Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply

With which statement do you agree?

I want it to be illegal for a very poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to get an abortion even in the first week of pregnancy even if the doctors can and did detect the baby has severe genetic disorders and that the pregnancy if taken to term would have complications greatly risking the life of both the mother and would-be baby.
7
11%
I want it to be legal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date (of birth) to get an abortion even though doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily otherwise and even though many safe, healthy, loving families are willing to adopt the would-be newborn immediately and even pay the woman significantly for that.
13
20%
I do not agree fully with either one of the above statements.
46
70%
 
Total votes: 66

Wilson
Posts: 1499
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Wilson » October 29th, 2015, 11:57 pm

Kieran, you may or may not have not understood the original poll, which was extremely poorly worded. The question was whether the mother should be able to kill her full-term baby - a baby that would be seven pounds/three kilos at birth, not a fetus where the woman was a few days late on her period. Most of us do not like infanticide.

Keiran
Posts: 65
Joined: April 13th, 2013, 5:00 pm

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Keiran » October 30th, 2015, 8:01 pm

Wilson wrote:Kieran, you may or may not have not understood the original poll, which was extremely poorly worded. The question was whether the mother should be able to kill her full-term baby - a baby that would be seven pounds/three kilos at birth, not a fetus where the woman was a few days late on her period. Most of us do not like infanticide.
Fetus or full-term what's the difference? It's closer to a thing not a being. Any opposition is emotional subjective pity. If that's the matter then we should rather open a debate about what's cute and what is not.

Wilson
Posts: 1499
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Wilson » October 30th, 2015, 9:08 pm

Would you be in favor of the mother being allowed to have a healthy newborn baby euthanized? That would be an unusual attitude.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Greta » October 30th, 2015, 9:39 pm

Wilson wrote:...the original poll ... was extremely poorly worded. The question was whether the mother should be able to kill her full-term baby - a baby that would be seven pounds/three kilos at birth, not a fetus where the woman was a few days late on her period.
I agree. Killing a full term infant, whether in or out, is very harsh, although less harsh than sending them off to pointless wars of aggression 17 years later as supported by many self-proclaimed "right to lifers". It's interesting to see the diversity of views people have; I didn't think anyone would support the second option.

For me, it's not cuteness but capacity to feel pain, which reportedly happens at some stage during the second half of the pregnancy.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3133
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by LuckyR » November 3rd, 2015, 3:24 pm

Well part of the OP's huge problem is that it is intentionally trying to compare legally, something legal to something illegal with the unspoken implication tha the two have a relationship that the question is supposed to shed light upon, when in reality the two are only marginally related and it is entirely appropriate to have seperate opinions on these two ideas.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Misty
Contributor
Posts: 5933
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Misty » November 5th, 2015, 6:40 pm

Keiran wrote:
Wilson wrote:Kieran, you may or may not have not understood the original poll, which was extremely poorly worded. The question was whether the mother should be able to kill her full-term baby - a baby that would be seven pounds/three kilos at birth, not a fetus where the woman was a few days late on her period. Most of us do not like infanticide.
Fetus or full-term what's the difference? It's closer to a thing not a being. Any opposition is emotional subjective pity. If that's the matter then we should rather open a debate about what's cute and what is not.
Keiran,

What are the attributes of a "thing" vs a human fetus?

Misty

-- Updated Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:57 pm to add the following --

[quote="Greta.

For me, it's not cuteness but capacity to feel pain, which reportedly happens at some stage during the second half of the pregnancy.
I read a fetus begins the nervous system growth at 8-10 weeks and is finished at 13 1/2 weeks.

Why is it OK to terminate a fetus because it cannot yet feel pain?

-- Updated Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:57 pm to add the following --

[quote="Greta.

For me, it's not cuteness but capacity to feel pain, which reportedly happens at some stage during the second half of the pregnancy.
I read a fetus begins the nervous system growth at 8-10 weeks and is finished at 13 1/2 weeks.

Why is it OK to terminate a fetus because it cannot yet feel pain?
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Greta » November 6th, 2015, 12:45 am

Misty, why is it okay to kill intelligent mammals - because it's assumed that the pain they feel is different to human pain? No one denies that they suffer. Only the nature of the suffering.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.

User avatar
Misty
Contributor
Posts: 5933
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Misty » November 6th, 2015, 8:08 am

Greta wrote:Misty, why is it okay to kill intelligent mammals - because it's assumed that the pain they feel is different to human pain? No one denies that they suffer. Only the nature of the suffering.
The capacity to feel pain should not be the criteria for abortion. There are humans who are born with no capacity to feel pain, so should society decide it is alright to kill them if they are deemed inconvenient? Abortion has gone from medical reasons, i.e., etopic pregnancy and raped victims, to birth control and convenience issues.

Are there unintelligent mammals that are OK to kill? Do you eat land and sea creatures?
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Spiral Out » November 6th, 2015, 6:56 pm

Why is any life worth saving? Nobody asked to be here. You get thrown in, why not get thrown out?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Misty
Contributor
Posts: 5933
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Misty » November 6th, 2015, 8:25 pm

Spiral Out wrote:Why is any life worth saving? Nobody asked to be here. You get thrown in, why not get thrown out?[
How depressing. Are your children's lives worth saving?
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Greta » November 6th, 2015, 11:21 pm

Greta wrote:Misty, why is it okay to kill intelligent mammals - because it's assumed that the pain they feel is different to human pain? No one denies that they suffer. Only the nature of the suffering.
Misty wrote:The capacity to feel pain should not be the criteria for abortion. There are humans who are born with no capacity to feel pain, so should society decide it is alright to kill them if they are deemed inconvenient? Abortion has gone from medical reasons, i.e., etopic pregnancy and raped victims, to birth control and convenience issues.

Are there unintelligent mammals that are OK to kill? Do you eat land and sea creatures?
You take the pill and buy mod cons if you want birth control and convenience, you don't undergo serious surgery. I am sure that most people who seek abortions are desperate and not ready. It's a misrepresentation to suggest otherwise.

Are you against the pill too? It also prevents life from growing, just a bit earlier in the process.

-- Updated 06 Nov 2015, 22:23 to add the following --

Misty, I realise that you'd like to take me on in this after our poisonous euthanasia debate but it's a waste of time. This same conversation has played out over the internet a million times and made no difference to anything. We might as well copy and paste the views of others who've said all the same things.

Not a single piece of useful, or even interesting, information can come from us debating this.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3133
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by LuckyR » November 7th, 2015, 3:19 am

This debate is not one of "rights" but one of "autonomy".

Just about everyone agrees that a woman can manage the outcome of her unfertilized eggs and similarly just about everyone agrees that the same woman cannot arbitrarily decide to terminate after viability, say 24 weeks gestation (out of 40).

Where reasonable people disagree is at what point between these two bookends do women lose the right to manage the goings on within their own bodies.

It is worth mentioning that is it a very common opinion that certian things are felt to be "wrong" but should NOT be illegal.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Spiral Out » November 7th, 2015, 8:42 am

Misty wrote:
Spiral Out wrote:Why is any life worth saving? Nobody asked to be here. You get thrown in, why not get thrown out?[
(Nested quote removed.)
How depressing. Are your children's lives worth saving?
Relative to what/who?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1180
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Newme » November 20th, 2015, 9:30 pm

Spiral Out wrote:
Misty wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


How depressing. Are your children's lives worth saving?
Relative to what/who?
Your life matters to you, and so it is to each human being, even those children (developing human beings).

I imagine you support ripping apart bodies of defenseless children as a means for birth control, only because you want to justify past actions. The reason I imagine this, is because you are generally more ethical and conservative, as well as logical, except when it comes to this topic.

A life is valuable, no matter who says otherwise. Yes, you, and others who have personal stakes involved, will claim (by word or action) that you have more of a right to life than another, but your claim doesn't make it so. If we as a society continue to devalue life of the most defenseless and innocent, consider what that implies.

I want to Live, by John Denver
Can I live, Rick Cannon (based on his own story, expressing gratitude that his mom decided NOT to abort him)
Life Inside You, Matthew West

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Spiral Out » November 21st, 2015, 9:10 am

Newme wrote:Your life matters to you, and so it is to each human being, even those children (developing human beings).
Who cares? Do you care if my life matters to me? What are you willing to do to make sure that my life is all that I want it to be?
Newme wrote:I imagine you support ripping apart bodies of defenseless children as a means for birth control, only because you want to justify past actions.
Shockingly, I've never ripped apart any defenseless children's bodies. But if I did, who cares? They would not have any idea that it had ever happened.
Newme wrote:The reason I imagine this, is because you are generally more ethical and conservative, as well as logical, except when it comes to this topic.
You've apparently never read my topics regarding the Void. It's not just the topic of abortion that I take issue with relative to people overreacting to the supposed "critical importance" of life.
Newme wrote:A life is valuable, no matter who says otherwise.
WHY??? Other than your own personal feelings.
Newme wrote:Yes, you, and others who have personal stakes involved, will claim (by word or action) that you have more of a right to life than another, but your claim doesn't make it so.
I have never and will never make such a claim.
Newme wrote:If we as a society continue to devalue life of the most defenseless and innocent, consider what that implies.
I have considered what that implies and I find no significant reason to piss and moan about it.

John Denver is wrong in everything he says in that video. He's just appealing to people's emotions with his tone of voice, body language and minor-key music. All underhanded tactics.

Nick Cannon can only be grateful that his mother didn't abort him because his mother didn't abort him, and you can only refer to this in your weepy complaints because your mother didn't abort you, and so on and so on. Everything is dependent on something else.

The Matthew West video is obviously a cheap pro-life propaganda video thrown together without much effort, which is not surprising for the losing pro-life movement. They're getting desperate.

The bottom line is that life does not matter except to your own personal view of it. So, as you had asked previously, why do you matter more than others?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Post Reply