Abortions - Why? [W:280, 411, 1768]

[FutureIncoming]

Sadly, one of the points frequently argued in this forum is "having a baby."

DUHH, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EXPECT, WHEN YOU MIS-USE THE LANGUAGE???

For some, you're only carrying a potential baby ...

IT IS THE EXACT TRUTH. What's wrong with accepting Truth???

... unless he or she is born on the "legal personhood" side of the womb.

UNCLEAR. What exactly does that phrase mean? "Legal personhood" relates to being born, when a human body no longer has anything to do with a womb.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Indeed. The magical thinking of the pro-abortion camp never ceases to amaze me.

PROJECTING AGAIN, EH? How is it non-magical to equate a person with something that is measurably a mere animal? If you can do that for unborn humans, why not also do it for naked mole rats, also??? Oh, that's right, stupid prejudice supposedly makes a difference. No, it doesn't!

The vagina is a personhood cave of wonders, you get a soul and legal protections and become a real boy once you traverse it.

BAD LOGIC. After all, humans can get legal protections without traversing the vagina; haven't you ever heard of "Caesarean Section" before? I'm almost certain the Law doesn't distinguish between that event and normal birth, with respect to the phrase "all persons born" in the 14th Amendment. Despite that Shakespeare play.

As for souls arriving after a body comes into the world (by whatever means), that's only logical, for several reasons. The soul is supposed to be the source of a person's Free Will; and the unborn have absolutely no use for Free Will, exactly like an automobile-under-construction has no use for a driver. There is also the fact that 50% of conceptions fail:
Feature-The Facts of Life
--so why does a soul need to risk joining a body that might not survive, when it is simpler to wait until after "birth"? Sure, the body still might not survive, but the odds in favor of long-term survival, after "birth", are a lot greater than 50% these days.

Before that, you're nothing, of course. Logic!

YOU SHOULD TRY SOME ACTUAL LOGIC, SOME TIME. It might do you some good. And, of course, you still need to get your facts straight. An unborn human is not "nothing"; it is a living animal organism.

 

[FutureIncoming]

There are certain things that people cannot help but feel emotional about. If you can't wrap your head around that, I can't help you. People are EMOTIONAL. THAT is what separates us from other animals. This is all really quite sad.

DELIBERATE IGNORANCE IS WORSE THAN SAD. Animals can indeed be emotional. It is well known that elephants mourn their dead, for example.
Elephant Grieving
Perhaps now you will decide that elephants are people, too? No? Then perhaps you should admit that you don't actually know what you are talking about!

 

[ChrisL]

I just wish I could figure out what YOU'RE talking about. LOL! Who said elephants are people? Elephants and/or other animals may grieve . . . briefly, but they certainly don't have the urge to try to figure everything out, like people do. I don't think elephants weigh the pros and cons and decide to have abortions either. They also don't have the memories or the emotions of a human being. There is no comparison there. BTW, if animals can be emotional and elephants do grieve, why do you look down upon those humans who would grieve their loss, regardless of how YOU personally would deal with the situation. Everyone is not the same.

DELIBERATE IGNORANCE IS WORSE THAN SAD. Animals can indeed be emotional. It is well known that elephants mourn their dead, for example.
Elephant Grieving
Perhaps now you will decide that elephants are people, too? No? Then perhaps you should admit that you don't actually know what you are talking about!

 

[JayDubya]

How is it non-magical to equate a person with something that is measurably a mere animal?

Dude. "Person" is whatever the law says it is, making it essentially meaningless. I think personhood should include all living members of all sapient species at any age. At this point, that's only any member of the animal, primate species Homo sapiens.

The magical thinking is that somehow a non-born Homo sapiens is substantively different than a born Homo sapiens such that the former may be killed on a whim.

As for souls arriving after a body comes into the world (by whatever means), that's only logical, for several reasons.

Heh. Gotcha. Belief in a soul at all requires magical thinking.

 

[FutureIncoming]

People don't necessarily use their free will to sever all emotional ties to spouses, offspring, loved ones, etc. Point in fact, they usually don't.

TRUE. How about that; you actually said something True for a change!

And a mother has a pretty special bond to her offspring...

NOT ALWAYS, considering how many newborns are left on doorsteps or given up for adoption. And, of course, a pregnant woman seeking an abortion is in-essence intending to avoid --or to avoid strengthening-- any such bond. That may possibly be one of the most important reasons of all, why most abortions are done very early in a pregnancy.

I can now mention that third assault committed by the unborn again. The one about injecting addictive drugs that cause a woman to feel good about a pregnancy. It is no more ethical than one adult giving another a love potion, to form a bond.
And, obviously, one of the reasons why abortion opponents want to do stupid things like force women to ultra-sound view their womb-occupants, or place other delays before an abortion, is to assist the strengthening of that chemically-induced bond. Tsk, tsk! Assistant drug-pushers, those abortion opponents are!

 

[JayDubya]

I can now mention that third assault committed by the unborn again. The one about injecting addictive drugs that cause a woman to feel good about a pregnancy. It is no more ethical than one adult giving another a love potion, to form a bond. And, obviously, one of the reasons why abortion opponents want to do stupid things like force women to ultra-sound view their womb-occupants, or place other delays before an abortion, is to assist the strengthening of that chemically-induced bond. Tsk, tsk! Assistant drug-pushers, those abortion opponents are!

Promoting psychological health and bonds between mothers and their offspring? How dare we? What monsters!

 

[FutureIncoming]

I'm not saying that people can't control their emotions or their behaviors at all. I am saying that for SOME people, having an abortion would be a BIG deal. I see others (or maybe ONE other) trying to make it sound like it's wrong to feel bad about it, or that if you take the life growing inside of you seriously you must be foolish, well that's where I draw the line. It is certainly NOT foolish to feel bad or emotional about terminating a pregnancy, having a miscarriage or losing somebody close to you. It is human.

IT IS ALWAYS FOOLISH TO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING. This is not a matter of "right" or "wrong"; it is a matter of "knowledge is power" while ignorance isn't. Your arguments do nothing to encourage people to become more knowledgeable of themselves, and more powerful thereby. All you are doing is making excuses for ignorance. Tsk, tsk.

 

[ChrisL]

Says you. I'll take it with a grain of salt.

IT IS ALWAYS FOOLISH TO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING. This is not a matter of "right" or "wrong"; it is a matter of "knowledge is power" while ignorance isn't. Your arguments do nothing to encourage people to become more knowledgeable of themselves, and more powerful thereby. All you are doing is making excuses for ignorance. Tsk, tsk.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, and fortunately, you FutureIncoming, don't and cannot dictate how other people should or do feel about things.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I just wish I could figure out what YOU'RE talking about. LOL! Who said elephants are people? Elephants and/or other animals may grieve . . .

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WROTE:

People are EMOTIONAL. THAT is what separates us from other animals.

All I'm doing is proving you stupidly wrong ("stupidly" because the task was so easy).

... briefly, but they certainly don't have the urge to try to figure everything out, like people do.

THAT'S CURIOSITY, AND ANIMALS HAVE THAT, TOO. They may have it to lesser degree than humans, but "curiosity killed the cat", goes the cliche.

I don't think elephants weigh the pros and cons and decide to have abortions either. They also don't have the memories or the emotions of a human being. There is no comparison there.

PARTLY IRRELEVANT, AND PARTLY HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Elephant memory is famous, or are you ignorant of that, too?
"Never Forgetting" Helps Elephants Survive, Study Says

BTW, if animals can be emotional and elephants do grieve, why do you look down upon those humans who would grieve their loss, regardless of how YOU personally would deal with the situation. Everyone is not the same.

I LOOK DOWN ON STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE, NOT PERSONS. Sometimes the two are difficult to tell apart, of course. In this case stupidity and ignorance can cause excess grieving, as previously explained. There is no need for "ownership" to ever be part of a relationship between two human beings. Which means that there is no need to experience much in the way of "loss" when that relationship ends. Simple logic.

As an analogy, consider a friend to moves to another country. It is possible the two of you may never meet again. Yet this break-up is not as bad, emotionally, as if the friend had died instead. What is the difference? Hope. You might meet again, so long as both of you still live.

Sometimes I wonder about the irrational inconsistency (stupidity) of Religions, that claim the deceased is in a better place --and then guide a mourning ceremony, when you are also told, at other times, you can go to that "better place", also. DUHH! Where is the hope that you will meet your friend again, in that scenario? To be consistent, if they really believed the stuff they spout, the Religions should not be promoting mourning! They should be promoting the analogy of the last paragraph!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Dude. "Person" is whatever the law says it is, making it essentially meaningless.

YET YOU WANT TO GIVE IT YOUR OWN MEANING. How is that any less arbitrary, and ultimately equally meaningless???

I think personhood should include all living members of all sapient species at any age. At this point, that's only any member of the animal, primate species Homo sapiens.

YOUR DEFINITION CANT'T WORK. Because, based on all that we currently know, it is practically certain that sapient machines can one day exist. Which means that your home computer, if it can be upgraded to become a sapient machine, will qualify as a person, per your worthless definition.

Also, there is the matter of "R-Strategy biology". I don't have the time to go into describe it here, so:
r/K selection theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is perfectly possible that some sapient species, somewhere in the Universe, can have 100,000 offspring every time two members of that species breed. You would stupidly declare all of those offspring to be persons instead of animals, when it would be physically impossible to give them the kind of care you think that unborn humans deserve.

The magical thinking is that somehow a non-born Homo sapiens is substantively different than a born Homo sapiens such that the former may be killed on a whim.

The Law is arbitrary, not magical. We have already agreed on that.

Heh. Gotcha. Belief in a soul at all requires magical thinking.

FALSE. One need not believe in the existence of souls to be able to apply logic to standard claims made about them.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, don't worry, I won't be talking to you anymore. But don't forget the fact that no matter what you say or think, you cannot control how other people think or feel about issues, especially something as personal as death. Your opinion on the matter means squat to me. And why do you have to yell at everyone. You're really very rude and unpleasant to talk to.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WROTE: All I'm doing is proving you stupidly wrong ("stupidly" because the task was so easy). THAT'S CURIOSITY, AND ANIMALS HAVE THAT, TOO. They may have it to lesser degree than humans, but "curiosity killed the cat", goes the cliche. PARTLY IRRELEVANT, AND PARTLY HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Elephant memory is famous, or are you ignorant of that, too?
"Never Forgetting" Helps Elephants Survive, Study Says I LOOK DOWN ON STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE, NOT PERSONS. Sometimes the two are difficult to tell apart, of course. In this case stupidity and ignorance can cause excess grieving, as previously explained. There is no need for "ownership" to ever be part of a relationship between two human beings. Which means that there is no need to experience much in the way of "loss" when that relationship ends. Simple logic.

As an analogy, consider a friend to moves to another country. It is possible the two of you may never meet again. Yet this break-up is not as bad, emotionally, as if the friend had died instead. What is the difference? Hope. You might meet again, so long as both of you still live.

Sometimes I wonder about the irrational inconsistency (stupidity) of Religions, that claim the deceased is in a better place --and then guide a mourning ceremony, when you are also told, at other times, you can go to that "better place", also. DUHH! Where is the hope that you will meet your friend again, in that scenario? To be consistent, if they really believed the stuff they spout, the Religions should not be promoting mourning! They should be promoting the analogy of the last paragraph!

 

[JayDubya]

YET YOU WANT TO GIVE IT YOUR OWN MEANING. How is that any less arbitrary, and ultimately equally meaningless??? YOUR DEFINITION CANT'T WORK. Because, based on all that we currently know, it is practically certain that sapient machines can one day exist. Which means that your home computer, if it can be upgraded to become a sapient machine, will qualify as a person, per your worthless definition.

And yet as we've already discussed, I'm relatively comfortable saying that Droids / Reploids / Cylons / insert other sci-fi construct here are property, and nothing more.

But that's a discussion for elsewhere, hardly relevant to the topic at hand, and I certainly won't be discussing it at any length with you here.

 

[Bodi]

I can now mention that third assault committed by the unborn again. The one about injecting addictive drugs that cause a woman to feel good about a pregnancy. It is no more ethical than one adult giving another a love potion, to form a bond.
And, obviously, one of the reasons why abortion opponents want to do stupid things like force women to ultra-sound view their womb-occupants, or place other delays before an abortion, is to assist the strengthening of that chemically-induced bond. Tsk, tsk! Assistant drug-pushers, those abortion opponents are!

... :lol:

Seriously... Appeal to Emotion much?

 

[Bodi]

And yet as we've already discussed, I'm relatively comfortable saying that Droids / Reploids / Cylons / insert other sci-fi construct here are property, and nothing more.

But that's a discussion for elsewhere, hardly relevant to the topic at hand, and I certainly won't be discussing it at any length with you here.

Oh? You can't see how androids, corporations and human beings are so closely bound together in the debate or abortion? :lol:

 

[Bodi]

As an analogy, consider a friend to moves to another country. It is possible the two of you may never meet again. Yet this break-up is not as bad, emotionally, as if the friend had died instead. What is the difference? Hope. You might meet again, so long as both of you still live.

Or the simple knowledge that your friend is alive and enjoying life... meaning, not dead.

It has nothing to do with hope. You suck at analogies... seriously... bad...

 

[Bodi]

Elephant memory is famous, or are you ignorant of that, too?
"Never Forgetting" Helps Elephants Survive, Study Says

Of course you missed the point of what she was saying...

Originally Posted by ChrisL
I don't think elephants weigh the pros and cons and decide to have abortions either

 

[FutureIncoming]

Promoting psychological health and bonds between mothers and their offspring?

FALSE. You are promoting an artificial and chemically induced bond, and you are insisting that women who don't want it must be drugged for 9 months, regardless.

How dare we? What monsters!

AGREED, WHAT MONSTERS!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Says you. I'll take it with a grain of salt.

NOT JUST ME. A Google search for "knowledge is power" yields more than 8 million results.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Oh, and fortunately, you FutureIncoming, don't and cannot dictate how other people should or do feel about things.

NOT INTERESTED IN DICTATING. But I'm very interested in pointing out stupidities. People claim they are superior to mere animals, because they have Free Will --and then they act like a bunch of dumb animals, stimulus/response machines, not even trying to use Free Will to avoid (at least some) emotional hardship. Maybe that's why extraterrestrial aliens haven't contacted us --we haven't proved yet, to their satisfaction, that we actually are superior to mere animals. And abortion opponents appear to be leading the charge, to ensure we never can prove it:
1. They want humans to be slaves to their reproductive biology, just like dumb animals.
2. They want humans to ignore Free Will in matters of emotional involvement between pregnant women and unborn humans, just like dumb animals.
3. They act like they want most of humanity to die in a Malthusian Catastrophe, caused by breeding like dumb animals.
Tsk, tsk.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Oh, don't worry, I won't be talking to you anymore.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Another opponent of abortion encounters arguments that can't be refuted.

But don't forget the fact that no matter what you say or think, you cannot control how other people think or feel about issues, ...

NOT INTERESTED IN CONTROL. I'm interested in rationality, things that make sense. Emotions have their place. But they can be over-rated and mis-used, just like anything else. And that, the over-ratings and mis-use of emotion, is fair game for being pointed-out.

... especially something as personal as death. Your opinion on the matter means squat to me.

DO NOT CONFUSE LOGIC WITH OPINIONS. For example, facts and logic indicate that humans are helping to make Planet Earth warmer than it might otherwise be. Opinions on the topic range all over. They are two different things. So, if Religions make certain statements regarding death, the least they can do is be logically consistent about them. Pointing out a logical flaw has absolutely nothing to do with "opinion".

And why do you have to yell at everyone.

It's a trick, related to the classic description of legalese: "The large print giveth and the fine print taketh away", except here I use the small print to try to clarify and expand-upon the large print. Nothing more.

You're really very rude and unpleasant to talk to.

QUOTE: "Your opinion on the matter means squat to me." Especially when you sound like a "sore loser".

 

[FutureIncoming]

Regarding the likely future existence of "machine beings", and the consequences in the Overall Abortion Debate:

And yet as we've already discussed, I'm relatively comfortable saying that Droids / Reploids / Cylons / insert other sci-fi construct here are property, and nothing more.

EVIDENCE REQUESTED. Your mere claims are worthless without supporting evidence. Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, here is some evidence that you are likely to be wrong:
1. The Constitution specifies "persons" throughout, without defining the term. This leaves wide open the possibility that sufficiently advanced machines may be granted person status.
2. A.I. Law: Ethical and Legal Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence · Sigma Scan
"Technological advances together with a growing understanding of the workings of the human brain could enable computer-based intelligence to exceed human capabilities in many areas within a few decades. With such technological advances in the field of artificial intelligence (A.I.) gathering pace, scientists, lawyers and ethicists alike are beginning to consider the societal implications of the creation of self-aware A.I."
3. http://ijcai.org/Past Proceedings/IJCAI-85-VOL2/PDF/115.pdf
"Constitutional Law and Artificial Intelligence: The Potential Legal Recognition of Computers as 'Persons'"

But that's a discussion for elsewhere, hardly relevant to the topic at hand, ...

UTTERLY FALSE. All relevant data about "persons" is appropriate in the Overall Abortion Debate. And the subject of machine beings is especially important, since it would show that human biology is not so special, after all, when it comes to personhood. That is, basically, the stupid prejudice of abortion opponents gets exposed for all to laugh at.

... and I certainly won't be discussing it at any length with you here.

OF COURSE NOT, because it would expose your position, in the Overall Abortion Debate, as being founded on nothing more than stupid prejudice.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Seriously... Appeal to Emotion much?

I'M SERIOUS. Abortion opponents claim to have "high" goals, and then act like low criminals in pursuing them. Who but a criminal would want someone else, against that person's will, to be subjected to addictive drugs and slavery? Tsk, tsk.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Or the simple knowledge that your friend is alive and enjoying life... meaning, not dead. It has nothing to do with hope. You suck at analogies... seriously... bad...

I APOLOGIZE FOR LEAVING SOMETHING OUT. In this modern age of easy global connectivity I forgot to specify I was talking about an older era, when such convenience didn't exist. A friend moving away could be incommunicado for years at a time. You would not know that the friend was still alive. But you could hope.