160 replies to this topic

[Toan]

...Which is all I wanted you to agree with. That the doctor's opinion matters, that medically ordained abortion is ok, that medical effects on the mother do factor into the situation of abortion on the whole.

Frankly, the scenario of abortion should be a "doctor's decision" situation, but the "woman's right" model cannot be remedied, because if you give the right and attempt to take it away, all you'll accomplish is angry and resentment. It won't simply stop the abortions but simply make back alley coat hanger methods more popular.

Anyway, thank you. I'm glad you agree I'm correct, Egann. Though I do agree with CFS that with your "variable" nonsense, you are needlessly complicating things. I think you'll find yourself with a lot more agreement if you try posting in completely unambiguous direct language, as opposed to phrasing intended to misdirect and confuse.

[Egann]

Arguably, distinguishing between different variable types was over-complicating things, but my experience with Reflectionist is that if I don't articulate details in (for lack of a better word) an anal fashion, it will lead to the position being misunderstood. Besides, everything I said on the matter (CFS notwhithstanding) is true.

Make all the fancy distictions you like. It's all bullshit because "added variable" or not to disregard the mother's health and condition just because she isn't technically required is ignoring reality for the sake of a lump cells in a test tube.

That's all well and good, but that's not what I meant at all. Whatever gave you the impression that "added" meant "disregarded?" Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? You can turn this into a scope argument (over whether or not priority should be given to the mother's health or to the fetus's -btw, for purely practical reasons, priority goes to the mother) but I never said anything to the effect that the mother is valueless, which is what your post seems to rely upon.

[Oberon Storm]

It seemed like you were saying that just because the mother could be removed from the situation then her position shouldn't change anything. I am saying I think the situation does change. The difference is that an artificial womb is no different than a paper Dixi cup other than their function.

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 04 February 2009 - 02:09 PM.

[Egann]

^ No, that wasn't what I meant at all. (Apparently I need to work on making my positions a little more pithy and clear.) Glad we cleared that up.

[Selena]

Okay, say the mother is just an 'added' factor. Let's say we grow all our babies in tubes and the mother never has to deal with the physical strain of pregnancy. This is where the real issues comes in. It's not so much that pregnancy is the deciding factor when it comes to getting an abortion (to counter GG's earlier point about the physical hardships of accommodating the 'parasite'). Whether you grow your kids in tubes or do it the old fashioned way, the mother is still going to have to raise the kid. That's a severely life altering processes, in which you have to give up most of your freedoms in order to properly rear the child. Which many young women don't want if they accidentally become pregnant, as that would result in the end of their schooling/career/independence/whatever.

You could just say the mother should give her child up for adoption. Which is fair enough if the mother can handle that. But a lot of people don't enjoy the idea of tossing yet another unwanted baby into an orphanage. So they stop the pregnancy in the early stages to avoid that situation. Adoption isn't easy. In fact, just going off my maternal instincts, it sounds even harder than abortion. When the embryo is still just forming, the maternal switch has just barely been triggered (if at all). If you go the full nine months, you've spent the entire time mentally bonding with what's growing in you. Fetus, parasite, unborn baby, whatever you want to call it. But when you can feel it move around inside and react to outside influence, the bond develops. And after giving birth, it's all the stronger. That's what our brains are designed to do - attach ourselves to the little spawn so that we can nurture and take care of it. Whether we initially wanted it or not. So after all that happens, adoption can be gut wrenching. You can't underestimate this sort of thing when it comes to mothers who carry their baby to term and give a successful birth. It's a very powerful emotional connection.

Which is not to say that abortion is an 'easy' decision. It's difficult and has its own set of emotional problems. But the sooner you get that sort of procedure done, the quicker the mind and hormones can recover and get back to normal. There's been next to no attachment if you do it quick, there's not necessarily so strong a sense of abandonment, and you don't have to worry about how well treated your infant will be treated by a foster family. Some people are afraid of the adoption system all together due to how some kids can slip through the cracks. So in that sense, adoption can feel like the worse of the two.

[Green Goblin]

You know, you actually make a lot of sense. I take back what I said before (about the thing you just countered). I agree with you on that.

[Fizzbit]

Okay, say the mother is just an 'added' factor. Let's say we grow all our babies in tubes and the mother never has to deal with the physical strain of pregnancy. This is where the real issues comes in. It's not so much that pregnancy is the deciding factor when it comes to getting an abortion (to counter GG's earlier point about the physical hardships of accommodating the 'parasite'). Whether you grow your kids in tubes or do it the old fashioned way, the mother is still going to have to raise the kid. That's a severely life altering processes, in which you have to give up most of your freedoms in order to properly rear the child. Which many young women don't want if they accidentally become pregnant, as that would result in the end of their schooling/career/independence/whatever.

You could just say the mother should give her child up for adoption. Which is fair enough if the mother can handle that. But a lot of people don't enjoy the idea of tossing yet another unwanted baby into an orphanage. So they stop the pregnancy in the early stages to avoid that situation. Adoption isn't easy. In fact, just going off my maternal instincts, it sounds even harder than abortion. When the embryo is still just forming, the maternal switch has just barely been triggered (if at all). If you go the full nine months, you've spent the entire time mentally bonding with what's growing in you. Fetus, parasite, unborn baby, whatever you want to call it. But when you can feel it move around inside and react to outside influence, the bond develops. And after giving birth, it's all the stronger. That's what our brains are designed to do - attach ourselves to the little spawn so that we can nurture and take care of it. Whether we initially wanted it or not. So after all that happens, adoption can be gut wrenching. You can't underestimate this sort of thing when it comes to mothers who carry their baby to term and give a successful birth. It's a very powerful emotional connection.

Which is not to say that abortion is an 'easy' decision. It's difficult and has its own set of emotional problems. But the sooner you get that sort of procedure done, the quicker the mind and hormones can recover and get back to normal. There's been next to no attachment if you do it quick, there's not necessarily so strong a sense of abandonment, and you don't have to worry about how well treated your infant will be treated by a foster family. Some people are afraid of the adoption system all together due to how some kids can slip through the cracks. So in that sense, adoption can feel like the worse of the two.

^this.

100% my feelings on the subject. One of the hardest things to do is for a mother to hear her child cry for the first time and hand it off to a stranger.

[Egann]

There's a poster on my chiropractor's wall. It shows an iceburg and says, pointing to the top "This is your back pain" and then points to the bottom -which is nine times larger- and says "this is the real problem."

This is exactly the case with abortion. On average there are over 3,000 abortions each day in the US alone. Some are for medical purposes, but most are purely because -for one reason or another- the child is unwanted. No matter how you cut it, unwanted children are a symptom and using abortions to "fix" things is like taking vicodin to get rid of back-pain; in the short run it does what it's supposed to, but in the long run as the medication loses it's potency not only do you have to take more medication, but the pain returns to boot, so really it can't be said to solve anything.

You can bandy about "woman's choice" and "it's my body" as much as you want, but for those of us who understand that in a greater sense, the need is largely a symptom of a much deeper disease, regardless of hw true any of these are, the net effect of these is a red-herring away from the deeper issue of actually addressing and solving the greater problem.

So what is the greater problem? Well -in a word- irresponsibility.

I know what you're thinking (or at least ought to be thinking,): "How dare you imply that you can tell others how to live their lives. That is none of your business."

Well, I hate to have to break it to you, but, to quote John Milton, "No man is an Island. We are all part of the larger continent of humanity." In a very real sense, their irresponsibility directly affects me by polluting my world, which makes it my business.

Besides, what I'm suggesting isn't all that new. Anti-smoking and anti-drunk driving propaganda is all over the place and Uganda's ABC HIV prevention program (although controvercial) appears to be succeeding. Ultimately, what I'm suggesting isn't that different in that we should treat promiscuous and careless sex in the same manner (and this has been done, but not anywhere nearly enough.)

[Green Goblin]

.....Just....no ;;
How does a woman getting an abortion directly affect you?

[Goose]

Yeah, I fail to see the lack of babies polluting your world. I dont like abortion for other reasons, but they're my own personal beliefs, and I"m not shoving them on other people. As I'm not female, nor are you, we can't fully understand either position, or alternative.

[Selena]

Being responsible would indeed help lower the number of abortions. It's not so much a matter of premartial sex or being promiscuous so much as it is people not going about birth control the right way. Even adults can be misinformed.

Of course, that would involve the end of abstinence sex education and a shift to... well.... real sex education. Which society could potentially benefit from. I know in Sweden that even the Christian conservative party advocates sex ed over the banning of abortion. But real sex ed and places like Planned Parenthood seem to be a no-no to many people here for some very odd reason.

[Toan]

Contrary, I see the lack of babies polluting the world a plus.

Source: http://upload.wikime...ation_curve.svg



See this? This is the world being waaaaay overpopulated. By 2040 the world population is expected to be 9 billion - that's 2.5 billion MORE than we have right now. Think about that - that's just shy of 50% more people on this planet - and we're worried about pollution and global warming with only 6.5 billion now.

As far as I can see (and as heartless as it may be, but boo hoo) abortion, world hunger, disease, etc, are just natural checks within nature to try and keep a balance. Darwinian methods of natural selection, whether they're psychologically induced to allow us to have and continue to have abortion, or more externally based like hunger and disease.

Summary? The less people, the better.

In my opinion, the more irresponsible factor here is having the kid when the rest of the already-born world has better uses for it's dwindling resources.

[CID Farwin]

abortion, world hunger, disease, etc, are just natural checks within nature to try and keep a balance

See, to me this sentence makes absolutely no sense. How is Abortion (something well within Humanity's control) a "natural" (something outside of Humanity's control) check?

As it stands, for everyone currently on the planet to live a "first world" lifestyle, we'd need the resources of three earths to maintain it(or that's what I got from Bill Nye, anyway) Maybe people should start being less selfish and wasteful instead, and start only using what they need. For example, instead of having surplus food at the supermarket rot and go bad, maybe we could use that to, oh I don't know, feed starving third-world countries, like everyone's so eager to hype up about, and raise money for, and we still have starving third-world countries. Maybe instead of caring how Famous celebrity #15476's plastic surgery went, people should start caring about how their neighbor's child's arm surgery went.

But that rant had nothing to do with the topic at hand, so...

.....Just....no ;;
How does a woman getting an abortion directly affect you?

How does a woman not getting an abortion directly affect you?

My views somewhat coincide with Egann's, the abuse of Abortion is part of a bigger problem, but I would take it even further to say that irresponsibility is only part of the even bigger problem, which I won't get to, because again, that's not the topic at hand.

Notice how I say "abuse of Abortion." I'm not adamantly opposed to any and all abortions, because I understand that there's cases(rape, health reasons, etc.) where it's necessary. In fact, I'm probably really close to the "pro-choice" threshold, and would probably go over if it weren't for the fact that (like with this autism thing,) "I don't want a child" is a good enough reason. (wow, that was actually on topic, Three cheers for me!)

100% my feelings on the subject. One of the hardest things to do is for a mother to hear her child cry for the first time and hand it off to a stranger.

See, every time I see this argument, I think, "Heaven forbid they actually change their mind and decide they want to raise the kid! Horror of Horrors!! Their perfect life free of little miscreants has been replaced by the horrendous duty of raising children." Which is one of those things I usually don't say because I don't like to antagonize people, so I guess it just gets to come out while I'm in rant mode.

***the following is not responding at any one particular person, but to things in general***

But really, what's so horrible about this scenario? why would it be a bad thing if, after the child comes to term, the mother decides that she wants to keep it? What if she does decide to give it up, then suffers a little heartache? How does their suffering affect you?

And also, I'm curious, what is it that determines "life" again? Higher brain function? independent heartbeat and respiratory function? because there's plenty of people on life support throughout the world without so much as that, should we pull the plug on them when they become inconvenient?

I also don't get how a developing child is arbitrarily "human" at one point, but "a fetus" before the first trimester. There's not some magic point where a developing fetus becomes human. It's either human the whole way, or you and me are bags of flesh and bones. I don't accept the dual standard here; Are we Human, or are we dancers?

....wait.

*braces for inevitable backlash *

[Toan]

abortion, world hunger, disease, etc, are just natural checks within nature to try and keep a balance

See, to me this sentence makes absolutely no sense. How is Abortion (something well within Humanity's control) a "natural" (something outside of Humanity's control) check?

Next time, keep reading - the sentence directly following reads "Darwinian methods of natural selection, whether they're psychologically induced to allow us to have and continue to have abortion, or more externally based like hunger and disease."

Unless you're arguing that humans are outside the scope of nature anymore, that primitive instincts like abandoning an offspring are outside of our vastly superior mindset.

[Selena]

Actually, I do recall a rather grim documentary about stone age women who may have put their newborns to death during time periods where their band wouldn't have the time nor resources to raise a child to maturity. At least not without starving everyone else in the process. Which, although horrible to contemplate, does make very morbid practical sense in a survival situation. So in that way, perhaps it is 'natural.' Just that the method has changed for the better. At least in comparison.

But really, what's so horrible about this scenario? Why would it be a bad thing if, after the child comes to term, the mother decides that she wants to keep it? What if she does decide to give it up, then suffers a little heartache? How does their suffering affect you?

There's nothing horrible about a mother deciding to keep her baby! Why on earth would that be horrible? I don't think anyone ever mentioned that choosing to keep the kid would be some kind of fall from grace. Just because you allow abortions doesn't mean you have to use or even endorse them for every little uncomfortable situation. If the mom keeps it, great.

Their emotional suffering obviously won't effect anyone else if they give their child up for adoption either, but the debate is never about us. So the whole 'how does suffering/getting an abortion effect you?' debate doesn't really fly regardless of which side is using it. We aren't in the predicament, after all, and we won't be having to rear the tyke. Some people will raise the surprise child, some people will give it up for adoption, others will abort the pregnancy. Different situations, different people, different beliefs. There's not a single answer that can be used to address every difficulty in this case. People will make whatever choice seems best to them. It's just a matter of keeping those options available or not.

[canas is back]

Contrary, I see the lack of babies polluting the world a plus.

Source: http://upload.wikime...ation_curve.svg



See this? This is the world being waaaaay overpopulated. By 2040 the world population is expected to be 9 billion - that's 2.5 billion MORE than we have right now. Think about that - that's just shy of 50% more people on this planet - and we're worried about pollution and global warming with only 6.5 billion now.

As far as I can see (and as heartless as it may be, but boo hoo) abortion, world hunger, disease, etc, are just natural checks within nature to try and keep a balance. Darwinian methods of natural selection, whether they're psychologically induced to allow us to have and continue to have abortion, or more externally based like hunger and disease.

Summary? The less people, the better.

In my opinion, the more irresponsible factor here is having the kid when the rest of the already-born world has better uses for it's dwindling resources.

exepting it dwindles the population in places where it doesn't need to be, the places where things are overpopulated are in third world countries, yet that is where most childbirths come from, in places like the US wed have no need to cut back on making children but we do, so pretty soon we'll have nothing but third-world countries because the first world countries decided not to have children.

[Raien]

-First-world country populations favour immigration.
-Immigration brings cultural diversity.
-Cultural diversity brings globalisation.
-Globalisation brings jobs to third-world countries.
-Third-world economies and living standards increase.

If we also take developing technology into account, as well as changes from farming economies to factor economies to service economies, then it is feasible for third-world countries to become first-world countries at some point in the far future.

[canas is back]

-First-world country populations favour immigration.
-Immigration brings cultural diversity.
-Cultural diversity brings globalisation.
-Globalisation brings jobs to third-world countries.
-Third-world economies and living standards increase.

If we also take developing technology into account, as well as changes from farming economies to factor economies to service economies, then it is feasible for third-world countries to become first-world countries at some point in the far future.

albeit I agree with this statement, what did that have to do with anything??

[Raien]

albeit I agree with this statement, what did that have to do with anything??

I'm refuting the complaint that birth rates are disproportionate between first-world countries and third-world countries; it serves a purpose that ultimately helps improve third-world countries. Although there's still a long way to go, it's interesting to hear about countries like India adopting first-world social conventions and structures.

[canas is back]

albeit I agree with this statement, what did that have to do with anything??

I'm refuting the complaint that birth rates are disproportionate between first-world countries and third-world countries; it serves a purpose that ultimately helps improve third-world countries. Although there's still a long way to go, it's interesting to hear about countries like India adopting first-world social conventions and structures.

ah, OK it makes sense now, but even still it means that first world nations are going to turn into nations of thier imigrants, and that wouldn't nessacarily be good either.

[Raien]

ah, OK it makes sense now, but even still it means that first world nations are going to turn into nations of thier imigrants, and that wouldn't nessacarily be good either.

That wouldn't happen, because the children of immigrants mostly adopt the social conventions of the first-world country in which they are raised. Taking a personally-known example, most muslims in Britain share more the values of Britain than the countries from which their parents came. And then as these communities have developed, new immigrants find themselves influenced by the British-adopted immigrants that preceeded them.

Of course the immigrant communities maintain some of their original culture, but this develops into a hybrid, which creates the cultural diversity I mentioned earlier.

Edited by Raien, 06 February 2009 - 08:45 AM.

[canas is back]

ah, OK it makes sense now, but even still it means that first world nations are going to turn into nations of thier imigrants, and that wouldn't nessacarily be good either.

That wouldn't happen, because the children of immigrants mostly adopt the social conventions of the first-world country in which they are raised. Taking a personally-known example, most muslims in Britain share more the values of Britain than the countries from which their parents came. And then as these communities have developed, new immigrants find themselves influenced by the British-adopted immigrants that preceeded them.

Of course the immigrant communities maintain some of their original culture, but this develops into a hybrid, which creates the cultural diversity I mentioned earlier.

no I meant physically, not nessacarily cultrally.

[Fizzbit]

.....Just....no ;;
How does a woman getting an abortion directly affect you?

How does a woman not getting an abortion directly affect you?

Hence the woman's argument: "Stop telling me what to do with my body."

Seriously, for the parties not involved, it's none of their business. If I got pregnant and got an abortion, Selena's life isn't going to be affected. And... well, if I kept it, the worst that she'd see is baby pictures posted up on LA to go "omg aww" at.

But I'm waiting til after college for kids. I'm single now, but if I end up in a relationship and accidentally get pregnant, I know I'm getting an abortion. No way I'm letting kids get in the way of my education. Selfish, yes. But it means that I can have more time (and money hopefully) to devote to children after I graduate.

But that's why I have the IUD. Long term and far more effective than condoms at preventing pregnancy, even

Personally, I'm also of the shared belief that real, proper sex ed, not this abstinence bullshit, will lead to more responsible sexually active teens and adults. If the damn conservatives will get their heads out of their ass and see that it's necessary and won't encourage sexual activity, just encourage safe sexual activity, things could get a lot better.

Edited by Fizzbit, 06 February 2009 - 10:16 AM.

[Raien]

no I meant physically, not nessacarily cultrally.

What? I hope you're not suggesting what it sounds like you're suggesting.

[canas is back]

no I meant physically, not nessacarily cultrally.

What? I hope you're not suggesting what it sounds like you're suggesting.

what do you think I am suggesting, I was merely saying at the current birth rates white americans and europeans will become a nonexistant race , whether the trend continues I am not sure but...

[Raien]

what do you think I am suggesting, I was merely saying at the current birth rates white americans and europeans will become a nonexistant race , whether the trend continues I am not sure but...

I'm struggling to explain how ridiculous this suggestion is. White people aren't going to become extinct; it's just not going to going to happen.

But what I really want to know is why it should matter to you what proportion of race becomes dominant in any nation. The only race that should matter is the human race.

[Egann]

On the population explosion: which is more likely: that we have started breeding like rabbits, or that we have stopped dying like flies?


In a healthy population, it's shaped like a triangle, not like a pentagon.


On "the lack of babies" polluting my world:

1. That's a rather compartmentalized concept of reality.
2. It's a rather pessimistic way of looking at humanity.
3. Would you say that the associated STD epidemic isn't affecting me?

Personally, I'm also of the shared belief that real, proper sex ed, not this abstinence bullshit, will lead to more responsible sexually active teens and adults. If the damn conservatives will get their heads out of their ass and see that it's necessary and won't encourage sexual activity, just encourage safe sexual activity, things could get a lot better.

...on the other hand, if the "damn" liberals would "get their heads out of their ass" (sic) and see that the purpose of sex is to make babies...then perhaps they wouldn't be so damn shocked when it works. (God. How stupid can you be?) Perhaps they could also fess up to their damn "safe sex 'pass the condoms around'" sex ed courses being partly to blame for the willy-nilly promiscuity which has turned STDs into a real problem and HIV into an absolute catastrophe. [/two edged sword ad hominem]

Seriously, though. That was low.

[Raien]

[canas is back]

what do you think I am suggesting, I was merely saying at the current birth rates white americans and europeans will become a nonexistant race , whether the trend continues I am not sure but...

I'm struggling to explain how ridiculous this suggestion is. White people aren't going to become extinct; it's just not going to going to happen.

But what I really want to know is why it should matter to you what proportion of race becomes dominant in any nation. The only race that should matter is the human race.

really to me it does not, but what bugs me is more, why would you want to be a snoty brat and not have kids?? I mean, not only are you depriving yourself of kids, but you are potentially destroying your chances of being able to retire (lolsocialsecuritylol)

[Raien]

really to me it does not, but what bugs me is more, why would you want to be a snoty brat and not have kids?? I mean, not only are you depriving yourself of kids, but you are potentially destroying your chances of being able to retire (lolsocialsecuritylol)

So now you're stereotyping people who don't want children? It's no more realistic than saying progressives want to kill God.

EDIT: What does this have to do with you saying the problem would be a nation of immigrants?

Edited by Raien, 06 February 2009 - 11:15 AM.