Abortion II

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

So, you're saying any point up until a baby is capable of being born (or removed) it is okay to terminate the pregancy. Am I correct in that assumption? Would the same apply to someone in a coma? Say someone has a car wreck and are in a coma, but otherwise okay, would you terminate them, even if they were going to come out of the coma? Or if there were a chance? They cannot live independently of a nursing staff or machinery, so that must mean that they, too, are parasitic on their family or society, so I guess they are not worth saving.




Trivialize life? That coming from the person who apparently wants to terminate life, even if someone has consented to sex.

People terminate life all the time. You terminate life when you eat a hamburger. The issue Lief keeps raising is that this termination of life he sees as 'murder' because the life in question is 'a baby'. That's where the definitions become important. I don't share this definition. I don't see a fetus that can't exist outside the womb as 'a baby". If things go well, it may sometime become a baby. That's true for sperm, as well, and it's true for the uterine lining that's sloughed off every month. At some point, those things MIGHT become a baby but they aren't.

Unless and until someone is actually pregnant, (and it won't happen to you fellows) they have no real idea of the work involved. because I DO have an idea of the work involved (and I really don't care that Lief is deranged about my truthfulness ) I have an even stronger position than I did as a young person about the importance of giving people choices. Because I care about children, I want them born to people who want them.

As far as life support goes, I think everyone should have a living will and make clear to their loved ones what they'd want if they needed life support. Then I think the doctor and family should do that.

'Pro-choice' means 'the woman is the person (not prospective person) most affected by this decision. It has to be her call.' Nothing about being 'pro-choice' means anyone MUST get an abortion. Women are still free to chose abstinence, or getting married, or giving the baby up for adoption, or whatever. They just can't be required to become mothers.

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What about being more loving toward human fetuses? Isn't establishing a law protecting them from death being loving toward them?

I think I anticipated this response from you and replied already. Let me add this though. I wanted a baby more than anything. I didn't care about having to take care of it or how it would mess up my life, in fact I looked forward to it. The thing, the one thing that made me change my mind all at once was that the baby was not wanted at all by the father and that I would not be able to give it everything possible to love it. It had nothing to do with anything else except love for everyone involved.

Isn't that contradictory, though? You said above that you don't think suffering is wrong, but earlier you said "the reason that [murder] is wrong . . . is because it hurts the victim."

I guess I'm talking about two different kinds of pain. One kind is everyday suffering like physical pain and various grief and disappointments, "suffering". The other hurt I was talking about is more of a hurt of the soul. Not saying I believe in every person having a nice neat packaged "soul" inside the machine but something somewhat like that. When you act out of self-deception and not out of love, that's harmful to you.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I haven't changed my mind about anything I said in the Gender Issues Thread, so maybe we should leave your personal story out of this? Unless you'd care to provide evidence to back it up, of course.

I've seen you call yourself so many things, saying in this thread that you "know more about fertility and pregnancy than most people on this board will ever live to," when we were discussing medical issues, saying all your ancestors came to America after enduring persecution when we were debating religious freedom, saying that you'd been a statistics professor back when we were debating statistics, saying you'd been a field associate for "The Gay Rights National Lobby" when we were debating gender, saying you are a high ranking politician who has published many books (but refusing to back this when asked) when we were debating politics . . . It was unfortunate that when you said you were a politician, you were debating with someone who'd taken PS 110 in Community College (a course about the basics), as our argument in the Gender Issues Thread proved.

Maybe your story is all true. I personally don't think so, though, so citing your own experience again won't help you in this discussion, as far as I'm concerned.


. . . Look, I'm sorry that this friction exists between us. I don't want to be struggling with you all the time.

I don't think you're a bad person. I like how you're relating in such a friendly way with a lot of people. I just also don't believe your story. I hope we can improve relations in spite of this.

Well sure, I wasn't saying that if my parents started punching me, that would be fine. But I sometimes haven't wanted to look after my younger brothers, and I certainly only "choose" to because I have to. If I didn't look after them, I'd be failing to fulfill my proper function of obedience to parents in the family. It isn't desired, but it is done.

Well, of course I might believe this if you show me a picture of you, and this supposed "brother" and give me your address and password to check your grades on a public forum so that I can check for myself whether you are who you say you are. Until then, anything you say about being a "brother' or a "college student" or a "Catholic" I'll have to take as total exaggeration.

[Tuinor]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

As far as life support goes, I think everyone should have a living will and make clear to their loved ones what they'd want if they needed life support.

You are limiting you point of view to a single dimension. You say you think that everyone should have a living will, but you fail to open your eyes to the potential wills that abortions ignore. You fail to see that every time someone ends a potential human life, they are ignoring the fact that it perhaps one day shall possess feelings, desires, dreams and wishes of its own. You are not taking into account that we only can see in our moment, and that no matter what we will not be able to see into theirs.

It is a selfish thing to deny a human life, and a human is a human, in my opinion, as soon as it may become a human. A sperm cannot become a human; an egg cannot become a human. But when the two are combined, they may, in your opinion, become human. Do you see? Stop looking at it from the angle of "it wasn't," and realize that it could've been.

I think it's time that humanity as a whole (myself included) started maturing and quit looking at things in terms of what was and what will be, for, in my opinion, yesterday and tomorrow do not exist. They are delusions from the absolute truth of the now. Now, there are being threatened countless lives that can exist. Now, we are faced with a choice of allowing them to be snuffed out of existence, or fighting for their right to partake in the life we all share, and deserve. Now, we must live up to the responsibility of what we, as a species, have allowed to happen, and we must now decide what to do about it.

[Curufin]

I think it's time that humanity as a whole (myself included) started maturing and quit looking at things in terms of what was and what will be, for, in my opinion, yesterday and tomorrow do not exist. They are delusions from the absolute truth of the now. Now, there are being threatened countless lives that can exist. Now, we are faced with a choice of allowing them to be snuffed out of existence, or fighting for their right to partake in the life we all share, and deserve. Now, we must live up to the responsibility of what we, as a species, have allowed to happen, and we must now decide what to do about it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here, Tuinor. You're saying that we need to look at the now - "it's time that humanity as a whole (myself included) started maturing and quit looking at things in terms of what was and what will be, for, in my opinion, yesterday and tomorrow do not exist," and yet at the same time, you're talking about saving potential - ie, future - lives: "Now, there are being threatened countless lives that can exist." Not lives that do, but lives that, in your words can exist.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Here's my question to the anti-choice lobby.

What about the women? Ignore for a second whether or not these fetuses are alive or not - I truly don't see this as the important issue. The issue to me is that most anti-choice advocates apotheisize the life of the child while downplaying the life of the mother. Do not both deserve our consideration?

[Lief Erikson]

Yes, Curufin, they do. It is not showing both consideration to allow one to kill the other, though.

I talked about this extensively on post 63, which was addressed to you, and which you haven't yet responded to .



I'll respond to most of the other posts addressed to me tomorrow, probably.

[Curufin]

Lief - I haven't replied to that post because after reading it several times I honestly didn't see the point. It's not that we're disagreeing on particulars or on a certain issue - it's that we have drastically different basic belief systems, and nothing I can say or you can say is going to change that.

When it gets away from rational debate and into the very depths of a person's moral (and/or religious) beliefs, there's really very little point in debating. It's like slamming your head into a brick wall.

That's why I generally don't get involved in abortion debates. It's a rational issue for very, very few people - and I don't think anyone here would qualify for that. Most pro-lifers see it as murder, and as such can accept no arguments for its necessity. Most pro-choicers (or at least myself) see the pro-live attitude as chauvinist and mysogynistic, and playing into a patriarchal system that is attempting to take from women even control of their own bodies.

And these arguments go around and around in circles, and end up nastier and nastier and more vitrolic until they spiral down into the unending world of the flame war. This thread has not headed in that direction, and I must say I'm very impressed by that. I've never known an abortion debate to stay civil for this long.

That said, Lief, our belief systems are so very different that I honestly can't even say that I see where you're coming from sometimes. I'd love to have a long discussion with you over this - I'd like to understand why you believe what you believe, and I'd love to explain to you why I believe what I believe. I'm sure at the base of it, while I'm quite certain we will always disagree, we'd discover that we're both compassionate human beings who just have very different ideas of how to do the right thing.

But I don't think I can go any further with you in this debate, because from my little corner of the political/religious spectrum, I'm just rather flummoxed by where you're coming from.

[Lief Erikson]

Fair enough .

For the record, I very much respect you too.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thats a HUGE difference because once out of the womb women have the CHOICE to feed the little bugger or not. You cant turn off the feeding tube when its still in the oven. And that of course is the reason for the parasite/abortion analogy in the first place.



Absolutely! Because it can no longer parasitize OFF her. She has to CHOOSE to take care of it if she wants it to live. In the womb she didn’t have that choice. It simply fed off its host and remained a tremendous physical burden.

Face it Lief, we all start our lives as parasites. Its just some of us take 30 or 40 years to finally break the habit.

The technical definition of "parasite," which is all you're talking about (judging from the fact that you ignored the part of my post referring to common cultural associations with the word) says nothing about choice. If you want to drag "lack of choice," a cultural association, into the debate, you also have to accept the "nasty harmful insect" associations.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Tuinor

I think it's time that humanity as a whole (myself included) started maturing and quit looking at things in terms of what was and what will be, for, in my opinion, yesterday and tomorrow do not exist. They are delusions from the absolute truth of the now. Now, there are being threatened countless lives that can exist. Now, we are faced with a choice of allowing them to be snuffed out of existence, or fighting for their right to partake in the life we all share, and deserve. Now, we must live up to the responsibility of what we, as a species, have allowed to happen, and we must now decide what to do about it.

No, by your logic, we needn't do anything, whatever our POV. If all times are the same, we're in Schrodinger's box, and no action matters.

Actually, because of my pov on salvation, I kinda like this notion, but it really is no support for anti-choice political action.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The technical definition of "parasite," which is all you're talking about (judging from the fact that you ignored the part of my post referring to common cultural associations with the word) says nothing about choice. If you want to drag "lack of choice," a cultural association, into the debate, you also have to accept the "nasty harmful insect" associations.

How is lack of choice a cultural association? It either is true or its not true. Its wholly independent of culture. And any “nasty harmful insect” associations are yours because a fetus isn’t an insect, just a parasite. The negative connotations of the word don’t bother me. My sister used to call her unborn child “the fish”. Wed call her up and ask “Hows the fish!”. Seemed fairly appropriate at the time. And didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings. And now my niece is 18 and no longer a fish OR a parasite. And half of that is good parenting.


This has the reputation of being a very contentious polarizing topic but I often find that usually most people aren’t that far apart on this subject as you would first assume. You wont find any abortion cheer leaders here or twisted individuals openly delighted at the prospect of women being put in horrible predicaments because they become pregnant. I find most pro choicers tend to think abortion is a horrible choice (even if they feel a fetus isn’t sentient or fully human) but one that needs to be allowed in an imperfect world. And most pro lifers tend to really feel for the woman tremendously in most cases but simply feel a fetus is too human to be allowed to be destroyed even if it means the adult host has to suffer some because of it. I think its important to note that MOST people on EITHER side agree that theres NO good choice in the situation. That you are basically choosing the best of two possible bad choices. The only difference is which bad choice people think is the least bad.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

How is lack of choice a cultural association? It either is true or its not true. Its wholly independent of culture.

Yes, but as I said, it's not part of the definition of "parasite." Therefore it is a cultural association of what "parasite" means.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And any “nasty harmful insect” associations are yours because a fetus isn’t an insect, just a parasite. The negative connotations of the word don’t bother me. My sister used to call her unborn child “the fish”. Wed call her up and ask “Hows the fish!”. Seemed fairly appropriate at the time. And didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings. And now my niece is 18 and no longer a fish OR a parasite. And half of that is good parenting.

The word "fish" has its own private set of non-negative connotations in your family, and therefore is valid for you. If someone loathes fish and call a fetus a fish, that's entirely different.

Most cultural associations with the word "parasite" are profoundly negative, demeaning, derogatory. Parasites are generally seen as little bad things that are good to kill if they interfere.

If someone actually likes parasites, finds them cute and has a hobby of raising them, if someone enjoys their company and has family in-jokes about them, it would be valid for that person to call a fetus a parasite to his or her own family, where this definition is accepted. Because in that situation, there are no negative cultural associations, only positive ones. It wouldn't be anything demeaning in that context. The term would be one of affection, like your "fish" example.

This is NOT a common association for "parasite," though. It would be an incredibly unusual aberration from what people normally think when they think of parasites. The normal associations people make with parasites are profoundly demeaning. Parasites are usually seen as harmful, bad things that it's good to casually exterminate if they interfere with your life. So to call a fetus that is monstrous, because of what the word means to people.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

This has the reputation of being a very contentious polarizing topic but I often find that usually most people aren’t that far apart on this subject as you would first assume. You wont find any abortion cheer leaders here or twisted individuals openly delighted at the prospect of women being put in horrible predicaments because they become pregnant. I find most pro choicers tend to think abortion is a horrible choice (even if they feel a fetus isn’t sentient or fully human) but one that needs to be allowed in an imperfect world. And most pro lifers tend to really feel for the woman tremendously in most cases but simply feel a fetus is too human to be allowed to be destroyed even if it means the adult host has to suffer some because of it. I think its important to note that MOST people on EITHER side agree that theres NO good choice in the situation. That you are basically choosing the best of two possible bad choices. The only difference is which bad choice people think is the least bad.

I pretty much agree.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, but as I said, it's not part of the definition of "parasite." Therefore it is a cultural association of what "parasite" means.

The word "fish" has its own private set of non-negative connotations in your family, and therefore is valid for you. If someone loathes fish and call a fetus a fish, that's entirely different.

Most cultural associations with the word "parasite" are profoundly negative, demeaning, derogatory. Parasites are generally seen as little bad things that are good to kill if they interfere.

If someone actually likes parasites, finds them cute and has a hobby of raising them, if someone enjoys their company and has family in-jokes about them, it would be valid for that person to call a fetus a parasite to his or her own family, where this definition is accepted. Because in that situation, there are no negative cultural associations, only positive ones. It wouldn't be anything demeaning in that context. The term would be one of affection, like your "fish" example.

This is NOT a common association for "parasite," though. It would be an incredibly unusual aberration from what people normally think when they think of parasites. The normal associations people make with parasites are profoundly demeaning. Parasites are usually seen as harmful, bad things that it's good to casually exterminate if they interfere with your life. So to call a fetus that is monstrous, because of what the word means to people.

I pretty much agree.

I still think "parasite" is a poor term. It indicates something which is much more foreign and exterior to the host than a foetus is to the mother.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I still think "parasite" is a poor term. It indicates something which is much more foreign and exterior to the host than a foetus is to the mother.

I think it's an absolutely disgusting term!!! The cultural associations we have with "parasite" are that it's something small, nasty and harmful, good to kill if it gets in the way. Because those associations are connected with the word, it should NEVER be applied to a human. It's evil to do that.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

When I say "a poor term" I mean "an inaccurate term". I'm not even talking about cultural associations, I'm saying that a parasite is something which is inserted from outside, which is not the case with a foetus. I mean, if you buy outdated classical Greek ideas, sure....but we don't.

[Insidious Rex]

But the whole point of its use is that it underlies the fact that a fetus grows within its mother host and feeds off her just as any other parasite. And by not allowing an abortion you in effect force the host to retain an organism that is detrimental to its health within their own body. In many ways its like forcing someone to keep a parasite inside them simply because you think they dont have a right to kill it. Some have even compared the fetus to a tumor which even I think is a little extreme. But hey thats kind of how cancer works right?

Put aside your thoughts about "babies" for a second and consider the following: If someone told you (or your wife) that you had a growth, an independent creature different from yourself, inside your abdominal cavity. And that this thing was continuing to increase in size at a rapid rate and had actually attached itself to your blood system and was feeding off of you. And as it grew it could lead to hormonal fluctuations, weight retention, and massive changes in your physiological make up. And worse yet, it seems that in about 9 months or so it will need to emerge right THROUGH your body to complete its life cycle, you would probably scream bloody murder and insist something be done right away. Wouldnt you? And if someone held up their hand and said no, thou shalt not kill the life inside you, you would probably think them insane or that it was certainly no business of theirs what you do about whats happening inside you.

Now apply that thinking to the notion of forcing a woman to keep their fetus against their will. And maybe perhaps you can get a glimpse of why its really wrong of US to dictate to HER what she should be doing with whats going on INSIDE her body...

If the fetus did not impact her LIKE a parasite none of this reasoning would apply.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Again, you're ignoring the fact that the foetus does not invade the woman, but is in fact generated inside her and (in part) by her.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Thanks IR. I keep getting the feeling that actual woman aren't really a priority for some folks here.

And since all the feti I know where at least partially 'inserted from outside' I think the accuracy is okay, Gwai.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm not even going to bother responding, since you've made it quite clear that anything I think on the matter is ipso facto discredited. Or, maybe I should try arguing for abortion, and that might change your mind.

PS:

[Tessar]

I don't think it will matter much since the argument basically boils down to whether the fetus is a human or not. You and I believe the fetus is already a child, Gwai, but other people don't.... thus the argument has to spin continuously around whether or not it's murdering a child.

Because if it were what everyone here considered a parasite, then I don't think anyone would have an objection to having it removed.