected, cared for, and parented. A human being can't be aborted but a clump of cells can.

And as for your other question, let's assume an unconscious man isn't sentient. He's still a human being capable of sentience, a 2 week clump of cells isn't.

These two statements contradict each other. If capability of sentience is all that matters, then a 2 week clump of cells must be respected because you just said you need to "prevent" it from becoming a human being, which implies that the 2 week clump of cells are capable of becoming sentient.

Post: #47

(06-19-2013 12:55 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:The "its a human being" arguments don't change my mind. I can concede that it is a human being that is growing in a woman's womb and still support abortion.

Then by logical extension you must be a supporter of infanticide, or the killing of anyone for any expedient reason whatsoever. After all, if humanity does not guarantee the right to life, then what is to say we should protect someone who merely pisses off someone powerful?

Necessary evil, in my opinion.

The Spartans practiced infanticide and had real democracy (not just "representative democracy"). The extension you are making isn't supported by reality since the only thing that prevents political assassinations is a robust democracy, not whether a society practices infanticide.

The Spartans were an Oligarchy. Thucydides even calls them as such, and Thucydides is considered the primary source on everything about Sparta.

It makes sense to call them an Oligarchy, since they had two kings and a senate. It was ruled by a powerful cabal of men, although the women basically pulled the strings behind the scenes.

Putting that digression aside...

There's no need to talk about politics. This is an ethical discussion. If there's no reason to value someone's humanity, then you cannot say there's anything wrong with homicide.

Post: #48

(06-19-2013 12:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:55 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:The "its a human being" arguments don't change my mind. I can concede that it is a human being that is growing in a woman's womb and still support abortion.

Then by logical extension you must be a supporter of infanticide, or the killing of anyone for any expedient reason whatsoever. After all, if humanity does not guarantee the right to life, then what is to say we should protect someone who merely pisses off someone powerful?

Necessary evil, in my opinion.

The Spartans practiced infanticide and had real democracy (not just "representative democracy"). The extension you are making isn't supported by reality since the only thing that prevents political assassinations is a robust democracy, not whether a society practices infanticide.

The Spartans were an Oligarchy. Thucydides even calls them as such, and Thucydides is considered the primary source on everything about Sparta.

It makes sense to call them an Oligarchy, since they had two kings and a senate. It was ruled by a powerful cabal of men, although the women basically pulled the strings behind the scenes.

Putting that digression aside...

There's no need to talk about politics. This is an ethical discussion. If there's no reason to value someone's humanity, then you cannot say there's anything wrong with homicide.

My mistake, I was thinking about Athens.

I don't have a problem with certain forms of homicide: the death penalty for capital crimes and infanticide.

Post: #49

Getting all philosophical now, RVF?

On the ethics of abortion, personally, I think it's more ethical to abort an unwanted child than to bring it into a world where it will most likely be a huge burden on the parent(s), leading to resentment of the child, and whatever further problems this will inevitably cause. While it is arguable that the child could be the next brilliant something in some field, I'm fairly sure (don't quote me on this, I could be very wrong) that most abortions come from lower socioeconomic families, and these don't quite so often produce child prodigies.

Personally, I think if the bitch didn't want to have a baby, she should have been on the pill, or not had sex in the first place (I understand that some circumstances, like rape, are beyond their control, but this is definitely not the standard run of things). With the way that the family law systems in most western countries work, abortion ends up being a one way street, and the woman in question gets to decide which way the traffic runs. The potential for every bad situation related to child support, etc, is great. And there is literally no accountability, whatsoever, for the women in question.

Many countries in South America, and Africa work on this policy:

Quote:Abortion is considered illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, and/or fetal defects

This is some legit shit in my eyes.

To summarise, I'm not a fan of abortion, but, in all honesty, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to make a woman abort my child if I had to.

Post: #50

(06-19-2013 12:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:50 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If it's not a human being, then why do you need to abort it?

To prevent it from becoming a human being. A human being is a thing of value that needs to be respected, cared for, and parented. A human being can't be aborted but a clump of cells can.

And as for your other question, let's assume an unconscious man isn't sentient. He's still a human being capable of sentience, a 2 week clump of cells isn't.

These two statements contradict each other. If capability of sentience is all that matters, then a 2 week clump of cells must be respected because you just said you need to "prevent" it from becoming a human being, which implies that the 2 week clump of cells are capable of becoming sentient.

The 2 week clump of cells will never become sentient. What is being aborted at that stage isn't sentient and in and of itself will never develop sentience. If left in the womb to develop, I certainly don't deny it will become something that will develop sentience, but this is the fundamental problem I have with the reasoning used in the abortion debate.

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).