Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment?

It is sentimental and emotional because the thing being lost is only a potentiality. In order to assign it a high value you have to look at it in terms of what that life might become, not what it is at that moment.



I know you find it stupid because you, like most others who take your position, demand that all children should live but will take no responsibility for their care. That child will only survive if someone takes responsibility for it. To quote an argument we were on the same side of with Coco about the futility of demanding things you're not prepared to work for... if not you, who? Selador was justified in bringing up the semantics issue because you and everyone else are using it extensively by choosing the most emotionally charged words that dehumanize those who do not share your view.



I find bringing religion into the discussion to be prefectly valid since much of the moral framework and language used in a discussion of life and death have their roots directly in religion, for example the "sanctity" of life. I don't recall if you invoked any of the terminology but it usually comes into play even when this issue is debated among secular people. It's not surprising that people on either side of the debate might make pre-emptive strikes along those lines. It's a reasonable point you're making though and I don't believe I've dragged religion into the debate personally.



I haven't. I don't ever pretend to be psychic. I commented on how it appeared to me, which I'm fully qualified to comment on seeing as how they're my impressions.



Gee, I don't know. That might require me to establish my humanity first.

Belief in any sort of religion is not remotely required to find that human life has intrinsic value. Apparently lack of it does make a good excuse for finding it worthless.

I think its great that you started this dialogue Cristiano - and surprisingly, we've all been pretty tame on these topics which usually end in Jeska closing the thread.

I guess for me, I feel that abortion is a viable option (hopefully dead last on the list) in that the woman should be able to decide whether or not the pregnancy is something she wishes to go through. I place the rights of the mother far above those of the fetus - it may sound f*cked up, but she was here first and she is her own being while the fetus resides within her and is completely dependant on her. I don't think people should be using this as a regular form of birth control, but I don't think making it illegal will serve the purpose most people think it will. It will not stop abortions from happening. It will make them more taboo and place more women in danger from back-alley abortions.

By saying that something is a fetus and using clinical terms like blastosphere, zygote, whatever other quasi-medical term you want to interject is done so to deny the humanity of what is being spoken of. Perhaps "humanness" would be a better term, but I think humanity also applies. By reducing it to a fetus, you might as well be reducing it to a tumor or a boil. It is a human life. Not the possibility of human life, a human life. The term baby, child, and human are all accurate for what it is. It is interesting that if you are carrying the child, you refer to it as that - but when you are ridding yourself of it, it's a fetus. That is my point - semantics go both ways. One side is accused of putting emotion into it, and the other side is making it devoid of all emotion.

I think it is fair to point out that the context is very different. A happy couple who is at the doctor's office looking at an ultrasound is most likely excited about the baby and eagerly looking forward to its arrival. This is not the same for a woman who is not ready, for whatever reason, to have a child. She is not eager to see this new arrival - she is not overcome with joy about her pregnancy. The emotional context is very different.

I'm guessing it's all downhill from here.

I agree with you that it cannot be made illegal - regardless of how I feel about abortions, I would not want it to go back to the way things were. I am sickened, however, by the fierce protest to add any limitations on them - even late term abortions. Abortion unfortunately has not become a last resort - a rarely used thing - it is far too common, and so many people are ambivalent about that. That is what saddens me I suppose. I have known several women who have had abortions for various reasons - and it has haunted each of them in one way or another.

The same people that get riled up about saving a gang leader who killed four people don't seem to blink at half of a generation of children never having been born. For that, I am sad - and it confuses me how people can be so indifferent on one hand and so passionate on the other (and on the opposite end than I would expect).

Why, because you can make the digs about religious motivations, but your athiesm can't be called into question as being a determining factor in your beliefs?

Yep, exactly true, because emotion has nothing to do with making rational decisions about it. If you want to have a rational discussion it has to be only about cold practicality without sentiment about what might have been. I think you're right that you might be incapable of detaching yourself from the emotional lens you view the issue through. I don't in any way mean that as a dig. Many people can't. That doesn't make those who can any less human or compassionate.

I don't think that during the course of this thread you came to the realization that this topic is controversial and those discussing it are polarized. We all knew that going into it, which is why I've been so cautious and reserved myself. To me it looks like you crossed the line between one who is inquisitive and one who is an inquisitor a few posts back, possibly due to your personal feelings regarding the topic. This naturally leads one to question what your motivation for creating the thread was (not being insulting and low). I think it's a valid question.

Anyways, it seems like your entire argument hinges on the pseudoscientific belief that "life begins at conception". This nonmedical, rhetorical statement attempts to imbue rights to a wee lump of tissue that it just should not have. Whether it's an ovum, sperm, or a fetus, it is initially just a single cell or small mass of tissue and from this medical reality one can see why first-trimester abortions are legal. If you would like to argue whether second or third trimester abortions should be legal, well that's a different thread.

Thus I maintain, that performed by a responsible physician, abortions in the first trimester for reasons of convenience are perfectly acceptable. It is a choice for parents (not the state) to make for themselves.

~Ulrika~

I'm sure my atheism has a lot to do with my views on life and death. I do not however in any way think that life is worthless and that was a really shitty thing for Ananda to have said. Or did you miss that part?

Okay, I wasn't really being fair. I have no basis for assuming your religious beliefs have any causative relationship with your coldly calculating attitudes regarding euthanasia, infanticide and the value of human beings.

Why exactly is considering it to be a human being from the moment of conception the emotional, sentimental position?

A human being who is losing nothing besides the potentiality of things that don't yet exist.

You are coming off like a stone-cold killa' but I don't have a problem with it. We've all taken the extreme viewpoint in a debate a few times in our lives and in reality (out of the forum) we would certainly be more moderate. I appreciate the viewpoint you provide and how it is driving the discussion.

The question is whether or not you can handle the emotional tomatoes thrown from the sidelines by the peanut gallery.

~Ulrika~

To get back on some semblance of a track here...

Abortion is viewed by many as a necessity for facing the huge problems of dealing with an unwanted child. No one really wants to see so many abortions taking place; no one really wants to see women suffer from ignorance, fear, poverty, or risk their own lives on back-alley procedures (I don't think). So what sort of action could we take that would genuinely reduce these problems?

Infanticide requires an infant. Abortion happens to fetuses; these are two different things.

I agree with Ulrika in that first trimester abortions are clearly a different issue than second or third trimester abortions. I would like to see abortion technology in North America catch up with Europe where testing on emergency contraception and morning after pills has shown such pharmacalogical solutions to be far superior to surgical ones. A woman should be able to stop a pregnancy before the pregnancy has continued further than the 6th week, saving herself and her family much trauma, and ending the pregnancy while we are still talking about a cluster of cells.

You should know by now I'm pretty hard to offend, but when I think you're being unfair I'll call you on it. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that my religious beliefs or lack thereof influence my thoughts and perceptions of things. I have no problem with that, and I'm happy to cop to it. The unfair part is assuming because I choose to detach my emotions from these kinds of issues that I'm an unemotional or uncaring person. I'm actually one of the most sentimental people I know. It's just of no use in debating an issue that's not ultimately about emotion or sentiment. It just gets in the way. I can be analytical without being emotional and I find it to be very beneficial. Your mileage may vary. I'm also not shy about saying the things that a great many people feel but are afraid to express openly. If even Ulrika is hesitant to weigh in much you KNOW it must be a highly charged issue.

I think what changed my tone were posts like Dianne's, which just attempt put forth how stupid someone's beliefs are. Yes, I did know the topic would be charged, which is why I approached it carefully. I think we can discuss uncomfortable topics without it going to hell, and for the most part we have succeeded. The insulting part was not you asking about the motivations - it was a reference to Chip's statement that I was just pretending in order to attack those who disagreed.



It would seem that your entire argument also hinges on the same thing from the opposite persective, n'est-ce pas? Yet there is substantial scientific evidence to support that pain is felt very early in pregnancy, as early as 9-11 weeks. Small masses of tissue feel and react to pain?

The same could be said for it 5 minutes after it is born too, Chip. I don't think that is a valid argument.

If I couldn't I wouldn't paint the target on my chest. The part that everyone keeps conveniently overlooking even though I've mentioned it more than once is that I don't think I could personally bring myself to abort my own unborn child except under pretty extreme circumstances, but I believe in the right of parents to make that decision for themselves. I don't feel I have any right to make it for them, for all the reasons I've stated in this thread (albeit by taking the extreme position. Someone has to)

To be perfectly honest I also find a lot of holes in that argument, since it could be applied at any point during life by saying all the person is losing is the potentiality of the rest of their life. I couldn't accept the same argument in those circumstances, obviously. I struggle with that part.

Edit: I think the big difference, and the way I seperate the two, is that the baby has little awareness and no understanding of anything around it. Hell, this is a dodgy issue for anyone. No one takes it lightly and without struggle, myself included.

While I"m not torn on the abortion issue, I've always been torn on the capital punishment issue. There are only a few people I have ever thought should be put to death, and those were people who self admitted that no matter how much time they spent locked up, if they ever got out they would kill again. I feel like I should not have to pay to keep those people alive when a group of people would probably take care of them just fine if they were to ever get out.

With abortion, I think it is wrong but that is only because I believe the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Medically it has even been shown that if a mother's blood mixes with the baby, the baby will die. I'd rather see the child taken out and raised in a test tube. It relieves the woman of the responsibility of carrying a child, and at the same time it doesn't kill said child. And of course I'm sick of the mentality today of using abortion as a means of birth control.

In a nutshell, I personally hate people not being held responsible for the choices and actions they make in this world. The worst case senarios are also the most rare. And if people didn't take advantage of that aspect, these probably wouldn't be as controversial of issues as they are.

In the end I've finally chosen a stance. Do what you want, but don't put a gun to my head (government funding through taxes) and make me pay for it.