Are you Prolife or ProAbortion?

I thought i'd been clear that i'm not using it as a justification for other types of abortion (i'd said a couple of times that i don't agree with the 'life-style' abortions, which i also suspect make up the majority of all abortions). Each 'type' of abortion needs to be judged on its own merits. I was merely trying to establish the core point that abortion can be justified in extreme situations.

The only firm area where a decision is 'easy' is when the child's or mother's death is nigh-on-guaranteed.

After that it's a very tough call, i agree. I said before that i think severly infirm children/people can certainly still enjoy life, especially when in a loving environment.

But when it comes to an adoption-or-nothing situation, it's odds on that not many people are looking to adopt severly handicapped children. As callous as it all sounds, my leaning at this moment in time is towards termination if no prospective adoptees/caring-institution can be found or look likely to be appear. (Coz let's face it, what other choices are there? My suspicion is that in the UK even the state-funded NHS 'allows' the majority of such children to die i.e. refuses life-sustaining medication. What must happen when even a state-funded institution is unavailable?)

I find this flabbergasting. You're basically saying that two deaths are better than one. This is an example of a categorical situation, it's not a 'what-if'. Pregancies can be determined to be as-good-as-certain to kill both mother and child. You are basically saying that you agree with the idea that the mother should die when she could be saved.

Surely a person's principles become in need of renalysis in situations where they contradict themselves (or at least become in need of a little flexibility of application)?

I think the killing-sleeping-people-is-ok law is unlikely to come about, no? Anyone can tell the difference between that and a law that allows the killing of a fetus deemed to be comparitively 'unconscious'. The contextual differences distinguish the two situations. I haven't noticed any bed-time-butchery laws following on from legalised abortion.

I do think the whole idea of a dividing line between fetus and human, between unconscious-blob and conscious personality, is a ridiculous one anyway. There's almost certainly no one point where the transition occurs - it's a process, a sliding scale. That's why for me it's a question of lessened suffering.

I think debating when we can make that judgement call is something we should all do. Except...when the death of both child and mother is imminant. That for me, is a done deal. And i'm yet to hear a coherent argument that justifies letting both of them die when one could be saved.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

In many cases, to disallow a person the option of terminating a pregnancy is to force them to attempt parenthood. Unless the State wishes to adjuticate the fitness of parents, and take an active hand in assuring the well-being of these lives you'd have them protect, they should not be involved in the process of deciding any of it.


See above. And while you've attempted to head me off at the pass with the phrase "clearly, no one can", it applies to your arguement as well, therefore that point is not something reasoning people can use to support either stance.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Given the extreme demand for unwanted children, I don't see why barring abortion would necessarily force "many" people into parenthood.

As for adjuticating the fitness of parents; last I checked, Social Services did just that. Regardless, I don't agree with your claim that, if we preserve an infant's right to life, we must immediately become surrogate parents to them; I think it's a non-sequitur. The government is in the business of protecting rights, and the right to life is the most basic of those. Preserving it doesn't require that the government takes responsibility for the rest of that person's life.


Sure, it applies to my argument. The difference is that, if I'm wrong, most people would be forced to give unwated children (overwhelmingly the result of a concious decision to risk pregnancy) up for adoption. If you're wrong, we've legally sanctioned infanticide. Isn't that a pretty big risk to take?

My mistake. This begs the question, though, as to whether or not there's any difference, in practice. There's no realistic way, as far as I can see, to disallow abortions deemed to be a "life-style" abortion, as you put it, so by supporting abortions in those cases, aren't you effectively supporting the ones you don't approve of, as well?


That's true. Though we do, as you touched upon, have stated-funded institutions to care for them. Either way, death still seems extreme. Notice that when an already-living person wants to kill themselves, we almost always chalk it up to pschyological disorder or chemical imbalance. It's just not deemed natural to want to die.

Now, we could have a very long discussion about whether or not it's ever sane for a person to want to end their life, but clearly society on the whole has determined that it's not usually healthy and normal to do so. I think you'd need quite the smoking gun, then, to justify it. That's a damn heavy burden of proof, in other words. Not that you're saying otherwise.


I didn't mean to give that impression; I'm not trying to say that the mother should die for a lost cause. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that pure pragmatism isn't always the answer.

I don't know if you've ever read (or seen) Storm of the Century. It's a Stephen King story and (spoilers abound) it deals with a New England town cut off from the rest of the world during a once-in-a-lifetime storm. While they're isolated, a warlock (or something of the sort) shows up and offers them a deal: give me one of your children, and I'll leave. Refuse, and I'll kill every last one of you.

What do you do in this situation? Do you willingly hand your own child over to some evil creature to save lives? Does pragmatism trump principle, when you get down to it? I think the real question this all boils down to is this: are there things worse than death? At the risk of sounding overly idealistic, I think there are.


Perhaps so. I'm not going to pretend that there's a clear-cut right answer. If I were ever in that situation, I can't really imagine myself telling my wife to face certain doom without any hope of the child surviving.


They're not identical, no, but swap the sleeping person for someone in a coma, and you get a lot closer. All I was really getting at is that it's not much consolation to point to a lack of suffering if an innocent life is lost. That trumps the circumstances of the death.


It's ridiculous, but no moreso than any line. Not everybody above 18 is mature and informed enough to vote, and not everyone below 18 is ill-equipped to do so. Any line you draw's going to look silly, but it's sillier not to draw any line at all. Right now, in America, our line is birth. In my opinion, a moment's thought reveals that definition of humanity as completely untenable.

I think the basic difference in our opinions is that I value the quality of life over its mere existance. You want to preserve life, regardless. I think that's irresponsible, given that one intervention on the part of the State can cause consequences for which you are willing to allow them to then sidestep responsibility.

Oh, and Social Services determining the fitness of parents? That was a knee-slapper. Next you'll tell me food stamps provide good nutrition.

No matter what anyone thinks or believes everyone is smart enough to know that abortion ends the life of an unborn child. Use whatever word or words you want in place of "unborn child" it is still the same. Does this mean I am pro-life? Well actually, no. I would prefer that abortions did not exist, but in today's world that would be ignorant to think it could be true. So instead I say that each instance of abortion has a story behind it, and who am I to judge? I will say, however, that abortion used as birth control is wrong. I also think that the Father should have a say so, if indeed they are willing to raise the child if neccessary, if not then they should keep their mouths shut.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Unfortunately for me I do see extreme cases as a matter of course, I have worked in the field of public health for 30yrs, I wish I hadn't seen or had to deal with some the things I have, it has made me more open minded, and not see things just as black or white, it would be nice if every child was wanted and abortion did not exist but that is the way it is, it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.

What do you suggest that my friend should have done in her situation, as you don't know all her problems at the time, and the bottom line was hers and the baby's death what do you think she should have done?

Yoda sorry about my silly statement re ultra sounds and God, as you can see I am disillusioned with God and him/her allowing all the terrible things that happen in this world, that is my issue and I am working on that, sorry to those others I also may have offended, I am not sure that the ultra sound was invented for only seeing where the baby is or if the cord is around its neck.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Well, I got the feeling that nebbit wasn’t being totally honest and is holding back on something. I could be wrong and jumped the gun prematurely.

And what point was that? I believe you totally missed my point as in I don’t like someone trying to tell me to accept a law that allows the murder of many innocents.

I am sharing my feelings and thought just like the rest of you.

It’s in the statistics and I’m not only talking about late term but so called lazy abortions at anytime.
.

[quote]A 'certain' amount of pain is not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about situations that could be compared to extreme, prolonged, physical torture (or to a painful death).[quote] Sorry but mercy killing doesn’t sit well with me either.

A human being is a human being no matter what stage regardless of the suffering that it will encounter.

Letting die. I don’t know what you are implying here. Do you mean allowing them to die naturally or to kill them with outside help? If you are talking of the second then those two words are meant to sugar coat the intentions.

If there was a way to save the mother such as if the abortion is caused indirectly then I agree with that. But to directly kill someone to save your own is not proper however is still by far a lesser evil than the other situations.

Actually, since the baby is a new human individual then in those cases as you gave, it is easier to understand the immorality of those abortions rather than one where both will die.


Again, I don’t believe in mercy killing. Would you likewise have no problem with terminating a life such as you speak of without any indication from the sufferer that he want’s to die?


No person should be allowed to murder an innocent human being and call it a choice.

The key words here is “its odds on” . This proves your argument is not a sure thing thereby gambling with a human life.

Let me give you an example. Lets say a mother and her baby were on a platform that was quickly being lowered into fire. Their combined weight is pulling them down. The mother throws the baby into the fire and saves herself by ridding the platform of the extra weight. This to me sound like murder since it was her actions that caused the death and not the actions of the unfortunate situation they were both in.

Now you’re stating that an unconscious underdeveloped human has less rights than a conscious fully developed human. This is an excellent example given by yoda and proves how dangerously wrong your position is.

You don’t realize how ridiculous your argument sound. By your sad logic we should murder all children who are not properly being taking care of out of neglect.

I think your're missing the whole prolife point. We value human life and it's chance to have the quality of life that you value so much.

Nebbit, first off I want to appoligize if I came across as insensitive to your loosing your child as I hadn't addressed it in my last response. I agree it is a tough situation and I would never ask a lady to sacrifice herself for such an occasion. I do feel that it is still killing a human life prematurely even though it would be considered a passive abortion. But these situations are rare as I've said before and should not be used to support abortion of all cases.

Thanks for apologizing Escape, don't worry, this isn't about me and I am ok.

I admire your stand, but I am able to disagree with you wether you think it is right or wrong.

One of my closest friends, (uncle to the girl that had the abortion) is very pro life and he pickets out side of abortion clinics, we are still friends, he just accepts that we have different views, we leave it at that, he also does a lot of praying for my soul, which i think is very sweet.

Not really. In practical terms, if official abortion-access was based on medical grounds alone - i.e. extreme circumstances alone - then that would prevent sanctioned "life-style" abortions in a justifiable way.

This is all theoretical, coz i've got no real mechanism for influencing the state of law on this one (and i'd like to see a sliding-scale of acceptabiliy anyway - which is where all the troublesome judgement calls and practical mechansims come in to play).

In my daily life, i don't support 'life-style' abortions as a rule, simply because there are enough people who want to adopt. I think the whole situation is cruel, as only life can be, but because there are lessons to be learnt there technology shouldn't be used as a get-out clause. I think adopted kids suffer from the feeling of being unwanted, and the mother suffers from going full term with a child she then gives away when her body is telling her to care for it, but ultimately i agree that we shouldn't deny the potential child its potential for life.

Well the options we seem to be talking about are the choice between slow-death-by neglect and quick-death-with-decreased-sensitivity. It's not really comparable to a functioning adult choosing to kill themselves.

Again, in the case of severly impaired unwanted children, my suspicion is that they're frequently allowed to die if they go full term, so in that sense, it's not an issue as such.

(i totally believe in the letting-die issue where a medically-prolonged life amounts to torture, especially if it means a life without any love in it)

Funny how it always takes some wildly implausible theoretical situation to demonstrate that sort of thing . I'd say pragmatism that's focused on making things better rather than worse is one of the few choices we have in the non-theoretical/real-world - the problem is the judgement call. And it's one big stonking problem - one that i think our time is best spent addressing.

I imagine you're saying that it would be better for the whole village to die, because they would at least go to heaven for their selfless action, and the child would not be damned? Using the christian framework, i'd have to say it's better for the village to die too.

But i don't believe in that framework. You know how i feel about this - it's what happens on earth that's important. I see this as one of the damaging aspects of the heaven-hell myths. If it were the case of one child's life versus the village, for me, the child has to die. That's the cruelty of life.

I think there are worse things than death too. There's a life lived in constant suffering.

For me, so long as the chances of dual-death are high, it's as clear-cut as any decision gets. In the sense that it can be termed 'self-defence', i imagine that it could fit in with your interpretation of the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment.

Ah, now the coma thing does happen already, and in terms of 'letting die', i think it can be justified (but again, in cases of great certainty - and mistakes are bound to be made)

As SamsoniteDelia aptly put it, this is about quality-of-life versus right-to-life. Is a life lived in torture better than a life not lived? That's the the central theoretical question.

Sure, i think the line should be drawn, and it should bend and shift too, depending on context. And that's where application can get tricky, but i think it makes societies healthier when they try. A practical solution is laws that interact with each other. An 18-year-old with a felony can't vote for example (neither can an innocent one from Florida called Ramirez, but that's another matter ).

Oh i agree. But the theory of lessened-suffering still holds weight for me. It can be adapted to new discoveries, but it works throughout.

You amaze me sometimes, you make very good points.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

Thanks

Hey, stop stealing my accolyte!

Cheers Equil (altho i think some people would disagree with you )

But Nebs, considering you were the first one to point out the 'amazing' facts surrounding your friend, and how you guys came to a resolution, you deserve a lot of love.

We're all caught up in the maze-of-A, eh?

[The maze-of-A can be reduced to a logical forumla for the theoretically-minded.... A = the best solution possible. The thing we're always looking for ]

So let's all give up some love for Nebs and her good points

(the search is still on for her bad points, and so far, i can only assume she has evilly sharp toenails, to make up for all her other inexcusable goodness )

Thanks for the sweet words, by the way, I have very, very, cute feet, I hope LordyLord reads this and takes notice.

Where do you get your statistics from? Can you provide a link?

I'm troubled by these as well, but i wanted you to address the idea that abortions can be justified in extreme life-threatening circumstances. I'm glad that you seem to have accepted that.

Some of the other examples we've looked at cover situations where it might be justifiable to abort a child even if its or the mother's death isn't the issue...

Sure, fine, but if its life is sure to be one of constant torture, it has a 'better' life if it has no life at all. That's just compassion. But it's a principle that's only firmly applicable in cases of extreme certainty.

I'm talking about not artifically sustaining life in situations where the sustained-life is an extremely-tortured one with no hope of change. So yes, i'm talking about allowing to die naturally. (i think painkillers should be used too, but the situation where overdoses of painkillers are used to speed the death process are walking a very dangerous line).

What do you mean by 'indirectly'?

Killing in self defence is surely justifiable even within the context of biblical scripture? My understanding is that the commandment concerning killing is normally defined/translated as 'thou shalt not murder'. Any creed that said you could never kill someone to prevent them killing you would never have survived.

It's a new human individual in all the cases.

This is often a key difficulty. That's why you have to be as sure as possible that the situation is certain to persist.

Almost everyone knows what it's like to be so ill that we'd do anything to make the suffering stop. Many infirm elderly people spend large amounst of time in this state, but occasionally have lucid moments during a lull in their symptoms. But in situations where they are never in a fit mental state to judge, but make comments like 'let me go' constantly etc, and are constantly miserable, then it seems reasonable to assume that allowing them to die would be the best thing for them.

Coma's are a very difficult situation. Those comas that have involved major brain damage perhaps are the clearest examples of where it could be best to let them die, for both the victim and their relatives.

But they should be allowed to defend themselves and call it necessity. And they should be allowed to concern themselves with the well-being of others.

There's rarely such a thing as a 100% sure prediction when evaluating a complex situation. I was merely reflecting that. Any reasonable rule must be firm but also respond to such information-gaps.

Your argument is only a 'sure thing' because you ignore certain details, simplifying the situation to a point where it doesn't reflect reality well enough. You include the importance of life in your 'equation', but you don't include the quality of that life.

Is a life lived in torture better than no life at all?

That's an entirely specious distinction, which is just designed to make you feel better. It may seem to you that she is responsible for the child's death, but really, it is the situation that is the cause.

Humans have a responsability to respond to situations, because we can. Our actions may therefore reflect the horror of the situation that inspired it, but our hand was forced by that situation. We wouldn't have taken the action otherwise.

No, i was arguing first and foremost that they would feel consistant pain and anguish for a shorter time than would otherwise be the case. (the 'quality' of the pain and anguish a foetus feels etc is basically an unknowable issue, so i base my sliding scale more on time scale than development).

No, again you universalise a specific situation into a generalised one that no-one would advocate and isn't justifiable.

Is was theorising that if a severly deformed child were guaranteed to have no care, and would basically die from neglect and from their own physical deformities, having suffered a lot, it would be kinder that they never had that consistantly-negative life.

However, seeing as these children die fairly swiftly anyway if they recieve no care, it's not really a decision that can be made. It's just a sad fact of life.

And you seem to miss the point that people like myself are concerned with situations where the quality of life would be so poor as to make the life not worth living. That's the only real issue that can justify abortions to avoid non-life-threatening situations.

The most difficult situations, and the one's i'm not decided about, are the ones where emotional rather than physical suffering is the issue, as this is so hard to guage.

Here is one

I never accepted that. I only said I can never personally ask a woman to allow herself to die with the child. I still believe it is wrong.

This is the problem that abortion of any kind will inevitably bring. Once you allow it at a certain stage for a certain reason, the fetal life will become less important down the road whether you believe it or not. It's human nature to find reasons to justify their immoral actions.

I still dissaggree since it would be neglecting a life that can possibly survive.

indirect abortion

Actually my previous quote to this was directed at someone else. I'm a bit lazy at times to always give the quoters name.

I understand what you're getting at golgot, I really do however nobody should have the power to descide when a human should live or die simply because HE feels the patient shouldn't go through the pain. It is a slippery slope and because of the uncertainty involved one coud be murdering a life that could have wanted to live. Only He has that choice.

To defend oneself with killing another, it is only justifiable if the attacker willfully tries to kill the defender. I can't say that this applies with a fetus and it's mother. They are both in the same position and both have a right to be there.

Even with the 1 percent that you are wrong that life was murdered needlessly.

When directly taking life of another complexity of an argument is not really needed.

Not really. The point is the murder was done by the actions of another.

This answer I gave again was directed at someone else.

Again, this answer was also directed at another poster.

I'm pro-killing everyone.
j/k

__________________
It's not a problem of motivation, it's that I don't care.

You are not your job.

Please, call me Jacks

If this poll is accurate on how you guys feel, I think it's sad and you all should be ashamed.

__________________
"You need people like me..."

Honestly, I dont think there is an actual right awnser here. There is the fact that you are killing a life, but we are free to do anything right, we are free for what ever aslong as it doesnt violate others rights. But doent that baby have rights. Also there are all thoose problems with the what if factor. What if in killing this baby, I may die in the process. Then there is all theese religious people saying that this injust, or a sin. Isnt god forgiving though. This topic makes me very uneasy. Its too lopsided. Although we the people have the choices to make and what we should, but if we do not make the right ones well fall in the process.

Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

__________________
Three days till migration
A0Zs Movie Reviews Recently Watched Lost Boys: 3/5

what are you getting?