Yet that is exactly what unfettered abortion does to the unborn. As stated, they may not be born, but science has shown that they are distinct human beings with their own DNA. What about their Rights?
I respect that you are approaching this from a rational angle. My "stone age" comment was referring to 90% of the pro-life movement's sole argument being based on Christian doctrine. That is simply confounding and infuriating.
That being said, DNA is not indicative of a unique and sentient life. Tumors have DNA, cysts have DNA, hair contains DNA. If it is organic and was created by your body, it has your DNA. 60% of all embryos do not become babies. Women's bodies reject more than half of them. Many of them do so before they are even aware that they were pregnant. It's not a tragedy then and it's not a tragedy when someone opts for it of their own volition. After all, they only perform abortions on first trimester cases or when it will endanger the life of the mother.
The DNA argument refers to the individuality of the fetus, and that said DNA is "matches" the type found amongst those of us who were actually born. Probably not stating the case very well, but I think you get the gist.
Will not speak to embryos that do not "take", or are spontaneously rejected. Agree with you that those are not tragedies (although, having gone through a miscarriage, they are not fun), but I maintain that the taking of a human life IS a tragedy. As I said, how is it that the Death Penalty is "wrong", but killing the unborn is not?
Abortions can and do occur in this country at any point in the pregnancy. there are guidelines that hospitals use, but there are no laws that govern the process.
they don't have rights. the woman's rights trump. if you disagree, take the test tube baby route (as i think everyone should).
Human beings have Rights. I maintain that the fetus is a Human Being, ergo, that they do have Rights. I am not saying that those Rights have to "trump" the Mother's, but I do think they should have some protection.
Ok not being a woman and not really being in touch with this issue, need to clear something up, isn't it only after 9 weeks that "it" is considered a fetus?
So I would think that a fetus does have rights but does not trump the mothers..
The questions come to me as:
1/ Is it open season on any pregnancy prior to that time or should there still be limits?
2/ At what point does the "rights" of the fetus come into play and how do we judge between fetus rights and mothers rights..? Does the sperm donator have any rights in any decision? Do you think you can be pro choice with limits? If so what are they?
Trigs, do you advocate open season? ie a potential mother can terminate at any point for any reason? If not open season what do you propose as a basis for limits. Can you be pro choice with limits. Just trying to understand.
Ok not being a woman and not really being in touch with this issue, need to clear something up, isn't it only after 9 weeks that "it" is considered a fetus?
So I would think that a fetus does have rights but does not trump the mothers..
The questions come to me as:
1/ Is it open season on any pregnancy prior to that time or should there still be limits?
I would be in accord with no restriction for the first 2 months. This would account for the majority of "oops" pregnancies, not to mention covering anything like sexual assault. I would also agree with coverage under government health care during this time.
2/ At what point does the "rights" of the fetus come into play and how do we judge between fetus rights and mothers rights..? Does the sperm donator have any rights in any decision? Do you think you can be pro choice with limits? If so what are they?
I would say that when the fetus is considered "viable" outside the Mother's womb (90% at 3 months or something like that), then I think the Fetus's Rights need to be considered. Exactly how, I have no idea, but it bears discussion. Sorry, but the donor can have an vote when he starts carrying said Fetus. For me, this would be the point after which, if termination is the decision, then the woman can pay for it. Sorry, actions have consequences, and society should not have to pay for all of them.
Trigs, do you advocate open season? ie a potential mother can terminate at any point for any reason? If not open season what do you propose as a basis for limits. Can you be pro choice with limits. Just trying to understand.
Not a woman either, but those are my thoughts on a reasonable compromise. As has been stated elsewhere, there is no reason (under normal circumstances) these days for someone to get pregnant unless they want to.
**edit** I do not think that a woman should be told the gender of the Fetus until the viability threshold I mentioned above. Genetic Markers are a different story.
but tell me again how this man is some sort of hero . . .
Women were being grievously harmed or killed in back room/alley abortions overseen by doctors...nay predators... less qualified to 'practice' medicine than I am to play poker. This guy was one of the few to see the injustice here and not kowtow to the masses blinded by belief in a little man in the sky that has a history of being one of the most brutal killers in false history. but that's another topic for another day and I only mention it to give context. He stood up for woman's rights to control themselves and help steer this society away from the misogynistic backwards cesspool that many parts of the world are now or are becoming. He risked his life where most of us would have bowed to pressure.
do I idolize him? no. do I support using abortion as a method of birth control in my life? no. Do I support a woman who has been raped not allowing a lifelong reminder of the violence to be born, absolutely. Where the mother's life is in danger (hello Ireland), Yup. The problem with trying to define exactly where it is ethical and where it is not is next to impossible. Outlawing it is far far more unjust than allowing it.
Not a woman either, but those are my thoughts on a reasonable compromise. As has been stated elsewhere, there is no reason (under normal circumstances) these days for someone to get pregnant unless they want to.
**edit** I do not think that a woman should be told the gender of the Fetus until the viability threshold I mentioned above. Genetic Markers are a different story.
Agree here. while I do support abortion I have reservations about the use of it for genetic or gender selection purposes. Again though, we get into the grey areas in the middle of the spectrum between total outlaw and no guidelines at all.
(at this point I will say that the 22 weeks that is normally the guideline is about the point where the fetus starts to feel pain and suffering. from here I only support abortion where the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated as by this point, you should have figured it out and made the choice in other circumstances.)
The idea that the sex of the child should be withheld until viability is interesting but how would that be policed without some rather committed undercover work......
Agree here. while I do support abortion I have reservations about the use of it for genetic or gender selection purposes.
Wanted to focus on this aspect of the argument, but not specifically "your" thoughts.
To me, this is where a lot of the "pro" abortion supporters lose me. Because, if it is a woman's Right to choose, or if the Fetus' Rights are trumped by the Mother's in all cases, then what does the gender of the Fetus matter? I have heard plenty of "pro-choice" types argue for unfettered abortions, yet claim that sex-selective abortion should be abolished. There is no logical consistency to that argument, in my eyes.
I am really trying to form a consistent structure for my thoughts on this issue, as I think it speaks to our values as a society. How greatly do we value life, and how strongly do we safeguard those who need it? I think that, as a society, our grades in both of these areas have been steadily lowering.
Women were being grievously harmed or killed in back room/alley abortions overseen by doctors...nay predators... less qualified to 'practice' medicine than I am to play poker.
The reasons for these procedures was due to the onerous hurdles that our previous law put on women in acquiring an abortion.
This guy was one of the few to see the injustice here and not kowtow to the masses blinded by belief in a little man in the sky that has a history of being one of the most brutal killers in false history.
No, he saw an economic opportunity. If he was only interested in the injustice of our previous laws, he could have worked within the system for change. But that would not have netted him the millions of dollars that his nation-wide chain of clinics did.
but that's another topic for another day and I only mention it to give context. He stood up for woman's rights to control themselves and help steer this society away from the misogynistic backwards cesspool that many parts of the world are now or are becoming. He risked his life where most of us would have bowed to pressure.
He risked his livelihood, not his life. There was no Death Penalty statute in this country at that time
do I idolize him? no.
But you are propagating the myth that surrounds him. Those myths are just as illusory as that "little man in the sky" you mentioned earlier.
do I support using abortion as a method of birth control in my life? no. Do I support a woman who has been raped not allowing a lifelong reminder of the violence to be born, absolutely. Where the mother's life is in danger (hello Ireland), Yup. The problem with trying to define exactly where it is ethical and where it is not is next to impossible. Outlawing it is far far more unjust than allowing it.
As for the religious objections to abortion, that is the purview of the religious. Very few people who self identify as Catholic, or whatever other Faith, actually live the precepts of that Faith. As for regulation, far more human beings have been killed in our country through our unregulated abortion system than have been killed by firearms, yet folks still complain that firearms are not regulated enough. That is just another thing I find perplexing, though . . .
Trigs, do you advocate open season? ie a potential mother can terminate at any point for any reason? If not open season what do you propose as a basis for limits. Can you be pro choice with limits. Just trying to understand.
i know some people prefer to draw an arbitrary line (such as up to the end of the 2nd trimester or something like that). i don't see the point.
if i was a woman and i got raped, impregnated, and held hostage for 8 1/2 months. then i managed to escape to freedom. i'd sure as hell hope that i'd be allowed to have an abortion even though the kid would be due at any time.
Trigs, do you advocate open season? ie a potential mother can terminate at any point for any reason? If not open season what do you propose as a basis for limits. Can you be pro choice with limits. Just trying to understand.
i know some people prefer to draw an arbitrary line (such as up to the end of the 2nd trimester or something like that). i don't see the point.
if i was a woman and i got raped, impregnated, and held hostage for 8 1/2 months. then i managed to escape to freedom. i'd sure as hell hope that i'd be allowed to have an abortion even though the kid would be due at any time.
Above is an extreme case and would be a miniscule % of potential abortions...
So as I asked before, are you in favour of the woman having complete choice?
Or should there be some limits? And if so what should they be?
Hypothetical... A women gets pregnant with her hubby (or boyfriend), he leaves her at 8 months, she decides she doesn't want his kid, open season on her getting an abortion?
Above is an extreme case and would be a miniscule % of potential abortions...
So as I asked before, are you in favour of the woman having complete choice?
Or should there be some limits? And if so what should they be?
Hypothetical... A women gets pregnant with her hubby (or boyfriend), he leaves her at 8 months, she decides she doesn't want his kid, open season on her getting an abortion?
sorry comp.
yes, i think that it's the woman's choice right up to having the child born. the first step to fixing the problem is people should have to pass a very basic parenting test along with proof of adequate finances in order to be eligible to start their own family.
however, if i had my ideal way, the general public would not be broken up into tradional family households and they would not be allowed to have children at all. females could choose to be breeders if they want and males could choose to work/volunteer with babies/children, but the traditional family unit should be abolished.
I'm not living in that type of society where someone else has the control... No thanks, cure much worse than the disease.. What other rights do we have to give up? The right to breathe? Geesh Trigs, do you really want to live in a society like that?
Now if I was the one in control... different story.. Sorta like a super mod!
yes, i think that it's the woman's choice right up to having the child born. the first step to fixing the problem is people should have to pass a very basic parenting test along with proof of adequate finances in order to be eligible to start their own family.
Who decides?!? You are not willing to let "others" have a say in killing a baby, but you want them to have a say in who can get pregnant? Completely illogical.
However, if i had my ideal way, the general public would not be broken up into tradional family households and they would not be allowed to have children at all. females could choose to be breeders if they want and males could choose to work/volunteer with babies/children, but the traditional family unit should be abolished.
I'm not living in that type of society where someone else has the control... No thanks, cure much worse than the disease.. What other rights do we have to give up? The right to breathe? Geesh Trigs, do you really want to live in a society like that?
Now if I was the one in control... different story.. Sorta like a super mod!
lol yes. having your own children is so insanely overrated and completely pointless. coupling off in traditional marriages for the rest of one's life is just so completely outdated. maybe i'd be okay if marriage was five years total with the possible option of renewal. that would solve a lot of problems.
just because we're able to squeeze one out doesn't mean we have the know-how or the right to bring a life into this world. people totally don't consider the implications of having to take care of a human being. also, there are tons of babies/children/teens out there desperate for parents. it's simply an ego thing that people need their own blood children.
lol yes. having your own children is so insanely overrated and completely pointless.
My daughter is the greatest joy in my life . . . and that includes the occasional heartache she provides me.
coupling off in traditional marriages for the rest of one's life is just so completely outdated.
You are entitled to your opinion. I have no desire to be with anyone else. Call me old fashioned . . .
maybe i'd be okay if marriage was five years total with the possible option of renewal. that would solve a lot of problems.
But it would also open up new ones . . .
just because we're able to squeeze one out doesn't mean we have the know-how or the right to bring a life into this world. people totally don't consider the implications of having to take care of a human being. also, there are tons of babies/children/teens out there desperate for parents. it's simply an ego thing that people need their own blood children.
My daughter is not an "ego thing" . . . and as for taking care of another human being, I have done so at BOTH ends of the life cycle, first with my daughter, and not too long ago, with my Mother. Pretty sure I know as much about the implications you're talking about as anyone on this Forum.
Curious again Trigs, have we ever met..? Really wondering what sort of background you are from to feel this way? I certainly don't mean this in any
negative fashion as we all have different ideas of what a satisfying life may be..
If everyone felt the way you do, pretty soon the human race would cease to exist...
My daughter is not an "ego thing" . . . and as for taking care of another human being, I have done so at BOTH ends of the life cycle, first with my daughter, and not too long ago, with my Mother. Pretty sure I know as much about the implications you're talking about as anyone on this Forum.
I find your world view incredibly nihilistic.
i never suggested that your daughter was an ego thing specifically. however, if you never even considered adopting instead of having your own baby, then sorry, there is ego involved. you can't really deny that. you are, in a sense, letting babies die because instead of saving/adopting them you felt that having your own was a better idea. possibly because having your own is more meaningful or something like that. i'd like to imagine that those who are pro-life would never even consider having their own child. that's just selfish of them.
also, i find it fascinating that you consider my view nihilistic. that actually speaks volumes to my point. many people, i'm assuming like you, argue that having children is the most important thing in life. i wholeheartedly disagree with that. people who feel this way always make comments to those like me who don't want children and always think that i'm wasting my life away by not having children. i obviously see it as the complete opposite. i'm actually living my life whereas, those with children have no life anymore. their life is their child's life now, and rightly so i should add, but personally i'd rather have my own life than live it through someone else.
EDIT: i think i need to clarify my argument a bit more here. you stating that i'm nihilistic because i don't think we should have children suggests that you are benefiting and gaining satisfaction from having children, which is fine in itself if that was just an added bonus to having children. however, the fact that you are suggesting that not having children is completely nihilistic suggests that i should be having children to benefit me personally. furthermore, you seem to suggest doing otherwise is a horrible waste. from this argument, you are definitely saying that people should have children to benefit themselves. that sounds pretty selfish to me for sure.
Curious again Trigs, have we ever met..? Really wondering what sort of background you are from to feel this way? I certainly don't mean this in any
negative fashion as we all have different ideas of what a satisfying life may be..
If everyone felt the way you do, pretty soon the human race would cease to exist...
yes, i agree it's selfish (i also feel having children is selfish though as i state above), but it's not just that. it's also being humble and realistic with one's own personal satisfaction in life. i don't think that having children should be for my own personal satisfaction. nor should one have children because 'that's what we're supposed to do'. the only reasons one should have a child should be completely altruistic and i don't know of anyone who thinks like that. everyone has children to benefit themselves, not to benefit the future child. if it was purely for the child, they would have adopted as those babies are already born and are desperate for help.
furthermore, the human race will do just fine. we need to cut our numbers down to a more manageable amount anyway, so that's not a big deal at all, especially at the current moment. population is still crazy booming worldwide and it's obviously a big issue as far as environmental concerns, sustainable food for everyone, etc.
we've never met comp. by background do you mean nationality? my mother is polish and my father is italian. i was born and raised in hamilton. lived in south korea for a while teaching. i'm an honours philosophy grad with a minor in english (although all my english courses were technically cultural studies and critical theory courses that are just cross referenced with english). i teach high school credits to adults now and my teachable subjects are english and religion. i teach all the senior english courses and around 20 social science courses. i also teach the standardized ontario literacy course.
i never suggested that your daughter was an ego thing specifically. however, if you never even considered adopting instead of having your own baby, then sorry, there is ego involved. you can't really deny that. you are, in a sense, letting babies die because instead of saving/adopting them you felt that having your own was a better idea. possibly because having your own is more meaningful or something like that. i'd like to imagine that those who are pro-life would never even consider having their own child. that's just selfish of them.
My wife has mentioned adoption, as we were not fortunate enough to conceive a second child of our own. I suspect that she thinks I feel somewhat disappointed in not having a son, but that is not the case. We were lucky enough to have one child with all the fingers and toes in the right places, and I feel blessed by that. My opinion with regard to adoption has always been one of indifference, and that is a bad outlook to have if you are going to take that route, hence we will never adopt. I do however contribute to a fund at my Credit Union that sponsors a few children in Rwanda, so I like to think I contribute in my fashion. As for your comment about "letting babies die", I suppose I would agree to a point. And that point would be this: One cannot save all those in need without putting themselves at risk as well. I do what I can, and contribute in my fashion, and I am content with that.
also, i find it fascinating that you consider my view nihilistic. that actually speaks volumes to my point. many people, i'm assuming like you, argue that having children is the most important thing in life.
I do not think it is the most important thing in life. I do think that, having made the decision to have kids, raising them to be good people is the most important TASK in life, though. whether or not someone chooses to create a child is entirely up to the individual. You do not want kids . . . fine. Your choice, and I do not judge you for it in any way.
i wholeheartedly disagree with that. people who feel this way always make comments to those like me who don't want children and always think that i'm wasting my life away by not having children. i obviously see it as the complete opposite. i'm actually living my life whereas, those with children have no life anymore.
I would beg to differ. My life may not be entirely my own, but that is sort of the point, both of getting married and raising a family.
their life is their child's life now, and rightly so i should add, but personally i'd rather have my own life than live it through someone else.
I do not live my life through my daughter, but I take satisfaction in her accomplishments and success. I take equal satisfaction in my own.
EDIT: i think i need to clarify my argument a bit more here. you stating that i'm nihilistic because i don't think we should have children suggests that you are benefiting and gaining satisfaction from having children, which is fine in itself if that was just an added bonus to having children. however, the fact that you are suggesting that not having children is completely nihilistic suggests that i should be having children to benefit me personally. furthermore, you seem to suggest doing otherwise is a horrible waste. from this argument, you are definitely saying that people should have children to benefit themselves. that sounds pretty selfish to me for sure.
I would not go so far as to say that a childless life is a "waste". I do, however, think you are missing out on an aspect of life that can bring great joy. And how is the desire for a child any more or less selfish than the desire to live your life only for yourself? Two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
And how is the desire for a child any more or less selfish than the desire to live your life only for yourself? Two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
sorry but i completely disagree with this point. i agree that the decision to have or not have a child must be based on some sort of selfish characteristic. it necessarily has to be since we're talking about how one wants to live the rest of their life.
however, choosing to have a child (even if in a small part for the selfish gain of happiness and self satisfaction), and even more choosing to have your own instead of rescuing the desperate and dying ones seems much more selfish imho. both of those decisions are based on your personal happiness. honestly, i would find it very hard to believe you if you stated that you chose to have your own child for the sake of the child and humankind. that should be the reason, but it never is.
sorry but i completely disagree with this point. i agree that the decision to have or not have a child must be based on some sort of selfish characteristic. it necessarily has to be since we're talking about how one wants to live the rest of their life.
however, choosing to have a child (even if in a small part for the selfish gain of happiness and self satisfaction), and even more choosing to have your own instead of rescuing the desperate and dying ones seems much more selfish imho. both of those decisions are based on your personal happiness. honestly, i would find it very hard to believe you if you stated that you chose to have your own child for the sake of the child and humankind. that should be the reason, but it never is.
I will stipulate, as to the greater selfishness of wanting a child vs. not. A matter of degrees only, and in my opinion small beer. Moving onto the bolded section . . .
One can live a fulfilling life without marriage, but my belief is that my life is better for having met and married my wife.
One can live a fulfilling life as a childless couple, but I believe our lives are enriched by our daughter's presence, and that we enrich hers.
I believe that, in the manner in which we raise our daughter, the world will be a marginally better place, as we hope to impart such values to her that this will occur. As she is only 1 of 7 billion, it will be an infinitesimal improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. And who knows? Her art may one day inspire others, or allow her to begin great philanthropy (or others to do so when she is gone). Not likely, but always a remote possibility. Ripples on a pond . . .
Is there a certain amount of ego in that belief? Of course . . . but ego exists in all human activity.
Could we have accomplished the same thing by pulling a child out of poverty through adoption? Absolutely, but I have stated my thoughts about that previously so will not reiterate them.
But leaving all those ruminations aside, why should having a child be about the betterment of humanity? Why can it not be simply about the betterment/fulfillment of our own lives?
But leaving all those ruminations aside, why should having a child be about the betterment of humanity? Why can it not be simply about the betterment/fulfillment of our own lives?
because we're talking about the holiest of holies here. we're talking about life! you know, the big thing that has all the pro-lifers freaking out about abortion. having a child for personal reasons instead of altruistic reasons results in using that person. you are using that life for your own personal gain. again, life. we're not talking about an object, or even an ideal or value. we're talking about autonomy, freedom, real life! if life was only for personal satisfaction, then the shit would hit the fan real soon. marquis de sade would be having a field day. producing and continuing life should not be about the individual and it should not be about personal happiness. the gift of life should be about all of us combined as a species. to limit and narrow it to our personal wills and desires belittles life imho. it's more than an individual. it's more than a couple. it's more than grandparents having grandchildren to play with. it is about our existence. it's about all of us, all humans.
also, on a slightly different note, i was going to mention my opinions about the notion that choosing to have children also suggests that the parents deems themselves worthy enough to teach and educate a person (a life!) about all the proper traditional morals and values and whatnot in order to create the best possible person (life!). maybe it's a lack of self esteem, or maybe it's a lack of arrogance, but i'd be hard pressed to argue that i am good enough to do this for another life. for all the children in the world's sake, i sure as hell hope their parents live up to this incredibly daunting task. i fucking couldn't but at least i admit that.
Yes, I agree with you (to a point). If one is going to bring a life into the world, then you need to do everything possible to ensure that the person you create is an improvement, if only in that they are an improvement on you as their parent. I would like to think that my daughter will be a better person then I am. She already does not have the burden of the prejudices I do, or at least she does not evidence them to the degree that I know my biases exist. So in that small way, I can so far claim a win. And, by extension, does that not satisfy your concerns about the greater scope that is humanity? As I said, even if the improvement is one of microscopically small proportion, it is nonetheless improvement just the same. A flood starts with but a single drop of rain.
Meh . . . Mark is hungover, and we have strayed far from the OP (imagine), so I doubt he would be interested any more. As for Darb, you unban him at your peril, but then you know that already. I am more curious about Al's motivations for fomenting this little bun-fight.
Comments
I respect that you are approaching this from a rational angle. My "stone age" comment was referring to 90% of the pro-life movement's sole argument being based on Christian doctrine. That is simply confounding and infuriating.
That being said, DNA is not indicative of a unique and sentient life. Tumors have DNA, cysts have DNA, hair contains DNA. If it is organic and was created by your body, it has your DNA. 60% of all embryos do not become babies. Women's bodies reject more than half of them. Many of them do so before they are even aware that they were pregnant. It's not a tragedy then and it's not a tragedy when someone opts for it of their own volition. After all, they only perform abortions on first trimester cases or when it will endanger the life of the mother.
Will not speak to embryos that do not "take", or are spontaneously rejected. Agree with you that those are not tragedies (although, having gone through a miscarriage, they are not fun), but I maintain that the taking of a human life IS a tragedy. As I said, how is it that the Death Penalty is "wrong", but killing the unborn is not?
Abortions can and do occur in this country at any point in the pregnancy. there are guidelines that hospitals use, but there are no laws that govern the process.
Human beings have Rights. I maintain that the fetus is a Human Being, ergo, that they do have Rights. I am not saying that those Rights have to "trump" the Mother's, but I do think they should have some protection.
So I would think that a fetus does have rights but does not trump the mothers..
The questions come to me as:
1/ Is it open season on any pregnancy prior to that time or should there still be limits?
2/ At what point does the "rights" of the fetus come into play and how do we judge between fetus rights and mothers rights..? Does the sperm donator have any rights in any decision? Do you think you can be pro choice with limits? If so what are they?
Trigs, do you advocate open season? ie a potential mother can terminate at any point for any reason? If not open season what do you propose as a basis for limits. Can you be pro choice with limits. Just trying to understand.
Not a woman either, but those are my thoughts on a reasonable compromise. As has been stated elsewhere, there is no reason (under normal circumstances) these days for someone to get pregnant unless they want to.
**edit** I do not think that a woman should be told the gender of the Fetus until the viability threshold I mentioned above. Genetic Markers are a different story.
Umm, I think 90% survivability is at 6 months... 3 months or 13 weeks is zero...
Great discussion though, would love others to chime in with reasonable ideas not dogma...
Women were being grievously harmed or killed in back room/alley abortions overseen by doctors...nay predators... less qualified to 'practice' medicine than I am to play poker. This guy was one of the few to see the injustice here and not kowtow to the masses blinded by belief in a little man in the sky that has a history of being one of the most brutal killers in false history. but that's another topic for another day and I only mention it to give context. He stood up for woman's rights to control themselves and help steer this society away from the misogynistic backwards cesspool that many parts of the world are now or are becoming. He risked his life where most of us would have bowed to pressure.
do I idolize him? no. do I support using abortion as a method of birth control in my life? no. Do I support a woman who has been raped not allowing a lifelong reminder of the violence to be born, absolutely. Where the mother's life is in danger (hello Ireland), Yup. The problem with trying to define exactly where it is ethical and where it is not is next to impossible. Outlawing it is far far more unjust than allowing it.
Agree here. while I do support abortion I have reservations about the use of it for genetic or gender selection purposes. Again though, we get into the grey areas in the middle of the spectrum between total outlaw and no guidelines at all.
(at this point I will say that the 22 weeks that is normally the guideline is about the point where the fetus starts to feel pain and suffering. from here I only support abortion where the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated as by this point, you should have figured it out and made the choice in other circumstances.)
The idea that the sex of the child should be withheld until viability is interesting but how would that be policed without some rather committed undercover work......
24 weeks - 40%
25 weeks - 70%
26 weeks - 90%
Thank you Dr. google
Wanted to focus on this aspect of the argument, but not specifically "your" thoughts.
To me, this is where a lot of the "pro" abortion supporters lose me. Because, if it is a woman's Right to choose, or if the Fetus' Rights are trumped by the Mother's in all cases, then what does the gender of the Fetus matter? I have heard plenty of "pro-choice" types argue for unfettered abortions, yet claim that sex-selective abortion should be abolished. There is no logical consistency to that argument, in my eyes.
I am really trying to form a consistent structure for my thoughts on this issue, as I think it speaks to our values as a society. How greatly do we value life, and how strongly do we safeguard those who need it? I think that, as a society, our grades in both of these areas have been steadily lowering.
As for the religious objections to abortion, that is the purview of the religious. Very few people who self identify as Catholic, or whatever other Faith, actually live the precepts of that Faith. As for regulation, far more human beings have been killed in our country through our unregulated abortion system than have been killed by firearms, yet folks still complain that firearms are not regulated enough. That is just another thing I find perplexing, though . . .
i know some people prefer to draw an arbitrary line (such as up to the end of the 2nd trimester or something like that). i don't see the point.
if i was a woman and i got raped, impregnated, and held hostage for 8 1/2 months. then i managed to escape to freedom. i'd sure as hell hope that i'd be allowed to have an abortion even though the kid would be due at any time.
Above is an extreme case and would be a miniscule % of potential abortions...
So as I asked before, are you in favour of the woman having complete choice?
Or should there be some limits? And if so what should they be?
Hypothetical... A women gets pregnant with her hubby (or boyfriend), he leaves her at 8 months, she decides she doesn't want his kid, open season on her getting an abortion?
sorry comp.
yes, i think that it's the woman's choice right up to having the child born. the first step to fixing the problem is people should have to pass a very basic parenting test along with proof of adequate finances in order to be eligible to start their own family.
however, if i had my ideal way, the general public would not be broken up into tradional family households and they would not be allowed to have children at all. females could choose to be breeders if they want and males could choose to work/volunteer with babies/children, but the traditional family unit should be abolished.
Now if I was the one in control... different story..
Wonder what darb woulda said about this issue?
This is your ideal? Really?
lol yes. having your own children is so insanely overrated and completely pointless. coupling off in traditional marriages for the rest of one's life is just so completely outdated. maybe i'd be okay if marriage was five years total with the possible option of renewal. that would solve a lot of problems.
just because we're able to squeeze one out doesn't mean we have the know-how or the right to bring a life into this world. people totally don't consider the implications of having to take care of a human being. also, there are tons of babies/children/teens out there desperate for parents. it's simply an ego thing that people need their own blood children.
My daughter is not an "ego thing" . . . and as for taking care of another human being, I have done so at BOTH ends of the life cycle, first with my daughter, and not too long ago, with my Mother. Pretty sure I know as much about the implications you're talking about as anyone on this Forum.
I find your world view incredibly nihilistic.
Curious again Trigs, have we ever met..? Really wondering what sort of background you are from to feel this way? I certainly don't mean this in any
negative fashion as we all have different ideas of what a satisfying life may be..
If everyone felt the way you do, pretty soon the human race would cease to exist...
i never suggested that your daughter was an ego thing specifically. however, if you never even considered adopting instead of having your own baby, then sorry, there is ego involved. you can't really deny that. you are, in a sense, letting babies die because instead of saving/adopting them you felt that having your own was a better idea. possibly because having your own is more meaningful or something like that. i'd like to imagine that those who are pro-life would never even consider having their own child. that's just selfish of them.
also, i find it fascinating that you consider my view nihilistic. that actually speaks volumes to my point. many people, i'm assuming like you, argue that having children is the most important thing in life. i wholeheartedly disagree with that. people who feel this way always make comments to those like me who don't want children and always think that i'm wasting my life away by not having children. i obviously see it as the complete opposite. i'm actually living my life whereas, those with children have no life anymore. their life is their child's life now, and rightly so i should add, but personally i'd rather have my own life than live it through someone else.
EDIT: i think i need to clarify my argument a bit more here. you stating that i'm nihilistic because i don't think we should have children suggests that you are benefiting and gaining satisfaction from having children, which is fine in itself if that was just an added bonus to having children. however, the fact that you are suggesting that not having children is completely nihilistic suggests that i should be having children to benefit me personally. furthermore, you seem to suggest doing otherwise is a horrible waste. from this argument, you are definitely saying that people should have children to benefit themselves. that sounds pretty selfish to me for sure.
yes, i agree it's selfish (i also feel having children is selfish though as i state above), but it's not just that. it's also being humble and realistic with one's own personal satisfaction in life. i don't think that having children should be for my own personal satisfaction. nor should one have children because 'that's what we're supposed to do'. the only reasons one should have a child should be completely altruistic and i don't know of anyone who thinks like that. everyone has children to benefit themselves, not to benefit the future child. if it was purely for the child, they would have adopted as those babies are already born and are desperate for help.
furthermore, the human race will do just fine. we need to cut our numbers down to a more manageable amount anyway, so that's not a big deal at all, especially at the current moment. population is still crazy booming worldwide and it's obviously a big issue as far as environmental concerns, sustainable food for everyone, etc.
we've never met comp. by background do you mean nationality? my mother is polish and my father is italian. i was born and raised in hamilton. lived in south korea for a while teaching. i'm an honours philosophy grad with a minor in english (although all my english courses were technically cultural studies and critical theory courses that are just cross referenced with english). i teach high school credits to adults now and my teachable subjects are english and religion. i teach all the senior english courses and around 20 social science courses. i also teach the standardized ontario literacy course.
I would not go so far as to say that a childless life is a "waste". I do, however, think you are missing out on an aspect of life that can bring great joy. And how is the desire for a child any more or less selfish than the desire to live your life only for yourself? Two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
sorry but i completely disagree with this point. i agree that the decision to have or not have a child must be based on some sort of selfish characteristic. it necessarily has to be since we're talking about how one wants to live the rest of their life.
however, choosing to have a child (even if in a small part for the selfish gain of happiness and self satisfaction), and even more choosing to have your own instead of rescuing the desperate and dying ones seems much more selfish imho. both of those decisions are based on your personal happiness. honestly, i would find it very hard to believe you if you stated that you chose to have your own child for the sake of the child and humankind. that should be the reason, but it never is.
I will stipulate, as to the greater selfishness of wanting a child vs. not. A matter of degrees only, and in my opinion small beer. Moving onto the bolded section . . .
One can live a fulfilling life without marriage, but my belief is that my life is better for having met and married my wife.
One can live a fulfilling life as a childless couple, but I believe our lives are enriched by our daughter's presence, and that we enrich hers.
I believe that, in the manner in which we raise our daughter, the world will be a marginally better place, as we hope to impart such values to her that this will occur. As she is only 1 of 7 billion, it will be an infinitesimal improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. And who knows? Her art may one day inspire others, or allow her to begin great philanthropy (or others to do so when she is gone). Not likely, but always a remote possibility. Ripples on a pond . . .
Is there a certain amount of ego in that belief? Of course . . . but ego exists in all human activity.
Could we have accomplished the same thing by pulling a child out of poverty through adoption? Absolutely, but I have stated my thoughts about that previously so will not reiterate them.
But leaving all those ruminations aside, why should having a child be about the betterment of humanity? Why can it not be simply about the betterment/fulfillment of our own lives?
Just a thought, albeit a late one, does anyone else think it funny that Al lit the fuse and bailed? WP sir.
because we're talking about the holiest of holies here. we're talking about life! you know, the big thing that has all the pro-lifers freaking out about abortion. having a child for personal reasons instead of altruistic reasons results in using that person. you are using that life for your own personal gain. again, life. we're not talking about an object, or even an ideal or value. we're talking about autonomy, freedom, real life! if life was only for personal satisfaction, then the shit would hit the fan real soon. marquis de sade would be having a field day. producing and continuing life should not be about the individual and it should not be about personal happiness. the gift of life should be about all of us combined as a species. to limit and narrow it to our personal wills and desires belittles life imho. it's more than an individual. it's more than a couple. it's more than grandparents having grandchildren to play with. it is about our existence. it's about all of us, all humans.
also, on a slightly different note, i was going to mention my opinions about the notion that choosing to have children also suggests that the parents deems themselves worthy enough to teach and educate a person (a life!) about all the proper traditional morals and values and whatnot in order to create the best possible person (life!). maybe it's a lack of self esteem, or maybe it's a lack of arrogance, but i'd be hard pressed to argue that i am good enough to do this for another life. for all the children in the world's sake, i sure as hell hope their parents live up to this incredibly daunting task. i fucking couldn't but at least i admit that.
Yes, I agree with you (to a point). If one is going to bring a life into the world, then you need to do everything possible to ensure that the person you create is an improvement, if only in that they are an improvement on you as their parent. I would like to think that my daughter will be a better person then I am. She already does not have the burden of the prejudices I do, or at least she does not evidence them to the degree that I know my biases exist. So in that small way, I can so far claim a win. And, by extension, does that not satisfy your concerns about the greater scope that is humanity? As I said, even if the improvement is one of microscopically small proportion, it is nonetheless improvement just the same. A flood starts with but a single drop of rain.
What a perfectly sane and reasonable discussion... Methinks we need some DrTyore/fed/Darb 'isms inserted here...>:D