Page 15 of 62 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 612

Thread: Political & socio-economic nerd-rage thread. page 15

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    75
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncephalized View Post
    One of these relies for its every physical need on a parasitic connection to an adult woman with her own right to autonomy. The other does not. They are not morally equivalent situations since there are many more choices to be made for/about an infant after it has been born than before, when the only two available choices are a) carry the pregnancy to term or b) kill the developing infant. Pro-lifers ignore this important distinction to their discredit.

    This is an unfortunate consequence of applying a rigid dichotomous definition to a continuous development process. There is a continuum of development of personhood all the way through development, from conception to adulthood. But we only recognize 3 personhood states: non-person, child person, and adult person. There will always be injustice at the margins of the definitions if we continue to apply them this way.

    This is mostly true, but a crucial distinction is that the child is not physically dependent on any particular caretaker for its survival after birth. Before birth it is attached parasitically to a particular woman who does not have the option of voluntarily severing the relationship without a) first undergoing a painful birthing process, the complications of which run a non-negligible risk of ending her life or b) causing its death. This is not a decision that can be made morally by anyone other than the woman in question.

    "Science says" no such thing. Life began ~4 billion years ago and has existed continuously ever since. The relevant marker of personhood cannot be the possession of a complete human genome; else each of the billions of cells I slough off to their deaths daily should be mourned and given funerals, and I should be put on trial for murder if I intentionally scratch my arm when it itches. No; the relevant marker must be some level of mental capacity and awareness, which is of course what we mean when we say something is a person--that it has an awareness, a sense of self, memories, thoughts about the future, etc. What mental state a fetus attains at different levels of development is by no means clear. But a blastocyst (having no neurons at all) has none of these, only the potential to develop them in future, the same way that the egg and sperm that made it had the potential to fuse, and the gonads of the parents had the potential to produce those particular gametes, and the blastocysts they once were had the potential to develop into those human beings in the first place, all the way back to the first self-replicating organic molecule. This argument can be used to defend the life rights of an earthworm's intestinal bacteria just as easily as those of a human embryo.

    I thought we were generally supposed to be against centralized agencies deciding for other people which medical procedures they may or may not have access to?
    I feel an important question is the motivation to classify an embryo/fetus/etc as a parasite. This is a relatively new way of phrasing is. Is the purpose of this classification solely to dehumanize the fetus and to convince ones self that their decision is a moral one? Do you feel absolutely certain that abortion is moral?

    Looking deep into the future, centuries from now, will abortions still be practiced? If there is nothing morally wrong with it, why research and develop methods to prevent conception when we can just develop abortion methods that are just as easy? Which route are we most likely to take, and why?

    If we are completely open and honest about how we feel about our morals, who and what will we eventually conclude has rights? Today we seem to be fighting for gay rights and the rights of the unborn. The safest bet for tomorrow would be that we would eventually be fighting for animal rights. In the past, we fought for rights of races and genders, and so far, we have not found any of those battles to be a mistake. Are we making our first mistake now or could this just simply be the way our species is evolving from a violent species to a peaceful species?

  2. #142
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by DamienMaddox View Post
    I feel an important question is the motivation to classify an embryo/fetus/etc as a parasite. This is a relatively new way of phrasing is. Is the purpose of this classification solely to dehumanize the fetus and to convince ones self that their decision is a moral one? Do you feel absolutely certain that abortion is moral?
    I think parasitic is a far scientific stretch. Parasites latch onto hosts from external sources and are typically of a different species, not Homo sapien-homo sapien; half of an embryo comes from within a woman. Parasites are usually detrimental to a host; pregnancies are typically not harmful to a woman, especially in this day in age. Of course there are exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of females (not just humans) have relatively painless and low-risk pregnancies save labor pains. And hosts also typically respond to parasites by creating antibodies and other immunological responses to destroy the invader; in general, the human female's body has a completely opposite reaction and actually transforms to accommodate the organism. Parasitic, in this sense, can only mean inconvenient and burdensome. It typically doesn't equate to a typical host-parasite relationship.
    Last edited by j3nn; 05-07-2012 at 12:45 PM.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  3. #143
    drssgchic's Avatar
    drssgchic is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,110
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    This is where the divide comes. Those that consider a pregnancy to be parasitic have already chosen what makes them happiest, and that is their choice. I believe it should be left up to the individual, and if she feels good about her choice, then that is her choice. I disagree with the stance and hope people would consider other options and be open to new points of view, but ultimately it's not my business... so long as I am not forced to pay for their choice in either direction. You can't have it both ways. You want it to be all about you and disregard the new individual inside, then pay for it.
    I realize that I'm coming in without reading all of this- but here's the thing: Pro Choice is Pro . . . . CHOICE. Not pro-abortion. Pro being allowed to make an informed decision which may result in keeping the fetus or may not. Because all information is available and considered. "Pro-life" would have that choice removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamienMaddox View Post
    I feel an important question is the motivation to classify an embryo/fetus/etc as a parasite. This is a relatively new way of phrasing is. Is the purpose of this classification solely to dehumanize the fetus and to convince ones self that their decision is a moral one? Do you feel absolutely certain that abortion is moral?

    Looking deep into the future, centuries from now, will abortions still be practiced? If there is nothing morally wrong with it, why research and develop methods to prevent conception when we can just develop abortion methods that are just as easy? Which route are we most likely to take, and why?

    If we are completely open and honest about how we feel about our morals, who and what will we eventually conclude has rights? Today we seem to be fighting for gay rights and the rights of the unborn. The safest bet for tomorrow would be that we would eventually be fighting for animal rights. In the past, we fought for rights of races and genders, and so far, we have not found any of those battles to be a mistake. Are we making our first mistake now or could this just simply be the way our species is evolving from a violent species to a peaceful species?
    Have you had an abortion? Do you know anyone who has? They are NOT a preferable form of birth control. They are very hard on women mentally, physically, and emotionally. However, because we have NOT perfected preventative forms of birth control, they are still necessary.

    People forget that you have to prefer one set of rights over the other. Either the mother has rights to choose, or the fetus has a right to hijack a body for 9 months. One or the other.
    http://cattaillady.com/ My blog exploring the beginning stages of learning how to homestead. With the occasional rant.

    Originally Posted by TheFastCat: Less is more more or less

    And now I have an Etsy store: CattailsandCalendula

  4. #144
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by drssgchic View Post
    I realize that I'm coming in without reading all of this- but here's the thing: Pro Choice is Pro . . . . CHOICE. Not pro-abortion. Pro being allowed to make an informed decision which may result in keeping the fetus or may not. Because all information is available and considered. "Pro-life" would have that choice removed.
    Did someone suggest otherwise? Confused. I am personally pro-life, but tolerate pro-choice because it is not my moral decision to make for others. However, the debate does change course after a certain stage in pregnancy when a fetus (an individual) experiences pain and can independently sustain life outside of the womb. Of course there are people who believe it's acceptable to kill children up until around the age of 4 years or so, so... yeah... the debate rages on to all sorts of moralistic grounds.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    1,883
    Hijacking makes it sound like the fetus ran up to the lady at a red light and crawled in her uterus at gun point.
    If I just said LOL, I lied. Do or do not. There is no try.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by drssgchic View Post
    Have you had an abortion? Do you know anyone who has? They are NOT a preferable form of birth control. They are very hard on women mentally, physically, and emotionally. However, because we have NOT perfected preventative forms of birth control, they are still necessary.

    People forget that you have to prefer one set of rights over the other. Either the mother has rights to choose, or the fetus has a right to hijack a body for 9 months. One or the other.
    That answers a lot of my questions then. The only unclear thing is the instance where the mother could make choices to lessen her likelihood of getting pregnant but takes no precautions at all. Through total disregard for her own responsibility (and the fathers as well), she puts herself and an unborn child in this situation. Could we really compare that to the fetus hijacking her body when she left the door wide open, fully aware of the neighborhood?

    When a women is actively taking responsible precautions its a lot more understandable.

  7. #147
    drssgchic's Avatar
    drssgchic is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,110
    That's about how it would feel to not be able to stop an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy.
    http://cattaillady.com/ My blog exploring the beginning stages of learning how to homestead. With the occasional rant.

    Originally Posted by TheFastCat: Less is more more or less

    And now I have an Etsy store: CattailsandCalendula

  8. #148
    drssgchic's Avatar
    drssgchic is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,110
    Quote Originally Posted by DamienMaddox View Post
    That answers a lot of my questions then. The only unclear thing is the instance where the mother could make choices to lessen her likelihood of getting pregnant but takes no precautions at all. Through total disregard for her own responsibility (and the fathers as well), she puts herself and an unborn child in this situation. Could we really compare that to the fetus hijacking her body when she left the door wide open, fully aware of the neighborhood?

    When a women is actively taking responsible precautions its a lot more understandable.
    That is where education comes into play. Did she fail to take precautions because she's lazy- or because she didn't know she needed to? Or because they weren't available? And, really, if the reason is that she's just lazy- do we really want her being a mother . . . just something to ponder.
    http://cattaillady.com/ My blog exploring the beginning stages of learning how to homestead. With the occasional rant.

    Originally Posted by TheFastCat: Less is more more or less

    And now I have an Etsy store: CattailsandCalendula

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by drssgchic View Post
    That is where education comes into play. Did she fail to take precautions because she's lazy- or because she didn't know she needed to? Or because they weren't available? And, really, if the reason is that she's just lazy- do we really want her being a mother . . . just something to ponder.
    The reason would be because she was lazy (Why would abortions be available but not other birth control methods, why would she know about abortion and not other birth control methods?). The question of wanting her to be a mother, preferably no, but it is likely the child would grow up to be a stronger independent individual.

    Obviously it can go either way, but children are smart enough to decide what they don't want to be like when they grow up. Being a good example for your children is preferred because they have more to learn from, this would be a pulling force of motivation. The child is rewarded for building their character and being responsible. On the other hand, a mother who is a bad example teaches the child what not to do, and this is a pushed force of motivation. Their need for security that is not provided by the mother (or parents) forces them to become independent and to rely on themselves. They may not have the "head start" the other child has, but as an adult, they are much more liberated than the other child because they are confident in their ability to overcome adversities and achieve goals, without help from others.

  10. #150
    drssgchic's Avatar
    drssgchic is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,110
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by DamienMaddox View Post
    The reason would be because she was lazy (Why would abortions be available but not other birth control methods, why would she know about abortion and not other birth control methods?). The question of wanting her to be a mother, preferably no, but it is likely the child would grow up to be a stronger independent individual.

    Obviously it can go either way, but children are smart enough to decide what they don't want to be like when they grow up. Being a good example for your children is preferred because they have more to learn from, this would be a pulling force of motivation. The child is rewarded for building their character and being responsible. On the other hand, a mother who is a bad example teaches the child what not to do, and this is a pushed force of motivation. Their need for security that is not provided by the mother (or parents) forces them to become independent and to rely on themselves. They may not have the "head start" the other child has, but as an adult, they are much more liberated than the other child because they are confident in their ability to overcome adversities and achieve goals, without help from others.
    Let's say she's 17 and was raised in a very, very conservative area. Her sex ed is what is provided by her public school. It's sketchy at best. The other girls assure her that she can't get pregnant the first time. It's a common enough idea. She and her boyfriend consummate on Prom night. He didn't think to grab a condom (assuming the idea even crossed his mind) and she thinks she's protected since this is the first time. Well, oops. Now that she has to deal with this, she hops on the internet, or talks to the "bad girls" or somehow finds out that there is a way out. She didn't go without out of laziness, but out of lack of education.

    You really think that a child is automatically going to rise above being raised as something unwanted, unloved, and considered a burden? Some do. We have lots of examples here on MDA of the potential to rise above. I'm willing to bet, though, that every one of them can tell you that it is not something they would wish on someone else.

    Children are precious. They are the future. They are not pieces on a political gameboard. Any child that is born should be raised as well as is possible because, well, we should be giving them every possible chance at success. However, this means that we need to not spread our resources to children that aren't wanted. We have enough humans already. The extras will not ensure that our species doesn't die out. They will use resources that could be lavished on the ones that were wanted.

    (I'm not saying that an unwanted child can't become a wanted one once they are born. I am saying that the odds of that happening aren't good enough to risk said child on that hope)
    http://cattaillady.com/ My blog exploring the beginning stages of learning how to homestead. With the occasional rant.

    Originally Posted by TheFastCat: Less is more more or less

    And now I have an Etsy store: CattailsandCalendula

Page 15 of 62 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •