Abortion: Your Views...

[T.G. Oskar]

Would you prefer if i refered to Reagan or Nixon instead of Hitler? Only if your that anal about me refering to mass murderers of the nazi variety

Oh and what was the reference to Dr Manhattan? Went right over my head.

Oh, silly. I was just pointing Godwin's Law. Look at it over the interwebz, pretty nifty rule.

Though not Nixon, or Reagan. Castro, on the other part...

As for the reference to Dr. Manhattan, the reason is that both the movie and the graphic novel state Manhattan's detachment to his own humanity, by whichever reasons they are (I say it's the Big Bad's blame). Right when they're in Mars, he makes a really epic quote about how the existence of a human being is something akin to a "statistical miracle", because of the combination of factors that involve human procreation. That's what makes Manhattan make the decision to move along and stop being an a**.

I was referring to how you just countered (whether successfully or not) the statement of human birth as a statistical miracle (for lack of the actual words he used) by claiming that is no more special than a genetic reaction, akin to dropping a turd. When I saw it, I had no other thing to write than "dang, you just bitchslapped Manhattan right over there".

We don't milk humans (often) or harvest parts of them. If I extend this right to plants and animals... then how am I going to eat?! =P

What about not harvesting them? I have the distinctive belief, if albeit jokingly, that we DO harvest human organs.

Lifelink, or organ donations, is one way.

A more closer way is the black market, and how people suddenly end up suffering a clandestine operation. That's as close to harvesting an organ as I can see it.

But that's how the third point I stated went. It's mostly the issue of discrimination; you wouldn't extend that to plants and animals since their purpose, whether abstract or not, is to provide food and perhaps some utility. Perhaps you may refrain from X or Y specimen, for sentimental reasons, but most of the time you would consume them as food. Not like you shouldn't have some respect for them, but not go overboard with sentimentalism. Which, while it may seem to apply to the discussion, it ends up on a very different way since it's not speaking of someone not of your species, but rather someone of your own, quite possibly even your family.

There's a reason why there are charges for "homicide" and "manslaughter", and those charges are dead serious.

Judging a potential life and how it will end up as a member of society is beyond our scope. If these potential human lives were to come into existence they would probably gravitate toward whatever the average in our population is with its regular anomalies, positive and negative, taking current trends into account. I'm sure there are people who would argue that this is an oversimplification as some of the women faced with the choice of abortion are also dealing with various issues that might impact the child physically, socially, or mentally. But, I don't see any reason to speculate about this matter very much. It just brings up too many things that neither of us really know or can't know.

See? I wasn't wrong about that at all. I presume that is a reflection of your moral and perhaps even your ethical standards: you don't believe it is yours, or society's, mission to judge the potential of a life. Speak of others, who believe that only the best specimens are meant to survive (eugenicists), or that believe that they truly are meant to decide whether a life is important or not, or those who don't even care and see abortion as a "commodity", much like tobacco or alcohol, so to speak.

While it is not similar to the stance you are assuming, I also don't believe it is my position to judge how a human life will end, but I do believe there is someone who can. Out of respect to that someone, I can't also assume that because there is no one to be capable of judging said life, it must be relegated to a possibility that couldn't came to being.

I don't see potential in itself as being human, which is what separates us. You may believe for your own reasons that it is destined to become living and breathing, but I don't believe in destiny in so far that it be preordained and that I am breaking some natural law. Responsibility here is also purely subjective and will vary based on beliefs. To me, if there is something I have to take responsibility for with making this sort of decision, it is not that I will have taken the life of a human being.

Only certain parts of responsibility are subjective to the society a person lives in. Others are shared between nearly all societies, barring their possible exceptions. Nearly all societies, from nearly all parts of the world, believe that taking a human life is a crime, running from the very serious to the unforgivable.

The main difference is what it is judged as a human life. Your argument mostly consists that there is a period during conception and birth in which that future creature is no more living than, say, a seed. I presume even you agree that, by the moment the fetus shows signs of movement and reaction to it's system, it must be already considered a living being and not just mere potential. By the time it's about 7 months old, attempting abortion there would be manslaughter, since albeit with external aid the baby would be capable of surviving. At times, even during the 6 months of gestation. You would say that during that moment, the one where the fetus, or even the blastocyte, isn't considered a human life per se, there is no responsibility upon it.

I, though, wouldn't like to take that risk. I consider birth, from the moment of pleasure (with the woman) to the moment of pain (for the woman), to be something upon which I can't decide, and if something happens with it, I must bear that responsibility. Call it a societal quirk, but I wouldn't want to take that risk of not considering a future child a "possibility" and thus not considering it human life.

Appending value to life is very difficult and I believe we do it much of the time as a means for survival. Then there are times where we do it simply for comfort, like with animals. But the reality is that, on some level, we destroy life and consume what's left in order to survive. If it isn't an animal then it is a plant, which is still living even if it doesn't walk like an animal or talk like a human. That's just how the world works, for good or for worse.

Ironically, while you mostly destroy life and consume it in the case of animals, apparently plants are better in that case: they remain alive, and even after digested, are supposedly better than destroyed life.

Not my point, though. That's mostly Vegan thought (I have to listen to it quite a lot, actually). For those people, getting a fruit isn't destroying life, but actually respecting life. Or eating herbs, or tubercles, or farinaceous.

According to them, such lifestyle actually both improves us, and it's the natural way of life. Again, not what I say (I'd be anathema to them, as I have no qualms in consuming meat since I see it as a byproduct of some animals, and the main product of others); it's their position. And for what it seems, it seems to work nicely.

I'd like to hear their response when you state that. It's a bit of a thought-inspiring comment, but even in the very end, good or bad, it's something you may not place much attention. However, applied in different circumstances, it does.

Potential is far removed from this equation. We can view living things directly, but we can't do that with the concept of potential life. We simply abstract its meaning and implications. Yet, how it is abstracted varies between people, but I don't expect that my view be "right" and your's be "wrong." I respect your opinion and believe they can coexist as long as you respect my boundaries and I respect your's.

What separates our stances is that I cannot force my views onto other people if abortion were to be kept legal. I cannot force you to abort what you feel is a living and breathing human being. But if abortion were to be banned, you would be forcing your views onto someone else by not allowing them to abort what they feel is not living as a human.

Some opinions aren't meant to coexist. One must eclipse the other, no matter how valid it may end up being. I can understand where you're going: it's not like, say, legalizing homosexual marriage will end up forcing people to become homosexuals. The premise is ridiculous in theory, as it is a concept of personal rights and moral points of view. However, abortion adds something to the equation which will always be present no matter how much you believe it is irrelevant. It's not just the possibility of human life, it is the possibility of potential homicide that's present. One side can say that, so as long as it is done at a certain period during gestation, it is not murder and thus can be possible, but that there is no rush or command to do it, just an option. The other side can, and probably will, say that the gestating fetus is a human being, and being born in the specific country makes it a citizen, which means it's meant to have the same degree of rights as anyone, and that removing his definition as a human being removes it from any law that might protect it, thus potentially turning into a violation of rights.

Your position is that, being merely a potential and not a fully fleshed human being, it is not subject to law. You also seek respect to your position, stating that you will respect your opponent's position and rights to believe in what they want. I must respond with "what about the rights of that potential?", what about respecting my belief that said being is a human being in formation, that it probably has life, that it probably will become a citizen of the country where I live in, and that it has rights that cannot be violated.

That's something I'd like you to think. Even as much as you might want to, there's something that you won't be capable of respecting, or a position you simply can't allow. I can't allow a human fetus to be aborted, even though it violates your right to choose. On the other hand, your position implies that I must keep shut and swallow my belief that said "potential" being has inalienable human rights, and that I must ward over those because said being can't.

Imagine what would happen if vegetarians/vegans/Buddhists/etc. made up the majority and started pushing to ban the consumption of meat even if it had a negative impact on the livelihood of certain groups, beyond not being able to eat a juicy steak. Or maybe not being able to eat meat for the sake of it is enough for some. "Pro-choice" in this case would allow for the tolerance of both views and the ability for both parties to live their own lives to their liking. "Pro-life" would be forcing you to halt the activity of doing what you find acceptable, for whatever reason.

Look up. I mostly drove to this point, since your example quite well elaborates what you believe in through a different lens. Both sides will always have something that they won't be capable of dealing with. While you state that the "pro-choice" side (aka, the meat-inclined Omnivores, and to a certain extent near-Omnivores and ovo-lacto-vegetarians) will promote respect and tolerance to both sides, the point remains in that you are, in the side of the other group, violating the natural laws that protect those animals' right to live. Or worse, the cosmic laws that promote reincarnation, which means you become an instrument of Samsara and are preventing people from reaching Nirvana. "Pro-life" may seem a bit less tolerant, but in the end, they recognize that they are serving a law that's probably more important than human law; what they'll tolerate, though, is people rambling against it. Not the same degree of tolerance or respect, but it still exists.

Yeah, it sounds a bit too long, but here's what it should be: no matter what happens, there's a point in which you won't tolerate or respect their position. You must assume your position with respect, but knowing that eventually, there will be a point that you must say "I can't respect that". Mostly, because if you are to respect and tolerate my position, you must respect that which you probably haven't considered. That implies, in the case of vegans and Buddhists for example, that you* are consciously violating their own rights in order to promote their own. In the case of abortion, you* are quite probably violating the rights of that fetus in order to protect or support your* own.

*Both examples use the royal "you", just in case.

Granted, there is a key difference in that this example deals with protecting existing life while abortion seems to deal more with what something could potentially become. The effect of tolerance vs. restriction is the same, however. I don't want to go too far off-topic though, as this deals with implications of taking a certain stance as opposed to the stances themselves.

It's natural that it happens. While you didn't wanted to assume that, I took the liberty of assuming that implication for you. It's important to do so, though. It's certainly not off-topic if the implications of assuming pro-choice or pro-life relate to the topic of abortion. I could understand it's making the post larger than it should, but I don't see it's counter to the interests of the debate: furthermore, I say it's exactly what the topic needs. Examples are good, so as long as they support the topic and not derail it.