Is abortion wrong?

[LuckyR]

A couple of things :

First, since because you only address one of the two completing views, your musings are incomplete at best and certainly do not qualify as a basis for decision making. Until maternal autonomy is part of the discussion, it's not a review, it's propaganda.

Second, your last paragraph reveals your biases and lack of real world experience. For example, you are aware that every form of birth control has a failure rate, right?

Yes I adress one of the competing views. The people I'm in the discussion with provide the other, and we have adressed atounomy. I'm not a jounalist or writing an article here, so why would I come at this from both sides when the opposite side is being provided by others. In a debate your not going to just hand points to the people your debating. It's thier responsibility to provide your. Own point. This is not a review it's a discussion in which different people bring opposing views.

I didn't say use birth control. I'm saying their are forms of sexual intercourse that don't lead to pregnancy, and your lack of knowledge of them show your lack of real world experience. Hey look I can call people ignorent too.

Yes, the "just say no" school of management. You are technically correct, of course that your proposal that no one on earth who isn't actively trying to have children refrain from traditional sexual intercourse (forget using Birth Control, that's not good enough), that would likely eliminate the need for almost all currently sought after abortions. You're right. You were bragging about your Real World experience? Hhmmm...

[Wdk7]

Yes I adress one of the competing views. The people I'm in the discussion with provide the other, and we have adressed atounomy. I'm not a jounalist or writing an article here, so why would I come at this from both sides when the opposite side is being provided by others. In a debate your not going to just hand points to the people your debating. It's thier responsibility to provide your. Own point. This is not a review it's a discussion in which different people bring opposing views.

I didn't say use birth control. I'm saying their are forms of sexual intercourse that don't lead to pregnancy, and your lack of knowledge of them show your lack of real world experience. Hey look I can call people ignorent too.

Yes, the "just say no" school of management. You are technically correct, of course that your proposal that no one on earth who isn't actively trying to have children refrain from traditional sexual intercourse (forget using Birth Control, that's not good enough), that would likely eliminate the need for almost all currently sought after abortions. You're right. You were bragging about your Real World experience? Hhmmm...

You brought up the point that birth control isn't perfect, so obviously it is not good enough. You can also question my real life experience all you want I couldn't care less, but don't try to use it as an actual point when you know nothing about me.

[Wdk7]

I don't really see a firm middle ground position to be had in this argument.

As I've said, I don't see firmness in the middle ground either. I see compromise and the messy complexity of real life. As I said, I agree that firmness and certainty are to be found at the extremes, on this and other issues. That is not a reason, in itself, to choose the extremes over some position in the middle ground. As I also said, you were wrong to state that those who occupy the middle ground on this issue contradict themselves. The argument, as ever, stems from positing the all-or-nothing existence of some property ("humanity", or "consciousness" or whatever) and then arguing as to where on a continuum to place the discrete, discontinuous division between the all and the nothing.

I wasn't saying you didn't. I was trying to clarify that this one of very few topics that I have a fringe position on, and restating why I don't was just for reexplaining why I take the fringe position on this topic.

I think there can be firm middle ground positions on other topics, but the lack of firm standing is evident that there is not a logical and/or morally uncontradictricted position to take. Unless you simply do not care about maternal autonomy or a right to exist, and you only wish to split things in the middle to end the discussion with both parties getting littlelist piece of what they ask for.

[Wdk7]

Yes, the "just say no" school of management. You are technically correct, of course that your proposal that no one on earth who isn't actively trying to have children refrain from traditional sexual intercourse (forget using Birth Control, that's not good enough), that would likely eliminate the need for almost all currently sought after abortions. You're right. You were bragging about your Real World experience? Hhmmm...

You brought up the point that birth control isn't perfect, so obviously it is not good enough. You can also question my real life experience all you want I couldn't care less, but don't try to use it as an actual point when you know nothing about me.

Also, I don't know how you took that as bragging when I was saying it sarcastically to you saying it to me, or are you admitting that you were bragging when you said it first.

[Steve3007]

I wasn't saying you didn't. I was trying to clarify that this one of very few topics that I have a fringe position on, and restating why I don't was just for reexplaining why I take the fringe position on this topic.

OK. So just to be clear, as I understand it, the reasons why you take the position that you do on this topic are:

1. You believe, as a moral axiom, that anything we classify as human ought to be afforded rights by other humans, among which is the right to life.
2. You believe that the moment of fertilization, being the point where the parents' DNA combines, is the moment when a human being comes into existence.
3. You believe that being human is an all-or-nothing state of affairs and that therefore every human, including single celled embryos, ought to be afforded the same level of rights as every other human as stated in point 1.

Have I go this right? (Note: the above is just an attempt to summarize your position, not to pass any judgments on it.)

[Steve3007]

I think there can be firm middle ground positions on other topics, but the lack of firm standing is evident that there is not a logical and/or morally uncontradictricted position to take.

I asked you previously to state what the contradiction is. i.e. what is a person in the middle ground claiming to be simultaneously true and false? You didn't do so. You made some technical arguments in which you said that people who say consciousness emerges at 24 weeks are mistaken. You proposed that it could be as little as 4 weeks. That's not pointing out a contradiction in that person's views. It's simply disagreeing with them. They haven't contradicted themselves. They have simply (in your view) made an incorrect statement about the developmental stages of foetus brains.

Despite that previous part of the conversation, are you still sticking to the view that a self-contradiction exists?

[LuckyR]

Yes, the "just say no" school of management. You are technically correct, of course that your proposal that no one on earth who isn't actively trying to have children refrain from traditional sexual intercourse (forget using Birth Control, that's not good enough), that would likely eliminate the need for almost all currently sought after abortions. You're right. You were bragging about your Real World experience? Hhmmm...

You brought up the point that birth control isn't perfect, so obviously it is not good enough. You can also question my real life experience all you want I couldn't care less, but don't try to use it as an actual point when you know nothing about me.

Another error. Birth Control IS good enough. That's why it is essentially universally accepted. It is your "logic" that chastises those who use abortion as a back up to the rare (but finite) chance of BC failure, that is out of step with commonly accepted practice. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with fringe or unpopular opinions (I have many of them myself). But to me, if you have an opinion that bucks commonly accepted practice, you are obligated to point out the logical inconsistencies with the standard. This is where I find your logic lacking as I have pointed out in various examples.

[Wdk7]

I wasn't saying you didn't. I was trying to clarify that this one of very few topics that I have a fringe position on, and restating why I don't was just for reexplaining why I take the fringe position on this topic.

OK. So just to be clear, as I understand it, the reasons why you take the position that you do on this topic are:

1. You believe, as a moral axiom, that anything we classify as human ought to be afforded rights by other humans, among which is the right to life.
2. You believe that the moment of fertilization, being the point where the parents' DNA combines, is the moment when a human being comes into existence.
3. You believe that being human is an all-or-nothing state of affairs and that therefore every human, including single celled embryos, ought to be afforded the same level of rights as every other human as stated in point 1.

Have I go this right? (Note: the above is just an attempt to summarize your position, not to pass any judgments on it.)

Sorry for the delay.

1. To an extant yes. The extant being the threat of loss of life.
2. When they come together and the first cell is formed yes.
3. Yes.

[Wdk7]

I think there can be firm middle ground positions on other topics, but the lack of firm standing is evident that there is not a logical and/or morally uncontradictricted position to take.

I asked you previously to state what the contradiction is. i.e. what is a person in the middle ground claiming to be simultaneously true and false? You didn't do so. You made some technical arguments in which you said that people who say consciousness emerges at 24 weeks are mistaken. You proposed that it could be as little as 4 weeks. That's not pointing out a contradiction in that person's views. It's simply disagreeing with them. They haven't contradicted themselves. They have simply (in your view) made an incorrect statement about the developmental stages of foetus brains.

Despite that previous part of the conversation, are you still sticking to the view that a self-contradiction exists?

To contradict yourself you must say somthing is true and then state the opposite is true. If someone bases thier ideas of life on sentience, then state they are ok okay with abortion up to the state of viability, while also accepting that conscious has been shown before the week of viability, they are contradicting themselves. That is as long as they disagree with murder. The people who do not know this are not who I'm talking about. If a person is talking about this subject I make the assumption that they already know this. If they do not then I tell them, and if they continue to hold the same perspective after accepting it as true and as sentient, they are contradicting themselves. That is as long as they disagree with murder, and draw the line at viability. So yes, I still think they are contradicting themselves. If you wish to give me a middle ground position that does not I'll be happy to see it.

[Wdk7]

You brought up the point that birth control isn't perfect, so obviously it is not good enough. You can also question my real life experience all you want I couldn't care less, but don't try to use it as an actual point when you know nothing about me.

Another error. Birth Control IS good enough. That's why it is essentially universally accepted. It is your "logic" that chastises those who use abortion as a back up to the rare (but finite) chance of BC failure, that is out of step with commonly accepted practice. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with fringe or unpopular opinions (I have many of them myself). But to me, if you have an opinion that bucks commonly accepted practice, you are obligated to point out the logical inconsistencies with the standard. This is where I find your logic lacking as I have pointed out in various examples.

Sorry for the late response.

If birth control was good enough then there would have been no reason to bring it up in your previous response.
When you have sex while using birth control, you are taking the gamble that she will not get pregnant. If she does get pregnant then you have lost that gamble. Most everyone knows that birth control is not 100% percent, and we should continue to educate people that it isn't.

As for the logical inconsistency: if a person takes thier money and gambles it away at a casino, it is no other persons obligation to pay his rent that's coming up. If two people have consensual sex using birth control,(which is known to fail) and then get pregnant, the knewly concieved person should not pay the price.

[LuckyR]

Another error. Birth Control IS good enough. That's why it is essentially universally accepted. It is your "logic" that chastises those who use abortion as a back up to the rare (but finite) chance of BC failure, that is out of step with commonly accepted practice. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with fringe or unpopular opinions (I have many of them myself). But to me, if you have an opinion that bucks commonly accepted practice, you are obligated to point out the logical inconsistencies with the standard. This is where I find your logic lacking as I have pointed out in various examples.

Sorry for the late response.

If birth control was good enough then there would have been no reason to bring it up in your previous response.
When you have sex while using birth control, you are taking the gamble that she will not get pregnant. If she does get pregnant then you have lost that gamble. Most everyone knows that birth control is not 100% percent, and we should continue to educate people that it isn't.

As for the logical inconsistency: if a person takes thier money and gambles it away at a casino, it is no other persons obligation to pay his rent that's coming up. If two people have consensual sex using birth control,(which is known to fail) and then get pregnant, the knewly concieved person should not pay the price.

A perfectly reasonable and predictable minority opinion. I encourage you to live by your opinion. Others live by differing opinions.

[Steve3007]

I read that the US Supreme Court has just struck down a law restricting abortions in Louisiana, ruling it to be unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority. It seems that most supreme court justices, in cases like this, do the job that the president who appointed them required them to do - support that president's party's position on the issue. The exception here, which led to the slim liberal majority, was the G W Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts.

If the party that Trump has used as his vehicle to gain the presidency wants to ensure conservative victories in the US Supreme Court in the future, by increasing the conservative majority, do they have to hope that another liberal supreme court justice (or John Roberts) dies before the end of the Trump presidency so that another compliant one can be installed?

[Sy Borg]

Is it wrong to spend as much money as we do on war, sport, arts, monuments, education, entertainment and massive tax return payouts to multinationals rather than spending it on health and saving lives?

It is the same question. That is - who lives and who dies? Each year a budget is formulated that determines to some extent who lives and who dies. People do not like to admit this, but money taken from health and put into other areas for the most part will tend to save fewer lives.

Or it may be that life is not so much about quantity, but quality.

[LuckyR]

I read that the US Supreme Court has just struck down a law restricting abortions in Louisiana, ruling it to be unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority. It seems that most supreme court justices, in cases like this, do the job that the president who appointed them required them to do - support that president's party's position on the issue. The exception here, which led to the slim liberal majority, was the G W Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts.

If the party that Trump has used as his vehicle to gain the presidency wants to ensure conservative victories in the US Supreme Court in the future, by increasing the conservative majority, do they have to hope that another liberal supreme court justice (or John Roberts) dies before the end of the Trump presidency so that another compliant one can be installed?

Well, the public pays a lot of attention to hot button social issues like abortion and immigration (which do tend to fall out along party lines) and much less to issues that impact their daily lives (through their pocketbook) that often fall out on ideological, not political lines.

[LuckyR]

Is it wrong to spend as much money as we do on war, sport, arts, monuments, education, entertainment and massive tax return payouts to multinationals rather than spending it on health and saving lives?

It is the same question. That is - who lives and who dies? Each year a budget is formulated that determines to some extent who lives and who dies. People do not like to admit this, but money taken from health and put into other areas for the most part will tend to save fewer lives.

Or it may be that life is not so much about quantity, but quality.

Great questions.

A couple of things;

Modern medicine does much better at improving the quality of lives than prolonging them, so it is less about dying than living.
Technologies like sanitation and food storage did more to help prolong lives than 21st century medicine did.