Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a baby can live outside the womb even living in an incubator like many preemies do for a couple of months, you shouldn't kill it. If the mother doesn't want it, put it up for adoption. Lot of couples are looking for infants.
Birth defects. You don't appear to be taking birth defects into consideration. That's a problem because a bill would have banned all abortion after 20 weeks got pretty far through the government before dropping. Nobody took birth defects into consideration there either. That 20 week mark would have given parents 1 week after the 19 or 20 week mark when many ultrasounds occur to get an abortion for serious birth defects.
(ultrasounds are a way to detect birth defects, and many of them can't be detected early).
Right on! If others won't give it to you, do it yourself.
I agree I'm putting my statements you responded to in bold and italics.
__________________________________________________ ________________________
I'm saying that this is an issue we are capable of discussing, using our reasoning ability, to determine what proper ethics are.
My statements have involved arguments about why I'm correct. This paragraph involves no argument about why you're correct. Therefore, with that paragraph, you're not trying to argue ethics. We should avoid that. It doesn't solve any problems.
No they shouldn't. They'd still exist if they were aborted...just teleported into different bodies with different genetic traits...in the sense that there would still be sentient people in existence.
Quote:
I do not find it reasonable to even argue about whether an aborted fetus 'lives on' in any manner in another human. That's not an argument, that's pure science fiction on your part and I would be surprised to find anyone who agreed with you on that point. In fact, I find most of your arguments to be speculation as opposed to fact.
i.e.
Then I find your mentality quite sadly unfortunate. There's a vast and fascinating category of thinking you're missing out on. It opens the gateway to a series of fascinating thought experiments that can reveal some extroardinary discoveries about the nature of reality.
Despite your lack of interest in discussing this topic, I'm going to discuss it with you anyway.
What I said was not speculation. I can prove it, through a more thorough explanation.
First of all, I did not say "fetuses live on" in another person, at least not in that instance. My exact phrasing was "No they shouldn't. They'd still exist if they were aborted...just teleported into different bodies with different genetic traits...in the sense that there would still be sentient people in existence."
That wasn't a reference to fetuses still existing after death. That was a reference to, if an existing adult were aborted, they'd still live on...just in another form without the trivial genetic traits they currently have...and they will. There is no other sound way of looking at things.
And now I'll show my proof of that.
Throughout my life, my body will change. My mind will change. My opinions will change. The particles composing me will change. Everything about me will change as long as I'm fit to be called a being named "me" except for my ability to experience and influence existence.
There is likely a greater difference between the "me" I was when I was 5, and the "me" I am now, than between myself and most adults my age of my sex.
In that way, a very sensible way of describing things is that I'm constantly dying and being replaced by new people. What ties them together are my memories and relationships and possessions. Without that stuff, I become a different person, more or less.
The unchanging aspect of me is my awareness of existence and ability to affect existence...and that'll feel the same to pretty much everyone.
In that sense, I live on in others.
In that sense, if I were aborted, I'd still live on in others...in every way I'd have a reason to want to. I'd still be experiencing existence. I'd just lack traits that aren't necessarily better or worse than anyone else's that most of us would have no reason to prefer over anyone else's if we weren't familiar with, and comforted by them already.
What I'm saying is not anything that requires research to discover. It's not some kind of mysticism either. It's just a very accurate way of perceiving the world that most people don't engage in for some reason. There are other ways to perceive reality that are equally accurate that more people perceive reality as...but my way is just as accurate.
Going back to your original comment about fetuses living on...it won't matter whether they live on after death or not in other organisms. You could definitely say they would, but unlike adults and self-aware children, they'd have no reason to care about that. Death will not be something they'll be capable of comprehending, nor will they be able to comprehend existential concerns self-aware people have about the continuation of the self after death.
Quote:
1. death is more beneficial for the fetus. (is that any fetus or just the one's you consider worthy of death)
I don't know if abortion would be best for everyone or not. I'd have to think about that more.
I was going to make a longer explanation...but that response answers your questions, and I've been saying a lot as it is. I definitely could say more...but I don't want to say things you might not care about anyway.
Quote:
2. death is more beneficial for the fetus that is not perfect but flawed in some way. (that is ironically similar to Margaret Sangers thought that eugenics would bring about the perfect society. Others have endorsed the slaughters of innocents for supposedly the same goal.
Margaret Sanger's vision of eugenics would have involved fewer people becoming pregnant, rather than any slaughter of innocents. I don't know that I dislike her. I'd need to look into her views more. In that sense, you appear to be incorrect about Sanger's view resulting in the slaughter of innocents.
Sanger strongly disliked abortion, by the way. She was totally invested in encouraging birth control...as in, preventing people from becoming pregnant in the first place.
There is no possible way to make abortions unnecessary. Even if we were all asexuals who never engaged in intercourse, except specifically to produce a child there would still be people who got pregnant then developed incurable diseases, or genetic disorders or major birth defects or other issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stepnking
We may never get to 'zero' abortions, but we can accomplish continued reductions, as has been done over the past years, by increasing the use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Which do you think better, prevention or 'cure'?
The majority of abortions are not for the reasons you cite above.
I agree that the majority of abortions are not for the reasons I described above.
That said, you've said nothing that refutes my original statement of "There is no possible way to make abortions unnecessary."
Here's an idea. Let's eliminate all cell masses, fetal or otherwise, even down to the single cell. I mean, what good are they. What benefit could they possibly provide, they are nothing but a mass of cells.
Then see how your world goes.
Well...now, at least you're thinking outside the box.
If we did that, first of all, we'd have to legally mandate it, because we'd never get most people to agree with that any time in the next several centuries. Once we do that, there will be massive government overthrows, until the laws are removed.
So, that's not really an option.
However, I think there are intelligent arguments to me made that say that humanity would be best off extinct, or at least through spreading the very mentality you're talking about so as to lower population growth.
(I'm making these points to emphasize that what you're thinking of as irrational, really isn't necessarily as irrational as you seem to think it is. This topic also goes back to what I've been emphasizing about how non-existence isn't necessarily a negative thing, too).
I think it's pretty clear though that even if we're all better off extinct, it is possible to improve existence for others through one's own existence...and that would be a possible benefit to existence.
Plus...there's the more practical truth that coming into existence never benefits the life, because before existence there was no one to gain anything from coming into existence. Creating life is always done (at least of the creators of the life are thinking clearly) to benefit existing life.
Parents create children for their own benefit, if they're thinking clearly...and parents who love their kids will be able to name plenty of benefits.
With that in mind, if the creation of a new person is unwanted by the adult, and if ending that life is painless to the youth, or if ending that life is potentially painful...but the parents want the abortion so the would-be person would avoid coming into negative circumstances that would be negative enough to cancel out the potential pain of an abortion...the abortion could very possibly be the most ideal route.
You are centuries too late, coming up with that --- ^
In your own opinion you were trivial too once ---
There's this one little fact that people have yet to pick up on it seems, is that Biology facts do not change, even though you try to bring in your own facts to refute them.
And to be honest, Biology has nothing to do with how the government will precede with their legalities on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
I have no clue what you are talking about
No doubt ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Margaret Sanger's vision of eugenics would have involved fewer people becoming pregnant, rather than any slaughter of innocents. I don't know that I dislike her. I'd need to look into her views more. In that sense, you appear to be incorrect about Sanger's view resulting in the slaughter of innocents.
Sanger strongly disliked abortion, by the way. She was totally invested in encouraging birth control...as in, preventing people from becoming pregnant in the first place.
Sanger did (context needed) encourage birth control. Looking into her is like looking into Madeleine O'Hare
"For those identifying historical figures with racist roots who should be removed from public view because of their evil histories, Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, must join that list."
Here's an idea. Let's eliminate all cell masses, fetal or otherwise, even down to the single cell. I mean, what good are they. What benefit could they possibly provide, they are nothing but a mass of cells.
Then see how your world goes.
Here’s a better idea. Let’s stop being emo-mystical control freaks and simply let women run their damned lives and bodies without unwanted interference from people bent on controlling the lives of others.
Here’s a better idea. Let’s stop being emo-mystical control freaks and simply let women run their damned lives and bodies without unwanted interference from people bent on controlling the lives of others.
If you didn't want government managing your lives, you should have done more to stop them from doing it.
There is no child. The 12-16 week old fetal cell cluster has never developed to the point of being an entity that is capable of being conscious, aware, self-aware, sentient, feeling, or experiencing.
Being conscious is irrelevant. Should we go to all the hospitals and switch of all life support machines, that are keeping unconscious people alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Can you stop parroting the mystic arguments that are devoid of logic, reason, and reality?
Again, it seems as though you're trying to convince yourself, more than anyone else. Theres nothing 'mystical' about what I'm saying. While we're on the subject of logic, which is something you obviously have a problem understanding, answer this question: Is morality subjective or objective?
If you plan on avoiding such a direct logical question like you already have previously, then don't bother continuing this discussion.
Ok, let's say abortion will be illegal again. What happens to a pregnant woman who has no health insurance. Who is going to pay for her medical care. Do you want the federal government to pay for it or will each state pay for their own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm putting my statements you responded to in bold and italics.
