Abortion and Morality

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't particularly want to get into another pissing match with Pale, but I disagree with what he has posted here. I would respond anonymously to it, but I don't think that's legal here, so...

If we are just pretending, and playing a game, then we must agree on the rules that the game is played by and the rules must apply the same to everyone unless we all agree upon a rule that excludes someone or some group from the rules.

This is a nice thought but it has nothing to do with the reality of the game. Our Constitution says that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, but that didn't keep us from having slaves or denying women and homosexual people full legal rights.

Since we write the rules down for our game, if we are all going to agree that this one or that group is to be excluded, then we must write that down as well and since we must all agree to the rules for our game,

No, that's not true either, we don't all agree on the rules, many times the majority makes the rules or the people with the guns or money make the rules and we have to abide by them. Many rules for our game are not written down, Might is Right is one of the unwritten but widely practiced rules.

...the people who we duely elect to make the rules for our game must vote for us. Not a few referees whose job it is to make sure that the things we do and the disputes we have while playing our game are hashed out according to the rules as they are written.

Our duly elected officials don't vote for us, they usually vote for the Might is Right contingent. I agree with Pale in that it should be more like the way he has it laid out, but it just isn't, the idea is utopian and, however desirable, is not reflective of human reality.

 

[palerider]

This is a nice thought but it has nothing to do with the reality of the game. Our Constitution says that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, but that didn't keep us from having slaves or denying women and homosexual people full legal rights.

We were dead wrong with regard to blacks which illustrates my point. As to homosexuals, they have full legal rights. If you are talking about the marriage issue, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference over and above full legal rights.

No, that's not true either, we don't all agree on the rules, many times the majority makes the rules or the people with the guns or money make the rules and we have to abide by them. Many rules for our game are not written down, Might is Right is one of the unwritten but widely practiced rules.

Our game is played by the rules of a a representative republic. We vote for representatives to make up the rules for us. The rest is just hysterical exageration.

Our duly elected officials don't vote for us, they usually vote for the Might is Right contingent. I agree with Pale in that it should be more like the way he has it laid out, but it just isn't, the idea is utopian and, however desirable, is not reflective of human reality.

More hysterics. Your whole might is right senario is a figment of your imagination as much as your belief that I am a catholic. You have demonstrated over and over that your intellect takes a back seat to your imagination.

 

[vyo476]

Huh.

You have a point, Mare, a very definite point. The ironic thing is that we're mirror inverses on these two points: I believe the killing of unborns is unethical but the killing of animals justifiable, and you believe the killing of unbors is justifiable and the killing of animals is unethical. Our beliefs both form a paradox. I find that I cannot justify the idea that unborns are more deserving of life than animals. Can you justify the opposite?

Something else just occurred to me. I've been "on the fence" (got to start using a new phrase, that one's getting old) on this issue for about six years now. I thought pale had finally convinced me fully one way but you've pointed out a serious logical fallacy in the position I formed out of that conviction, which leads me back to that "on the fence" position I was in before. I can just push back from the table and say, "Okay, honestly I don't know what to do about it - the rest of you are all viable citizens, argue away and I'll stick my nose somewhere that it belongs."

Of all the issues I've ever tried to tackle this one has given me the most grief. No matter what I just absolutely cannot shake the idea that killing unborn babies is wrong. At the same time, I recognize that as a man, I can't ever fully understand the physical and emotional complexities of pregnancy. While I see and understand the societal problems that can be fixed by making abortion more readily available, I also understand that all manner of unethical practices benefit someone - if this is truly unethical, the only difference is that it benefits everyone.

Maybe I need to just accept that I'll never really be abe to solve this problem.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have a point, Mare, a very definite point. The ironic thing is that we're mirror inverses on these two points: I believe the killing of unborns is unethical but the killing of animals justifiable, and you believe the killing of unbors is justifiable and the killing of animals is unethical. Our beliefs both form a paradox. I find that I cannot justify the idea that unborns are more deserving of life than animals. Can you justify the opposite?

Let's not misrepresent my position please. I have stated that I think that killing is wrong--life is life, and all of it comes from a source to which we do not have access. People tend to draw a line between human life and all other life, that's a line for which I cannot find an ethical basis. But let's stick with the issue of abortion for the moment. I think it's wrong, but the problem I have is with simplistic answers to what is a large, complex, and intransigent problem. Just banning abortions and leaving women to face the problems caused by that decision won't work. We as a people on this planet are going to have to work together to find an answer for this problem, it's an issue almost everywhere. Millions of abortions are performed each year, milllions(!), that should tell you that this is a huge problem without an easy solution.

Something else just occurred to me. I've been "on the fence" (got to start using a new phrase, that one's getting old) on this issue for about six years now. I thought pale had finally convinced me fully one way but you've pointed out a serious logical fallacy in the position I formed out of that conviction, which leads me back to that "on the fence" position I was in before. I can just push back from the table and say, "Okay, honestly I don't know what to do about it - the rest of you are all viable citizens, argue away and I'll stick my nose somewhere that it belongs."

This has given all of us a huge amount of grief and I wish that Pale's simplistic solution would work, but I've studied the problem in enough detail to realize that it won't. Couple that with the fact that as a woman I have seen the other side of the issue and experienced the heartache for women in a way that you, as a man, cannot begin to appreciate. But don't give up, vyo, if you are on the fence then at least you can get a glimpse of both sides and that's what it's going to take.

Of all the issues I've ever tried to tackle this one has given me the most grief. No matter what I just absolutely cannot shake the idea that killing unborn babies is wrong. At the same time, I recognize that as a man, I can't ever fully understand the physical and emotional complexities of pregnancy. While I see and understand the societal problems that can be fixed by making abortion more readily available, I also understand that all manner of unethical practices benefit someone - if this is truly unethical, the only difference is that it benefits everyone.

That is a profound statement, vyo, and one that few people are willing to acknowledge, all of us benefit from the abortions that are performed. Without them we would have to have higher taxes, we would have more crime, more babies dumped, more children abused and abandoned, a growing population of unwanted children living on the street, more crowding in schools and hospitals, more welfare... the list just goes on and on. But are we--as a nation--willing to do what's necessary to stop the killing? Will we pony up the money? Will we change the laws to protect women and children so that they can have a real chance at life? I don't know. What do you think?

Maybe I need to just accept that I'll never really be abe to solve this problem.

I will never accept that the problem CANNOT be solved, but I know full well that the solution will have to systemic and involve men and women, changing the laws, and changing the way our culture views women and the value of the work they do raising children. I don't really know where to start except by talking to people who are willing to discuss the complex issues and not demand quick fixes that stigmatize women and strip them of control over their lives.

Somehow in this whole discussion we need to find a way to begin seeing LIFE in a different way, right now animal lives, plant lives, and human lives are bought and sold, traded and disposed of like any other commodity--life is not sacred in our modern mechanized culture, millions in this country are homeless, tens of thousands starve everyday worldwide, and billions live in wrenching poverty while a few have more money than God.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We were dead wrong with regard to blacks which illustrates my point. As to homosexuals, they have full legal rights. If you are talking about the marriage issue, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference over and above full legal rights.
Our game is played by the rules of a a representative republic. We vote for representatives to make up the rules for us. The rest is just hysterical exageration.
More hysterics. Your whole might is right senario is a figment of your imagination as much as your belief that I am a catholic. You have demonstrated over and over that your intellect takes a back seat to your imagination.

Thanks for the clarification, Pale, now I know that nothing will work with you except a pissing match--and I'm not interested. If you write stuff that needs a response I will respond to it, but not to this meaningless drivel.

 

[ArmChair General]

If we are just pretending, and playing a game, then we must agree on the rules that the game is played by and the rules must apply the same to everyone unless we all agree upon a rule that excludes someone or some group from the rules. Since we write the rules down for our game, if we are all going to agree that this one or that group is to be excluded, then we must write that down as well and since we must all agree to the rules for our game, the people who we duely elect to make the rules for our game must vote for us. Not a few referees whose job it is to make sure that the things we do and the disputes we have while playing our game are hashed out according to the rules as they are written.

First of all I think talking about the process of defining rules or rights is a waste of time. Our definition of what rules or rights we assign is as unimportant to the study of the reasons that exist for and against an aversion to killing, as our definition of ‘planet’ is to our study of Pluto.

I am talking about relationships between desires and states of affairs – between the different things that can exist and the reasons-for-action that exist for preserving or bringing about those states. In this, all objectively true statements fall within the realm of what ‘is’, and all else false within the realm of ‘is not’ – with some wiggle room created by fuzzy logic and similar concepts that still apply equally to all sciences.

I think that there are objectively true and false relationships between desires and states of affairs.

I also believe that saying that everyone has a right to life, is meaningless, because it does not reflect reality.

But the point- and what Im trying to get to, is why is it wrong to kill an unborn?

 

[palerider]

But the point- and what Im trying to get to, is why is it wrong to kill an unborn?

Personally, I happen to believe in the principles laid out in our founding documents. That we do come into being with certain rights.

If, as you say, it is a game, and all our rights to live and be free are merely figments, I woud prefer to play the game than to live the alternative; the jungle. I have been there and don't care to go back. Today, right now, every unborn lives in the jungle. He or she can be killed anytime, without cause and without legal consequence.

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options. Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options.

Another piece of Catholic religious dogma: the idea that humans have souls (you tried ducking the issue by using the word "spark") or "something" that makes us different (what you really mean is "special") so that our lives are sacred and all other life is profane--which protects your desire to continue exploiting all other lifeforms for food, fur, fun, and profit. What you are pushing is the idea that our lives have intrinsic value and all other lives have only utilitarian value. Very Catholic--even if you don't go to the church.

Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.

It isn't an either/or situation, we could rewrite the rules so that we played the game as if ALL life had intrinsic value since it all comes from the same source. There is nothing to support the idea that animals love their lives any less that we love ours, they hunger, love, grieve, suffer, and die. Singling out one lifeform and elevating it above all others is unsupportable from a scientific standpoint as well, and can only be done with religion.

 

[Coyote]

Personally, I happen to believe in the principles laid out in our founding documents. That we do come into being with certain rights.

If, as you say, it is a game, and all our rights to live and be free are merely figments, I woud prefer to play the game than to live the alternative; the jungle. I have been there and don't care to go back. Today, right now, every unborn lives in the jungle. He or she can be killed anytime, without cause and without legal consequence.

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options. Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.

Interesting...

 

[Coyote]

Another piece of Catholic religious dogma: the idea that humans have souls (you tried ducking the issue by using the word "spark") or "something" that makes us different (what you really mean is "special") so that our lives are sacred and all other life is profane--which protects your desire to continue exploiting all other lifeforms for food, fur, fun, and profit. What you are pushing is the idea that our lives have intrinsic value and all other lives have only utilitarian value. Very Catholic--even if you don't go to the church.

Not necessarily Catholic or even Christian or even religious. There is something different about humans than about almost every other animal. I say "almost" because we really don't know enough about how other animals think - particularly other higher animals.

But human's have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions and how they affect other living creatures - and the ability to care about it. I think all life is sacred to a degree, but only human's seem to have the ability to see that, and to create for themselves a role of stewardship or destroyer.

 

[palerider]

Another piece of Catholic religious dogma: the idea that humans have souls (you tried ducking the issue by using the word "spark") or "something" that makes us different (what you really mean is "special") so that our lives are sacred and all other life is profane--which protects your desire to continue exploiting all other lifeforms for food, fur, fun, and profit. What you are pushing is the idea that our lives have intrinsic value and all other lives have only utilitarian value. Very Catholic--even if you don't go to the church.

I have been trying very hard not to call you a stupid woman, but you are rapidly reaching the point that nothing else would accurately characterize you.

I know that you hate men, and you hate me and apparently you hate catholics as well. Unfourtunately, I am not catholic, know nothing of catholic doctrine and have no interest in it.

If I had ment to talk about souls, I would have said souls. Unlike you, I think very carefully about what I am going to say before I say it. My emotions do not rule my intellect. I made no suggestion that our lives are sacred and that other life is profane. More of your imagination.

It isn't an either/or situation, we could rewrite the rules so that we played the game as if ALL life had intrinsic value since it all comes from the same source. There is nothing to support the idea that animals love their lives any less that we love ours, they hunger, love, grieve, suffer, and die. Singling out one lifeform and elevating it above all others is unsupportable from a scientific standpoint as well, and can only be done with religion.

Actually mare, the food chain separates us from the other animals. We happen to be at the top. Nothing religious there. Your fixation on catholics and your obvious hatred for men has rendered you unable to effectively participate in a conversation.

 

[9sublime]

Palerider, I don't have any dishonest motives for this whole topic. I just find it funny that you think that an unborn childs life should be protected at all costs, even if it ruins the lives of other people that are already alive, but at the same time you are not preaching pacifism, because people who are already alive with friends and family get blown to bits in war all the time and that effects far more people and ruins a far more 'ignited spark'.

At the moment, I am not sure wether I am pro or anti abortion, but I find it funny that you are.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, I don't have any dishonest motives for this whole topic. I just find it funny that you think that an unborn childs life should be protected at all costs, even if it ruins the lives of other people that are already alive,

I don't know how else to explain it to you 9sublime. I have laid out my position with crystal clarity and for some reason you either can't or won't see what I am saying.

My position is that anyone's life should be preserved if they worst they are going to do is cramp your style. No one has the right to kill you unless you are threatening their life or long term health. I don't care if you ruin someone else's life, they simply don't have the right to kill you for it. It isn't that I think your life is sacred, in this country, it is just the law.

but at the same time you are not preaching pacifism, because people who are already alive with friends and family get blown to bits in war all the time and that effects far more people and ruins a far more 'ignited spark'.

No doubt, terrible things happen in war. That is the nature of war. Abortion, however, is one human being deliberately having another human being killed for reasons that amount to no more than convenience 97% of the time.

At the moment, I am not sure wether I am pro or anti abortion, but I find it funny that you are.

Elaborate.

 

[top gun]

This is just in general and not to Palerider. There are so many underlying issues here that warrant recognition. For women who choose not to have a child after mistakenly becoming pregnant it is both a very thought out and a very emotional decision. I guess it's easy to broad brush all the many different reasons as "convenience" but walk in those shoes and you'd see that it's really not that at all. It goes much deeper than convenience.

When you look back at what women had to go through before Roe v. Wade you see terrible cases of exploitation by men over their pregnant girlfriends and wives. You'd see "coat hanger" self abortions and unqualified doctors doing just unspeakably bad & dangerous procedures off the books for big money. A totally unregulated and unstoppable underground practice that preyed on women in a very venerable position.

You'd even see rampant examples where churches talked emotionally venerable women out of abortions and into church run birth & adoption services where the church actually SOLD many newborns to totally unscreened people... just because they had the money.

As you look at countries like China that allowed their population get so out of control that now they have to enforce a one child limit on families and have even went to the extremes of forced serialization of those who break this rule... it's apparent the effect overpopulation can have.

One can even go someplace as close as the many, many huge orphanages in Mexico (a place I and my wife's family visit often and donate time & money) you see the reality of thousands and thousands of unwanted and abandoned children in the poorest of conditions.

It's not a perfect world and hopefully some day birth control will reach a point where there's 100% birth control protection that does not leave a woman incapable of conceiving should she want children sometime later on.

I've never seen anyone jumping up and down saying abortion is great. It's just not like that at all. I'd say one should try to avoid that situation at all cost. But at the end of the day it all goes back to the woman and what decision she chooses to make and we owe a debt of thanks to the Supreme Court Justices that made the difficult but right decision in the long standing Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not necessarily Catholic or even Christian or even religious. There is something different about humans than about almost every other animal. I say "almost" because we really don't know enough about how other animals think - particularly other higher animals.

But human's have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions and how they affect other living creatures - and the ability to care about it. I think all life is sacred to a degree, but only human's seem to have the ability to see that, and to create for themselves a role of stewardship or destroyer.

People and animals may be different, we don't know much about the inner lives of the other creatures with brains as large and complex as our own--cetaceans. What I object to is the automatic assumption of our superiority and thus our right to use all other creatures as we see fit. That is exactly what Pale is arguing against when it comes to clumps of cells that have NO BRAIN at all yet, so how can we lay claim to some kind of superior value to them or ourselves? I don't buy it. I was just reading a piece about rats and they have discovered that rats can understand consequences and plan things out in advance to accomplish complex goals. No one ever suspected that they were that smart just like no one realized that chimps made and used tools.