ForumTouchy Subjects ► Abortion: Ethics?
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?
Well, what you're doing here is turning on a huge light on someone, giving them cancer and killing them. You flicked on the light and killed them.
Because you're just a dumb kid and you don't know shit about life yet.
Maybe not, but at least I don't resort to insulting people once I've lost an argument.
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.
I respect this. I think everyone should have their own requirements of a partner, and they can decide whatever they are.
Devery said:
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.

Thanks Devery. I can see how that would be probable cause for abuse, and how abortion may be a good idea. But on the other hand, at the very least the child in question should get a chance, at least I believe so.
E7 said:
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.

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?

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?

Yes, I get the need for population control, and abortion is a good way to do that, but what you're doing there is putting the value of one life over another. I know you don't believe in christian teachings anymore, but I bet you at least think Thomas Jefferson was smart. He said that all men(relating to mankind imo) are created equal. Why is it that one is better than the other?

It may not, but I just think everyone deserves a chance.

I think that each person should the ability to chose. I regard them as human because I believe in souls and things like that, and I believe each person gets one chance. I wouldn't want to be stuck in heaven forever because of the mistakes of my mom and dad.

<link url="https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2011/02/article-of-faith-2?lang=eng&abVersion=V03&abName=GLOB88>Article of Faith #2</link> reads "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." This means we shouldn't be punished for our ancestors sins, or even our mother and father's sins . So although they were created through an act of sin, that doesn't mean they deserve death for something they didn't do.
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.

Which wouldn't matter if sex wasn't a requirement in the first place, nor if your partner had any other partners that might make another seem like a better option. If all you have is oatmeal, you wouldn't eat anything else because in your mind there isn't any better option, meaning you would remain content with what you have.
kukolka said:
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.
[Body of what was said]
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.

Okay, I can see your point on this one.
  • = was expected
  
Well, what you're doing here is turning on a huge light on someone, giving them cancer and killing them. You flicked on the light and killed them.

if anything, youre killing the cancer and not them. no matter whose fault it is the light got flicked on in the first place

Maybe not, but at least I don't resort to insulting people once I've lost an argument.

jrob isnt insecure that he lost the argument. hes just pointing out your naivety in adult sex related matters

Thanks Devery. I can see how that would be probable cause for abuse, and how abortion may be a good idea. But on the other hand, at the very least the child in question should get a chance, at least I believe so.

no parent wants to bring a child into the world to make their life miserable. we're ignoring psychopaths here. if you want a child, youre going to want to take good care of it. if not, then you wont.

fuck my life

edit:
Which wouldn't matter if sex wasn't a requirement in the first place, nor if your partner had any other partners that might make another seem like a better option. If all you have is oatmeal, you wouldn't eat anything else because in your mind there isn't any better option, meaning you would remain content with what you have.

sex is universal. youre not gonna convince anybody who is having sex to not have sex.
or even people who arent having sex to not have sex for that matter.
  
Sam. You're a dumb kid. I know this because all kids are dumb. They inherently think they've got so much of life figured out when they know nothing, Jon Snow.

I don't know anything about a great many things so I don't pretend like I do. I know enough to know that I don't know. You know nothing about sex or relationships, yet you are making sweeping claims about how both should be. Sounds like something a dumb kid would do.
  
i probably had 2 braincells when i was 6
  
Samsung23 said:
Yes, I get the need for population control, and abortion is a good way to do that, but what you're doing there is putting the value of one life over another. I know you don't believe in christian teachings anymore, but I bet you at least think Thomas Jefferson was smart. He said that all men(relating to mankind imo) are created equal. Why is it that one is better than the other?

It may not, but I just think everyone deserves a chance.

I think that each person should the ability to chose. I regard them as human because I believe in souls and things like that, and I believe each person gets one chance. I wouldn't want to be stuck in heaven forever because of the mistakes of my mom and dad.
There are plenty of intelligent people throughout history who have failed to understand the future because, given the state of technology and science, they couldn't have. The original quote from Thomas Jefferson was, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The way they wrote sentences back then, he means that all men are created equal in that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It would be very confusing if he thought people who were born crippled were born on equal terms with those who are not. The stability of the human population is only is all besides the point I'm trying to make; which is that the situation is much more complicated than 'person bad'/'person good'.

Thomas Jefferson aside, somehow, my questions about personhood remain unanswered and there is a highly important distinction between a being capable of sentience and one that is not; and potential sentience doesn't matter because the logic that potential endows people with rights is over-inclusive. For those rights to apply to a fetus, I think the burden of proof that they are a person falls on the one claiming they are people and have rights. You say each person gets a right to choose and this is where we are not on the same page. How do you define personhood? I don't think anything incapable of sentience is a person and if you think a fetus even might be capable of sentience, why do you think that?

Samsung23 said:
<link url="https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2011/02/article-of-faith-2?lang=eng&abVersion=V03&abName=GLOB88>Article of Faith #2</link> reads "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." This means we shouldn't be punished for our ancestors sins, or even our mother and father's sins . So although they were created through an act of sin, that doesn't mean they deserve death for something they didn't do.
Thanks for clarifying, not every denomination holds that view; although that does raise other questions, but I don't want to derail this thread with a religious discussion.

EDIT: Oddly I can't remove the bullet point followed by "was expected" out because I can't detect it in the text editor.
  • = was expected
  
I found the issue with the formatting; you need a " at the end of the url in the link tag.
  
Also before we credit Thomas Jefferson in a debate about human rights, we should remember that he enslaved his own children.
  
aprzn123 said:
I found the issue with the formatting; you need a " at the end of the url in the link tag.

The URL issue was from the original post, I'm not sure why the bullet point stuck. It doesn't show up when I edit the post.
EDIT: Nevermind, just realized that was an error message related to the URL problem.
  
Bringing up an old point, if you have the slightest notion that abortions are bad for any reason, you need to be pro-birth control. That's the only realistic alternative, and I found out today it's an astoundingly good one. Colorado started a state-wide effort to provide IUDs to anyone who wanted them, shouldering most or all of the cost itself. That cost for them was $28 million, which seems like a lot until you realize that it saved them very nearly $70 million in the social services that these unequipped would-have-been parents would have needed, and that was coupled with a law that enabled people under 18 to give their own consent on sexual health services like this. That's a lot of lives that could-have-been ruined that weren't. That's a lot of abortions that could-have-been that never were. If you consider yourself "pro-life" but aren't taking up a nearly extremist pro-birth-control stance, you can't be taken seriously anymore given the evidence in play. A naked pro-life stance is anti-poor and anti-woman. The facts don't care about your slut shaming and pearl clutching.
  
Samsung23 said:
don't toss seeds in your garden then get mad when it grows.
It's not a matter of getting mad. Just pruning out the plants I don't want in my garden.
  
I hate to derail a stopped train, but when I read "don't toss seeds in your garden then get mad when it grows.", all I can think of is how I had to keep removing plants from my garden because the damn local birds kept dropping seeds into it. /hj
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Abortion: Ethics?