Some questions to those who want abortion to be illegal
-
Oakman wrote:
Why, exactly, does it always turn into a personal attack with you?
I dunno, Jon, you could probably answer the same question.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I dunno, Jon, you could probably answer the same question.
I haven't the slightest idea why you need to attack everyone you disagree with. Boney and I, fyi, has disagreed about as often as we've agreed over the time we've both posted here. Yet somehow, we've never felt the need to insult each other, even if we've been dismissing the other's viewpoint as absurd. You ought to try losing that chip on your shoulder. If for no other reason than I gather you think that some of what you say should be listened to.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
The simplest solution to this whole stinking mess is to chemically or biologically tie the tubes of every preteener and make it clear to them that they won't get it reversed until they are 25 and can prove they are in a stable relations that has the financial wherewithal to support a child.
Are you referring to men and women or just women?
wolfbinary wrote:
Are you referring to men and women or just women?
Both or just women, mox nix. Only women have abortions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion?
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it. fyi - I agree with efforts to reduce abortions that are implied / discussed in this thread, but that doesn't mean that the abortionist shouldn't be punished for murder. The sad fact is that there are families that would adopt babies brought to term. That makes the killing, and it is killing, more abhorent. fyi * 2 - we'll never agree, I suspect.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it.
But this brings another dilemma, very common in my country. Here it is: a patient comes to the gynecologist and tells him she needs an abortion. She's gonna do it with or without the doctor's help. In Brazil the doctor is not allowed to perform the abortion, but is not blocked by law of providing the patient with the knowledge on how to perform it (e.g: using Cytotec, an efficient abortive drug). As the doctor has an obligation of taking care of the woman's health that's what most of them do, to avoid her of using more dangerous means. And for the same reason all doctors do take care of the patient after she performed the abortion. So in name of taking care of the patient health you just can't prevent her from performing abortion. So, for the same reason, why not extend this care to assist her on performing the abortion? It would be even safer.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
fyi * 2 - we'll never agree, I suspect.
I don't think we will, either. But we can have an intelligent debate and agree in very important details like:
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I agree with efforts to reduce abortions that are implied / discussed in this thread
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
The question is why do people insist on making such a complex issue out of something so simple. You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins. As long as it is based upon democratic processes of some kind, that is the best you can hope for. If the majority wants that to be the moment a genetically distinct entity of anykind occurs or if the majority wants it to be the first fart, than that becomes the law. The only problem is when the power to define human life is invested in some kind of oligarchy - the US Supreme court, for example. The definition of human life is an intrinsically moral, religious issue, and should reflect the traditions and beliefs of the people in that regard and not be imposed by some kind of bureaucratic authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins.
How about the eighth birthday? Or the 21st? 45th? Do we get to codify when humanity ends, too? Are you on the right side of that age? Am I? :~
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's not really arbitrary that before 22-24 weeks, a fetus won't survive outside the womb because of the lack of lung development.
So? If you were removed from your natural environment, your lungs probably wouldn't function properly either.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you were removed from your natural environment, your lungs probably wouldn't function properly either.
My kid sister was one of the last Americans to get polio. For about a year, she lived inside an iron lung. Sometimes you need outside support even in your natural environment. I'm glad -- for their sake - that no-one was around to tell my mother to get rid of my sister. Mom wouldn't have taken it kindly.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins.
How about the eighth birthday? Or the 21st? 45th? Do we get to codify when humanity ends, too? Are you on the right side of that age? Am I? :~
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
How about the eighth birthday? Or the 21st? 45th?
Fine with me. That is no less arbitrary than first brain wave or first heart beat. All I require is that it be reconized as arbitrary.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
How about the eighth birthday? Or the 21st? 45th?
Fine with me. That is no less arbitrary than first brain wave or first heart beat. All I require is that it be reconized as arbitrary.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All I require is that it be reconized as arbitrary.
I bet your Mom would have argued about that when you were a cute little tyke. . . .well, a little tyke, anyway. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
So one one hand you claim that you have no interest in legal definitions, on the other you proceed to explain how the jury system works in order to pass the buck on your ethical responsibility to (god forbid) actually consider the implications for women who get abortions once it's illegal. Of which legal consequences are the tip of the iceberg. It must be nice to live in that giant crystal palace on the moon where everything is oh so black and white and morally unambiguous and harm reduction strategies aren't necessary.
- F
I've been on several juries and know how they work. I don't presume to know what should legally be done to women in a hypothetical system that hold abortion as illegal. So sue me. But thanks for proving my point about degenerate asswipes complicating the issue with bile and deceit. Not that you're one of course ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
If you can't propose a punishment how can you ask it to be illegal.
I can sit on a jury and vote guilty without a thought to the punishment. In fact, on a jury I may be required to not consider the punishment. There are lots of thing that I, as well as most people, think should be illegal beyond debate, that I couldn't suggest the correct punishment for. It's not my job to decide punishment, and even if I did, legislators wouldn't likely listen to my suggestion anyway. I have no doubt that we can all agree that it's not something we like or want, and that we need to do much much more to prevent the scenario altogether. But I also understand why these discussions get so far out of hand regularly. It's a tough issue, and infuriating in that most are completely unwavering in their position on the issue. Which is pretty strange if you think about it. The entire debate revolves around such a trivial question, when is a growing human a human by legal definition. Personally, legal definitions don't concern me. It's completely conceivable that a legal definition will render me an unvialble tissue mass. Common sense tells me that at no point after conception is there a definite line that can be drawn where you can say with certainty that before it's tissue, after it's life. I say err on the side of caution. But I have no doubt whatsoever that after the first 3 months, and certainly beyond the first 6, that that's a human being that's being killed. And actually, I think a lot of the issue is driven by politics more than anything else. It's another battle front between those who want religion to have some moral hold on society and those who want to remove religion from everything. And the issue gets further clouded, because some folks take up those mantles for their own agenda, using this political fight as a tool to support their plans. As a couple of examples, socialists support abortion because it supports their need to destroy religion. Those who appose socialism support the religious stance on the issue in the hopes of a win for religion as a means to slow socialist progression. It's an ugly issue, and the more politicised it gets, the more complicated it gets.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I can sit on a jury and vote guilty without a thought to the punishment.
But that's a different discussion/decision. In a court of justice you discuss/decide if a law or a legal rule was violated. Here the issue is what should the legal rule be.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You pick some arbitrary moment
It's not really arbitrary that before 22-24 weeks, a fetus won't survive outside the womb because of the lack of lung development.
- F
True but lung development is an arbitrary line. As is surviving outside the womb.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I can sit on a jury and vote guilty without a thought to the punishment.
But that's a different discussion/decision. In a court of justice you discuss/decide if a law or a legal rule was violated. Here the issue is what should the legal rule be.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
True enough. I personally don't have an answer. And I don't think anybody should jump to an answer too fast or easily. However, I do like Stan's suggestion of punishing the doctor. As a first thought for the women, you could sentence them go through a program that educates them about what abortion does, the myriad ways to avoid getting pregnant and the reasons to do so.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
at what point can you identify human DNA
Since the zygote uses the DNA to guide its development, I have to assume that it's immediately after the 23 chromosomes of the sperm hook up with the 23 chromosones of the egg. And DNA is certainly the class that says, "human." But, in this case, is the class the same as the instance?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
in this case, is the class the same as the instance?
excellant point. I would argue that once we have a zygote instantiated in the womb or petri dish then we have an object called a human.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Are you referring to men and women or just women?
Both or just women, mox nix. Only women have abortions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Yes only women have abortions, but usually a guy comes into play at some point. I guy getting a vasectomy would have the same effect.
-
Yes only women have abortions, but usually a guy comes into play at some point. I guy getting a vasectomy would have the same effect.
Yes it really doesn't matter if it's done on all males or all females, since as you point out it takes two to tango. There's no need to do everybody. Ultimately, I'd say whoever is most cost effective and less risky to fix (which probably means males).
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
in this case, is the class the same as the instance?
excellant point. I would argue that once we have a zygote instantiated in the womb or petri dish then we have an object called a human.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I would argue that once we have a zygote instantiated in the womb or petri dish then we have an object called a human.
I think you are right. A lot of the properties are set to 0 or null, but that's not the same thing as them not being there. So another way of phrasing the question would be, what - if any - properties have to be set to a value higher than 0 before the object should not set to null by the parent object? Implicitly, if the answer is anything but "none," the above formulation is saying that it is okay to murder a human. Which is pretty much what Stan said, he just wanted it put to a vote. (The problem with having the right to exist put to a vote is that, next time, it could be Jews, or Poles, or Web Designers that are facing the possibility of extinction.) It is, of course, true that the government already has the power to say that it's okay to kill someone - and uses it all the time. It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Yes it really doesn't matter if it's done on all males or all females, since as you point out it takes two to tango. There's no need to do everybody. Ultimately, I'd say whoever is most cost effective and less risky to fix (which probably means males).
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
A friend of mine told me once, that when he was in the Peace Corp he worked with a tribe that at birth would cut off one of the testicles of the child. I'm still not sure what to think of that, but it certainly did control the population growth.
-
Yes it really doesn't matter if it's done on all males or all females, since as you point out it takes two to tango. There's no need to do everybody. Ultimately, I'd say whoever is most cost effective and less risky to fix (which probably means males).
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Ultimately, I'd say whoever is most cost effective and less risky to fix (which probably means males).
But fixing all females but one means only one illegal baby factory is ready to go to work. Fixing all males but one means that all illegal baby factories are ready.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it.
But this brings another dilemma, very common in my country. Here it is: a patient comes to the gynecologist and tells him she needs an abortion. She's gonna do it with or without the doctor's help. In Brazil the doctor is not allowed to perform the abortion, but is not blocked by law of providing the patient with the knowledge on how to perform it (e.g: using Cytotec, an efficient abortive drug). As the doctor has an obligation of taking care of the woman's health that's what most of them do, to avoid her of using more dangerous means. And for the same reason all doctors do take care of the patient after she performed the abortion. So in name of taking care of the patient health you just can't prevent her from performing abortion. So, for the same reason, why not extend this care to assist her on performing the abortion? It would be even safer.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
fyi * 2 - we'll never agree, I suspect.
I don't think we will, either. But we can have an intelligent debate and agree in very important details like:
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I agree with efforts to reduce abortions that are implied / discussed in this thread
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
we can have an intelligent debate and agree in very important details
yup.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
The point isn't to punish those who want to abort, the point is to stop killing babies. As such, I don't have a solid opinion on what should be done to those who abort illegally. My first thought is that they've probably been through enough in most cases, but not sentencing some punishment wouldn't do much to support the law. In this case, I'd suggest that the punishment be something sufficient to deter. There are plenty of problems that come with either stance. Obviously you wouldn't just make it illegal and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done. The concentration on programs to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancies would be even more important, and that should be a primary concern for both sides. Speaking of side effects, there was an interesting analysis in Freakonomics. The crime wave that was happening in the late 80's and early 90's in the States was projected to be apocalyptic by now. But in the later part of the 90's crime rates started to drop, and continued. Freakonomics posited that the drop in crime started to happen right about the time that the kids of post-Roe v Wade would have reached early adulthood. Which makes perfect sense considering that being poor makes you highly more likely to turn to crime (I forget the percentage), and having a single parent ups your chances rather significatly as well, and most abortions are for poor single mothers (a rather large portion of those are black as well). Which is a stark reminder that either way we go, this is an important issue that dove tails into plenty of other societal problems that need work. Plus it allows me to call pro-abortionists racists (that was a joke, my faithful uni-voter whoever you are).
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
the point is to stop killing babies
The embryo becomes a foetus 8 weeks after fertilisation. In the embryonic stage it hasn't become a person yet, so an abortion at that stage can't really be counted as killing babies. If you count "potential to become a person", then you will have to extend the same courtesy to spermatozoa as well. If you carry these laws to extremes you will have to outlaw acts which deny spermatozoa a fighting chance to reach an ovum i.e. wanking and those which cause them to end up in the digestive tract. I am particularly saddened by the latter, so I wrote a short poem to honour all spermatozoa who perished in the battlefield :
he starts, he moves, he seems to feel
the thrill of life along his keel,
then the digestive juices begin to bite,
like the lonely samurai, on his last fight,
swinging his sword, death poem filling his heart,
he flagellates and flagellates,
then tiring; he slows, and feels
the slow march, of death and defeat.modified on Friday, February 6, 2009 4:10 PM
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I would argue that once we have a zygote instantiated in the womb or petri dish then we have an object called a human.
I think you are right. A lot of the properties are set to 0 or null, but that's not the same thing as them not being there. So another way of phrasing the question would be, what - if any - properties have to be set to a value higher than 0 before the object should not set to null by the parent object? Implicitly, if the answer is anything but "none," the above formulation is saying that it is okay to murder a human. Which is pretty much what Stan said, he just wanted it put to a vote. (The problem with having the right to exist put to a vote is that, next time, it could be Jews, or Poles, or Web Designers that are facing the possibility of extinction.) It is, of course, true that the government already has the power to say that it's okay to kill someone - and uses it all the time. It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Something that I will never understand. The term killing is masked by socially acceptable jargon, choice.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.