• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > South Dakota outlaws abortion

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123456...8
jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:BBC news story.
If you're in South Dakota abortians are now all but outlawed.

It's very sad that in this day and age the religious right has made this much head way. The anti-choice groups are trying to provoke a supreme court chalenge, aimed at over turning the Roe vs. Wade ruling which made abortians legal in the first place for Americans. If they succeed then abortions will once again be illegal across all of the united states (correct me if I've got my US legal code wrong).

Quite frankly this is a moral disaster. The rights of women to control their own bodies took a long time to win. It had to be fought for at every stage and now it looks like it's going to be eroded away again. I'm thankful that nothing like this could ever happen in Britain but it's still disheartening to see America heading back to the dark ages. frown


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete Topic

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Mothers (throughout times) had (illegal) ways to abort their child. Formerly it was illegal, leading to horrid scenarios. They aborted them, because (for / to them) there was simply no alternative. They killed the babies sometimes often after birth. It's happening these days still.

"Legalizing" abortion was one way to get those women out of the "criminal consciousness", to liberate them from the "murderer"-brandmark and to enable them access to counselling and support.

To make abortion illegal will not stop mothers to perform an abortion - it will greatly contribute to them feeling as a fellon.

A society should progress by providing effective ways and means for a mother to deliver a baby even if she normally would have aborted it and do this in good faith. Society fails, if it has to deny the right of self-determination and to criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens. Society also fails in providing sufficient support for children and single mums. Denying this is as denying tomorrows sunrise.

I do not doubt that children resulting from rape and incest are just as valuable and not psychopaths - to assume that would be blatantly stupid - but I emphasise that society has no right to intervene into the families or personal rights. There are also women and families out there who have enough children already (by their own account) - but sometimes birth control fails... to criminalise these ppl (in consciousness) is unfair and counter-productive.

To put a babies life over the mothers is exactly why womens right activists have every legal argument against the "morality" of an otherwise hipocrate society. To me it's a predominantly male argument. A mother who loves her child will happily scrifice her own life for the sake of the baby - to force someone into motherhood is worse than to force someone into marriage... eek

However loving children and NOT advocating abortion AT ALL, I can't help it but only express disgust with this kind of oppressive legislation that is turning righteous citizens into murderers. A sad day for America, democracy and women/ human rights...

Is it in South Dakota, where pre-martial sex is prohibited? I recall there are a number of funny laws in the US, pointing right into the bedrooms of their citizens - IMHO the government/ legislation has no right to...

But maybe I'm just too serious about "freedom"... shrug US - the only land off the free... a fairy tale... ?!? wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
I assume you are speaking to onewheeldave's logic. However, it is also true that by the principles of humanism, it is theoretically possible for the needs and interests of humans to change so as to make rape legal. That's the whole point of moral relativism: there are no such things as moral absolutes.


Who is taking this position? You're just building a strawman here.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

Written by: jeff(fake)

Written by: Patriarch917

If onewheeldave is right, then you have the ability to create your own morality. However, he seems also to suggest that the people of South Dakota may also create their own morality that is different from yours. Even if you strongly believe what you say, surely you cannot fault them for deciding to create their morality in a different way?


By your logic if the government of South Dakota were to declare rape legal then it would be moral.


I assume you are speaking to onewheeldave's logic. However, it is also true that by the principles of humanism, it is theoretically possible for the needs and interests of humans to change so as to make rape legal. That's the whole point of moral relativism: there are no such things as moral absolutes.


I think Sethis put it best...
Written by: Sethis

Patriarch, you're doing it again. You've seen superficial similarities between my position and a position that you have come across when talking to other people.

You have then assumed that my argument is the same, because it is similar. It isn't. You're arguing against some other people you've heard/spoken to, not me.


In an general sense morality is relative. However, for arbitary reasons human beings world wide share an almost identicle fundemental system of emotions and values. A Chinaman and an African can both agree that murder and rape are generally wrong for instance. We base our moral system on these values. Thus morality is in a specific sence absolute accross the human race.

Now it is theoretically possible that a subspecies of human could exist whose fundemenal values are completely different, in which case things we regard as morally wrong might not be for them. However such a group doesn't exist. I might be inclined to suggest that South Dakota senators are of a monsterous and barbaric subspecies at moment, but that probably isn't true. Similarily if a civilisation lacks the medical tool to render abortian the safe procedure it is today (safer than a tonsilectomy according to statistics) then it might be moral to prohibity it on saftey ground. South Dakota may be backwards but not that backwards.

Thus I am perfectly justified in applying my moral standards to the senate of South Dakota and their immoral ruling. For all human societies currently in existance outlawing abortian is never justified.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: Sethis

[the issue in this topic is...] whether the government of South Dakota has made a reasonable decision. This isn't a thread about whether abortion is justifiable. I repeat, if you want to argue about it (and that goes for everyone else too) then bump/start a thread on it. smile




Written by: jeff(fake)

In an general sense morality is relative. However, for arbitary reasons human beings world wide share an almost identicle fundemental system of emotions and values. A Chinaman and an African can both agree that murder and rape are generally wrong for instance. We base our moral system on these values. Thus morality is in a specific sence absolute accross the human race.




You can see from jeff(fake)s reply why we have started to debate whether abortion can be considered moral or immoral from a standard other than the morality of the people of South Dakota. Jeff(fake) has said that, while morals are arbitrary, there are moral absolutes that should apply to the whole human race because the whole human race agrees to them.

Written by: jeff(fake)

Now it is theoretically possible that a subspecies of human could exist whose fundemenal values are completely different, in which case things we regard as morally wrong might not be for them. However such a group doesn't exist.




As you can see, Jeff(fake) suggests that it is possible, however, for a subgroup of people to exist that hold fundamentally different moral values than other people. I would go a step further, and say that it is undeniably true that different groups of people can hold fundamentally different moral values. One does not have to look far to see groups of people that hold different fundamental moral values. His claim that such a group does not exist is contradicted by the evidence. It is demonstrable, for example, that Muslims and Hindus have different fundamental values, and consider different types of behavior to be morally wrong. Not only do such groups exist, but South Dakota seems to be one of them.

The best data that we have indicated that the majority of people in South Dakota hold a particular view on the morality of abortion that is different from jeffs. To deny this without any contrary data to back up your claim is silly. If, as jeff said, morals are arbitrary and based on what humans agree to, then since the people in South Dakota agree that a particular thing is immoral, it actually becomes immoral for them.

No evidence has been presented to back up an insinuation that the government of South Dakota is not accurately representing the values of the people in South Dakota. A baseless claim should be given no respect unless it can backed up from some reliable source. I established that religious humanism teaches that morals are relative and can evolve with the needs and interests of people. I backed up this claim by quoting directly from authoritative sources on humanism (the humanist manifestos). Anyone who wishes to prove me wrong can do so simply be quoting the manifestos (I provided the links) a passage that shows that my explanation is wrong.

We have already seen that data from jeff(fake)s news story which proves, based on our best possible measurements, that the people of South Dakota have decided that their needs and interests require abortion to be considered immoral. Unless a better, more reliable source can be found that suggests that the people of South Dakota actually do not consider this decision to accurately reflect their communitys needs and interests, we must accept the data for the sake of our argument.

Unless superior evidence can be found that suggests otherwise, the evidence we have now suggests that humanism teaches that, for the people of South Dakota, abortion is immoral.

Written by: jeff(fake)

I am perfectly justified in applying my moral standards to the senate of South Dakota and their immoral ruling. For all human societies currently in existance outlawing abortian is never justified.



Under the principles of humanism no you are not perfectly justified in insisting that the people of South Dakota be judged immoral based on your own opinion of morality. They are in a better position than you to decide what their needs and interests are. It is they, not you, who have been given the authority under humanism to decide what their morality should be.

The presence of people with different needs and interests from you is not a theoretical possibility, it is a proven fact. Thus, according to humanism, your opinion of morality is not an adequate standard by which to judge the people of South Dakota.

Sethis, your arguments have gone to the reasoning of the people of South Dakota, and I have enjoyed discussing the things that might influence the needs and interests of South Dakota. You are correct in saying that debating whether their morality is considered reasonable by some other standard is off topic. Therefore, I agree to stop discussing in this thread whether their opinions are reasonable by some outside standard (such as our opinion).

The question raised by jeff(fake) in this topic is a simple one: whether by any moral standard this can be called a moral disaster.

From the perspective of humanistic relativism, people have the exclusive right to decide what is moral and what is not. Onewheeldave has suggested that individuals have the right to decide what is moral and immoral for them. Others believe that societies have a right to decide on a group morality that will apply to individual members (thus, if you commit a murder in a society that considers murder immoral, it is a moral disaster).

We havent really touched on other sources of morality, such as natural law, God, etc., so we dont have any firm moral standards that can apply to everyone.

The way suggested so far for this to be a moral disaster is if you apply someone elses morality (such as jeff(fake)s to South Dakota). If this is to be accepted under humanism, jeff must be able to prove that he is a better representative of the needs and interests of South Dakota than the people that they have elected. I suggest that the fact that they have not elected people who think the way he does indicates that he does not accurately reflect their needs and interests, and thus cannot be depended upon to correctly express what their morality is.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:I am not interested in reading your sad attempt to build and beat a pitiful little strawman Patriarch. I suspect that you are now diliberately misinterpreting my opinions.

Written by: Patriarch917
The best data that we have indicated that the majority of people in South Dakota hold a particular view on the morality of abortion that is different from jeffs


D'uh. But that still doesn't make them right. Like I said before, by your logic if they voted rape legal you would consider it moral. People don't choose their morality, they are born with it hardwired into their brain, and the people of South Dakota are no different to the people in North Dakota or Britain.

99 to 100 you misinterpret me again. rolleyes


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

Like I said before, by your logic if they voted rape legal you would consider it moral. People don't choose their morality, they are born with it hardwired into their brain, and the people of South Dakota are no different to the people in North Dakota or Britain.



I would not consider rape to become moral based on it being required by human needs and interests. However, humanism would. The claim that morality is "hardwired" into the brain is obviously wrong, since our brains express such different view on what is moral and not. As evidence for this, I would direct your attention to the states of Tennessee, and South Dakota. One group has decided that women have a moral right to an abortion, the other disagrees.

I have not misinterpreted you, I have quoted you and pointed out the lack of evidence for the things you claim. Your proper response is not to attack me, but to prove me wrong by producing evidence to back up your assertions.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Sorry Jeff - as much as I am following up on your intention:



Morals are defined by the society and they change. In fact they are determined by each society (slightly) differently. Moral standards do "evolve" or "retard". History has proven this fact more than once.



Rape has been accepted and not just tolerated by our society merely 500 years ago and even in modern age, as much as murder, men-slaughter, genocide, slavery, concentration-camps, torture, lynch-justice. Racism and apardheit was common even until the late 60's early 70's and in some societies even longer...



Not that long ago some societies even practiced cannibalism.



Sorry, but we cannot speak of "hardwired moral standards" when it comes to mankind and it's history. You seem to disregard the facts.



As fo the rest I have nothing more to add, as my points seem to get ignored anyways... shrug



PS: At least Anti-Abortion Protests and rallies are legal...



the story

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1141201180)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:I'm going to try and make it crystal clear what my position is so Patriarch will cease misunderstanding.

Humans (thats us) have a set of needs and emotions which are hardwired into our brains. With the exception of sociopaths and some of the brain damaged, this is undeniable. We all retract our hand from fire and we find suffering unpleasant.

Now we base our morality on trying to minimise the things which cause suffering. Since those things are common to us all, we all share a common morality. Now the senate of South Dakota has descided that abortion should be illegal for irrational reasons unrelated to human suffering as the foetus cannot suffer, but forcing a woman to give birth to it when she does not wish to causes her to suffer. Thus their desicion is immoral as it increases human suffering, despite what Patriarch or the senate of South Dakota may think.

In the past immoral laws have been justified with the claim that the persecuted were 'less human', which is completely untrue. Thus their desiscions were immoral. If you hold the view of morality which Patriarch is argueing then the Holocaust was a moral action.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Ange_GSC
SILVER Member since Aug 2005

Ange_GSC

HOP's glowstick ambassador!!
Location: Bay Area, California

Total posts: 128
Posted:This is awful, I'm completely pro-choice myself. Ever since Bush was elected the religious right wing fanatics have had more power and control over making America more conservative, and less free.
I hope these bills get shot down, this is a big step backwards for America. Sounds like another "Prohibition in the 20"s" to me


missegyptology: "I just remember beingall off balance and unicycling really fast down to campus and the arabic was all blurred on the page"

^When Linz pulls an all nighter before Arabic class^

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Written by: FireTom
As fo the rest I have nothing more to add, as my points seem to get ignored anyways... shrug




hey you feel that way too? wink seems like this thread has turned more into a patriarch vs. jeff debate. interesting convo, but ya... biggrin


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)
Humans (thats us) have a set of needs and emotions which are hardwired into our brains. With the exception of sociopaths and some of the brain damaged, this is undeniable. We all retract our hand from fire and we find suffering unpleasant.

Now we base our morality on trying to minimise the things which cause suffering. Since those things are common to us all, we all share a common morality.

(...) but forcing a woman to give birth to it when she does not wish to causes her to suffer. Thus their desicion is immoral as it increases human suffering, despite what Patriarch or the senate of South Dakota may think.

(...)If you hold the view of morality which Patriarch is argueing then the Holocaust was a moral action.



Sorry Jeff, but this expresses so much ignorance to mankind, their psychology and history that I hardly can believe you have written it... As much as I agree upon your view on this topic, your argumentation is poor and erraneous. May I refer you to read the international press and articles about mankinds history in order to come to senses and complete your view?

1) Apardheit/ opression of (ethnic) minorities
2) Violent conflicts/ (religious) wars and cruisades (f.e: Intifada)
3) Domestic violence/ sexism
4) Sado- Masochism
5) Genocide (f.e: 3.rd Reich, extinction of aboriginal/ indian tribes/ minorities in USA/ Australia/ Tasmania/ Africa)
6) Neglection of womens rigths in many countries today
7) Killing of female babies in S/E-Asia
8) Working conditions in 3.rd world countries (f.e: India, China)
9) Cast system in India

The list could go on, but I guess that everyone but you has gotten the point already in my last post...

As you know I am with you when it comes down to the morality of this topic, but arguments should be based upon real life facts not on illusions... shrug

PS: pounce - Yeah maybe we should leave this thread to jeff and patriarch... meditate


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Sado-masicism and cannibalism (mentioned ealier) aren't neccacerily immoral so I'm won't discuss them here.

However the other examples you give are of situations where people have excluded others from their morality on the basis of them being 'less human' because they are jews, black, female etc. We know now that that belief is utterly false, so we can say that the appartheid, the holocaust and slavery were wrong.

I admit my view of morality can be difficult to follow for those of us not well versed in neuroscience, psychology and sociology. If anyone wants me to discuss them further (I'm guessing not wink ) then it would be best to open a new thread on 'morality' rather than polluting this one. It's best to say that most people are pro-choice for a variety of rational reasons, or pro-life for irrational ones.

Personally however I'm not going to be a part in Patriarch's rants about humanist morality any so I won't be responding or reading any of his further posts in this thread. He can carry on with it and can keep beating his strawman but he does so alone now.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted:Most of the arguments in favor of killing children in the womb are also based on theories that something about them makes them "less human" because they are young, immature, not as smart, feel less pain, etc. Whether these things are enough to take away their right to live is a personal choice that one can make. From a perspective of religious humanism and moral relativism, however, one cannot insist that South Dakota does not have the same right to choose their own morality.



@pounce: Reconsider the substantial points made by Sethis, Firetom, onewheeldave, and others, and I'm sure that you will revise your assessment that this thread is a "debate" between any two people.



Regarding the assertion that my description of humanism is a "straw man..." A straw man is when you set up a misrepresentation of someone's argument in order to refute it. Regarding humanism, I set up a correct version of my own argument based on the humanist manifesto, and defended it. I attributed the argument to no one but myself. The label "straw man" is incorrect.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

Most of the arguments in favor of killing children in the womb are also based on theories that something about them makes them "less human" because they are young, immature, not as smart, feel less pain, etc. Whether these things are enough to take away their right to live is a personal choice that one can make. From a perspective of religious humanism and moral relativism, however, one cannot insist that South Dakota does not have the same right to choose their own morality.





Well said and another is that they are less valuable because they have not been proven to be beneficial to the community. therefore the mother has the rights


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:I agree FireTom, there is not much room for hard wiring morals in deterministic brain. The only thing hardwired in the brain is survival, the rest are learned responses. What the Christian moralists miss is that to enter the Pearly Gates you need to develop morals in areas that have no survival value. Instead of judging people on survival characteristics, sometimes called morals if the community agrees.

To me, the abortion debate is just more of the Christian double standard on morality. Like changing the intention in the bible from though shall not kill, to though shall not murder, when it suits them. Furthermore, do any of you guys, protesting about the new laws, ever consider protesting against about capital punishment or sending kids off to invade oil rich countries etc. My guess is probably not.



smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Ok, Ill put it another way. We have two things here, survival and morals. To ensure survival, animals only produce offspring when environmental conditions are favourable, like when there is plenty of food and water. Humans, however, can breed all the time. In this situation, I think its up to the mother to decide if conditions are healthy to bring up a child.

From a moral perspective, I think it would be ok to enforce such laws if everyone in the country was white, rich and Protestant. Obviously, there is huge divide in America between rich and poor. So, I dont think it is morally right for a small section of the community to impose their well meaning" views on the rest of the country.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
@pounce: Reconsider the substantial points made by Sethis, Firetom, onewheeldave, and others, and I'm sure that you will revise your assessment that this thread is a "debate" between any two people.




no i'm not saying that other people haven't joined in. what i am saying is that any questions or points raised by anyone else seem to be ignored. i brought what i felt to be rather good questions, that i would have loved to have heard other people's thoughts about it. but instead i was ignored in lieu of you and jeff arguing your views on morality


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:I quite agree. I've been trying to answer all the points every one has made but the thread just seemed to get taken over by Patriarch's obsession with my views on the origins of morality.

Written by: stone


To me, the abortion debate is just more of the Christian double standard on morality. Like changing the intention in the bible from though shall not kill, to though shall not murder, when it suits them. Furthermore, do any of you guys, protesting about the new laws, ever consider protesting against about capital punishment or sending kids off to invade oil rich countries etc. My guess is probably not.



South Dakota is indeed a 'pro-life, pro-death' state. This just goes to show the underlying immorality and hypocricy of these fundementalist 'Christians' .umm


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Stone
I agree FireTom, there is not much room for hard wiring morals in deterministic brain. The only thing hardwired in the brain is survival, the rest are learned responses.


Me and psychology disagree with you smile We have an innate sense of morality which we've evolved with for very good reasons - to give and receive aid from others, to avoid being cheated, to survive as part of a group. Without this moral judgement how would groups of people have ever prospered? You can see similar moral traits in groups of chimps.

As Jeff says, the fact that people have done and do vile things to each other is because we've evolved to be in pretty small groups where we know everyone, it's harder to treat people you don't know the same. And so our moral sense is short-circuited by dehumanising techniques; if someone is less than human then we can avoid applying our morality to them.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

I quite agree. I've been trying to answer all the points every one has made but the thread just seemed to get taken over by Patriarch's obsession with my views on the origins of morality.
[



yeah it's all his fault...sure


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:It was both our faults, I allowed myself to get drawn into it.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:Written by: FireTom


but I emphasise that society has no right to intervene into the families or personal rights.



I hate to say it, but this is what allows things like men beating women/ parents beating children. Granted, the laws no longer say things like "you can beat her if you use a rod of x lenght" but...
It still happens. Its still the same idea. Its still what the police say, over and over again... that its interfering with the family life to interfere in domestic violence cases, that they're interfering with the family's rights.

...

The laws are currentl designed to keep us safe from strangers, but attitudes like yours are, unfortuantly, only helping another problem.

And finally, at what point does it become ok to interfere? I mean, if most people murdered a two day old infant, society would interfere- as has been pointed out- but if they abort a baby, society doesn't want to interfere. Again, its a strange distinction, because of what we do these days with premature babies, particuarly.

And Jeff(fake) tried to grab the unique isn't an excuse and run with it ("well then we shouldn't use birth control") But prevention isn't even close to the same thing as termination. Preventing yourself from getting the flu is much easier than getting rid of the flu... An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure... etc.

Obviously some people do see a difference between types of prevention, as far as I'm concerened prevention is prevention, however you do it. But once you've actually got a life, breifly, and are then taking it away, well, from a scientific standpoint thats what you've done. A zygote is a seperate life. You can argue that this is ok... but it is whats happening! And newborn babies, even full term ones, are not self-aware yet either. So drawing the line at birth is also arbitrary.

Now, I have actually heard one good argument for drawing the line at birth. That is that young children could find out about newborn babies being killed and not understand that they were "old enough" to be safe. Wheras they won't understand that a fetus is a baby. So, if you argue for self-awareness being the determiner and "fourth trimester" abortions being ok (something I could support, conceivably, as do some others) then there is that argument to tack is back to third.

But why is a zygote different from a third trimester baby?

Basically, my question is, what is your arbitrary reasoning for drawing the line? Or do you just draw the line at birth and look to something like my above reasoning?

It doesn't change the fact that, from a purely scientific standpoint, you're terminating a seperate being, on purpose. It might happen anyway. It might be morally justifiable. Its still happening. Some people don't see it as morally justifiable.

To go back to the morality thread, how do we arbitrate between people who think terminating is ok prior to self awareness and people who think termination is wrong unless it saves a life?
Noting that most people choose a much more mystical line, like "terminating is wrong once it leaves the mothers uterus alive, by whatever method."


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

It's best to say that most people are pro-choice for a variety of rational reasons, or pro-life for irrational ones.




Hmmm sweeping generalizations, grain of salt....

Really, I think most people are either pro-choice or pro-life for irrational reasons.

But what is it that you see as irrational about seeing the dividing marker as a zygote? The next logical step up is really self-awareness, which goes well into the time after birth as far as we know, and if it is earlier, could conceivably start in the womb. (I'm happy with either, really, the middle ground just drives me bananas, in most cases. I've heard ONE decent middle ground argument so far.)

Or, what logical step between zygote and self-awareness am I missing, thats relavent to this day and age? (Medical intervention is a confusing one at this time, and will only continue to be.)


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Kyrian
Or, what logical step between zygote and self-awareness am I missing, thats relavent to this day and age? (Medical intervention is a confusing one at this time, and will only continue to be.)


You've hit the nail on the head here.

It helps to realise that consciousness is probably a spectrum. A zygote has none, but a new born baby clearly has enough to warrent legal protection. There isn't some magical point a, say, 16 weeks at which the foetus becomes conscious. But what we do have is the foetus gradually becoming more and more of a human being. This is why abortions need to be carried out as early as possible.

It's similar to the dilema faced by many vegatarians. At what stage up the spectrum of consciousness does it become okay to eat something?


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

FireByNite
SILVER Member since Dec 2004

FireByNite

Are you up for it??
Location: Auckland

Total posts: 349
Posted:If I rememebr correctly brain function strts to develop around the 18 - 20 week mark. Now what I mean by brain function is nerves forming, all the links coming together - stuff like that.
I t doesn't happen in an instant but I think that's why 1st trimester abortions are considered "allowable" as these are before the brain starts adapting to being functional e.g. self awareness coming about


Are you up for it?
wink;)

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:well thought and well said kyrian

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Prometheus


Prometheus

Diamond In The Rough
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Total posts: 459
Posted:Maybe someone has already suggested this possible solution, and if so, I apologize. I don't have time to read through pages of horse beating... wink

The logical solution is to offer an alternative to both abortion AND carrying a baby to term. Surrogates.

A woman discovers she's pregnant and, for whatever reason, decides she does not want the baby. Why not simply remove the fertilized egg and transplant it into a willing donor? Medically speaking, it would take just as much time and expense as having an abortion performed. The woman is free of her pregancy and the fetus can either become someone's child, be born in vitro if no donors are available, or, God forbid, at least be used for medical research by harvesting tissues, stem cells, etc. This is possible with current medical technology.

Is this not a sound compromise? cool


Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:There aren't enough willing donors, it would be much more expensive than an abortion and would carry an additional risk of malformation for the child.

Babies can't at present be born in vitro and it would create anouther unwanted child when there are troubles finding fosters already.

Many aborted foetuses are already used for research though, although religious fundemantalist oppose this for the same reasons they oppose abortion so it really can't be called a compromise.

All in all it was a good attempt at a solution but it really doesn't work. Kudos for trying though.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:mad2 Kyrian - selective reading and misinterpretation here! wink Had a bad day/ night? umm wink ubblol

I was NEVER talking of domestic violence! In fact I was never talking about any type or sort of violence and did not support it with a single word! You took that quote completely out of the accompanying context!

But I will spell it out for you again:

Written by: myself
I emphasise that society has no right to intervene into the families or personal rights



I was and am talking about the right of self-determination and NOT about violence committed. The personal rights include the right to remain unharmed and NOT the right of a husband to beat his wife... I thought we're over medieval/ comments in the Q'ran... wink

Now this has shifted to "when is a human actually human, alive and can enjoy protection by law?" [shhh - sarcastic brother, color and bank account doesn't count]

What is better:

a) forcing a woman into motherhood, creating suffering for her and the child, or
b) giving the mother the chance to "do it better next time" and become a mother with a caring partner and a high school degree/ proper job?

Some of you have experience in what it means to be a single mum (even today and even in the West) - it can mean MISERY.

To repeat: I would drop 75% of my aversion against the prohibition of abortion IF the respective government could assure that the child and mother is PROPERLY cared for! As this is not the fact - I stick with pro-choice.

Besides: Would you have the government take away
a) your mobile
b) your car
c) most of the new-age sophisticated toys and chemistry
just because they infringe with the rights and wellbeing of future generations? umm wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:[I'm not actually reading any of the above posts, nor am I responding to any below... I'm far too angered by this trend in my country to participate in a discussion without getting further angered so thankfully I'll just smoulder by myself. Needless to say I think the banning of abortions will have profound impact on my nation. But, of course, it will mostly affect the poor. So it's cool. frown ]

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Page: 123456...8

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [south dakota outlaw* abortion] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > South Dakota outlaws abortion [215 replies]
2. Forums > South Dakota Area?
3. Forums > South Manchester mini meet('s?) [325 replies]
4. Learn > Retreats/Classes > Nick Woolsey > Poi retreat in Turkey! Fall 2016! *help/resource guests at tadah artist habitat in south turkey  for a week of poi  yoga ...
5. Forums > South PERTH Fire Dancing Night WED 22nd December [2 replies]

     Show more..