ForumTouchy Subjects ► Abortion: Ethics?
Procreation? In this economy?
  
Hehe
  
We've suspected for a while that Sam's position comes from thinking sex should be punished.

Not punished. Have sex with whoever you want. Just don't have sex if you're planning on aborting whatever comes from it. As in, don't toss seeds in your garden then get mad when it grows. I personally think sex should be reserved for marriage, but that's besides the point. The point is you're killing someone that could change the world so you can feel good, which isn't all that just to me at least.
  
Disagree. I'm gonna vote strongly in favor of abortion if my vascetomy fails for some reason. Also you're being obtuse. "Change the world"? That's dumb. Kid's more likely to be a net negative than to have a tangible positive impact.
  
I said there's a chance, and they may not change the world, but they might change the world for someone.
  
Samsung23 said:
I said there's a chance, and they may not change the world, but they might change the world for someone.

If the parent is not capable of caring for them, that change is going to be destroying their world. Which, you know, is why most people get abortions. How about that.
  
Samsung23 said:
I said there's a chance, and they may not change the world, but they might change the world for someone.

Would you kill baby Hitler if you had the chance?

If we're talking theoreticals, there is just as much chance as someone grows into a murderous psychopath as they do "cure cancer".

Actually, given the state of the foster home and adoption system, an unwanted child actually probably has a higher chance of being a criminal or murderer than other children, somewhere around 5-10%[sauce]

So if you want to talk "what they might grow into", you're doing the world a favor by aborting the fetus.
  
I abort every time, just to make extra sure I don't give birth to a new baby Hitler. You can never be too careful.
  
@Samsung, I hope your views on sex improve as you age. You may not think that you're aiming to punish people for sex, but ultimately, that's what your views imply.

Some people cannot handle having children. Some people have children and regret it. Is that what happens every time? No. But if someone has the foresight to understand they will not be a suitable parent in their circumstance, they should be lauded and be provided with the means to prevent such a thing.

Sex is a natural part of many intimate romantic relationships (see: asexuals for relationships that may happily exclude sex). People have sex because 1) it feels good and 2) it makes their partner feel good too. Many adult relationships do not function without a decent sex life. Sexual compatibility is pretty important.

Sure, there's a biological process built into sex to continue our species. In your view, we're slaves to this process and must yield to it in its every success. We're saying that we're aware that doing so isn't always in everyone's (including the unborn's) best interest. If other methods of birth control are unsuccessful, abortion is typically a last resort as it's the last opportunity to intervene before a new human is successfully brought into the world. In most cases, an abortion will be done at the earliest stage possible, but this can vary on circumstance.

I can't imagine waiting to have sex with someone until I wanted to have a baby with them. What if the sex is bad? And then we're tied together forever through a child? And then we don't work out and you're forcing a kid into a split household and they're sad and confused and they just want their parents to be happy together, but they're not.

Have you grown up in a broken household? I have. My daughter has. It sucks. My mother used me against my father in arguments, etc. Have you been treated as a weapon against one of your parents? Can you imagine how it feels to have that continually happen?

If I had thought my daughter's dad and I wouldn't have worked out or wouldn't have been able to take care of her the way she deserves, maybe I would have put more stock in the suggestions that we abort. Don't get me wrong, my child is an amazing human and I wouldn't change her for the world. It's just a parent's job to give their child the best life possible. Sometimes I wonder if we made the right choice considering how it all turned out.
  
Aborting a baby that's been conceived at the wrong time in your life also allows for you to raise a child when you're ready later on. There's a much higher likelihood of the child that's wanted and prepared for having an excellent life and being able to contribute to society in a positive way compared to a child that parents can't afford and may not be ready to raise. Given how resource intensive that first unwanted child is going to end up being, it's going to limit your options for having more kids later if you want to give them a good life.
  
kukolka said:
Many adult relationships do not function without a decent sex life. Sexual compatibility is pretty important.


That's basically all my relationships are at this point.
  
Samsung23 said:
Your entire argument is based off that it isn't a human, which can neither be confirmed nor denied.
No that's not what I'm arguing. It can be confirmed that a zygote is indeed human. You can try and set the goalposts for sentience wherever you like, and say, "I guess it doesn't matter", but in any empirical mindset, nothing is for certain, but we can be more or less certain given the weight of the evidence. In this case, the evidence shows that a fetus is not capable of sentience prior to 18 weeks and I'm arguing that a life's value is directly related to the degree of sentience it currently has.

You believe life begins at conception, so why is that important to you if you believe potential is the reason a fetus has value? Any sperm and egg have the potential to become a zygote. Why is conception the point at which potential has anything to do with what we should value?
Samsung23 said:
Shouldn't something that has the potential to become a human being treated as one?
In short, no, I don't think potential properties should be treated like actual properties. Children are potential adults, but we don't give them the same rights or privileges and we don't have them sign up for the draft.
  
kukolka said:
In your view, we're slaves to this process and must yield to it in its every success.
I don't believe this. I believe what you're doing is throwing seeds on the ground, then killing said plants once they begin to grow. You're making the ground fertile and then becoming upset once it grows.
kukolka said:
What if the sex is bad?
So what if it is. I believe sex shouldn't make or break, or be any factor in choosing a partner. I sum this reason as why a lot of marriages fail. The relationship is sex based, or at least sex influenced when they get married. They then realize it was the sex that was good, not the partner. This results in a broken household. Sure there might be the one in a million where they wait till marriage and they hate the sex so much that they leave. But then that isn't love. Lust is for sex, love is for the person. If you want to fall in love, don't have sex. It tricks your brain into thinking they're perfect, and when you finally tie the know you'll realize it was lust not love that said yes. Sure there are plenty of households that do just fine and had sex before marriage. But they had more love in their heart for the person not for the sex.
E7 said:
You believe life begins at conception, so why is that important to you if you believe potential is the reason a fetus has value? Any sperm and egg have the potential to become a zygote. Why is conception the point at which potential has anything to do with what we should value?
I believe this is the point at which all that is needed from one party has gone into another. And I also believe at this point they have been assigned a soul, but that is beyond the point. The point is that you're stopping someone from possibly helping society, or at the very least living a life of their own. You shouldn't be able to decide if they have a life or not. When my sister was in the womb 9 years ago, she had a stroke. My parents could have ended it all right there, seeing as how she would likely be autistic and mentally handicapped. But if they did, I wouldn't be as happy as I am now. Yes she is mentally handicapped, but that doesn't matter. What matters is she's doing a lot of good and making a lot of people happy. I wouldn't take that away from her, much less a child without her trial. Just because we were living on borrowed money we couldn't pay back doesn't mean we should abort a potential fountain of joy. And I know what will be proceeding this argument. A long, long list of people who should have been aborted(to you at least). But if that truly was your thought, that every human brings more bad than good, why are you on the internet and why aren't you killing people. If the life of a potential human is going to cause more harm than good, why aren't you killing everyone? I mean, it's a genuine question.
E7 said:
In short, no, I don't think potential properties should be treated like actual properties. Children are potential adults, but we don't give them the same rights or privileges and we don't have them sign up for the draft.
We don't give them the right to vote, but we give them the right to chose their life. They get to decide what their lot will be in life. We shouldn't decide for them. We don't sign them up for the draft, but we let them chose what they will do with their life. They can be an astronaut or a scientist or a drug dealer. Whatever makes them happy. They get to chose, you shouldn't chose for them.

Side note about religion, it's not the only reason I make this argument though. In D&C 132:19, it talks about the shedding of innocent blood, and to summarize it if you shed innocent blood then you won't be able to make it into the Celestial kingdom, aka seeing God/Jesus Christ again. A talk from Russel M. Nelson explains more in detail, and better than I could. Here.
  
stop poisoning the well
  
Samsung23 said:
I don't believe this. I believe what you're doing is throwing seeds on the ground, then killing said plants once they begin to grow. You're making the ground fertile and then becoming upset once it grows.

I went outside with sunscreen on, but I still got skin cancer anyway. Am I allowed to get my cancer removed, or do I need to keep it because I made the choice to go outside?
  
Samsung23 said:
I believe sex shouldn't make or break, or be any factor in choosing a partner.

Because you're just a dumb kid and you don't know shit about life yet.
  
stop poisoning the well

i was kidding

dont listen to me samsung
  
Sharing good sex with a partner is important to me in the same way that having other shared desires and interests is. I want a partner who enjoys trying delicious new food with me, who wants to go to new places with me, who enjoys at least some of the same types of media I do so we can discuss them, and I also want to enjoy physical touch and intimacy with them too.

These things are all important and all a part of loving someone. If there is a significant mismatch in any area, or - worse - if they make me feel bad for any of it or don't want to put in effort to make me feel heard and wanted, then these are all parts of a relationship that could be a deal-breaker.

I find sex to be pretty important, and frankly, how respectful and giving someone is in bed tends to say a lot about how they are outside of bed too, in my experience. Dudes who finish and then roll over and say good night! while you are just left there like, uh, that's it? are generally not worth seeing again and that's a fact. If they're that entitled in bed, usually it's ended up showing through in other aspects of their personality later on too. Men, make sure your partners are satisfied. Either before or after you are is perfectly fine, just, like, don't be an ass.
  
Completely off topic, but adding to the above - just because someone got off doesn't necessarily mean that it was good sex. Make sure they get the intimacy and aftercare that they need, and make sure you get the same.

But back on topic. Samsung, I am glad that your family has the capacity to take care of your sister. But could you imagine how awful her life would be if she weren't loved? If she was viewed as a punishment and trapped in a cycle of abuse that she could not escape? There are, unfortunately, many family situations that would not be able to provide her care or love, or even be able to even borrow the money to give her the care she needs.
  
Samsung23 said:
E7 said:
You believe life begins at conception, so why is that important to you if you believe potential is the reason a fetus has value?
I believe this is the point at which all that is needed from one party has gone into another. And I also believe at this point they have been assigned a soul, but that is beyond the point. The point is that you're stopping someone from possibly helping society, or at the very least living a life of their own. You shouldn't be able to decide if they have a life or not. When my sister was in the womb 9 years ago, she had a stroke. My parents could have ended it all right there, seeing as how she would likely be autistic and mentally handicapped. But if they did, I wouldn't be as happy as I am now. Yes she is mentally handicapped, but that doesn't matter. What matters is she's doing a lot of good and making a lot of people happy. I wouldn't take that away from her, much less a child without her trial. Just because we were living on borrowed money we couldn't pay back doesn't mean we should abort a potential fountain of joy. And I know what will be proceeding this argument. A long, long list of people who should have been aborted(to you at least). But if that truly was your thought, that every human brings more bad than good, why are you on the internet and why aren't you killing people. If the life of a potential human is going to cause more harm than good, why aren't you killing everyone? I mean, it's a genuine question.
I don't stand by the argument that potential is irrelevant because one might become evil just as easily as good because I don't think that's true. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say around 85% turn out to be "good", and 15% turn out to be "bad". Still, the question of the potential value of a life is a lot more difficult for me to weigh than that. In developed countries, I learned in ecology that the average person lives on 5x the resources required to survive, while in many parts of the world, the population surges without access to contraceptives, or people live without basic needs that you and I might take for granted. This is not to suggest we need to cull populations in the developed world, but I recognize that abortion and contraceptives both play a role in helping create a sustainable population size.

Prior to the fetus being in a stage of development that supports sentience, I don't think the virtue of the potential life outweighs the woman's autonomy.
Samsung23 said:
E7 said:
In short, no, I don't think potential properties should be treated like actual properties. Children are potential adults, but we don't give them the same rights or privileges and we don't have them sign up for the draft.
We don't give them the right to vote, but we give them the right to chose their life. They get to decide what their lot will be in life. We shouldn't decide for them. We don't sign them up for the draft, but we let them chose what they will do with their life. They can be an astronaut or a scientist or a drug dealer. Whatever makes them happy. They get to chose, you shouldn't chose for them.
The logic that we should provide rights to them based on potential is over-inclusive. Yes, we let children who are sentient beings choose what they will do with their lives (more or less), when they are at a point where they have the right to do so, but that doesn't grant them any additional rights. A six yo can't decide they are a police officer and get a badge and a gun. As a fetus (prior to 18 weeks), is not yet sentient, I don't think they have the same rights as a child, just as a child doesn't have the same rights as an adult. My point is, that we don't grant rights to individuals based on potential. I think in your view, it's difficult not to view an 18-week old fetus as a sentient person given that you believe in souls. I think they are human and have the potential to become a sentient person, but since they are not yet. All the fetus has is potential, no rights (or capability) to choose for themselves, or individuality yet. Prior to 18 weeks, to me, they are just a non-sentient living entity inside a woman's body. It seems in your argument, only a fetus in early development has this property where the potential for future matters enough to grant them rights as though they were already people. Why is that?

Samsung23 said:
Side note about religion, it's not the only reason I make this argument though. In D&C 132:19, it talks about the shedding of innocent blood, and to summarize it if you shed innocent blood then you won't be able to make it into the Celestial kingdom, aka seeing God/Jesus Christ again. A talk from Russel M. Nelson explains more in detail, and better than I could. Here.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your perspective given that I was once a pro-life Christian and argued on the virtue of potential life. The thing about the soul is, I don't think a fetus in the early stages of development is an entity capable of having one, therefore, no innocent blood is shed. In Biblical terms, I question what does innocence even means for infants if we are born with sin?

I'm not going to click through to the link. Suffice it to say, I've been down enough roads on Christian ethics to know, there's not much there that can break through my skepticism.
  
eriophora said:
Sharing good sex with a partner is important to me in the same way that having other shared desires and interests is. I want a partner who enjoys trying delicious new food with me, who wants to go to new places with me, who enjoys at least some of the same types of media I do so we can discuss them, and I also want to enjoy physical touch and intimacy with them too.

These things are all important and all a part of loving someone. If there is a significant mismatch in any area, or - worse - if they make me feel bad for any of it or don't want to put in effort to make me feel heard and wanted, then these are all parts of a relationship that could be a deal-breaker.

I find sex to be pretty important, and frankly, how respectful and giving someone is in bed tends to say a lot about how they are outside of bed too, in my experience. Dudes who finish and then roll over and say good night! while you are just left there like, uh, that's it? are generally not worth seeing again and that's a fact. If they're that entitled in bed, usually it's ended up showing through in other aspects of their personality later on too. Men, make sure your partners are satisfied. Either before or after you are is perfectly fine, just, like, don't be an ass.

This has always kinda baffled me. I'd be embarrassed if a partner was left unfulfilled. Like the occaisonal misfire might happen to anyone. Get too excited or just can't get it going, but most of us have two hands at the least.
  
Samsung, I'm sorry to say but your inexperience is showing. More marriages are ruined by complete sexual incompatibility than are ruined by being based on nothing but sex.
  
this financial plan is an outrageous demand, and it's too many damn pages for any man to understand

...

sorry
  
Samsung, I'm sorry to say but your inexperience is showing. More marriages are ruined by complete sexual incompatibility than are ruined by being based on nothing but sex.

I'd also throw in that there are very very few marriages that are began based on just sex.
  
Samsung23 said:
I don't believe this. I believe what you're doing is throwing seeds on the ground, then killing said plants once they begin to grow. You're making the ground fertile and then becoming upset once it grows.

I think I have a more accurate seeds metaphor.

Like many Americans, when I was young, I carved pumpkins into jack-o-lanterns for Halloween. It was super fun and the people I loved had a good time carving pumpkins with me. We tried really hard to make sure we got all of the seeds out of the pumpkins (mostly because we had a tradition of roasting them with butter and salt). However, sometimes it can be tricky to make sure you get all of the seeds, especially if you're young and inexperienced.

One year, I clearly didn't get all of the seeds out. My pumpkin happened to fall off the porch and little did I know that the seeds had been deposited in the ground around the porch.

Some time passed and eventually those seeds took root and began to grow. My family wasn't as attentive to the lawn and garden as they maybe should have been, so the pumpkin plants grew for quite some time before we realised we had a little pumpkin patch.

Pumpkin patches get pretty unwieldy. I don't know if you've seen how pumpkins grow, but they are all over the place! We started to worry that if this happened because of just one little pumpkin, imagine how the patch could eventually consume the whole garden if we're not careful!

So, we removed the pumpkin plants because we knew we couldn't manage them.

Samsung23 said:
So what if it is. I believe sex shouldn't make or break, or be any factor in choosing a partner. I sum this reason as why a lot of marriages fail. The relationship is sex based, or at least sex influenced when they get married. They then realize it was the sex that was good, not the partner. This results in a broken household. Sure there might be the one in a million where they wait till marriage and they hate the sex so much that they leave. But then that isn't love. Lust is for sex, love is for the person. If you want to fall in love, don't have sex. It tricks your brain into thinking they're perfect, and when you finally tie the know you'll realize it was lust not love that said yes. Sure there are plenty of households that do just fine and had sex before marriage. But they had more love in their heart for the person not for the sex.

Reiterating:
kukolka said:
Many adult relationships do not function without a decent sex life. Sexual compatibility is pretty important.

Samsung, I'm sorry to say but your inexperience is showing. More marriages are ruined by complete sexual incompatibility than are ruined by being based on nothing but sex.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Abortion: Ethics?