Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Clint]

Perhaps if it was based on gender, race or looks or whatever, it might be a different story, but to be honest, I wouldn't exactly be against population control based on IQ levels...

Now, waiting til a child is BORN to be preventive IS ignorant, my idea would be forced sterilization or face fines, if we were to go down that road, but this is getting WAAAAY off topic.

I mentioned a new form of slavery in my post. I said, and I quote, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except that these slaves are helpless defenseless and innocent babies who get no support from anybody. Population control, in itself, is a flawed concept that under no circumstances could possibly work without turning the population into slaves. If you support slavery, that's fine, because you have every right to think like that, but simply given the right to think doesn't make you right. Both slavery and population control are immoral things, and they're ideologies that deserve to be allowed to die.

Regardless of whether or not the child is a person with rights, by not legalizing abortion, you're putting the child's rights above the parents, and that's hardly fair.

The child's rights are above the parents. Any parent would tell you that.

If there were some kind of consciousness or self-awareness, otherwise, it's still just a wad of living tissue living off the mother, heartbeat or no.

Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions, and motivations. Older children even have limited insight to understanding their own actions. Self-awareness is a developed ability, that takes place over the course of many years. It's not present as soon as you come out of your mother's womb. This completely defeats the purpose of your statement. You make the assumption that any born human possesses consciousness and self-awareness, and that anything else is simply a "wad of meat," and can therefore be disposed of like garbage. But since children have limited consciousness and self-awareness, you are arguing that they, too, can be disposed of like garbage.

Killing off inferior genes is the epitome of natural selection, it would only benefit the human race, in a natural way.

Except if people are the ones killing off unwanted genes, such as in processes relating to population control, then it isn't exactly natural.

Is there a way to determine when cognitive function begins, or is that after birth? Because THAT is what makes a person human.

A baby typically develops cognitive function at 24 weeks after birth. By your word, you are stating that a human baby younger than 24 weeks is not human, due to the fact that cognitive function is what makes a person human. So if a newborn baby, who's parents are both humans, isn't a human, then what is it? If the baby growing in the human mother's womb isn't human, then I wonder what species it is?

If a human fetus wasn't a human, then there would be no humans, since they would apparently be an entirely different species to begin with. If you are currently a human now, then you were a human while you were still a fetus. Are you even aware how reproduction works? I am getting pissed off and frustrated even explaining this, because it's common sense that a human fetus is a human.

[Rowan]

I'm pro abortion. Nothing wrong with that. Sex is as much for pleasure as it is for creating life.

[Heartless Angel]

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration."

That's why they're allowed up to 24 weeks, because a fetus is physically incapable of sentience prior to that time. A non-sentient organism can not be considered a person in any meaningful capacity. /thread

[Heartless Angel]

It's funny that you should use the analogy of a curve ball... because a well placed baseball bat would solve that too.

THIS POST HAS BEEN GIVEN A WARNING.

[Order]

I'm pro abortion. Nothing wrong with that. Sex is as much for pleasure as it is for creating life.

That's why contraceptives were created. If you aren't ready to have a baby, get your ass on the pill, use condoms and if you think you may have screwed up, go to the pharmacy and pony up for a morning after pill.
Abortion really should not be the go-to option, especially considering the women I have met that have done it all have admitted that they felt terrible about it and that it was a difficult experience.
That said, I would have to admit that I think it should remain an option. I really do feel like the ultimate injustice is for an unwanted child to start life out with no chance at feeling loved or happy in the first place.

But in a utopian society, it wouldn't need to be an option. I know one of the major arguments for abortion is in the case of rape, but still the morning after pill does not care who did or didn't want what, it will still do the job.
I think the real root of the abortion debate is that sexual education in public schools is absolutely laughable. The "scare them out of it" theory obviously hasn't worked, teens need to be taught how to practice safe sex, where to get the pills and condoms, how to use them and what to do if they screw it up.

because a well placed baseball bat would solve that too.

HAH! Oh, SNAP!

[Lacquer Head]

The nature of the human mind allowed us to do those things. Human beings became the smartest species on the planet by natural evolution of the mind. The fact that we've invented medicine, provide a surplus of food, and protect ourselves from predators is not unnatural. We don't make ourselves a smart species. We're all born with the potential for intelligence. Intelligence is simply something that is naturally bred into humans.

It's funny, I've been thinking about that lately, and based on this logic, since we're the ones sorting out the genes and using intelligence, it's natural

I see two mistakes here. One, humans are animals. We're a species called Homo Sapien. Our genus is Homo, our family is Hominidae, our order is primate, our class is mammalia, and our phylum is Chordata, all of which are classifications of animal life forms.

Two, animals have cognitive function. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to think. I'm assuming that you're trying to argue that humans are the only species on earth with a functioning brain.

I'm just not even going to address this, you know exactly what I mean

A newborn baby doesn't know it's alive, because it doesn't know what alive is. By your argument, you're stating that slitting the throat of a newborn baby isn't murder, because the baby isn't a person, since it isn't aware that it's alive.

It might not grasp the concept of being alive, but it does know how to stay alive to the best of it's ability. It instinctively knows it needs various things to live.

I wasn't stating my opinion on responsibility. I was stating a fact. People do need to learn to take responsibility for their actions. If you're a woman, and you get pregnant, you are responsible for the life form growing inside of you. It is irresponsible to kill something that you could have prevented in the first place by being more responsible.

It's your opinion that those are responsibilities

If life throws you a curve ball, you don't take a short cut. You grow some goddamn balls and you deal with it.

What Heartless Angel said.

~ AUTO-MERGED POSTS ~

That's why contraceptives were created. If you aren't ready to have a baby, get your ass on the pill, use condoms and if you think you may have screwed up, go to the pharmacy and pony up for a morning after pill.

It's also why abortion was "invented" if you can say that, I mean, people have been aborting fetuses for thousands of years.

Abortion really should not be the go-to option, especially considering the women I have met that have done it all have admitted that they felt terrible about it and that it was a difficult experience.

I agree 100% for that reason, people shouldn't RELY on abortion when there are easier alternatives for their own good, but it's not always a choice.

But in a utopian society, it wouldn't need to be an option. I know one of the major arguments for abortion is in the case of rape, but still the morning after pill does not care who did or didn't want what, it will still do the job.

Rape victims generally aren't in a solid state of mind right after a rape.

I think the real root of the abortion debate is that sexual education in public schools is absolutely laughable. The "scare them out of it" theory obviously hasn't worked, teens need to be taught how to practice safe sex, where to get the pills and condoms, how to use them and what to do if they screw it up.

I agree, but if schools and the government were to give practical information, the matrix would collapse upon itself.

[Rowan]

I want to make it a point that even practicing safe sex can result in pregnancy, and noone should be considered irresponsible for having an abortion under those circumstances. And also, the pill is not good for women. It is UNNATURAL to use drugs to control a menstrual cycle and therefor, no woman should ever have to choose the pill (nor suffer the side effects) over anything. Abortion isnt just a go-to option, it is the only option when you have an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy. Those who are responsible will take preventative measures, those who are irresponsible will not.

[Clint]

It's funny, I've been thinking about that lately, and based on this logic, since we're the ones sorting out the genes and using intelligence, it's natural

What the hell? You're talking about population control. Sorting out genes by either not allowing people with unwanted genes to reproduce, or killing carriers of unwanted genes before they're even born. That's not natural. The former is slavery, and the ladder is genocide.

It might not grasp the concept of being alive, but it does know how to stay alive to the best of it's ability. It instinctively knows it needs various things to live.

Instinct wasn't your point. Your point was that in order to be classified as a person, you have to understand what it is to be alive, which babies don't know.

It's your opinion that those are responsibilities

That pretty much states that you don't take responsibility for your actions.

I want to make it a point that even practicing safe sex can result in pregnancy, and noone should be considered irresponsible for having an abortion under those circumstances. And also, the pill is not good for women. It is UNNATURAL to use drugs to control a menstrual cycle and therefor, no woman should ever have to choose the pill (nor suffer the side effects) over anything. Abortion isnt just a go-to option, it is the only option when you have an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy. Those who are responsible will take preventative measures, those who are irresponsible will not.

I mostly agree with this statement, except for one thing. If people practice safe sex, yet still get pregnant, it's still irresponsible to have an abortion. The natural point of sex is for reproductive purposes, so if you plan on having sex, even if you're responsible and take preventative measures, pregnancy is always a risk, and that risk should always be accounted for before intercourse.

It's irresponsible, because if you have sex, you should be smart enough to know what you're getting yourself into.

[Lacquer Head]

What the hell? You're talking about population control. Sorting out genes by either not allowing people with unwanted genes to reproduce, or killing carriers of unwanted genes before they're even born. That's not natural. The former is slavery, and the ladder is genocide.

Like I said, it's your logic vOv

Instinct wasn't your point. Your point was that in order to be classified as a person, you have to understand what it is to be alive, which babies don't know.

Sure am glad you know my point better than I do

That pretty much states that you don't take responsibility for your actions.

In your opinion

I mostly agree with this statement, except for one thing. If people practice safe sex, yet still get pregnant, it's still irresponsible to have an abortion. The natural point of sex is for reproductive purposes, so if you plan on having sex, even if you're responsible and take preventative measures, pregnancy is always a risk, and that risk should always be accounted for before intercourse.

That's still just your OPINION, there's not only ONE point to ANYTHING, that's just silly.

It's irresponsible, because if you have sex, you should be smart enough to know what you're getting yourself into.

Once again, there are unforeseen circumstances, if you REALLY only want to have sex for procreation, go for, but the vast majority of people DON'T. We're civilized human beings, we don't HAVE to just blindly accept easily correctable mistakes just because we knew there was an ever so slight possibility that things could take a downward spiral, if that's how you wanna live, more power to you, but personally, I'm going to take preventative measures AND try to rectify mistakes.

[Order]

It is UNNATURAL to use drugs to control a menstrual cycle and therefor, no woman should ever have to choose the pill (nor suffer the side effects) over anything.

So are condoms. They are a pain in the ass, take too long to put on (SNAP!) and make sex feel like I'm ****ing a shoe. But I endure, because however uncomfortable that is, a child would be 1000X more uncomfortable under my care.
Moreover, the pill is generally not a problem. In fact most of the girls I have dated have preferred to be on the pill (usually after I dragged them, kicking and screaming to the doctor to talk about it). It lowers libido from wanting sex 10+ times a day to a reasonable (and still very athletic on my part) 4. In addition, the girls who I have dated who switched TO using the pill ended up surprised that their moods seemed much more stable from day to day and their period became much less painful.
So, there.
However, I understand that some women do have trouble with the pill or so they claim. I don't know, I don't care to know. I am aware that condoms alone can't hack it. I don't trust something that is 99% effective at best, and can simply tear (which you won't find out until after your power nap, haha).

It's irresponsible, because if you have sex, you should be smart enough to know what you're getting yourself into.

That's the bottom line.

[Rowan]

So are condoms. They are a pain in the ass, take too long to put on (SNAP!) and make sex feel like I'm ****ing a shoe. But I endure, because however uncomfortable that is, a child would be 1000X more uncomfortable under my care.
Moreover, the pill is generally not a problem. In fact most of the girls I have dated have preferred to be on the pill (usually after I dragged them, kicking and screaming to the doctor to talk about it). It lowers libido from wanting sex 10+ times a day to a reasonable (and still very athletic on my part) 4. In addition, the girls who I have dated who switched TO using the pill ended up surprised that their moods seemed much more stable from day to day and their period became much less painful.
So, there.
However, I understand that some women do have trouble with the pill or so they claim. I don't know, I don't care to know. I am aware that condoms alone can't hack it. I don't trust something that is 99% effective at best, and can simply tear (which you won't find out until after your power nap, haha).


That's the bottom line.

Theres a fundemental difference between condoms and the pill. The pill being a drug, for instance, can have adverse effects on mental and physical health, as where a condom only lowers the sensation of sex. I understand the pill can be helpful to some woman who suffer intense peroid pain, but moreover is not something I encourage my girlfriend to take. Ive been using condoms for years and had never had an accident. Therefor, in my experience condoms have been 100% effective the entire time.

And back to the clint eastwood, sex is as much for reproductive purposes as food is for eating. What I mean by this is that food is also for tasting and enjoyment and we dont always need to eat when we are hungry. Sex is as much for pleasure and an expression of love/lust toward another, than for the sole purpose of making kids. Things cant be so black and white. I fundementally disagree with you about abortion on an ethical level, so we could never see eye to eye. My stance remains the same. Responsibile people will take preventative measures and irresponsibile people will not.

[Alpha]

I've given one warning, but want to give more. My finger is warm. You know the rules, so play by the spirit of them. Write something intelligent so it's worthwhile contributing. Making semi-abusive and snide remarks is the opposite of being intelligent.

In response to the earlier discussion on sentience being self-awareness: that isn't the only definition of sentience. One is the ability to sense anything, particularly pain. Having this qualia is sufficient reason, according to many philosophers, for the sentient being to hold rights. Dogs are unlikely to have a subjective self-awareness of their existence. But they can experience pain, hunger, loss, regret, etc. Most of us accept that as sufficient reason to find animal abuse objectively wrong. It is not clear when foetuses begin to feel pain, but the general indication is around the 24th week mark. It is possible that sound in particular can be perceived earlier than this, and certainly the heart begins beating before this.

My position on abortion is essentially pro-choice, but it's not a choice I would be willing to make. I don't understand the relevance of 24 weeks. It feels arbitrary. Why not 25 weeks? Why is there a magic number? Moreover, if your justification for 24 weeks is based on a presumption that that is when a baby becomes 'sentient' (however you define that), wouldn't it be more relevant to develop a test for your definition of sentience, and then apply that to a foetus to determine whether the mother is entitled to an abortion? This is especially relevant given that a global "24 weeks" pronouncement clearly does not apply to every foetus ever, which all develop uniquely, only following general patterns. If your assessment of the ethics of abortion is based on a particular criteria, surely you need to test that criteria in each case, not draw a bizarre and very much questionable line in the sand.

To me it doesn't make sense to say before or after X months that abortion is not OK/OK. Either a woman has a right to an abortion, or she doesn't. Yes that's black and white, but all the shades of grey simply don't stack up for me. (However, it is because of all of those shades of grey that I accept others' right to decide for themselves; this is why I am pro-choice despite considering abortion to be killing a unique and alive human being... so my opinion is kinda confused and nuanced, I guess).

[Heartless Angel]

I've given one warning, but want to give more. My finger is warm. You know the rules, so play by the spirit of them. Write something intelligent so it's worthwhile contributing. Making semi-abusive and snide remarks is the opposite of being intelligent.

I do apologize really, after having posted so many quasi philosophical novellas in this forum I tend to forget it even HAS rules.

In response to the earlier discussion on sentience being self-awareness: that isn't the only definition of sentience. One is the ability to sense anything, particularly pain. Having this qualia is sufficient reason, according to many philosophers, for the sentient being to hold rights. Dogs are unlikely to have a subjective self-awareness of their existence. But they can experience pain, hunger, loss, regret, etc. Most of us accept that as sufficient reason to find animal abuse objectively wrong. It is not clear when foetuses begin to feel pain, but the general indication is around the 24th week mark. It is possible that sound in particular can be perceived earlier than this, and certainly the heart begins beating before this.

The primary definition of sentience, at least as far as I'm aware, is having sufficient ability to perceive and understand to begin to have interests to protect. So not simply the capacity for feeling pain, but the ability to CARE that you have felt pain. A dog may not understand its place in the universe, but it knows when it is suffering. The 24 week mark is actually an overestimate on the development of consciousness in most cases, as complete neuronal integration can take a couple months past that time, so 24 weeks is when we begin to have the potential for the minimal level of awareness required to constitute sentience.

My position on abortion is essentially pro-choice, but it's not a choice I would be willing to make. I don't understand the relevance of 24 weeks. It feels arbitrary. Why not 25 weeks? Why is there a magic number? Moreover, if your justification for 24 weeks is based on a presumption that that is when a baby becomes 'sentient' (however you define that), wouldn't it be more relevant to develop a test for your definition of sentience, and then apply that to a foetus to determine whether the mother is entitled to an abortion? This is especially relevant given that a global "24 weeks" pronouncement clearly does not apply to every foetus ever, which all develop uniquely, only following general patterns. If your assessment of the ethics of abortion is based on a particular criteria, surely you need to test that criteria in each case, not draw a bizarre and very much questionable line in the sand.

I would assume the limit is to silence some of the more intelligent pro-lifers who understand that there is a point up until which which a fetus is still not technically a person. Also testing each individual fetus for the development required to constitute sentience would be costly, and nobody wants to throw even more money into abortion, just because it is still a sort of social taboo. The 24 week mark again, is a generous estimate, the average fetus probably isn't really sentient until several weeks past that point. The line was drawn there because it seemed to the ones making the rule that it was the best balancing point between making sure minimal sentients were killed, and making sure a mother had adequate time to reach and implement a decision. Laws tend to favor simplicity over precision.

To me it doesn't make sense to say before or after X months that abortion is not OK/OK. Either a woman has a right to an abortion, or she doesn't. Yes that's black and white, but all the shades of grey simply don't stack up for me. (However, it is because of all of those shades of grey that I accept others' right to decide for themselves; this is why I am pro-choice despite considering abortion to be killing a unique and alive human being... so my opinion is kinda confused and nuanced, I guess).

I think the distinction exists because some consider abortion to be the termination of a potentially sentient being, rather than a sentient being. At which point the time limit becomes important, but I couldn't really say. I have long since given up trying to figure out what goes through the heads of policy makers.

[Lacquer Head]

I've given one warning, but want to give more. My finger is warm. You know the rules, so play by the spirit of them. Write something intelligent so it's worthwhile contributing. Making semi-abusive and snide remarks is the opposite of being intelligent.

In response to the earlier discussion on sentience being self-awareness: that isn't the only definition of sentience. One is the ability to sense anything, particularly pain. Having this qualia is sufficient reason, according to many philosophers, for the sentient being to hold rights. Dogs are unlikely to have a subjective self-awareness of their existence. But they can experience pain, hunger, loss, regret, etc. Most of us accept that as sufficient reason to find animal abuse objectively wrong. It is not clear when foetuses begin to feel pain, but the general indication is around the 24th week mark. It is possible that sound in particular can be perceived earlier than this, and certainly the heart begins beating before this.

My position on abortion is essentially pro-choice, but it's not a choice I would be willing to make. I don't understand the relevance of 24 weeks. It feels arbitrary. Why not 25 weeks? Why is there a magic number? Moreover, if your justification for 24 weeks is based on a presumption that that is when a baby becomes 'sentient' (however you define that), wouldn't it be more relevant to develop a test for your definition of sentience, and then apply that to a foetus to determine whether the mother is entitled to an abortion? This is especially relevant given that a global "24 weeks" pronouncement clearly does not apply to every foetus ever, which all develop uniquely, only following general patterns. If your assessment of the ethics of abortion is based on a particular criteria, surely you need to test that criteria in each case, not draw a bizarre and very much questionable line in the sand.

To me it doesn't make sense to say before or after X months that abortion is not OK/OK. Either a woman has a right to an abortion, or she doesn't. Yes that's black and white, but all the shades of grey simply don't stack up for me. (However, it is because of all of those shades of grey that I accept others' right to decide for themselves; this is why I am pro-choice despite considering abortion to be killing a unique and alive human being... so my opinion is kinda confused and nuanced, I guess).

I agree, as I said, I don't really believe in the lines, everyone has different reasons for believing them without any REAL reason for doing so, but it seems like that level of sentience is much more relevant than a heartbeat.