Abortion

[Unification]

This is all just an analogy for abortion so let's not pretend otherwise. What you're ultimately saying, and feel free to correct me if you think that I'm wrong, is that a woman should have known that it was possible to get pregnant, therefore if she actually does become pregnant, she must carry through with the pregnancy, wanted or not, because she knew it was a possibility. That is exactly what you are arguing, at least from where I'm sitting, I'm just applying the same logic to your analogies and you don't like it because it really seems ridiculous to look at it the same way you're looking at abortion. If a woman should have known that getting an STD(pregnancy) is a possibility and she gets an STD(pregnancy), she should be required to deal with it without medical treatment(abortion) because she should have known.

At least pretend you're being consistent.

You are not wrong with your POV, you are just adding additional things that I've not once brought up. It is all assumption/fantasy in your mind that created that I'm saying "she must carry through with the pregnancy" and that "she should be required to deal with it without medical treatment." The only way I've been looking at anything has been all in your own head.

You don't like that because there was no way around the entire reasoning of "one" in the first place, so you had to add and assume things on another to justify trying to be right or you just lack awareness of "why?" to my reasoning. All you have to do is ask bud, no assumptions needed. Could save a lot of trouble.

Here is consistent: "One consented to the chance/potential to become pregnant." The only reasoning the entire time.

 

[Cephus]

You are not wrong with your POV, you are just adding additional things that I've not once brought up. It is all assumption/fantasy in your mind that created that I'm saying "she must carry through with the pregnancy" and that "she should be required to deal with it without medical treatment." The only way I've been looking at anything has been all in your own head.

You don't like that because there was no way around the entire reasoning of "one" in the first place, so you had to add and assume things on another to justify trying to be right or you just lack awareness of "why?" to my reasoning. All you have to do is ask bud, no assumptions needed. Could save a lot of trouble.

Here is consistent: "One consented to the chance/potential to become pregnant." The only reasoning the entire time.

Whether you've brought them up or not, we all know that's your intent so let's not pretend otherwise. Whether or not you personally typed those words, that is your intent. If you can't be honest about it, that says a lot about your character and your argument.

 

[Unification]

Whether you've brought them up or not, we all know that's your intent so let's not pretend otherwise. Whether or not you personally typed those words, that is your intent. If you can't be honest about it, that says a lot about your character and your argument.

Well aren't you just full of fantasy and imagination today, I know that you're more rational than that bud.

Intent: to show that when one consents to PiV sex, they consent to the potential/chance of becoming pregnant. Anything more is your own fantasy and imagination, and your mind playing tricks on you.

 

[Unification]

Whether you've brought them up or not, we all know that's your intent so let's not pretend otherwise. Whether or not you personally typed those words, that is your intent. If you can't be honest about it, that says a lot about your character and your argument.

Also, if you "know" the intent of my mind and heart, that would make you your definition of a god, do you lack belief in yourself? Are you pretending to "know" the intent of my mind and heart or do you believe and have faith that you "know?"

 

[Cephus]

This is due to empathy, part of brain development. There are many people who don't have empathy due to issues during brain development. They are referred to as sociopaths.

There are also people who have too much empathy, who live their lives entirely emotionally, without ever stopping to think why they do things.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is why I feel the need to be excruciatingly precise.

@Guy Threepwood meant the heathy progeny of capable mothers. But instead of addressing his point you found a nit to pick instead.
Tom

I was being snarky, actually. I do that. I don't mean nothing by it, it just amuses me.
Besides, like I said, I don't deal with absolutes. That "nitpicking" you refer to was simply pointing out a viable scenario where abortion might be considered "not evil." Which is a stand I take. Abortion is not clear cut.

 

[SomeRandom]

Did you have one from conception?

No. But I was born with one. Being born without one may have proved quite troublesome.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. Abortion, imho, is "wrong" in certain circumstances because it causes harm to society and disregards the value of life. That being said, my knowledge on the subject is limited, as I am not a woman and not able to understand what carrying a child to term is like, especially if the plan is giving that baby up for adoption. So, I find it hard to judge abortion in general as "wrong", as it shows arrogance in a large way.

Any practice that ends human life unnecessarily should be avoided at all costs. The term "wrong" is nothing but subjective, arrogant, presumptive, and vague. That is why I think the use of the term is inappropriate here.

If you look at dictionary definitions, you will learn that objective and right/wrong are near synonymous terms. Because you are a relativist (?) you say that "wrong" is a subjective, arrogant, etc. term but the last few times I took examinations, I was scored right and wrong based on answers. I would NEVER tell my professors "You are being subjective and arrogant in grading me wrong on papers and tests."

PS. Abortion is either right or wrong. You seem unwilling to pick one or the other, or at least to admit that sometimes, you can have the right abortion for the wrong reasons and so on.

PPS. Aren't you a student of jurisprudence? Please do not be a juror, lawyer or judge unless you can find people in the right or wrong without labeling such decisions as "subjective" or "arrogant". (!)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where did you get this from?! I did not claim any of this, and there is no scientific consensus on this either. You brought this up, as I did not make any claims about it. There is no scientific theory that explains how life came from non-life. Evolution certainly doesn't speak to this at all.

Um, either life--the first life--be it bacteria or fully formed species ala Genesis, was either created or evolved.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think that is the only reasonable stance. Absolutes don't exist in this context.

No, I must insist, sir. The holocaust was absolutely wrong. The tenets including holocausts, racism and evolutionary superiority in Nazism are absolutely wrong. If you have a child who chooses to become a Nazi or neo-Nazi, PLEASE tell them they are doing something that is absolutely, morally and ethically wrong!

 

[BilliardsBall]

What happens when that call from God is not the one you adhere to? This is what happened with me. And I believe in God as strongly as you, I suspect. Can you know that what I hold to be true of God is not true? No. Anymore than I can say your view is wrong. Do you really believe that God is so exclusive God would limit Itself to one religion only?

I can't hold that what you know of God is untrue since I do not know what you know of God. I will not hesitate, however, to help you understand God better, if I may. I'm sure you would do the same.

PS. God is not limited to one religion only. Did I say that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it isn't, any more than getting into a car is consenting to getting into an accident.

I think you need to address how one might find oneself in a car accident as opposed to an accident, and the reality you are denying--that if someone understands how pregnancy is achieved, they are giving consent unless they are raped to both sex and procreation unless they use contraception--and even that isn't 100% unless they are sterilized.

 

[BilliardsBall]

well yeah. Not all Nazis are inherently bad. Do they have deplorable stances? Absolutely. But they're not entirely evil. Not all allies were inherently good. They were not above racism or other prejudices. People are not easily divided into moral and immoral. Not all abortion is bad. I already explained my ethical, personal and societal position on the subject.

I never said all Nazis are inherently bad, although I believe in the reality of universal human imperfection and sin.

But if you agree that not all abortion is bad, we agree that some abortion is bad. So what are we going to do about it? How will we rescue some pregnancies and families from bad abortions? (And of course, I'm not thinking merely of extra-dangerous, illegal abortions.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did He draw all persons to Him?

Ciao

- viole

Do you follow the meaning of the word "will"? If it hasn't yet happened to you, it will. However, you also have a free will. You can draw near to God, and He will draw near to you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is all just an analogy for abortion so let's not pretend otherwise. What you're ultimately saying, and feel free to correct me if you think that I'm wrong, is that a woman should have known that it was possible to get pregnant, therefore if she actually does become pregnant, she must carry through with the pregnancy, wanted or not, because she knew it was a possibility. That is exactly what you are arguing, at least from where I'm sitting, I'm just applying the same logic to your analogies and you don't like it because it really seems ridiculous to look at it the same way you're looking at abortion. If a woman should have known that getting an STD(pregnancy) is a possibility and she gets an STD(pregnancy), she should be required to deal with it without medical treatment(abortion) because she should have known.

At least pretend you're being consistent.

Perhaps, as long as people call pregnancy an accident rather than a blessing. I have two children, not two accidents, not two curses, not two burdens. The furthering of the latter concepts makes children angry and resentful, as does the fact that 1/3 of our children are obviously, truly not loved or wanted.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry for all the posts! I tend to come in once every so often and try to address each person, each response.

 

[leibowde84]

If you look at dictionary definitions, you will learn that objective and right/wrong are near synonymous terms. Because you are a relativist (?) you say that "wrong" is a subjective, arrogant, etc. term but the last few times I took examinations, I was scored right and wrong based on answers. I would NEVER tell my professors "You are being subjective and arrogant in grading me wrong on papers and tests."

PS. Abortion is either right or wrong. You seem unwilling to pick one or the other, or at least to admit that sometimes, you can have the right abortion for the wrong reasons and so on.

PPS. Aren't you a student of jurisprudence? Please do not be a juror, lawyer or judge unless you can find people in the right or wrong without labeling such decisions as "subjective" or "arrogant". (!)

"right" and "wrong" in this context in no way mean "correct" and "incorrect" as you claim here. If you say that your test answers are graded as being "moral" or "immoral" (which is how "right" and "wrong" are used here) you would be laughed out of the classroom.

 

[leibowde84]

Um, either life--the first life--be it bacteria or fully formed species ala Genesis, was either created or evolved.

You can think that if you want, but that is a pretty big assumption that it is either-or and that's it. But, evolution surely does not speak to life coming from non-life. The theory only speaks to life forms evolving over vast amounts of time.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I must insist, sir. The holocaust was absolutely wrong. The tenets including holocausts, racism and evolutionary superiority in Nazism are absolutely wrong. If you have a child who chooses to become a Nazi or neo-Nazi, PLEASE tell them they are doing something that is absolutely, morally and ethically wrong!

I agree with your opinion on the matter, and I think it can be supported. And, the holocaust was a specific historical event. So, saying that it is "wrong" is not quite the same as claiming, generally, that "abortion is wrong" absolutely. Racism, evolutionary superiority in Nazism, etc. are very bad for society and create a plethora of harmful issues. If you want to claim that this means they are "wrong", I would agree, but that still doesn't say anything as to whether there are moral absolutes.

You are merely trying to claim that it just "feels wrong" or "seems terrible" to not claim that these things are absolutes, but you haven't provided ANY supporting evidence for your claim. "Don't you think this is absolutely wrong" doesn't speak to the question at hand. You have to provide evidence of this absolute existing apart from societal harm, which, imho, is the reason we have become so disgusted with the examples you provided.

 

[columbus]

Exempting accident victims from this basic ethic is quite irrational.

See how stupid that sounds?

Here, let me help you distinguish your stupidity from mine.
To begin with, it is a metaphor. Some important ethics are common to both scenarios, but many aspects are different.
Suppose Mary decides to drive her car to the store. She has other options, stay home, walk, ride with someone else. But knowing what the possibilities are she chooses to drive.
If she hits a pedestrian the responsibility is hers. It doesn't matter that she was being careful or if she was drunk. The pedestrian had no choices about her decision, but is now in a really bad way. Non-viable so to speak, unless they get a great deal of help.
The pedestrian is the victim here, not Mary.
Similarly, if Mary decided to have PiV sex, knowing that pregnancy is a very possible outcome, she has some responsibility. She had other options, from abstinence to oral sex to gay sex. But she chose the one that is well known for creating new humans.
The fetal human is the victim here, not Mary.

There are many other ways that this metaphor is irrelevant to pregnancy. One big one is this:
Under any circumstances other than pregnancy, having someone else take care of the problems is the best thing. You just pay. The pedestrian can't expect you to set their broken bones or cover for them at work. You must pay other people to do it. Fetal children don't come with that option. Nobody can provide a healthy gestation period except your mother. So the mother has the obligation and it is not transferable. So in that regard no other responsibility is quite like procreation.

Your interpretation of the metaphor confuses the victims. Leaving an accident victim to die is like a parent aborting a child because being pregnant isn't what she wants to do at this time.
Tom