|
It's weird that babies, which are generally quite easy to produce a rough copy of, are considered far more valuable than adult humans, which are far harder to produce similar versions of.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Not really seeing a significant difference between early and late term abortions myself. I guess early term abortions would be easier but people are silly and indecisive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
I can understand the importance if they're state funded, as more complex and preventable medical procedures can drain the already limited funding available to national healthcare programs. If they are privately funded or not drawn from the healthcare budget in general, that becomes a bit less of a problem though obviously still, it is better to encourage people to try to minimise the expense of their healthcare where possible. If you want to make the case for banning late term abortion I guess you would need to conclusively prove that people do just get them earlier when they aren't available late. Rather than simply delaying until it's too late and then ending up without much in the way of options. Some people obviously will get them earlier but you'd really need some statistics either way I think if you're trying to decide whether or not the financial benefits of banning late term abortion are more worthwhile than the social and financial benefits of allowing it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
I don't know what the DnD consensus is, if any. Personally I would argue that the value of human life is accrued over time as we experience things and become unique people with thoughts, lives, relationships etc. It is also lost as those things are, which is why euthanasia of the brain-dead isn't immoral because all the things that give that person value have already been destroyed. The value of human life isn't a biological function, nor is it something that exists in-potentia, otherwise all abortion and indeed, any activity that doesn't directly contribute to producing more humans 24/7, would also be immoral. It's something you have for most of the time you are alive and cognizant, but isn't really precisely quantifiable in the sense of "you have it after X weeks of existing" or whatever. If you want my personal opinion as it applies to babies, they don't magically become valuable humans upon birth, but at the same time, why would you want to kill one after it's been born? The justification for abortion is usually medical risk to the mother or that the pregnancy wasn't intentional and the parents are not in a position to support a child. Both of which make sense but neither of which would generally apply suddenly, after the birth has taken place. Also actually trying to judge whether it's OK to kill any particular child would obviously never produce a result that many people would be happy with, so abortions serve as a point at which more people can agree that life doesn't have value yet. With things that have a legal component such as the acceptability of taking human life, it is usually necessary to draw the legal line a good distance into the generally acceptable side of the debate. Better sex education and access to contraception and early stage abortions are certainly good things, and should be pursued for plenty of reasons outside of preventing late term abortions. As to whether they would be universally effective in preventing them, like I said I can't tell you that, you would need statistics on the matter and I don't know if they are available. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
It is, but it is also wrong to inflict suffering by say, carrying a child through to viability if you don't intend to raise it properly. You can't force people to raise their children properly and society is not particularly inclined to step in and shoulder that burden. So in that instance, a late term abortion would seem like the lesser evil. Flinching from it because of personal unwillingness to take a life seems incorrect, unless you also plan to personally ensure the child is well looked after.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I mean that's kind of an obtuse assumption made after the fact isn't? Living is pretty cool and telling people their mom would've been fully justified in effectively murdering them is kind of screwed up, man. Well that depends on your mother and whether she is OK with doing that. Depending on her views living might not have been very cool at all for her, and possibly not for you either if she couldn't bring herself to look at you because of what you represented.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:Human life has intrinsic value beyond comprehension Nothing has intrinsic value, value is a human concept, it exists in our heads and we apply it where we choose to, it doesn't come from without.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? I don't know, do you value humans as individuals, or because they're human shaped? Does anything we do from the moment of conception have value, or does our value peak at that point and nothing after that matters? If so, then no, there isn't a great deal of difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable? Well if you're going to spin it that way...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:What are you even talking about? Can you perhaps see that there is a bit of a disconnect between a woman having sex making her responsible for any resulting pregnancy, even if it was not intended and indeed, was actively opposed, merely due to the inherent risk. While walking down a street and punching out a mugger, does not make you at all responsible for that, despite walking down the street carrying the same inherent risk, and punching people out being a conscious choice that one may elect not to pursue? It's a little... off, let's just say. Personally I would ascribe it more to not really thinking about it than overt misogyny, but I'm nice like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:I would like to submit a thought experiment. Morally, aside from the obvious issues of dropping a baby onto people from the fifth story, not really. However, birth does mark a significant biological change in the child, it is more awake and aware and alive at that point than previously. The main benefit to the birth-as-line thing is that I have no idea how you would write a law that produces a workable set of rules for when you can and can't kill young children. Nobody on earth would be able to come to a consensus and I have great difficulty believing that people would be able to remain emotionally detached enough to argue for the case of anyone who did kill their young child intentionally. Even if it is theoretically morally justifiable, it is, practically, completely impossible to make work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:But can't the exact same thing be said about any law that tries to establish a hard deadline for elective abortion that isn't birth? Not to the same degree, the question of early or late abortions is far more academic than clubbing babies' heads in with a rock. It is less emotionally charged, more practical to debate one way or another. Personally I would argue the birth line is a perfectly good one, but I don't find the debate about whether to move it earlier to be impossible to have. The argument about where to draw the line morally is going to be shaky wherever you put it, because everyone has differing morals on the subject. However, pre-birth is still pretty well into the "generally acceptable" area, to the extent that you can have something approaching civilized debate about it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then you are not pro-choice. Sorry. While it is difficult to follow, I believe the point being made is that the specific example of attempted-suicide-induced-miscarriage being prosecutable, is not the deciding factor in the legitimacy of that law. As in, you are pro or anti abortion for other reasons, and your general stance of being pro or anti abortion (or specifically, the idea of whether it is OK to intentionally kill fetuses) would dictate whether or not you support that law.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
In that case I am having trouble following both sides of the argument.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Quite possibly they didn't and the jury just didn't like the look of her.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Is abortion flat out illegal in indiana or something? I thought it was legal everywhere in the US?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
So er, I guess the morning after pill is illegal and physicians aren't "persons" for the purpose of that law? It's just weirdly worded.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Keep reading, we'll have you at full fledged misanthrope within the year.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:08
|
|